Posted on 05/28/2006 11:30:50 PM PDT by dangus
The way I see it, Dan Brown should be very happy for Fandango, which allowed millions of theater-goers to see "The Da Vinci Code" before reading the reviews. Normally, movies don't crash, losing 57% of their audience in the second weekend. Especially not when the 2nd weekend is a holiday weekend and the first weekend was not. But normally people who see movies this stupid have already invested in their Jar-Jar Binks Happy Meal Action Figure. Go figure that the Happy Meal featuring a dead, naked museum curator with a pentagram scratched in his back didn't sell to well. (OK, I recycled that joke concept, but Da Vinci Code readers aren't known for having good memories.)
Come on, folks; the problem isn't Ron Howard or Tom Hanks. The problem is that you could read the entire 450-page book faster than you can watch the movie. I mean, I'm not saying that Brown is a devil-spawned, historically ignorant hack who simply makes stupid people feel smarter. But only because I'm alone at my keyboard and my cat kinda looks at me funny when I talk to her as if I expect her to know English.
I know, calling 60 million people "stupid" is no way to win friends and influence people, but by now I've used enough three-syllable words that I've lost most of them. My big issue is that the raves this story got proves how anti-Christian the nation's book reviewers are. Come on, this is the sort of book movie viewers should *warn* us about: "Caution: Put down this book and go smoke some pot. It will kill fewer brain cells and make you more capable of coherent conversation."
OK, Dan Brown fans. You don't have to respond saying, "it's only fiction." We all have heard that. First of all, Dan Brown has been all over all the talk shows insisting that the backstory is all true. But there's also something really nasty about making such horrific accusations of genocide against people in a backstory.
You see, backstories about historical peoples and characters usually are generally true. If they are preposterous, book critics will point it out, and knowledgeable readers' suspension of disbelief will be shattered, and they'll go tell their friends how stupid the book was. But Dan Brown's readers, apparently, aren't used to historical fiction, unless it's got that guy from the "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" commercials on the front cover. Brown puts horrific slander in people's brain as little details, and the next time they hear those tid-bits, they say, "oh, yeah, I think I heard about that."
Some critics have pointed out how bad Brown's history is as if it were a product of his ignorance. This is not the case. Brown is quite well aware, I'm sure, that "Da Vinci" is not a name, as many critics have pointed out it isn't, but rather an origin. Please understand; he's trying to attract an audience which last read a book about Leonardo that was subtitled, "Heroes on a Halfshell."
As much as I'm picking on his audience for being nitwits, it actually is a simple truth that novels, since they contain far more information than a movie, can spend much more effort convincing people that something preposterous is actually believable. Many books I've read, particularly science fiction, have the more incredible portions of them toned down to maintain credibility. For instance, in the novel, "2010," we learned about plant life on Io by reading about how a Russian spacecraft was virtually devoured by a mobile plant; the novel could explain why Io might have mobile plants. In the movie, the crew thought they might have seen readings indicating a trace of photosythetic material.
There simply is no toning down the ridiculousness of Brown's story, because it's all necessary for the plot line. In the movie, it all seems so insipid that viewers apparently have been warning friends not to see it (as evidenced by its crash at the box office), if they are willing to admit to having shelled out $9 to see it in the first place.
Dan Brown's intention of bringing this to light assumes that people are not aware of these "books".
Once again, Hollyweird jumps on the bandwagon, underestimating the intelligence of Americans in their mad pursuit of a buck because the rest of the world thought his book was "interesting".
Micheal Moore must be proud.
Aren't all Tom Clancy backstories true? I'm crushed!
Nonetheless, it probably eventually will make a prophet.
That's punny! Intentional or not?
Kudzu? Dollar Weed?
A new Prophet or profit...do you think anyone will understand the difference in Euros?
Bingo.
So what. He was not doing anything anyway.
Now who is misleading. Theater owners do not get "half of the take." They are fortunate to make 5%. The "take" comes from concessions according to a former manager I know.
Maybe it would have been better if he had started "A Long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" .....then both extremist sides would be happy.....
Actually, they are ALL TOTALLY FACTUAL....but if you really believed that, we'd have to kill you - and that takes WAAAY too much paperwork. So, no, they are made up.
I am a high school teacher, the word on the movie among my seventeen year olds is that it's "boring". That's the worst thing a teen can say about any movie.
Without good word of mouth among teens it's not going to do well.
Littleminded peoples thoughts move in such small circles that five minutes conversation with them is enough to determine their whole curve.
Most responses, including the author of this thread, their arc has been made clearly manifest. They offer no dialogue on the movie; just criticism. The fact is, they do not even know if the Savior was married or not. The scriptures may have never mentioned anything of the possibility, but that does not negate it.
The fact is, given the divinity that is in Christ, the Catholic church has done wonders through history to make sex seem like an God-awful sin, even marital sex. Perhaps that is why they wanted the grail to be kept secret.
Oh, and I know I have been on here more than most.
"Small minded people talk about other people - big-minded people talk about ideas."
Something like that...but you get the idea...
We should also mention that X-Men III came out the second weekend which would have overshadowed Da Code.
Most people live in a fog of superstitution and ignorance not seeing the truth when it is staring them in the face.
BUMP
Unfortunately, most of todays teens are not even familiar with the original story. With no frame of reference, boredom is predictible.
I didn't see Da Vinci Code yet but X-Men III is way cool. Very worth seeing.
PILATE....EAT YOUR HEART OUT!
Yes Sir...you did nicely by your wife in quoting her.
I only wish it were true and it did destory his career. However i doubt it will hurt him much , if at all.We all knew Hanks was a raving liberal. Opie is the one I am embarrassed for, I thought he was a decent human being until he attacked Christianity with this trash.
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.