Posted on 05/21/2006 5:18:45 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- "The Da Vinci Code" banked an estimated $29 million at the box office on its first day in theaters, an industry official said Saturday, positioning the film to turn in the strongest opening weekend for any movie this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Why did they change the terrorists in THE SUM OF ALL FEARS from Muslims to white supremacists?
Do you think Ron Howard or Tom Hanks (or anyone else involved with THE DA VINCI CODE, including Sony) would have anything to do with a project implying that Mohammed was a fake and that Islam was a long-standing conspiracy to suppress the "divine feminine"?
If there were a best selling novel about it perhaps. I have no idea why they changed the Clancy book. A misbegotten desire to stay out of the fray?
Look since almost the huge free publicity that the MSM has been giving this movie, it was going to get idiots in the theatres, as they say there is a fool born every minute. Hollywood would turn more such trashes , if they are convinced they would get their money for it, these fools only care about money.
I smell another Oscar winner, right up there with Brokebutt Mountain and Kinsey.
One thing that I found strange in the movie is that there was supposedly only ONE living descendant of Christ. Supposing (within the logic of the fiction) that Mary Magdalene did give birth to a child. If that child's lineage was fertile enough to have a descendant after 2000 years, isn't it more likely than not that there would be more lines than just the one?
The only smidgen of logic I saw is that perhaps Brown is saying that the secret order had been killing off all these descendants for 2000 years--in which case you still have the illogic that they didn't get that one line.
I capitalize FICTION because I'm SHOUTING!
Yeah, after 2000 years you would think one of the couples down the line would have more than just one offspring.
Hypothetically, imagine finding out you are directly related to Jesus. Then the secret is exposed to the world. You would have "long lost distant" cousins, 2nd cousins, aunts and uncles, and old college buddies whom you don't quite remember, coming out of the woodwork to ask for favors.
So if you throw a big enough tantrum you think it will make the point that has been made and refuted a dozen times on this thread more significant? Being fiction does not give the author a lisence to slander people and their religion and show bigotry towards them.
What gives the author the right to write his book (at least in this country) is the Constitution. Be thankful this is not China during the Cultural Revolution, when people were forced to go see government produced films that imposed propaganda. We have the right to see the film or not see the film.
The people who were slandered in the film, Peter and Constantine and a couple of popes, have all been ded for centuries.
FYI, witch-hunting was most prevalent in Protestant Europe.
Also, the Black Myth of the Spanish Inquisition was largely a Protestant fabrication.
Who wrote the Bible? Who preserved the Bible when it was hand-copied? And... who decided to even compile a "New Testament"? It was the Catholic Church.
The Bible doesn't record Jesus commanding the writing and compilation of a "New Testament." That was a decision of Christ's Church --the Catholic Church.
"Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." --Jesus"If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
I don't think Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Sony, or anyone else involved with THE DA VINCI CODE would smear Islam or Mohammed under any circumstances. They'd be too scared of a jihad being declared on them. They'd know the film would have trouble getting shown due to bomb threats at theaters. They'd know that half the countries on earth would ban the movie, including virtually all of Europe (where DA VINCI is making big money). And they'd know the fine wine & limousine crowd in Hollywood would disinherit them for smearing a religion protected by Political Correctness.
They wouldn't even make a film treating Buddha in such a manner. While they probably wouldn't have their lives threatened, they'd simply have too much respect for people of the Buddhist faith to taunt them and insult them in that manner. Only Christians get treated in this way. Just as federal arts money would never go to an "artist" who dropped a little Buddha statue in a jar of urine to show his contempt for Buddhism (remember when that happened with a crucifix?), Ron Howard would NEVER smear Buddhism, Hinduism, an American Indian religion, an African Tribal religion, or any other faith than Christianity.
Kinsey didn't win any Oscars.
An encryption device invented by Leonardo Da Vinci. It holds the secret of the whereabouts of the heir to Christ's throne, to with the holy grail!
You changed it from correct to incorrect. :) "It's" should have an apostrophe, since it's a contraction of "It is a novel".
You surely lack a sense of humor. And a few other things as well.
If it wasn't for the Muslims threatening to lop heads for cartoons, we wouldn't take such a hard view of the film. The media's silence over suppression of free speech for one group and it's desire to embrace blaspemy against another is rather scary.
Oh, is that what you call humor? At least I am not completely void of having any moral compass, like some unnamed person.
Go back and read 234 which was in a humorous vein of sorts.
If one lacks a moral compass for merely not planning to boycott or condemn a factional movie you are playing fast and loose with the facts. You are surely no Christian no matter how much you insist. Your behavior betrays you!
Holy Moses,I had forgotten that and it was in my lifetime. Thanks for the reminder of the incredible damages that a piece of "fiction" can wreak.
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.