NationStates Jolt Archive

What did you guys think of the movie? I haven't read the book but I thought it was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. In addition to the glaring historical innacuracies, the whole of it can be summed up in three words: "Religion is evil." Although, my friend who did read the book enjoyed it. I guess I'll have to pick up the novel now to see if I missed anything.

I just dont get the amount of attention this book gets.

Its FICTION, people...

The writer NEVER claims it to be fact, regardless of how many accuracies, or innacuracies, or however likely the subject matter really is...or is not.

It is not a fact that Jesus had children and that his bloodline may have survived, although if anyone bothered to really think about it, it is entirely possible, even likely.

The amount of scrutiny this damn book gets is as ridiculous as if attempting to find out if Cujo had any puppies, and if Disney is covering it all up.

I have no intention of seeing The Da Vinci Code, as I am highly opposed to it.

The message has no historical basis, but that's not why I'm opposed.

I'm opposed because Dan Brown is the worst writer I have ever seen. My 10-year-old brother writes better than him already. How his bilge gets published I have no idea. His writing style just gives me the jibblies. Dan Brown is as bad a fiction writer as George Lucas is a bad romance dialogue writer.

I just dont get the amount of attention this book gets.

Its FICTION, people...

The writer NEVER claims it to be fact, regardless of how many accuracies, or innacuracies, or however likely the subject matter really is...or is not.

It is not a fact that Jesus had children and that his bloodline may have survived, although if anyone bothered to really think about it, it is entirely possible, even likely.

The amount of scrutiny this damn book gets is as ridiculous as if attempting to find out if Cujo had any puppies, and if Disney is covering it all up.

Perhaps I should clarify. I realise it's fiction, and the reason I didn't like the movie isn't that it insinuates that Christianity is a lie, its that it was a bad movie! The acting was stilted and the dialogue was laughable. Even the big plot twist was predictable. It was just a bad movie!

i have not seen it yet, but am going on sat. :eek:

I have heard differant things about botth the book and the film, and as I make it my practice to take no notice whatsoever of reviews both good and bad, I guess I would have to see it meself to give my judgement on it. But I don't want to it really don't interest me other; other than shouting at the TV everytime I see summit about the hohar it has caused.

On the Dan Brown being a God awful writer, well I have some of my friends saying no he is actualy very good although they can't tell my why, and some of them saying things like, unlifelike charectors, and bad bad plot holes.

I just dont get the amount of attention this book gets.

Find out here (http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=5eba3b73-816d-4a80-8142-1b9299e4a238)

What did you guys think of the movie? I haven't read the book but I thought it was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. In addition to the glaring historical innacuracies, the whole of it can be summed up in three words: "Religion is evil." Although, my friend who did read the book enjoyed it. I guess I'll have to pick up the novel now to see if I missed anything.
Religion isn't evil. Men are evil. Now, the Da Vinci Code (film) is worse that evil, because evil can cause excitement while this film is just boring. Fortunately, I wasn't disappointed because I hadn't heard one good review (neither I've read the book). It did cross my imaginative little brain that this lack of critical acclaim was the result of some dark and mischievous massive campaign by the church to slander the film, blah, blah, conspiracy, blah, blah... This time, however much it annoys me to say it, the church is right; this is rubbish. Not that they should be talking about fiction books anyway but, in these days, with reality and fiction becoming ever more entwined, it's not hard to understand some legitimate concerns about demonising modern Christians (not just the Catholic Church).

If you really want to get yourself excited about Mary Magdalene 's part as an apostle (yes that's right - not everything is a lie in the film/book and the church did hide it), if you want to see the texts that the Church attempted to completely destroy in the 3rd to 4th centuries, check this link (http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html). At the time my younger brother was reading The Da Vinci Code, I was reading the eye-opening Gospel of Thomas and many other lost scrolls, that made me realise why the Church could never represent Jesus (the man). Forget that piece of Hollywood rubbish, reality is much more exciting sometimes.

Want a good film about religion? Donnie Darko (http://www.donniedarko.com/); now this is a beautifully shot, funny, intelligent and heart-pounding film, that manages to be sarcastic of orthodox religious practice, while not slandering belief or religion itself. Mind-blowing for an Agnostic like me...

What did you guys think of the movie? I haven't read the book but I thought it was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. In addition to the glaring historical innacuracies, the whole of it can be summed up in three words: "Religion is evil." Although, my friend who did read the book enjoyed it. I guess I'll have to pick up the novel now to see if I missed anything.

I don't know about others, but I do see religion as evil.

Nonetheless, I thought the book a good read with a lot of historic speculation thrown in that might be true but probably isn't.
The movie was rather badly made. I thought the actors were doing a good job but I simply did not like the hurried way they put the scenes together without transitions...

The writer NEVER claims it to be fact, regardless of how many accuracies, or innacuracies, or however likely the subject matter really is...or is not.

Well, he certainly talks as if he believes what he wrote to be fact.

http://www.bookreporter.com/authors/au-brown-dan.asp

Especially this bit:

Q: How much of this novel is based on fact?

DB: All of it. The paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations described in the novel all exist.

Right, first off, i haven't read the book and really didn't know about the plot line, bar it was something to do with the grail being a blood line and not a chalice of some sort.


So, the positives. I thought it was well shot. The camera shots made up for the lack of atmosphere inherent within the script and th external shots of the locations really made it look very cool indeed. As for the acting, I thought Ian MacKellen did very well with the pretty boring script he had, Tom Hanks has done better though.


The negatives. Storyline. it was so tedious, constantly repeating plot points over and over again. The sheer obviousness of the next moves. Both the identity of the bad guy was obvious by the voice on the phone and the identity of the girl and her relation to the grail was also obvious as soon as we found out she wasn't a police lady from about 45 mins into the movie. No real plot twists, suspence or actual excitement happened. Even what happened in the Temple Church in London and its aftermath were very cliched as a 'plot twist' and also pretty obvious.

All in all, its probably worth seeing for the spectacle that it is. Screw the hype and equally those who dismiss it out of hand. Go see for yourself and make up your own mind.

Well, he certainly talks as if he believes what he wrote to be fact.

http://www.bookreporter.com/authors/au-brown-dan.asp

Especially this bit:

[indent]Q: How much of this novel is based on fact?

DB: All of it. The paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations described in the novel all exist.[/QUOTE]


He's kinda right in that sense. But what he says those "paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations" do and mean are up for debate, which he avoids answering.

