Da Vinci Code full trailer

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_p...da_vinci_code/

well guys here it is

Eh, I'll see it.

Not bad...just hope it's as good as the book.(or at least close to the perfection of the book.)

__________________
Tell a person there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you.Tell him/her a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch it to be SURE...

Ugh. Silliness. I can't believe what passes for literature these days. This is as much about Da Vinci as Shakepeare in Love is about Shakespeare.

...or as much as LOTR was about jewelrymaking?

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

What is your point? That you take qualms with the title? Were you expecting an autobiography?

Hate the generic style of writing if you want, but there is a reason The Da Vinci Code was such a phenomenal success and it isn't because everyone chose to write their book report on it. It is a fictional account that was designed for entertainment and to that affect it is a pitch perfect mystery novel. Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe you yourself once said on this very website - granted, it was years ago and I'm sure your opinon has changed since then - (and I'm paraphrasing here) that you didn't like independent films because if they were exceptional they wouldn't have been made independently and more importantly, that if something is a blockbuster success, obviously it did something right. Obviously Dan Brown did something right, so what is the problem?

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Nah, the title isn't my real beef with it, though I think maybe it allows people to feel like they're reading something far more intellectual than they actually are.

I don't believe it is just a mystery novel designed for entertainment. I think it's a printed commercial for gnosticism, which I'm fairly sure Brown is a believer of. It's also presented as factual.

From Breaking the Code:

Gnosticism in Hollywood isn't exactly unheard of. Other examples include Stigmata and The Matrix trilogy.

Fiction's fine; I'd be almost totally indifferent to all this if Brown weren't trying to pass it off as accurate. He gets credit for the amount of research which apparently goes into his books, but if you ask me it's just an example of how, as C.S. Lewis once said, a lie is made more powerful when you mix some truth into it.


I imagine I did say something to that effect, and for the most part, that's certainly true. I don't think, however, that I ever went as far as to say anything successful must be good. Clearly, Dan Brown gave some people what they wanted, but I'm sure you'll agree you can do that by appealing to different aspects of people, not all of them good. You can make money appealing to people's lust for sex, or violence, or their desire to feel superior. Or their need to be mindlessly entertained.

Dan Brown has, indeed, done something right; he's written an entertaining book. However, it can be both entertaining and intellectually/historically dishonest.

Hee hee. Is it obvious that I'm particularly proud of that one?

A little.
I think though, that Dan Brown attackers are missing the boat. The guy tells a good tale. That's the strength of his writing. He makes no claims about his work being "historical fiction". I agree with you that some people have taken what he's said as truth without researching anything on their own to find out if it really is. But at the same time, these intellectuals who are attempting to skewer Brown for "lying" (you included, as of today ) are making me laugh! He wrote fiction and presented it as fiction with a twist. And that twist has made him a fortune and a lot of readers turn pages like they never have before. And I really think a wise viewer will look to see how he did that, especially writers... (I'm looking at you, NimChimpsky), rather than taking a running stab at the "it's not historical" strawman.

I think it's funny how so many people want to condemn things for not being historical, as if history even belongs to them.

It seems to me that he has, though. See the link above in my reply to Peter; he claims that "all" of the book is based on fact. Add that to the fact that a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the fact that the book was heavily researched, and it's clearly pretending to be more than a harmless, inconsequential little mystery.

The guy's pushing gnosticism. Which is fine in and of itself, so long as he doesn't pretend otherwise, and no one is misled to believe that he's doing so with actual facts. Instead, he's essentially sneaking the agenda in under the guise of fiction. He's written a book based on gnostic beliefs, which he appears to believe in, has researched it, has drawn attention to how much research he has done, and claims the book is based on fact, but when it comes time to critique the book's accuracy, it's deflected with the claim that it's just a work of fiction. The book hides behind that, all the while peeking out and suggesting that it's really true. Pardon the unfortunate pun, but that's spineless.

Why does history have to "belong" to anyone for them to insist that things claiming to be factual have a basis in fact?

