NDRU said:

..doesnt it make you think,, though?

REDBABY said:

I love both books.

REDBABY said:

imo its fiction, sorry Red. i havent read either book, i do want to read holy grail though. I do know what the central theme of the books is, the whole bloodline theory but from what ive read here and there, none of it is backed up by facts only conjecture and I dont think reading the books will change my opinion.

someone said that the movie was slow, I thought the movie was fast.....('spoiler'-warning, ).....in the end, Langdon (Hanks) just bluntly mentions that Sophie's last name really is Saint-Claire, and there for she's the last carrier of the Christ-bloodline.....where the fuck did all this come from based on the 2.5 hours we sat through before?
I know, this is what also bothered me about the book.....it's just too Hollywood!

The book was a fun read and I really enjoyed it. Dan Brown doesn't have great skills with prose etc, but it is a rollicking good story that tapped into the public psyche.

I could tell when reading the book that it was inevitable that a film would be made. I was convinced that it would never work as a film though. It is way too "wordy" to translate well to film.

bkw said:

true!

lots of interesting stuff has been left out!

LleeLlee said:

have you read Sting's biography? apparently stewart copelands dad worked for the CIA or something and they dug up some scrolls which they left all in a line on top of a building in tel aviv (excuse me I probably have no names or details correct!! ) and a wind gust blew quite a few of them to pieces, so now we'll never know what they said

ZombieKitten said:

puhlease, leave Sting out of this.....he's still too busy saving the Rainforest indians.....

abierman said:

ZombieKitten said:

you heard me.....

abierman said:

what!

no, i havent read it, but i did read somewhere his dad was in the CIA , they just left them like that... They might have shed some light on a lot of things but I guess we'll never know.


The gospels I was talking about are the ones that describe Mary Magdalen as being beloved to Christ more than the other disciples, but that doesnt mean that they were lovers. Its all a bit far fetched really. just just my opinion, others have their own.

the org just goes kaput randomly.

ZombieKitten said:

stop jacking this thread, will ya???

LleeLlee said:

who knows! these ones that just crumbled in the wind might have been important it was almost treated like a joke! Like oops! there they go!

LleeLlee said:

kaput is such a 9s-thing to say.....

ZombieKitten said:

read this!

"Though the document has sustained damage which makes deciphering some of its text a challenge, the passage in question reads: “And the companion of the…Mary Magdalene…more than…the disciples…kiss her…on her…” Some scholars, however, have filled in the gaps, inferring that the passage perhaps read like this: “And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth.”

Dan Brown’s professorial expert character argues specifically that the Aramaic word used for ‘companion’ always means ‘spouse,’ therefore there can be no question that the two were married. Unfortunately, the only existing copy of this manuscript was written in Coptic, not Aramaic! Though many Gnostic texts tend to have earlier versions in Greek, scholars have never found any in the Aramaic language. Supposing, however, that this document was in some way credible, despite being quite late (3rd century AD), the notion that Magdalene was a simply companion of Christ is thoroughly Biblical. She is often mentioned among the various women accompanying Christ in his travels.

Even the notion that they might exchange a kiss is not necessarily scandalous as greeting one another with a ‘holy kiss’ was commonplace among first century Christians. After a closer look, it seems that the marriage conclusion is quite unlikely."

abierman said:

LleeLlee said:

they probably had holy gropes as well

The book was ok, and it did suck u in. But u know, u think about it, and u realize, that this book was meant to be contraversial, and thus is proberly all bullshit.


As for the film, err no, cant be bothered.

I saw it & didnt think it was as BAD as the critics said it was...yes it was very slow in parts, WAY too much info to try to absorb. really far fetched & UN-believable. I prefered "National treasure" at least there was some action.
This movie is TOO long to watch in a theatre..my legs/butt were numb~~

LleeLlee said:

No, I'm not referring to the Gnostic Gospels (although, Brown's assertions about them leave me to believe that he had certainly never read them).

I'm referring to the papers showing DaVinci, Isaac Newton and other historical figures being members of the Priory of Sion. The papers were later revealed to be a hoax perpetrated by a con-man named Pierre Plantard, who actually founded the Priory of Sion in 1956. Plantard himself later admitted that he forged the documents that were the foundation of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code . Basically, Plantard was trying to pass himself off as the decendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (as well as the "true" king of France!).

Here's some good info: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ry_of_Sion

LleeLlee said:

Another bit about all of this: Brown makes the assertion that the Gnostic Gospels depicted Christ as being "just a man" (i.e. not divine in nature). This just proves that Brown didn't do any real research, as The Gnostics Gospels actually make more references to Christ as a divine being that the canonical Gospels do. The Gnostics believed that Jesus wasn't even human at all, as they believed all physical matter to be evil.

I realize that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, and should be taken as such. Unlike many believers, I don't get offended by it. More than anything, it bugs me from the point of view of someone who knows the history. It's kinda like when my best friend, who is a Physician's Assistant, finds he can't watch shows like Gray's Anatomy, because the mistakes they make with medical facts. It takes you out of the story. To me, the book annoyed me on that level, and it really wasn't that great of a thriller anyway. Brown is no Dean Koontz when it comes to crafting fun, edge-of-your-seat novels.

Of course, Holy Blood, Holy Grail I'm not going to go so easy on. It purports to be "factual", when in reality it is just as fictitious as Brown's book.

I thought it was pretty interesting

They could have cut out a good 15-20 minutes though had they shot more economically in the beginning instead of lingering Tom Hanks' every reaction & word Move that shit along already - there's a lot of info to hand out & a LOT of ground to cover, no room for being precious


Now what's this about albino folks being mad that they stayed true to the book on that (portraying albinos as crazed murderers)? Shouldn't they take issue w/ the writer of the book instead of the makers of the movie?