I just dont get the amount of attention this book gets.

Its FICTION, people...

The writer NEVER claims it to be fact, regardless of how many accuracies, or innacuracies, or however likely the subject matter really is...or is not.



Actually, the first word in the book is the Word "Fact" which is promptly followed by some semi-facts. For example that all the documents metioned exist. Well, the documents Secrete may exist, but they are forgeries invented by Pierre Plantard (known as "Chyren"), André Bonhomme (known as "Stanis Bellas"), Jean Delaval, and Armand Defago in 1956 when they formed the priory of Sion. And Brown in Interviews has stated that all the organizations and documents mentioned exist.

So sayiong it's fiction is one thing, but he asserts it (as well as his publisher) as fact. Why? Because angering a group like Christians makes people who otherwise wouldn't buy a novel like this curious enough to buy it.

Dan Brown is a marketing genius. A mediocre writer, but a marketing genius.

He's kinda right in that sense. But what he says those "paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations" do and mean are up for debate, which he avoids answering.

Some of the historical documents and organisations that he says exist don't. And he is fairly bad with locations (Such as saying Royal Holloway is in the middle of London), and for some apparently trained as an art historian and married to one, he is fairly bad at giving the history of works of art.

Some of the historical documents and organisations that he says exist don't. And he is fairly bad with locations (Such as saying Royal Holloway is in the middle of London), and for some apparently trained as an art historian and married to one, he is fairly bad at giving the history of works of art.

His locations are shocking that is true. They still exist though. He just changes the world to suit him.


Which ones don't exist, documents/organisations etc? I thought stuff like Opus Dei etc did exist, they're just a bunch of normal monks though. That said, I'm going into this off the back of what my mates have told me, so I'm gonna call ignorance on most of it :D

I thought stuff like Opus Dei etc did exist, they're just a bunch of normal monks though.
They do. The Priory of Sion was a 20th century hoax, by some guy trying to sell some books of his own; History (and Religion) do repeat itself... :D

There's a movie? Dear Mod.....

The writer NEVER claims it to be fact, regardless of how many accuracies, or innacuracies, or however likely the subject matter really is...or is not.
Actually, on the first page of my copy of the book there's a page with a list of facts, including a statement along the lines of "all descriptions of art and architecture in this book are accurate".
However, they're not... For instance, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code#Paris):
The book states that at the explicit demand of French President François Mitterrand, the Louvre Pyramid in Paris was constructed with 666 panes of glass. According to GlassWeb, the pyramid contains 603 diamond-shaped and 70 triangular panes of glass, totalling 673.
So whilst I enjoyed the book, it's best to take everything it says with a pinch of salt.
After hearing various criticisms of the film, I doubt I'll bother.

Which ones don't exist, documents/organisations etc? I thought stuff like Opus Dei etc did exist, they're just a bunch of normal monks though.

Opus Dei do exist. But they aren't a Monastic order. They are nothing like as described in the book. Not defending them thouhg, personally I cannot stand them. Quite a few live near me, and they used to try pretty hard to get us to join.

The Priory of Sion are the ones that don't exist. The Dossier Secrete or whatever it is a forgery. The history in the book is completely and utterly untrue, such as his take on the early church.

Personally, I don't mind him pretending all this is true for the sake of a good story. It is the way he holds it is true and has convinced many of his readers that it is all true that annoys me.

They do. The Priory of Sion was a 20th century hoax, by some guy trying to sell some books of his own; History (and Religion) do repeat itself... :D
Yeah, and in it they found out that one of them was actually of royal blood, descendent to a French royal family. What a coincidence!

The book is basically the written equivalent of pop music (and I've mentioned my feelings on that many times here). It's crap, but what do you expect?

What did you guys think of the movie? I haven't read the book but I thought it was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. In addition to the glaring historical innacuracies, the whole of it can be summed up in three words: "Religion is evil." Although, my friend who did read the book enjoyed it. I guess I'll have to pick up the novel now to see if I missed anything.
That wasn't any message I got from the movie. In fact, the opposite was directly stated by Hanks' character. Perhaps you got a different version of it than showed in my theatre.

Shit film for people with shit taste.

The book: shit book for people with shit taste.

i have not seen it yet, but am going on sat. :eek:
I enjoyed it immensely. I hope you do, too. It was fun.

Opus Dei do exist. But they aren't a Monastic order. They are nothing like as described in the book. Not defending them thouhg, personally I cannot stand them. Quite a few live near me, and they used to try pretty hard to get us to join.

The Priory of Sion are the ones that don't exist. The Dossier Secrete or whatever it is a forgery. The history in the book is completely and utterly untrue, such as his take on the early church.

Personally, I don't mind him pretending all this is true for the sake of a good story. It is the way he holds it is true and has convinced many of his readers that it is all true that annoys me.

Ah fair enough.

I remember a programme by Tony Robinson talking about the Priory of Sion being set up by a French man and showing some clips of him claiming to be a decendant of the Meravingin (sp?) kings, therefore being of the blood of christ.

Like I care is my most useful answer.

Merovingian... Like the french guy in The Matrix films.

What did you guys think of the movie? I haven't read the book but I thought it was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. In addition to the glaring historical innacuracies, the whole of it can be summed up in three words: "Religion is evil." Although, my friend who did read the book enjoyed it. I guess I'll have to pick up the novel now to see if I missed anything.
Haven't seen the movie, but read the Code and the prequel (Angels and Demons).

I agree with some of the spirit of the books (the Catholic Church is a vile institution that has done far more damage than good, religion is both silly and dangerous, etc), but I still think the books are generally crappy.

For one thing, Dan Brown can't write a decent character to save his life. His main character is laughable...a brilliant professor who all the ladies love, who is a champion athelete, who saves the world, who gets the girl, yada yada yada. It reminds me of Jonathan Kellerman's hilariously empty fantasized projection of himself in his novels. Brown also falls back on all the old canards to make his villains evil enough, barely stopping short of having them kick puppies, because he lacks the skill (or will?) to make anything deeper than a comic book bad guy.

His plots are nice fluff for a beach-front paperback, but the "twists" are so obvious it kind of robs the stories of their punch. Like having the cripple turn out to be the bad guy. Gosh, that's never been done before!

The one thing Brown does right is he exploits the ignorance of a population who have been trained to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. He knows exactly what subject material will provoke the best emotional response. Just suggest that maybe Jeebus was an actual PERSON, and poof...instant hissy fit, instant publicity.

