"The Da Vinci Code" To Open Cannes

"The Da Vinci Code" will be the opening selection at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, according to the Hollywood Reporter. The film, directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, and Ian McKellen, is based on the bestseller novel by Dan Brown.

The plot involves a murder in the Louvre that spawns an investigation into the hidden meanings within Da Vinci?s paintings. "The Da Vinci Code" will be released worldwide two days after its Cannes premiere on May 17. The film is being distributed by Columbia Pictures and Imagine Entertainment.

Comments

dracus

Cap Nord

This should be a great lead off for a memorable year in movies. I only hope Ron Howard is not cheated out of the awards season next year as he was this year with Cinderella Man.

Jan 23 - 02:12 PM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

[b]$$$[/b]
This movie will definitely be the one to beat box-office wise in 2006. With over 25 millions copies sold worldwide and still lodged in the New York Times bestseller list after 3 years (and the paperback isn't even out yet), I'm predicting at least $375-$400 million domestic. The book itself is decent. As an interesting compendium of facts and theories it was great, but as a thriller it was lacking. Dan Brown's 'Digital Fortress' is his best, IMO.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 23 - 02:15 PM

gateway_gamer

Atticus Finch

350-400 million dollars? That's a little high. I'm betting $250 million is a better estimate. Keep in mind that there are quite a bit of people who read the book out of curiousity, and nothing else. Also, the film has yet to be rated (an R rating would take out a big chunk of the gross). This will be a box office smash, no doubt, I'm just think your predictions are a little out there.

Jan 23 - 03:12 PM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

It wont get an R rating. There's no nudity, no language and very little violence. At least in the book. Plus its a Ron Howard film. It'll get a PG-13 and I stand by my box office predictions. If an R rated comedy like 'Wedding Crashers' can make $215 million, then the fastest selling fiction book of all time (i'm not making that up, read the New York Times) with a PG-13 will KILL!

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 23 - 08:08 PM

southfrisco

Dan Huck

I hope it is more of an adult film. But alas there is no way the studio will release this as an R, they are looking to bank on it for the start of the summer. It will be a watered down version of the book.

Also the book does have violence, nudity, and sex in it. What book did you read?

Finally with the subject matter I find it hard to believe many tweens/teens will be interested in this film, but hardcore Hanks fans will go.

And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common.

Jan 24 - 01:25 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common. END QUOTE

I wasn't comparing the two. One person brought up the fact that if the film gets an 'R' rating it would diminish profits. I pointed out that 'Wedding Crashers' recieved an 'R' rating an outperformed all expectations at the box office and I feel the same would happen if 'Da Vinci Code' got an 'R' rating.

Jesus, READ my post before retorting.

I know the book has violence (again I said that in my post) but I really don't recall much nudity or sex. Then again I read the book three years ago.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:24 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

I would also say that "compendium of facts" is not really applicable to the book. The debunkers, whatever else one may think of them, have torn his theories to shreds, leaving all plot and most historical elements firmly in the category of fiction.

Jan 23 - 07:02 PM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

[b]Do the research before you post![/b]
QUOTE I would also say that "compendium of facts" is not really applicable to the book. The debunkers, whatever else one may think of them, have torn his theories to shreds, leaving all plot and most historical elements firmly in the category of fiction. END QUOTE

If you would have read my whole post it said compendium of facts AND theories. Yes there were alot of historical facts in the book as well as theories. I really don't care what the debunkers have to say. I've read both 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' and 'The Knights Templar' and there are plenty of people who support both sides of the story.

Lastly, none of those are his theories. Again, read 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' published in the 80s way before Dan Brown wrote anything and you'll find everything Dan Brown took for his book. People have been debating the existence of the Knights Templar and the Priory of Scion since the 1950s.

What's next? Mel Gibson invented the story of Jesus?

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 23 - 08:03 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". All that Priory of Sion stuff is promoted almost solely by people who have a stake in its existence. Short version: it was made up by French guys in the mid-1950's who wanted attention, and promoted by sensationalist authors passing themselves off as historians.

Much like Dan Brown.

