The Da Vinci Code

Here's the teaser trailer

Havn't read the book, but i reckon the cast is pretty good, i mean based on that- i'd see it, and Jean Reno is a legend

__________________

The book was good if not a little hard going at times. I don't think Dan Brown is the greatest writer but he sure comes up with cracking storylines.

As already said Cast is now set but I think I agree with some of the other comments on here with regards to Hanks playing Langdon. Then again I don't have any alternatives to offer so Hanks will have to do.

However Alfred Molina is a good signing as well as Mckellan.

I look forward to seeing this movie when it comes out next year.

I agree with the last ten or so posts. Angels and Demons likcked arse over Da Vinci. I can actually see Pierce Brosnan in the role, physically, he looks who I would think Langdon would look like. If only he did'nt have the 007 stigma attached to him. Petersen does not like he could outrun a parked car!!!

I think the film will worth watching, but the Cage film was a big disappointment! What a waste of money! Cage can't carry a film like he used to. He definately got creepy man vibe coming off him.

Just a note, I heard it was Paul Bettany who has been signed on Silas the Albino. I think that is awesome. Bettany possess' a ethereal look that will be perfect!

i haven't read the book nor do i plan to, i may not be all that religious, but catholicism is too much a part of me for me to pick up such a book, it's premise is so disgusting to me i can't bare to say it outloud....

i won't be seeing the movie any time soon either....

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

thank you mr. suppression i really hope it's gonna be a nice mystery trip!

__________________
IF I HAVE GONE AWAY.....DON'T ASK WHY!!......
JUST LOOK AT THE SKY....AND SAY GOODBYE!....

I'm not religious at all... I don't believe in God and I think religion is taken too literally (I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just stating my opinion). But I read the book and it was unbelievable. It is really well written and it's a very interesting concept. The concepts, however, are false. All the artifacts he bases his story on are real, but the way he ties them together is fictional. So if you're afraid this book is gonna do something to your beliefs, or destroy the concept of your religion, or if certain statements against the church in a fictional book is going to tick you off, maybe you should think twice about what you actually belive. Religion is subjective. If a fiction book questions your beliefs and you can't stand it, than maybe you don't actually believe in it.

P.S. if you are just going to come in here and bad mouth a book you have not read, in a forum of people who generally enjoyed the book, than you're an ass. Go preach somewhere else.

__________________
"Directing ain't about drawing a neat little picture and showing it to the cameraman. I didn't want to go to film school. I didn't know what the point was. The fact is, you don't know what directing is until the sun is setting and you've got to get five shots and you're only going to get two." - David Fincher

no, this is a forum and i'm allowed to express my opinion on the book.....i find the idea of the book disgusting, and i'm not reading it simply for that reason, not because it may shatter my belief system, it would take a bit more than a book to do that....

You are allowed to state your opinion... I'm just saying you're an ass for knocking a book you have not read.

Why exactly do you find the idea of the book disgusting?

oh i dunno...because my whole belief system is based on the fact that Jesus Christ was God? and the book says he was just a man who preached a little then impregnated Mary Magdalen and had children? hmm....yeah, you're right, i really shouldn't have a problem with that.....

you're not religious, you don't understand what that idea means to someone who has been brought up a Catholic...it's very insulting and it's beyond disgusting....try to grasp the concept of sacrilegiousness...

If you think religion is subjective, then I'd have to say that you're probably not using the word "subjective" properly. Things that are subjective do not have an exact or universal answer. Your favorite flavor of ice cream is a good example of a subjective thing.

There are questions about whether God exists, and if so, what God's nature is, that must either be true or false, which means they cannot be subjective. The mere fact that we cannot necessarily know whether or not they are true or false does not change this. The claims of, say, the Catholic Church, are either objectively true or objectively false, and are either one or the other regardless of who believes them (or why).

A simple thought experiment should make this all very obvious: the earth revolved around the sun long before the heliocentric theory, and it would have gone on revolving around it whether we'd figured it out or not. It was objectively true, and the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was objectively false. Whether right or wrong, though, neither idea was ever subjective. Similarly, questions about God and religion have an answer, and have had an answer, since long before we were here to ask them.