Well, he certainly talks as if he believes what he wrote to be fact.

http://www.bookreporter.com/authors/au-brown-dan.asp

Especially this bit:

Q: How much of this novel is based on fact?

DB: All of it. The paintings, locations, historical documents, and organizations described in the novel all exist.
"Being fact" and "based on fact" are two different things.

"Being fact" and "based on fact" are two different things.
To be fair, a great many Christians are notorious for being unable to grasp that distinction, and those are the very people who The Code is most likely to offend.

"Being fact" and "based on fact" are two different things.
Yes, but he clearly says that all organizations exist. That should include the Priorate (sp?).

To be fair, a great many Christians are notorious for being unable to grasp that distinction, and those are the very people who The Code is most likely to offend.

Are you saying I'm a Christian?

Just suggest that maybe Jeebus was an actual PERSON, and poof...instant hissy fit, instant publicity.
I believe Jesus was a person...
*looks around for instant publicity*
*shrugs*

Shit film for people with shit taste.

The book: shit book for people with shit taste.

Pretty much sums it up.

The Vatican can be VERY relaxed.

"Being fact" and "based on fact" are two different things.

That was one part, read the whole interview.

The interview I was actually looking for was the one where he says that if it was a non-fiction book he wouldn't have changed a thing.

I think this might apply, too. *halo*

Editorial Cartoon (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/Toons/toonView?y=2006&m=052006&d=05212006&f=edjone0520.jpg.jpg)

That was one part, read the whole interview.

The interview I was actually looking for was the one where he says that if it was a non-fiction book he wouldn't have changed a thing.
And what does that tell you?

That's a big "if".

To be fair, a great many Christians are notorious for being unable to grasp that distinction, and those are the very people who The Code is most likely to offend.
Not necessarily. I'm sure there will be quite a few atheists reading the book as well and flaming the Church, based on a novel...

Are you saying I'm a Christian?
?

but the problem isn't whether the book is real or not; the problem is that so many people think it is (in england, twice as many people were likely to think Jesus had children after reading the book) i enjoyed the book; it wasn't mind-blowing or deep, but it was entertaining for an afternoon. however, when people begin treating a novel as being as accurate as say, the Bible, that's when the problems start rolling in. to some Christians, it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus had children. But to a lot more, it challenges their belief system and religion is really personal. Something perceived as an attack will be responded to accordingly, even if the intent was not malicious.
and this is where the headbutting starts... :headbang:

Not necessarily. I'm sure there will be quite a few atheists reading the book as well and flaming the Church, based on a novel...
That wasn't my point in the slightest.

My point was that a very well-known problem among SOME Christians is the inability to understand the difference between "based on facts" and "entirely composed of facts." This comes up in most discussions about the Bible. I'm not saying this problem is unique to Christians, nor that it is the only reason why people would object to The Code, I am simply saying that this particular book is likely to provoke a disproportional number of responses from people who ALREADY have trouble understanding that particular distinction.

In other words, you've got a group of people who we already know have trouble with telling fact from fiction. We already know that many of them can't grasp the idea of "metaphor" or "symbolism" in their own holy text. These are people who can't understand the idea that maybe the 6-day creation is metaphorical. These are people who can't grasp the point of the Adam and Eve myth unless they believe in the literal existence of talking snakes. And now you present them with a fictional work that addresses characters from their holy text.

Of COURSE these people will flip out. What did you expect? But they're not representative of people in general, or even of Christians in general.

Not necessarily. I'm sure there will be quite a few atheists reading the book as well and flaming the Church, based on a novel...

They'd have flamed anyway, Brown or not.

Book,film, and hack are so overrated in their importance, it's verging beyond the ridiculous. That's not the way to sink the Catholic Church. They survived the Gnostics and Manichaeans, they survived Luther and Calvin, and they'll sure survive a third-class hack.

That wasn't any message I got from the movie. In fact, the opposite was directly stated by Hanks' character. Perhaps you got a different version of it than showed in my theatre.
Theres no reason for you to be sarcastic. That was my opinion, I never stated otherwise. Really, you shouldn't be so surprised that someone interpreted it differently than you.

i do think it was a good book,but i heard the movie was not so good
I think the reason people are making a big fuss is that they don't like their religious Icons messed with. For example, remember when Denmark published the cartoons of Muhhamed(check my spelling)? if something involving the Buddha came up same thing. This Phenomonon isn't restricted to Christianity.

Its funny how catholics are so insecure in their faith that if something portrays a possibility of events that differ from their belief they go crazy.

Off the religious aspects of it, and into inaccuracies:

Almost all albinos are blind. All of them are at least partially blind. And there's never been a case outside of fiction where a red-eyed albino isn't blind.

Its been said before but its worth saying again.... Its Fiction, half of it isnt accurate in history anyway.

If I ever write a book, I hope the Catholic Church denounces it. It seems to be the surest way to make it a hit. The CC turned a mediocre book and a worse movie into a hits in both media. You'd think someone in their organization would figure out that they're marketing his book and movie for him.

the whole of it can be summed up in three words: "Religion is evil."

Methinks you were watching a different movie than me. It wasn't the best movie in the world, that's for sure, but there was hardly a message of "religion is evil." In fact, it was more of a, "Certain religions that should not have been demonized have been demonized by a Church who wanted everyone to see their views as the only Truth."

Methinks you were watching a different movie than me. It wasn't the best movie in the world, that's for sure, but there was hardly a message of "religion is evil." In fact, it was more of a, "Certain religions that should not have been demonized have been demonized by a Church who wanted everyone to see their views as the only Truth."

Jesus Christ people, thats my opinion. Sure, disagree with me but don't say that I saw a different movie! In the film "the teacher" explicitly tells the main character that people are stupid, and have been shackled by faith for too long.

In fact, it was more of a, "Certain religions that should not have been demonized have been demonized by a Church who wanted everyone to see their views as the only Truth."