And if the debate has only been going on since th 50's, the logical implication is that the debated material was either fully accepted beforehand, or not accepted at all (otherwise there would have been prior debate). In the case of the Priory, there was no debate because there was no Priory. No historical evidence, no clues, nothing. The current claims are based on entirely unsubstantiated cases of historical cut-and-paste, about as legit as Pope Joan and gay Abraham Lincoln (which is to say not at all, for those of you who may believe otherwise). As for the knights, I don't think any legitimate scholar disputes that the Templar order existed. The question is what they did in the Holy Land during the crusades, and why they were shut down by the Pope and the French. Now THAT'S an interesting story, which Brown barely gets right.

Look it up. There are plenty of great sources, but I would recommend Warren Carroll's "History of Christendom" vol. 4. Hell, even Wikipedia has a good take on it; type in "templars" and read away. It doesn't get into some of the interesting stuff about William Nogaray (sp?) like Carroll and others do, but for Wiki it's pretty good.

In conclusion, Mel didn't invent Jesus.

Jan 24 - 07:00 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". END QUOTE

OK, Apparently alot of people on this thread have problems reading things (either that or reading into things). Someone pointed out that 'Da Vinci Code' was full of Dan's theories. I simply pointed out that there have been books written about the subject, such as 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' full of those THEORIES since the 80s. I did not say they were true or facts.

Hell, there are people out there that think Jesus Christ never existed. Read the recent CNN article about the guy in Italy suing the catholic church for perpetuating rumors of Christ's existence for the last 2000 years for their own political and financial gain.

Lastly, just cause there's no proof of something doesn't mean it never existed.
That's just naive thinking. This whole world is built on lies & secrets and secret clubs or organizations have existed since the beginning of time. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the freemasons don't exist, even though I see their buildings all over the place and personally know people who come from families involved in the freemasons.

As far as the priory goes, I don't know. Then again, I'm not gonna say that they didn't exist. I've never seen a UFO but I'm not gonna say that they don't exist either.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:39 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

Yeah, that guy suing the church is hilarious. And we think American law suits are frivolous.

I'm not saying that no proof = no existence, but saying no proof = existence, or even = serious consideration in the face of contrary evidence, is even more ridiculous.

Look, lots of things can't be proven beyond doubt, but certain evidence can make it pretty clear. You can cast doubt on anything if you have enough intent to do so, and in that case empirical proof is only worth so much. What I'm talking about is strong evidence. The evidence for the Sion isn't strong because there are terminal source issues, for one thing.

But, I acknowledge your clarification regarding theories in the book, so we're done, I think.

And sure, Freemasons exist. Who do you think runs the CIA?

Jan 25 - 06:36 AM

gateway_gamer

Atticus Finch

350-400 million dollars? That's a little high. I'm betting $250 million is a better estimate. Keep in mind that there are quite a bit of people who read the book out of curiousity, and nothing else. Also, the film has yet to be rated (an R rating would take out a big chunk of the gross). This will be a box office smash, no doubt, I'm just think your predictions are a little out there.

Jan 23 - 03:12 PM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

It wont get an R rating. There's no nudity, no language and very little violence. At least in the book. Plus its a Ron Howard film. It'll get a PG-13 and I stand by my box office predictions. If an R rated comedy like 'Wedding Crashers' can make $215 million, then the fastest selling fiction book of all time (i'm not making that up, read the New York Times) with a PG-13 will KILL!

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 23 - 08:08 PM

southfrisco

Dan Huck

I hope it is more of an adult film. But alas there is no way the studio will release this as an R, they are looking to bank on it for the start of the summer. It will be a watered down version of the book.

Also the book does have violence, nudity, and sex in it. What book did you read?

Finally with the subject matter I find it hard to believe many tweens/teens will be interested in this film, but hardcore Hanks fans will go.

And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common.

Jan 24 - 01:25 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common. END QUOTE

I wasn't comparing the two. One person brought up the fact that if the film gets an 'R' rating it would diminish profits. I pointed out that 'Wedding Crashers' recieved an 'R' rating an outperformed all expectations at the box office and I feel the same would happen if 'Da Vinci Code' got an 'R' rating.

Jesus, READ my post before retorting.

I know the book has violence (again I said that in my post) but I really don't recall much nudity or sex. Then again I read the book three years ago.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:24 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

I would also say that "compendium of facts" is not really applicable to the book. The debunkers, whatever else one may think of them, have torn his theories to shreds, leaving all plot and most historical elements firmly in the category of fiction.