Second, the idea that getting upset with something that mocks or blasphemes (not "questions") your beliefs must mean you don't actually believe in it is a complete non-sequitur. I'd be pretty upset with someone who tried to pretend that Dwight Eisenhower was not Supreme Commander of the Allied forces because of their sheer ignorance; not because, deep down, I thought maybe he really wasn't.

Sometimes, people are angry for exactly the reason they say they are, and unless you can give me some reason as to why you're in a good position to pyschoanalyze them and question their motives, I have to conclude that you're not.


At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, does this mean I have to have read Mein Kampf to have an opinion on its contents? Also, what does it matter if the forum consists mainly of people who enjoyed the book? Are you suggesting we modify our opinions to please the people within earshot?

Not reading the book disqualifies someone from commenting on its writing quality and style, not its content, which everyone is in agreement about thus far, whether they've read all of it, some of it, or none of it.

And by the way, saying you "don't mean to offend anyone" comes across as slightly disingenuous when it's followed with "you're an ass" later in the post. If you really didn't meant to offend anyone, you'd simply avoid saying offensive things.

It shouldn't affect you. You believe what you believe. But I'm done arguing with you. This is why I don't like religion. People hold to it so hard that all people can do is fight. Nothing good came out of religion, only fighting (again my belief).

It's a fictional book man. Don't read it.

So to those who did read it.... What you guys think? I hope Tom Hanks doesn't botch the film... It is Ron Howard though.. So he should do a good job, directing wise.

You were on the right track with the ice cream.
I've read the A=A theory, and hold it to be the truth. But that is because it resonates with me as a true concept. My belief in that theory is based on my personal feeling, in response to it. Until the proofs you mention have been given, we all approach religion as individuals with a vast array of experiences from which we draw to determine what seems to each of us, as individuals, what is true. That is, indeed, subjectivity, even though it is a fact that God either exists or doesn't. Therefore, none of us are in a position to dismiss the beliefs of others, especially sight unseen.

Agreed. Although questioning the motivation of a person who denounces something about which they admit ignorance.. that seems valid to me.

[qoute]At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, does this mean I have to have read Mein Kampf to have an opinion on its contents? [/quote]
Yep, that's exactly what it means. Didn't Jesus say not to judge in ignorance?

What it matters is respect. Tactfully expressing an idea does not equal modification of the idea. And passing judgement on a book one hasn't read, in the face of people who are obviously excited about it... that's rude.


It's still dumb, though.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

I still think Hanks was a strange choice for the lead. And I've always heard that casting is half the job with directing, so... hmm. But Howard has a good track record. And the story is really, at it's heart, an action film. I'm very intrigued to see if they can pull off a similar level of involvement as the book had.

You are really going to argue semantics? Ok subjective was the wrong word, I apolgize.

You are so smart bringing up the heliocentric theory. Ok you proved your point. I meant objective, not subjective, I hope you had fun typing all that proof. You could have just said "Do you mean objective?" and I would have agreed with you.

OK that was just an excuse for you to state whatever trivia and big words you had been saving up to say to someone to make them feel inferior. Why are you bringing up Dwight Eisenhower? You could have used an entirely simpler argument.

Who is psychoanalyzing anything? I was saying that there are better ways to say you disagree with a book than saying it's "disgusting". You went to school right? I'm sure, you know so many big words... Constructive critism. Remember? I find this book to be incorrect because... then whatever your reason is. Not simply making an accusation and not backing it up.

What the hell is wrong with you? Can you make a single argument of without bringing up some Law or some Theory or some proof of any sort. And Godwin's Law would not have been provoked if you had done so. There is no reason to bring up Nazis or Mein Kampf. Here let me make the same argument you are making. Do I have to read the Bible to think that it is the most ellaborate lie in history?

No I meant to say I don't want to offend anyone by my religious beliefs. Calling Adidasss and ass was meant to be offensive.