All religions state that theirs is the only path to salvation, and demonize others. (well, maybe not Buddhism, I'm not sure on that one)

For one thing, Dan Brown can't write a decent character to save his life. His main character is laughable...a brilliant professor who all the ladies love, who is a champion athelete, who saves the world, who gets the girl, yada yada yada. It reminds me of Jonathan Kellerman's hilariously empty fantasized projection of himself in his novels. Brown also falls back on all the old canards to make his villains evil enough, barely stopping short of having them kick puppies, because he lacks the skill (or will?) to make anything deeper than a comic book bad guy.
I felt like parts of the book were written backwards: That is, Brown got to a point where he didn't know what to do next, so just flipped back a few pages, inserted something randomly and then carried on writing with his now deux ex machina in place.
Like how his cardboard cut-out bad guy (who also happens to be obscenely wealthy - another deux ex, as it allows them to fly out of France) kills his assistant with peanuts. We know he's allergic to peanuts cause a few pages back, the assistant for no reason at all and whilst mixed up in a serious situation, suddenly decides to remember he's deadly allergic to peanuts.
How 'convenient'. :rolleyes:
Also got to show us just how nasty and mean the main bad guy is - what a bad man! Killing his own assistant! Boo! Hiss!

Not necessarily. I'm sure there will be quite a few atheists reading the book as well and flaming the Church, based on a novel...
That wasn't my point in the slightest.

Easy tiger... :D That was my point, not yours. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I should have said Christians are not necessarily the only to become really offended. I'm sure there will be quite a few atheists reading the book as well and flaming the Church, based on a novel. There are many atheists/muslims/christians who are passionately anti-Church. This is likely to *offend* them as well, only for different reasons...

They'd have flamed anyway, Brown or not.

Book,film, and hack are so overrated in their importance, it's verging beyond the ridiculous. That's not the way to sink the Catholic Church. They survived the Gnostics and Manichaeans, they survived Luther and Calvin, and they'll sure survive a third-class hack.
I agree; this kind of stuff just ends up discrediting the church's 'discreditors, which isn't g... *the number you have dialled, has not been recognised. Please hang up and try again.*

I read the book a couple years ago, and saw the movie over the weekend. The novel falls squarely in my "beach book" or "airport book" category - vaguely interesting, usually not very well written, and not to be taken seriously in the slightest. Fluff. The movie went along with that. If you don't go in expecting it to be a masterpiece of film that will change the way you see the world, you probably won't be disappointed.

Jesus Christ people, thats my opinion.

Yes, but when the entire movie is expressing the opposite of what your opinions says it is...

Sure, disagree with me but don't say that I saw a different movie!

Unless you think religion is the same thing as Catholocism, you would have to watch an entirely different movie to get that impression. One of the main points was how the "Sacred Feminine" had been removed from religion - and that doing so was a bad thing. The grail was seen, even by the teacher, with a religious reverence.

In the film "the teacher" explicitly tells the main character that people are stupid, and have been shackled by faith for too long.

...a comment specific to the Catholic faith, and the lies he believed that Church had told.

All religions state that theirs is the only path to salvation, and demonize others.

Untrue. Mine does no such thing.

Jesus Christ people, thats my opinion. Sure, disagree with me but don't say that I saw a different movie! In the film "the teacher" explicitly tells the main character that people are stupid, and have been shackled by faith for too long.
And you're right to say your opinion. The problem is that some are more likely to associate the word "faith" with a earthly monarchy of popes living opulently in the Vatican, ordering Inquisitions and Crusades, telling people they shouldn't wear condoms while they abuse children (etc. etc.). Thing is, people who actually live by their faith will not associate these things to themselves or Jesus Christ. That's the church's deeds, the work of a dozen men and their popes, not of the thousands who follow blinded by ignorance and powerless against the mighty giant. Not all people that have faith go to the church.

Men have manipulated "stupid" people with whichever tool worked best at the time. Every crime that has been committed by a member of the Church has been committed by a non-member. Faith (whatever its name) has been used by oppressors like Nazis used Socialism, but no one can blame the Holocaust on Socialists.

Faith isn't an organisation for us to cut the head off and that's it. Some people believe, or feel the need to believe, there is something more than this life (particularly those who aren't having a very nice time on earth). Faith is hope in something better than this. You see, if you read faith from these people's perspective, that sentence doesn't make much sense because faith isn't a shackle; it's what keeps these people going on.

JAll religions state that theirs is the only path to salvation, and demonize others. (well, maybe not Buddhism, I'm not sure on that one)

Hahah the great thread hijack begins.

Nope not mine ethier, in fact it implicitly says that all religions are viable ways of getting to God, heheh just that Sikhi is the best way.

All religions state that theirs is the only path to salvation, and demonize others. (well, maybe not Buddhism, I'm not sure on that one)
You're mixing religion with religious leaders, and these are too often too drunk with their own opinions to talk any sense. Do you honestly believe Jesus would demonise anyone on their faith, instead of on their actions towards others?

Faith isn't an organisation for us to cut the head off and that's it. Some people believe, or feel the need to believe, there is something more than this life (particularly those who aren't having a very nice time on earth). Faith is hope in something better than this. You see, if you read faith from these people's perspective, that sentence doesn't make much sense because faith isn't a shackle; it's what keeps these people going on.

Hardly. I'm worthless and pathetic and I know it. I've had a very shitty life and it's only going to get worse. Faith is just a farce and if someone as dumb as me can see through than no one over the age of five has any real excuse other than fear to give it up. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but it irritates me to see people with IQs 50 points higher than mine believing in nonsense.

but the problem isn't whether the book is real or not; the problem is that so many people think it is (in england, twice as many people were likely to think Jesus had children after reading the book) i enjoyed the book; it wasn't mind-blowing or deep, but it was entertaining for an afternoon. however, when people begin treating a novel as being as accurate as say, the Bible, that's when the problems start rolling in. to some Christians, it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus had children. But to a lot more, it challenges their belief system and religion is really personal. Something perceived as an attack will be responded to accordingly, even if the intent was not malicious.
and this is where the headbutting starts... :headbang:

The problem is - Dan Brown didn't really invent anything new, there.

I know I read a serious text arguing Jesus had been married, about a decade ago.

Indeed - that text claimed reasonable evidence that Jesus was married, had children, and actually was never crucified - but went to live in Egypt.

All Dan Brown did, was popularise thought that already existed.

It is ironic that the 'church' seems to be putting so much work into attacking a text largely about church-based-suppression.

Its funny how if anything is done such as this against Christianity it's just a film but if someone draws cartoons to offend Islam it's grounds for Jihad by some people's books. It's double standards.:sniper:

i saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it for what it was. the plot was stupid. the secrets were obvious. the need for killing massive numbers of people was ridiculous

im left with wondering just HOW finding out that jesus was married and had a child born after he died changes anything. how could it possibly destroy the catholic church?

would ANYONE decide to not be catholic or not be christian because they found out that jesus got married? i cant imagine anyone having such fragile faith that finding out a new fact of jesus' life would destroy it.