Jan 23 - 07:02 PM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

[b]Do the research before you post![/b]
QUOTE I would also say that "compendium of facts" is not really applicable to the book. The debunkers, whatever else one may think of them, have torn his theories to shreds, leaving all plot and most historical elements firmly in the category of fiction. END QUOTE

If you would have read my whole post it said compendium of facts AND theories. Yes there were alot of historical facts in the book as well as theories. I really don't care what the debunkers have to say. I've read both 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' and 'The Knights Templar' and there are plenty of people who support both sides of the story.

Lastly, none of those are his theories. Again, read 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' published in the 80s way before Dan Brown wrote anything and you'll find everything Dan Brown took for his book. People have been debating the existence of the Knights Templar and the Priory of Scion since the 1950s.

What's next? Mel Gibson invented the story of Jesus?

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 23 - 08:03 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". All that Priory of Sion stuff is promoted almost solely by people who have a stake in its existence. Short version: it was made up by French guys in the mid-1950's who wanted attention, and promoted by sensationalist authors passing themselves off as historians.

Much like Dan Brown.

And if the debate has only been going on since th 50's, the logical implication is that the debated material was either fully accepted beforehand, or not accepted at all (otherwise there would have been prior debate). In the case of the Priory, there was no debate because there was no Priory. No historical evidence, no clues, nothing. The current claims are based on entirely unsubstantiated cases of historical cut-and-paste, about as legit as Pope Joan and gay Abraham Lincoln (which is to say not at all, for those of you who may believe otherwise). As for the knights, I don't think any legitimate scholar disputes that the Templar order existed. The question is what they did in the Holy Land during the crusades, and why they were shut down by the Pope and the French. Now THAT'S an interesting story, which Brown barely gets right.

Look it up. There are plenty of great sources, but I would recommend Warren Carroll's "History of Christendom" vol. 4. Hell, even Wikipedia has a good take on it; type in "templars" and read away. It doesn't get into some of the interesting stuff about William Nogaray (sp?) like Carroll and others do, but for Wiki it's pretty good.

In conclusion, Mel didn't invent Jesus.

Jan 24 - 07:00 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". END QUOTE

OK, Apparently alot of people on this thread have problems reading things (either that or reading into things). Someone pointed out that 'Da Vinci Code' was full of Dan's theories. I simply pointed out that there have been books written about the subject, such as 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' full of those THEORIES since the 80s. I did not say they were true or facts.

Hell, there are people out there that think Jesus Christ never existed. Read the recent CNN article about the guy in Italy suing the catholic church for perpetuating rumors of Christ's existence for the last 2000 years for their own political and financial gain.

Lastly, just cause there's no proof of something doesn't mean it never existed.
That's just naive thinking. This whole world is built on lies & secrets and secret clubs or organizations have existed since the beginning of time. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the freemasons don't exist, even though I see their buildings all over the place and personally know people who come from families involved in the freemasons.

As far as the priory goes, I don't know. Then again, I'm not gonna say that they didn't exist. I've never seen a UFO but I'm not gonna say that they don't exist either.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:39 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

Yeah, that guy suing the church is hilarious. And we think American law suits are frivolous.

I'm not saying that no proof = no existence, but saying no proof = existence, or even = serious consideration in the face of contrary evidence, is even more ridiculous.

Look, lots of things can't be proven beyond doubt, but certain evidence can make it pretty clear. You can cast doubt on anything if you have enough intent to do so, and in that case empirical proof is only worth so much. What I'm talking about is strong evidence. The evidence for the Sion isn't strong because there are terminal source issues, for one thing.

But, I acknowledge your clarification regarding theories in the book, so we're done, I think.

And sure, Freemasons exist. Who do you think runs the CIA?

Jan 25 - 06:36 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

[b]Do the research before you post![/b]
QUOTE I would also say that "compendium of facts" is not really applicable to the book. The debunkers, whatever else one may think of them, have torn his theories to shreds, leaving all plot and most historical elements firmly in the category of fiction. END QUOTE

If you would have read my whole post it said compendium of facts AND theories. Yes there were alot of historical facts in the book as well as theories. I really don't care what the debunkers have to say. I've read both 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' and 'The Knights Templar' and there are plenty of people who support both sides of the story.

Lastly, none of those are his theories. Again, read 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' published in the 80s way before Dan Brown wrote anything and you'll find everything Dan Brown took for his book. People have been debating the existence of the Knights Templar and the Priory of Scion since the 1950s.

