Posted on 05/11/2006 2:24:48 PM PDT by freakboy
Hey Hanks!
STFU.
PEople can decide what they want to see and have a perfect right to not see davinci code if they wish.
As for fiction, Hanks should probably tell his friend Dan Brown who doesn't think it is fiction and has marketed his book as fact.
Liberal jerks would probably make the davinci code compulsory viewing at schools etc in the name of diversity.
True...and imagine if a movie was released that showed FDR to be a sworn commie, or JFK to be a racist, or Thurgood Marshall to have been a propped up phony, or Bubba to have been a submissive homo.
The movie, obviously, is fiction. But, I challenge everyone to ask 10 people you know or interact with if they think 'The Code' has any basis in truth...you may be very suprised what people believe out there...
Whether Brown believes this or not, the story is made to seem true. WIthout a disclaimer that none of this is intended to be looked at as true, and then specific things listed that are made up, a lot of people can't tell the difference. It's not like Spiderman where we know that certain things are impossible and therefore FALSE.
3rd paragraph: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
You should have indicated why you think it's laughable, but since you didn't, I'll explain why I think so too.
There is a contingent here on this forum that thinks that at least this claim is legitimate or can be considered legitimate. Do I have to bring up the old example of Kurosawa's Rashomon? (I mean this is freshman college stuff.) OK, if you think Brown's declaration can be taken at face value, describe to me, let's say, the Lincoln Monument in D.C. I'll then describe it to you. Our descriptions will differ, won't they. Which one is accurate? That depends on the meaning of "is", doesn't it. That's why such a declaration, the likes of which I for one haven't seen in any literary work, is laughable to this cat.
Less time at the Vatican worrying about a fictional movie and more time worrying about priests molesting young boys.
nicely done
thank you for "extending and revising" my remarks.
And you're right, I should have spelled out why it was laughable.
I got it second hand from a friend who attended that Mass, and she said the Monsignor had no problem with the movie. He said it was fiction, and the guy who wrote the book and all the others involved were just making a living like the rest of us.
The good Monsignor told his parishioners if they wanted to see it, to go ahead and be entertained.
sw
chirp
chirp
crickets...
The Oliver Stone movie was based on a novel "Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy" by Jim Garrison.
Mr. Stone's movie closely followed the novel.
"But the story we tell is loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense.
"If you are going to take any sort of movie at face value, particularly a huge-budget motion picture like this, you'd be making a very big mistake.
"It's a damn good story and a lot of fun... all it is is dialogue. That never hurts."
There is so much hypocrisy in his statement, as other posters have already noted. He would never downplay the seriousness of a movie that skewered a liberal cause. He would be up-in-arms about it, just like all the other Hollywood lefties. But pushing blasphemy of Christianity? Hey, don't sweat it; it's just a movie.
The real problem that I see is that far too many people actually do believe what they see on TV or in the movies. How many people believed Fahrenheit 911? How many people, especially young people, believe TV docudramas? Most people get their theology in snippets that they have heard from Oprah, movies, friends, etc. They have never thought through what they actually believe and so they are very susceptible to these kinds of false teachings. That's why 22% of Alberta thinks it's true. It's sad.
When is Tommy going to star in the Satanic Verses?
Yea but it's Canada! Who cares....
It hurts to think how many fools will walk away from this movie and think it's the truth for the rest of their lives. Muslims will probably go in droves to see "the hooey".
That's the problem. Somebody with some claim to authority says something -- no matter how illogical or unfounded -- and somebody accepts it at face value.
Jesus never went to India. If you believe that he did you have to reject a good bit of the Bible (which is the source of what we know about Him) then assume he was an explorer akin to Marco Polo.
After considering the matter, you can believe just one of two things about Him -- that He is God or a madman. I'm certain beyond any doubt that He is the former.
Chuck Norris
Might as well quite while you're ahead.
FWIW I was never taught he was God only the son of God. Part of the Deity - yes he may be a god but not God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.