What did you guys think of the movie? I haven't read the book but I thought it was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. In addition to the glaring historical innacuracies, the whole of it can be summed up in three words: "Religion is evil." Although, my friend who did read the book enjoyed it. I guess I'll have to pick up the novel now to see if I missed anything.

I thought it was quite spectacular, visually... almost a David Fincher grasp on direction... very unexpected from a Ron Howard film.

Very pretty, in many places... stylistically stunning. Plus, some nice locations/sets.

Pacing - a little slow. If you like the pacing of something like "Solaris", this will not be a problem. If "Mission Impossible II" was more your speed, you might need a nap halfway through... it is nearly 3 hours long.


Ignore the hype about the 'evil atheist agenda'. There is ONE character in the ensemble playing to that angle... and he is not always played sympathetically.

Indeed - the main thrust of the movie COULD be taken as invigorating, spiritually... although not ALL the characters follow the standard approach to Christianity... certainly, by the end of the movie.

Some of the material is 'factual', some is 'fictional'. But - rather than listening to the griping of those discussing it, with their own agendas to satisfy... if it REALLY leaves questions in your mind, there is plenty of material in the public domain... many of these issues are NOT new (like the debate over the 'mortality' of Jesus)... and people should research the issues for THEMSELVES if they are left with questions.

Very pretty film. Thought-provoking. The script is not the best, but it isn't B-Movie bad, and is more than made up for, in the performances of some of the cast.

The problem is - Dan Brown didn't really invent anything new, there.

I know I read a serious text arguing Jesus had been married, about a decade ago.

Indeed - that text claimed reasonable evidence that Jesus was married, had children, and actually was never crucified - but went to live in Egypt.

All Dan Brown did, was popularise thought that already existed.

It is ironic that the 'church' seems to be putting so much work into attacking a text largely about church-based-suppression.
to be fair, its not just supression, it is saying that the hierarchy of the church today would be involved in murder. that they have monk hitmen. that they think nothing of framing people, killing people, destroying lives, all to supress a secret that would have no big effect on the church if it was proven to be true. that the big boys of the catholic church aren't holy men at all but evil conspirators hanging onto power by whatever means necessary.

it is pretty slanderous.

to be fair, its not just supression, it is saying that the hierarchy of the church today would be involved in murder. that they have monk hitmen. that they think nothing of framing people, killing people, destroying lives, all to supress a secret that would have no big effect on the church if it was proven to be true. that the big boys of the catholic church aren't holy men at all but evil conspirators hanging onto power by whatever means necessary.

it is pretty slanderous.

That also, is not what it says, or even suggests... at least, for the modern church.

There are strong evidences to support very heavy-handed 'supression' in the historical church.

It is implied several times - and made explicitin one scene - that these 'radical' elements in the storyline, are acting outside of their official church capacities.


As to 'big effect'... it's debatable. I know people that refuse to debate the possibility that the world COULD be more than a few thousand years old. What effect on their current churches would the official embrace of an 'old earth' theology be?

I thought it was quite spectacular, visually... almost a David Fincher grasp on direction... very unexpected from a Ron Howard film.

Very pretty, in many places... stylistically stunning. Plus, some nice locations/sets.

Pacing - a little slow. If you like the pacing of something like "Solaris", this will not be a problem. If "Mission Impossible II" was more your speed, you might need a nap halfway through... it is nearly 3 hours long.


Ignore the hype about the 'evil atheist agenda'. There is ONE character in the ensemble playing to that angle... and he is not always played sympathetically.

Indeed - the main thrust of the movie COULD be taken as invigorating, spiritually... although not ALL the characters follow the standard approach to Christianity... certainly, by the end of the movie.

Some of the material is 'factual', some is 'fictional'. But - rather than listening to the griping of those discussing it, with their own agendas to satisfy... if it REALLY leaves questions in your mind, there is plenty of material in the public domain... many of these issues are NOT new (like the debate over the 'mortality' of Jesus)... and people should research the issues for THEMSELVES if they are left with questions.

Very pretty film. Thought-provoking. The script is not the best, but it isn't B-Movie bad, and is more than made up for, in the performances of some of the cast.

I think it should be pointed out that the evil entity in the first was a large scientific organization. Dan Brown seems to very much enjoy the hyperbolous idea that religion is at odds with science (I found the fact that he acted as if science was out to disprove religion in the first book disconcerting). I think he's a poor writer and not very compelling. My girlfriend asked me to read the books however, and as you know....

That also, is not what it says, or even suggests... at least, for the modern church.

There are strong evidences to support very heavy-handed 'supression' in the historical church.

It is implied several times - and made explicitin one scene - that these 'radical' elements in the storyline, are acting outside of their official church capacities.


As to 'big effect'... it's debatable. I know people that refuse to debate the possibility that the world COULD be more than a few thousand years old. What effect on their current churches would the official embrace of an 'old earth' theology be?

how many princes of the church have to be involved before its official?

im pretty sure that these days the pope goes out of his way to make sure he doesnt elevate evil conspirators involved in such plots to murder innocents to the level of bishop or cardinal. (although that one cardinal who aided and abetted the sexual abuse of boys ought to have been defrocked and sent to prison rather than given a new job at the vatican)

finding out that jesus was married and that mary magadalen was an important disciple would require that the church eventually allow married priests and the ordination of women. not a big deal really

I think it should be pointed out that the evil entity in the first was a large scientific organization. Dan Brown seems to very much enjoy the hyperbolous idea that religion is at odds with science (I found the fact that he acted as if science was out to disprove religion in the first book disconcerting). I think he's a poor writer and not very compelling. My girlfriend asked me to read the books however, and as you know....

The first book was "Angels and Demons"? I read that one, haven't read DaVinci Code.

In Angels, the book opens with a scientist who was also an ordained priest, if I remember. Maybe in the future, his work will include more unpolarized characters.

finding out that jesus was married and that mary magadalen was an important disciple would require that the church eventually allow married priests and the ordination of women. not a big deal really

I dunno, some Catholics I know think that would be too big a compromise. From what I'm told, some even feel that the compromises at Vatican II have somehow taken the Church away from the right path.

I'm not Catholic, so I don't get a vote, but I think the ordination of women would do a lot to invigorate the Catholic Church.

The first book was "Angels and Demons"? I read that one, haven't read DaVinci Code.

In Angels, the book opens with a scientist who was also an ordained priest, if I remember. Maybe in the future, his work will include more unpolarized characters.