What's next? Mel Gibson invented the story of Jesus?

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 23 - 08:03 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". All that Priory of Sion stuff is promoted almost solely by people who have a stake in its existence. Short version: it was made up by French guys in the mid-1950's who wanted attention, and promoted by sensationalist authors passing themselves off as historians.

Much like Dan Brown.

And if the debate has only been going on since th 50's, the logical implication is that the debated material was either fully accepted beforehand, or not accepted at all (otherwise there would have been prior debate). In the case of the Priory, there was no debate because there was no Priory. No historical evidence, no clues, nothing. The current claims are based on entirely unsubstantiated cases of historical cut-and-paste, about as legit as Pope Joan and gay Abraham Lincoln (which is to say not at all, for those of you who may believe otherwise). As for the knights, I don't think any legitimate scholar disputes that the Templar order existed. The question is what they did in the Holy Land during the crusades, and why they were shut down by the Pope and the French. Now THAT'S an interesting story, which Brown barely gets right.

Look it up. There are plenty of great sources, but I would recommend Warren Carroll's "History of Christendom" vol. 4. Hell, even Wikipedia has a good take on it; type in "templars" and read away. It doesn't get into some of the interesting stuff about William Nogaray (sp?) like Carroll and others do, but for Wiki it's pretty good.

In conclusion, Mel didn't invent Jesus.

Jan 24 - 07:00 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". END QUOTE

OK, Apparently alot of people on this thread have problems reading things (either that or reading into things). Someone pointed out that 'Da Vinci Code' was full of Dan's theories. I simply pointed out that there have been books written about the subject, such as 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' full of those THEORIES since the 80s. I did not say they were true or facts.

Hell, there are people out there that think Jesus Christ never existed. Read the recent CNN article about the guy in Italy suing the catholic church for perpetuating rumors of Christ's existence for the last 2000 years for their own political and financial gain.

Lastly, just cause there's no proof of something doesn't mean it never existed.
That's just naive thinking. This whole world is built on lies & secrets and secret clubs or organizations have existed since the beginning of time. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the freemasons don't exist, even though I see their buildings all over the place and personally know people who come from families involved in the freemasons.

As far as the priory goes, I don't know. Then again, I'm not gonna say that they didn't exist. I've never seen a UFO but I'm not gonna say that they don't exist either.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:39 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

Yeah, that guy suing the church is hilarious. And we think American law suits are frivolous.

I'm not saying that no proof = no existence, but saying no proof = existence, or even = serious consideration in the face of contrary evidence, is even more ridiculous.

Look, lots of things can't be proven beyond doubt, but certain evidence can make it pretty clear. You can cast doubt on anything if you have enough intent to do so, and in that case empirical proof is only worth so much. What I'm talking about is strong evidence. The evidence for the Sion isn't strong because there are terminal source issues, for one thing.

But, I acknowledge your clarification regarding theories in the book, so we're done, I think.

And sure, Freemasons exist. Who do you think runs the CIA?

Jan 25 - 06:36 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

It wont get an R rating. There's no nudity, no language and very little violence. At least in the book. Plus its a Ron Howard film. It'll get a PG-13 and I stand by my box office predictions. If an R rated comedy like 'Wedding Crashers' can make $215 million, then the fastest selling fiction book of all time (i'm not making that up, read the New York Times) with a PG-13 will KILL!

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 23 - 08:08 PM

southfrisco

Dan Huck

I hope it is more of an adult film. But alas there is no way the studio will release this as an R, they are looking to bank on it for the start of the summer. It will be a watered down version of the book.

Also the book does have violence, nudity, and sex in it. What book did you read?

Finally with the subject matter I find it hard to believe many tweens/teens will be interested in this film, but hardcore Hanks fans will go.

And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common.

Jan 24 - 01:25 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common. END QUOTE

I wasn't comparing the two. One person brought up the fact that if the film gets an 'R' rating it would diminish profits. I pointed out that 'Wedding Crashers' recieved an 'R' rating an outperformed all expectations at the box office and I feel the same would happen if 'Da Vinci Code' got an 'R' rating.

Jesus, READ my post before retorting.

I know the book has violence (again I said that in my post) but I really don't recall much nudity or sex. Then again I read the book three years ago.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:24 PM

hattori hanzo

derek knight

Its gunna be interesting to see super early reviews for this.