I agree... Tom Hanks is an odd choice. And I wouldn't say casting is half the job, but casting well considerably helps a production. And I do think Ron Howard will hold his end on this one...

P.S. Thanks for making some good arguments with that stupid argument below.

I don't think I quite agree; religion may seem subjective because we cannot get at any empirical proof, and because our circumstances can influence which one (if any) we choose, but I don't think that makes it subjective.

That said, given the things you mention, I'd certainly agree that people need to approach these questions (and the answers others have chosen for them) with a great deal of humility. I'd admit I'm guilty of forgetting that sometimes.


Sure. But I don't think that's what's happening here. See below.


I'm not sure which passage you're referring to...? There is a passage about judging others, but I believe it refers to judging another person's soul. We might be thinking of different verses, though.

Anyway, I think it's plainly obvious that we all pass judgement on things we do not have firsthand knowledge of everyday. Commenting out of ignorance is one thing; commenting because you've had something summarized or explained to you is quite another.


I agree that one should be tactful when criticizing something you know others like. Absolutely. I'm not defending adidass' fervor, or the language he's using to register his disapproval.


Why? Seems to me that many texts and movies and stories can be relayed by others, or by news articles, or other things of the sort, and that it's perfectly reasonable to come to conclusions based on these.

The only problem here would be if the secondhand sources had somehow misrepresented the book. Do you have any reason to believe that I, for example, do not have an accurate summary of the book's claims in my head? Have I made arguments about the book that could be clearly and easily addressed by having read the whole thing straight through?

I haven't argued semantics, because I was under impression you meant to use the word you did. I'd be arguing semantics if I kept arguing about it...which of course I won't, because you've been good enough to clarify your thoughts. Thanks for that.

You can't really expect me to have guessed that when you said subjective, you meant the exact opposite.

This is just silly. The example I used is a very obvious one; it's not some obscure piece of show-off trivia. In fact, I went out of my way to try to pick something well-known to avoid undermining my point.

No one's trying to make you feel inferior. Check all paranoias and inferiority complexes at the door. I'm here to make my case, and nothing more. You can choose to believe that or not, but if you choose not to, I don't imagine this discussion's going to get very far.



You're psychoanalyzing when you say things like this:

"If a fiction book questions your beliefs and you can't stand it, than maybe you don't actually believe in it."

As for the word "digusting" -- I didn't use it, and don't agree with adidass, the one who did.
If I don't mention Godwin's Law, someone else will (it's happened before). It was preemptive.

The reason for bringing up Mein Kampf is that it works well as an extreme example. I haven't read it, but I do know a bit about its author and the views it describes, and based on that find it perfectly reasonable to conclude that I wouldn't much like what it has to say.

It depends on the specifics of your claim. I think everyone should read it, believer or not, but I don't think you need to read it all to understand its central claims and most of its primary lessons, no. Lots of Christians and Atheists alike haven't read it all, myself included.

Ah, I see. Well, you gain points for honesty, but lose them for intentionally offending people.

In this particular instance, I'd bet half my shoes that the person in question did not sit through a summary of over 2 sentances.

The bible verse I had in mind was "Judge ye not unrighteously, lest ye be so judged." and the footnote in the King James version I had said that "unrighteously" was better translated "in ignorance". Bible translations aside though, I think we can agree that to pass valid judgement on something, one should be willing to find out what the thing is - and to accept someone else's summary or explanation is to adopt their perception, rather than forming your own.

Ok. Cool.

I think it's reasonable to form an opinion about whether or not to look into it further. But not reasonable to present judgement on something, based on someone else's interp. For instance: if I see The Forgotten and I lambast it as a steaming pile of crap, you may very well read that and decide not to see it. But if you go around telling everyone that you think the film is a steaming pile of crap... not so reliable, your word, because you didn't see it.

Yes, I have doubts. Based on the other conversation we had about Dan Brown, I doubt your understanding of the nature of the book. It's action/adventure fiction, and if you read the book, that's clear.