Yes, but in that book, he was the oddity. CERN in the book sets out to destroy the Vatican and the director of CERN declares it his goal to disprove religion. It absolutely makes science to appear to be actively seeking to destroy religion. I didn't see the Vatican or CERN protesting that one.

I think it should be pointed out that the evil entity in the first was a large scientific organization. Dan Brown seems to very much enjoy the hyperbolous idea that religion is at odds with science (I found the fact that he acted as if science was out to disprove religion in the first book disconcerting). I think he's a poor writer and not very compelling. My girlfriend asked me to read the books however, and as you know....

I compare Dan Brown to people like Stephen King and Thomas Harris... by which lights ('popular' authors, translated popularly to film) Dan Brown is really not THAT bad.

Is he immensely skilled? No... language is definitely his 'tool', not his art. But - he DOES do his research (even if he chooses debatable evidences), and his work at least follows an 'internal' logic.

I don't necessarily agree with Dan Brown, but that is far removed from the issue of his 'quality'.

I compare Dan Brown to people like Stephen King and Thomas Harris... by which lights ('popular' authors, translated popularly to film) Dan Brown is really not THAT bad.

Is he immensely skilled? No... language is definitely his 'tool', not his art. But - he DOES do his research (even if he chooses debatable evidences), and his work at least follows an 'internal' logic.

I don't necessarily agree with Dan Brown, but that is far removed from the issue of his 'quality'.

I actually don't have a lot of confidence in his research, either. There are quite a few odd coincidences in how closely his plot, his evidence and nearly everything in between matches up with another book on the same subject that was published and written much earlier.

I felt like parts of the book were written backwards: That is, Brown got to a point where he didn't know what to do next, so just flipped back a few pages, inserted something randomly and then carried on writing with his now deux ex machina in place.
Like how his cardboard cut-out bad guy (who also happens to be obscenely wealthy - another deux ex, as it allows them to fly out of France) kills his assistant with peanuts. We know he's allergic to peanuts cause a few pages back, the assistant for no reason at all and whilst mixed up in a serious situation, suddenly decides to remember he's deadly allergic to peanuts.
How 'convenient'. :rolleyes:
Also got to show us just how nasty and mean the main bad guy is - what a bad man! Killing his own assistant! Boo! Hiss!

I was trying to figure out why in the heck the part about the peanuts was in there! It was a completely random piece of info at a really awkward time. was it just me, or was the ending highly dissappointing? I mean, the fact that the docent was the brother and all the family bull. I could handle the begining part of the book and i really got into the first part, but as soon as it was to the point where they flew out of France and Teabig was starting to show bad guy tendicies, i just got bored with the whole thing

Ok, thank you for the random rant. Now that I have read the book, i have NO desire to see the movie whatsoever.

Merovingian... Like the french guy in The Matrix films.

It's only a matter of time before we end up with metrovingians... the ones with a good sense of style and heterosexual proclivities...

how many princes of the church have to be involved before its official?


It's irrelevent. Even if every single Catholic was secretly a Satanist 'unofficially', it would have no implicationon the 'official' church.


im pretty sure that these days the pope goes out of his way to make sure he doesnt elevate evil conspirators involved in such plots to murder innocents to the level of bishop or cardinal. (although that one cardinal who aided and abetted the sexual abuse of boys ought to have been defrocked and sent to prison rather than given a new job at the vatican)


But, corruption does exist. And - for the sake of a story - it isn't too hard to imagine that that corruption could be both institutionalised (unofficially) AND anathema.


finding out that jesus was married and that mary magadalen was an important disciple would require that the church eventually allow married priests and the ordination of women. not a big deal really.

To you. I suspect there are certainly look for a different 'denomination' if the (official) Catholic agenda included it. Perhaps there is precedent... I wonder if the Catholic church lost membership over the official recognition of 'evolution'...?

I actually don't have a lot of confidence in his research, either. There are quite a few odd coincidences in how closely his plot, his evidence and nearly everything in between matches up with another book on the same subject that was published and written much earlier.

I have read a number of works he closely mirrors. Like I've said... most of what he included in DVC is far from new or original. All he did was popularise pre-existent ideas.

Yes, but in that book, he was the oddity. CERN in the book sets out to destroy the Vatican and the director of CERN declares it his goal to disprove religion. It absolutely makes science to appear to be actively seeking to destroy religion. I didn't see the Vatican or CERN protesting that one.

I see.

I don't want to give any spoilers, so I won't give details, but I remember that the anti-religion guy at CERN was depicted as having an event that might have made him personally, rather than scientifically, predisposed against religion.

I do think Dan Brown is totally playing up whatever schism there may be between some fundamentalist religion and whatever portion of scientists that think religion is inherently bad.

I think its a bit like those guys who sold so many copies of "The Bell Curve", knowing that the controversy alone would write their tickets...

I have read a number of works he closely mirrors. Like I've said... most of what he included in DVC is far from new or original. All he did was popularise pre-existent ideas.

It seems like he did it simply by contacting a few churches and getting everyone riled up. That is the only brilliant part of the entire project (haven't seen the movie yet, but several people I trust hated it. To be fair, I want to see it now, after your review. Yes, that's a compliment.)

I actually don't have a lot of confidence in his research, either. There are quite a few odd coincidences in how closely his plot, his evidence and nearly everything in between matches up with another book on the same subject that was published and written much earlier.

Some litigation on that point, as I've heard.

Some litigation on that point, as I've heard.

I'm going to read the other book because I'm curious, but the evidence as presented is fairly compelling. The author who is suing actually quotes parts of his book where the plot points are so close it's hard to ignore.

I'm not Catholic, so I don't get a vote, but I think the ordination of women would do a lot to invigorate the Catholic Church.

Especially since there probably were female priests, in the early church that we now know as the Roman Catholic Church. *gasp*

Yeah Im Catholic, and I still don't know what the big deal is. The book after all is FICTION!!!

Right, first off, i haven't read the book and really didn't know about the plot line, bar it was something to do with the grail being a blood line and not a chalice of some sort....


I wish it was a cup I had in my kitchen... then I could sell it for, like, 500 billion dollars or some ridiculous sum of $$$. Then Id never have to work:D .

I'm going to read the other book because I'm curious, but the evidence as presented is fairly compelling. The author who is suing actually quotes parts of his book where the plot points are so close it's hard to ignore.