Jan 23 - 08:27 PM

southfrisco

Dan Huck

I hope it is more of an adult film. But alas there is no way the studio will release this as an R, they are looking to bank on it for the start of the summer. It will be a watered down version of the book.

Also the book does have violence, nudity, and sex in it. What book did you read?

Finally with the subject matter I find it hard to believe many tweens/teens will be interested in this film, but hardcore Hanks fans will go.

And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common.

Jan 24 - 01:25 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common. END QUOTE

I wasn't comparing the two. One person brought up the fact that if the film gets an 'R' rating it would diminish profits. I pointed out that 'Wedding Crashers' recieved an 'R' rating an outperformed all expectations at the box office and I feel the same would happen if 'Da Vinci Code' got an 'R' rating.

Jesus, READ my post before retorting.

I know the book has violence (again I said that in my post) but I really don't recall much nudity or sex. Then again I read the book three years ago.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:24 PM

eswiftfire

Edmund Yeo

Actually, the paperback version's already been published ages ago.

Jan 24 - 01:29 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE Actually, the paperback version's already been published ages ago. END QUOTE

It appears, according to amazon.uk that a paperback version has been available since April 2004, but not the official version from Doubleday, the company that first published the book. The actual Doubleday paperback will come out in March 2006 in preparation for the release of the film. Read about it here on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/01/09/davincicode.paperback.ap/

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:51 PM

dracus

Cap Nord

If you go to a bookstore, you will find The Da Vinci Code in the fiction section, not the history section and the only so called hidden meaning I found in it was an old one; "Controversy Sells"; 'nuff said except that The Exorcist also similar controversy when that book was released. Like The Da Vinci Code, The Exorcist had no hidden meanings; it was just great controversial fiction that got ?couch scholars? asking: "What if?"

Jan 24 - 04:39 AM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". All that Priory of Sion stuff is promoted almost solely by people who have a stake in its existence. Short version: it was made up by French guys in the mid-1950's who wanted attention, and promoted by sensationalist authors passing themselves off as historians.

Much like Dan Brown.

And if the debate has only been going on since th 50's, the logical implication is that the debated material was either fully accepted beforehand, or not accepted at all (otherwise there would have been prior debate). In the case of the Priory, there was no debate because there was no Priory. No historical evidence, no clues, nothing. The current claims are based on entirely unsubstantiated cases of historical cut-and-paste, about as legit as Pope Joan and gay Abraham Lincoln (which is to say not at all, for those of you who may believe otherwise). As for the knights, I don't think any legitimate scholar disputes that the Templar order existed. The question is what they did in the Holy Land during the crusades, and why they were shut down by the Pope and the French. Now THAT'S an interesting story, which Brown barely gets right.

Look it up. There are plenty of great sources, but I would recommend Warren Carroll's "History of Christendom" vol. 4. Hell, even Wikipedia has a good take on it; type in "templars" and read away. It doesn't get into some of the interesting stuff about William Nogaray (sp?) like Carroll and others do, but for Wiki it's pretty good.

In conclusion, Mel didn't invent Jesus.

Jan 24 - 07:00 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". END QUOTE

OK, Apparently alot of people on this thread have problems reading things (either that or reading into things). Someone pointed out that 'Da Vinci Code' was full of Dan's theories. I simply pointed out that there have been books written about the subject, such as 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' full of those THEORIES since the 80s. I did not say they were true or facts.

Hell, there are people out there that think Jesus Christ never existed. Read the recent CNN article about the guy in Italy suing the catholic church for perpetuating rumors of Christ's existence for the last 2000 years for their own political and financial gain.

Lastly, just cause there's no proof of something doesn't mean it never existed.
That's just naive thinking. This whole world is built on lies & secrets and secret clubs or organizations have existed since the beginning of time. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the freemasons don't exist, even though I see their buildings all over the place and personally know people who come from families involved in the freemasons.

As far as the priory goes, I don't know. Then again, I'm not gonna say that they didn't exist. I've never seen a UFO but I'm not gonna say that they don't exist either.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:39 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

Yeah, that guy suing the church is hilarious. And we think American law suits are frivolous.

I'm not saying that no proof = no existence, but saying no proof = existence, or even = serious consideration in the face of contrary evidence, is even more ridiculous.