Here is exactly what that article says, and I believe, looked at objectively, you'll see exactly my point:
"Brown has encouraged this confusion by insisting upon the book’s historical accuracy. Asked in an interview how much of the novel is based on fact, he replied: “All of it.” "

The book IS based on fact. The fault in that exchange is in the question. It's simply a stupid question for an interviewer to ask. He didn't base it on fiction - no part of it - so it's based on fact. Brown didn't (at least in the three words quoted) explain in detail or point out that a book can be mostly fictional and be based on fact. And then his three words are used to illustrate his alleged attempts to mislead people. At worst, he's allowing the buzz to grow, despite it being based on misunderstanding of the bent of his work.

The next paragraph has some learned scholarly type debating the "facts" of the book. But the book is fiction. The "facts" being refered to are assertions. Things are getting taken apart and reassembled in order to make them disputable. The thing is, the existence of the dispute is the best marketing ploy anyone could have dreamed up for this book. It's the dispute that lends credibility to Brown's fiction - something he couldn't have accomplished alone.


On this, I have to sort of agree. If he wanted to assert something, there are more respectable ways to go about it. I don't necessarily believe that making those assertions was his point, though. I think his point, actually, was that people should question what they're told. Again, I think the bottom line is, if people choose not to question Brown, they're dumb. If they choose not to question the church though, I think they're just as dumb. The church has been a political power for centuries. It's leaders are men and men are corruptable. ::is burned at the stake::

Out comes the heretic in me - and to preempt a possible response, I agree to draw any comparison between the two works is absurd - but conceptually I see no difference between how this arguement applies to Dan Brown's book and how it should also apply to the Bible. Both are 'based on fact' and the supporters of either ideology would readily try to convince people of said facts, but if brought under serious analytical scrutiny, both camps claim that while based on fact, it is all a matter of interpretation. Do you disagree?

Looping back to your original dismay at what passes as literature these days, it seems ultimately your problem isn't even with the run-of-the-mill style, but the issue of facts presented without question. I agree that it is silly for someone to read any book that is found in the fiction section of Barnes and Noble and be convinced of its historical accuracy, but that arguement is a mobius strip and it includes too many works that you (or I) would not find err with and I thus find it to be an invalid one.

Don't take the bible reference the wrong way, I'm not the bible-bashing person I used to be, I just feel the logic you're wielding is double edged.

I know it's probably seen as ignorance to like these ideas but I do. I loved the book and I love the trailer. So what if I'm going along with ideas that aren't fact, I don't care, I can suspend my disbelief and I had fun with the book doing so.

__________________
instrumental rock band that I am in.

quick question-- would you have to read Angels and Demons in order to fully understand The Davinci Code? because i was going to check this book out from my library.

also, if anyone finds a WMV format, please post.

__________________
"...I'll see you in hell!..."

Nope, it's a different story. It just has the same character in it.

whether uve read Angels and Demons should make no difference.

Well. That trailer was a bunch of meaningless hype - which is at least marginally better than the other kind of trailer: the ones that condense all the surprises and "message" portions of the film into a mini-version so you can safely tell that the movie won't have anything new to shock or make you uncomfortable. I remember seeing an old trailer for the movie El Topo some years ago, that combined both approaches, opening with a bunch of gunfights and then the narrator came in: "El Topo is not a western. El Topo is not a religious movie. El Topo will be the most profound experience of your life."... anywho, I haven't read The Da Vinci Code, what's it about? Most of the hype I've read for it shouts something like "Club Dumas/Name of the Rose for the Matrix Poster set!", which, if I needed that I could just go read more Perez-Reverte and Eco, eh?

It doesn't, but that's how people respond: as if Dan Brown and others have betrayed history, and have thus, betrayed them. Like Sammie said, Dan Brown has merely written a clearly fictional story, presented it as based on true events (nothing more), and - for better or worse - hid behind the semantics to get people interested. He's used history as a resource, and presented his story no differently than Truman Capote's In Cold Blood or Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried - because he understands that story books and films are not meant to be reliable, accurate history lessons.

Even stories that try to be history lessons in some degree or another always fall short, because 100% historical truth is an unrealistic, impossible goal. And people so quickly forget that, in Dan Brown's case, historical accuracy isn't the point of his novel. Historical exploitation, maybe; but in that respect, I'd argue that any form of expression - art, music, film, theater, poetry, prose - is an "exploitation" of real life.

This was one of those moments when reading an internet forum makes a person smarter.