I think the result of the litigation was that, since the other work was academic, and you can't 'copyright an idea' - it didn't really matter how close they were... one is a story, possibly even based directly on the scientific premises established by the other.

Actually, I'm in the middle of reading it... I probably won't see it until it comes to the library/dvd so I don't give the film makers a cent for it.

I know there's been huge cry against it from established christianity, but... personally, as a christian, I think it's more worth laughing at than protesting. The book isn't so bad, mostly... it's a bit annoying that it jumps around in such short bursts sometimes, and then gets bogged down in lengthy details which are just so bogus I have a hard time suspending disbelief for the purpose of enjoying it. It's much MORE annoying that the characters are so stupid that the puzzles they have to solve which have blatently obvious answers they take 50 pages to figure out when I could've told them up front what the solution was. And they're supposed to be really smart, really good at puzzles and foremost in their fields and such. Yeah. I hope most leaders in their fields aren't that moronic.

Ultimately, it's not a bad read, I guess... I haven't put it down and walked away yet, so it can't be that bad. But it's also not a stay-up-til-3AM book. It's too low-level reading, and just not coherent enough to make me that interested.

The book also wouldn't make a good movie, from waht I can tell. With a movie you can't sit there, look at the puzzle for two minutes, and then spend 48 pages thinking the characters are morons for not getting it when you got it after 2 pages.

I guess in the end, the whole thing is just too shallow to be interesting. You've got to make plots run deeper, not just SAY they run deep, and expect it to happen.

It seems like he did it simply by contacting a few churches and getting everyone riled up. That is the only brilliant part of the entire project (haven't seen the movie yet, but several people I trust hated it. To be fair, I want to see it now, after your review. Yes, that's a compliment.)

Why, thank you. :)

I don't consider it to be this year's "Hero" or "Fight Club"... but it MIGHT be this year's "National Treasure". (I thought it better looking than "National Treasure", but you could argue they are both examples of sub-genre... 'Intelligent Action', perhaps?

im left with wondering just HOW finding out that jesus was married and had a child born after he died changes anything. how could it possibly destroy the catholic church?

would ANYONE decide to not be catholic or not be christian because they found out that jesus got married? i cant imagine anyone having such fragile faith that finding out a new fact of jesus' life would destroy it.

I think the problem is that the Catholic church has put a great deal of time into demonizing sex itself - and Christ being celibate and "above" "fleshly lusts" is a big part of the dogma.

For those who don't see sex as a shameful thing, this wouldn't matter at all. For those who do, it would be like suggesting that Christ occasionally stole jewelry.

I think the result of the litigation was that, since the other work was academic, and you can't 'copyright an idea' - it didn't really matter how close they were... one is a story, possibly even based directly on the scientific premises established by the other.

Well, I wonder if Dan Brown shouldn't have at least cited the academic work in the back somewhere, as a courtesy.

Still, this probably gave sales to the academic book, at least...

Well, I wonder if Dan Brown shouldn't have at least cited the academic work in the back somewhere, as a courtesy.

Still, this probably gave sales to the academic book, at least...

Would you expect a fictional book that centred around global warming to cite any sources?

Some of the fiction I have read DID cite sources. Some didn't. I don't know that there is any legal requirement to reference any non-fiction sources that may have influenced one's works of fiction.

Would you expect a fictional book that centred around global warming to cite any sources?

Some of the fiction I have read DID cite sources. Some didn't. I don't know that there is any legal requirement to reference any non-fiction sources that may have influenced one's works of fiction.

If the global warming book had pronounced parallels that clearly drew from a source, I probably would cite, although I suppose I wouldn't cry foul on somebody who didn't.

I would imagine there's no legal requirement, but I might've done it just as a tip of the hat to somebody else's work.

Would you expect a fictional book that centred around global warming to cite any sources?

Some of the fiction I have read DID cite sources. Some didn't. I don't know that there is any legal requirement to reference any non-fiction sources that may have influenced one's works of fiction.

The book that is suing had specific plot elements that were taken and used in Dan Brown's book or appear to be. If your work is using the work of another that closely the original deserves credit.

The book that is suing had specific plot elements that were taken and used in Dan Brown's book or appear to be. If your work is using the work of another that closely the original deserves credit.

They lost the suit. It probably didn't help that they waited for the movie.....

The book that is suing had specific plot elements that were taken and used in Dan Brown's book or appear to be. If your work is using the work of another that closely the original deserves credit.

"But Brown's statement said he did not consult the non-fiction work until after plans for his story were "very well developed. ... All of my early research came from other sources," including more than 300 documents and 39 books, which he submitted as evidence.

Brown's statement also pointed out differences between his book and theirs. He said, for instance, he did not include asupposition that Jesus did not die on the cross. "Suggesting a married Jesus is one thing, but questioning the Resurrection undermines the very heart of Christian belief.""

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-03-13-da-vinci-lawsuit_x.htm

"The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown did not breach the copyright of an earlier book, London's High Court has ruled. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4886234.stm


There are a lot of sources out there that make the same claims Brown makes in his story. The Courts found the 'copyright' case without merit... which is not too surprising, because pretty much all of the 'plot elements' are long-established in the public domain.

How I wish that the story is true. It will make the job of the Communist party much easier than I could have imagined. By the way , I had watch the show. It is quite nice actually, execept that everything seemed very compressed.

They lost the suit. It probably didn't help that they waited for the movie.....
I wander if they were paid for that, on the side.... :D

Why, thank you. :)

I don't consider it to be this year's "Hero" or "Fight Club"... but it MIGHT be this year's "National Treasure". (I thought it better looking than "National Treasure", but you could argue they are both examples of sub-genre... 'Intelligent Action', perhaps?
i do like movies where all the characters are smart. so that even when the director feels the need to define "anagram" he doesnt do it through the moron character needing the info by because the smart character just has to be a know-it-all and define it needlessly.

i think not having read the book helps. at least there was SOME mystery for me. it was good enough that i dont feel that 2.5 hours of my life were stolen from me by ron howard.

i do like movies where all the characters are smart. so that even when the director feels the need to define "anagram" he doesnt do it through the moron character needing the info by because the smart character just has to be a know-it-all and define it needlessly.

i think not having read the book helps. at least there was SOME mystery for me. it was good enough that i dont feel that 2.5 hours of my life were stolen from me by ron howard.

I have certainly seen SOME films that qualified for THAT nomintion... "Event Horizon", "Red Corner" and "Jurassic Park" all leap straight to mind... and I certainly felt 'ripped-off' paying to see Alien: Resurrection...

I think the problem is that the Catholic church has put a great deal of time into demonizing sex itself - and Christ being celibate and "above" "fleshly lusts" is a big part of the dogma.

For those who don't see sex as a shameful thing, this wouldn't matter at all. For those who do, it would be like suggesting that Christ occasionally stole jewelry.
the "heresy" of christ being purely human and of him marrying, etc, have been around since the beginning. the church would never accept them unless forced to by overwhelming evidence.

that evidence doesnt exist and never will

but

IF there were some undeniable evidence that jesus married mary magdalen (the part about their child being the start of a french royal line is mindbogglingly stupid so we'll leave that out), then the church would gradually accept it--over the next 3-400 years. by the time its no longer new and no longer deniable, the church will have built a new understanding of jesus and his wife and why they never REALLY had sex or only had sex ONCE but never really enjoyed it. its the church's way. they might even find a way to figure that it STILL supports the idea of a celibate male clergy.

ii think not having read the book helps. at least there was SOME mystery for me. it was good enough that i dont feel that 2.5 hours of my life were stolen from me by ron howard.

I'm so cheap that I wait for them to hit the second run theater near me. A movie has to be really bad for me to feel like I've wasted $1. :D The only movie I've seen in a first run theater recently was Narnia and that was before Christmas...

Hardly. I'm worthless and pathetic and I know it. I've had a very shitty life and it's only going to get worse.
Well Letila, if you want to be miserable for the rest of your life, I suppose thinking like this will be quite a very good way to start... and end. Faith = Hope. How could you have a happier life, if you don't even hope for one? By chance? With that attitude, you're only chance is winning lottery...

Faith is just a farce and if someone as dumb as me can see through than no one over the age of five has any real excuse other than fear to give it up. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but it irritates me to see people with IQs 50 points higher than mine believing in nonsense.
Kids of five also say they don't like something before they've had it. The idea that people conform to a religion because of fear is a bit old-fashioned now...

Faith and Religion are not Bets and Sports. You don't even need to believe in God to "have faith" or follow a religion, you only need to like it's broad message. Some Christians see Jesus as a God, others see him as a simple man. I read Jesus but I don't personally believe in an after-life: As far as I can tell, the closer I will probably get to getting an after-life is being eaten by worms and becoming the worms... until they eject me.

the "heresy" of christ being purely human and of him marrying, etc, have been around since the beginning.

Indeed. And the Church did everything in its power to wipe out such ideas. Obviously, the Church itself fears that the ideas can harm it.

the church would never accept them unless forced to by overwhelming evidence.

And even then, it might not. But that is exactly the way that such ideas can be dangerous to the Church. If the followers begin to be "converted", as it were, the Church loses followers. And its power really only comes from its followers.

that evidence doesnt exist and never will

In matters of faith, empirical evidence isn't necessary.

IF there were some undeniable evidence that jesus married mary magdalen (the part about their child being the start of a french royal line is mindbogglingly stupid so we'll leave that out), then the church would gradually accept it--over the next 3-400 years. by the time its no longer new and no longer deniable, the church will have built a new understanding of jesus and his wife and why they never REALLY had sex or only had sex ONCE but never really enjoyed it. its the church's way. they might even find a way to figure that it STILL supports the idea of a celibate male clergy.

They might. But unlike the Church and the changes it has made in the past, a change like this would be rather difficult to cover up and claim, "Oh, we've always believed this."

I wander if they were paid for that, on the side.... :D

You never know. Controversy is great advertising.

You never know. Controversy is great advertising.

They didn't really need to get 'paid', per se... the Court Case alone, was enough to make the original study a top-ten bestseller.

I haven't read it or seen it.
But I think the theory that leonardo da vince was anti-religious
conspirator is sound and probably true.

Come on there is valid reason for thinking religion is evil.
Look at all the bad things religion has done and don't blame society
or corruption of ideals.
Its religion to kill and supress becouse everything should believe.
God is a thyrant becouse all alsmight persons and all single rulers are thyrants.
Religion and freedrom doesn't mach.
It's just an american idea.
Why are americans so religious. It's primitive.
Don't be like the muslims crying of cartoons.

Religion is dark age and renessance was anti-religious: This is a common swedish opinion of many historicans. I agree and becouse it was what my teacher said it must at least be a valid opinion.

Renessance wasn't run by the Church it was supressed by the church.
Renessance was run by Borgoise who weren't christian but educated men.

Long live the age of reason when Christians where burned.

If it is a film about religion being evil I want to read and see it.

I haven't read it or seen it.
But I think the theory that leonardo da vince was anti-religious
conspirator is sound and probably true.

Come on there is valid reason for thinking religion is evil.
Look at all the bad things religion has done and don't blame society
or corruption of ideals.
Its religion to kill and supress becouse everything should believe.
God is a thyrant becouse all alsmight persons and all single rulers are thyrants.
Religion and freedrom doesn't mach.
It's just an american idea.
Why are americans so religious. It's primitive.
Don't be like the muslims crying of cartoons.

Religion is dark age and renessance was anti-religious: This is a common swedish opinion of many historicans. I agree and becouse it was what my teacher said it must at least be a valid opinion.

Renessance wasn't run by the Church it was supressed by the church.
Renessance was run by Borgoise who weren't christian but educated men.

Long live the age of reason when Christians where burned.

If it is a film about religion being evil I want to read and see it.
this is the movie for you!

it not only has homicidal bishops, it has a giant albino monk who is into self-mortification.

buy the big tub of popcorn, youll eat every piece.

They didn't really need to get 'paid', per se... the Court Case alone, was enough to make the original study a top-ten bestseller.
I did find it strange that it was all left to the 'last minute', conceding with the release of the movie. It did actually cross my mind that the authors were aware that they were on a 'looser' (legal wise) right from the outset and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt (probably cheaper than an advertising campaign). It amazes me that no one at Random House made the authors see what should be obvious to any beginner lawyer in intellectual property; you cannot claim ownership of ideas, particularly when these are repackaged in a completely different context. You can only claim property on the actual 'physical' piece or a blatant attempt of repackaging the same theory in an academic book market.

Of course, the golden sheen of Dan Brown's profits on the Da Vinci Code may have been too much temptation for two 'poor' historians, who usually sell about 5.000 copies of a book, if they are lucky. Somehow, I get this feeling Random House payed their lawyers fees and court expenses... Wish I had a rich friend like Random House...