Look, lots of things can't be proven beyond doubt, but certain evidence can make it pretty clear. You can cast doubt on anything if you have enough intent to do so, and in that case empirical proof is only worth so much. What I'm talking about is strong evidence. The evidence for the Sion isn't strong because there are terminal source issues, for one thing.

But, I acknowledge your clarification regarding theories in the book, so we're done, I think.

And sure, Freemasons exist. Who do you think runs the CIA?

Jan 25 - 06:36 AM

sauronthegr8

Marc Weathersby

I just hope to god they come up with a better ending. The stuff about symbology was interesting, but the story itself reminded me of a typical badly-made big budget film. I have faith in Howard. Maybe he can make this better than its source material.

Jan 24 - 11:40 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE And why on EARTH are you comparing Wedding Crashers to this? The two have NOTHING in common. END QUOTE

I wasn't comparing the two. One person brought up the fact that if the film gets an 'R' rating it would diminish profits. I pointed out that 'Wedding Crashers' recieved an 'R' rating an outperformed all expectations at the box office and I feel the same would happen if 'Da Vinci Code' got an 'R' rating.

Jesus, READ my post before retorting.

I know the book has violence (again I said that in my post) but I really don't recall much nudity or sex. Then again I read the book three years ago.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:24 PM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE This is not the place to have this debate, but I will say, to the challenge of my research ability, that YOU need to research "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". END QUOTE

OK, Apparently alot of people on this thread have problems reading things (either that or reading into things). Someone pointed out that 'Da Vinci Code' was full of Dan's theories. I simply pointed out that there have been books written about the subject, such as 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' full of those THEORIES since the 80s. I did not say they were true or facts.

Hell, there are people out there that think Jesus Christ never existed. Read the recent CNN article about the guy in Italy suing the catholic church for perpetuating rumors of Christ's existence for the last 2000 years for their own political and financial gain.

Lastly, just cause there's no proof of something doesn't mean it never existed.
That's just naive thinking. This whole world is built on lies & secrets and secret clubs or organizations have existed since the beginning of time. Next thing you're gonna tell me is that the freemasons don't exist, even though I see their buildings all over the place and personally know people who come from families involved in the freemasons.

As far as the priory goes, I don't know. Then again, I'm not gonna say that they didn't exist. I've never seen a UFO but I'm not gonna say that they don't exist either.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:39 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

Yeah, that guy suing the church is hilarious. And we think American law suits are frivolous.

I'm not saying that no proof = no existence, but saying no proof = existence, or even = serious consideration in the face of contrary evidence, is even more ridiculous.

Look, lots of things can't be proven beyond doubt, but certain evidence can make it pretty clear. You can cast doubt on anything if you have enough intent to do so, and in that case empirical proof is only worth so much. What I'm talking about is strong evidence. The evidence for the Sion isn't strong because there are terminal source issues, for one thing.

But, I acknowledge your clarification regarding theories in the book, so we're done, I think.

And sure, Freemasons exist. Who do you think runs the CIA?

Jan 25 - 06:36 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE Actually, the paperback version's already been published ages ago. END QUOTE

It appears, according to amazon.uk that a paperback version has been available since April 2004, but not the official version from Doubleday, the company that first published the book. The actual Doubleday paperback will come out in March 2006 in preparation for the release of the film. Read about it here on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/01/09/davincicode.paperback.ap/

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 24 - 06:51 PM

Scarborough Fair

Kyle Beaudette

plantard has admitted to making it up with two actors, berenger sauniere has been proven to have not been mildly as rich as we thought, and henri boudet is most likely a raving lunatic that wrote books that no one read, and you'll never find his or anyones hidden treasure based upon this book, or this movie. the magic in this is long gone. but im willing to bet its still going to be a pretty good movie, its too bad talking heads on CNN and every other news show will rip it apart. at least we'll all still keep talking about this religion's big problems and the gospels that aren't in the bible.

Jan 24 - 11:46 PM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

Yeah, that guy suing the church is hilarious. And we think American law suits are frivolous.

I'm not saying that no proof = no existence, but saying no proof = existence, or even = serious consideration in the face of contrary evidence, is even more ridiculous.

Look, lots of things can't be proven beyond doubt, but certain evidence can make it pretty clear. You can cast doubt on anything if you have enough intent to do so, and in that case empirical proof is only worth so much. What I'm talking about is strong evidence. The evidence for the Sion isn't strong because there are terminal source issues, for one thing.

But, I acknowledge your clarification regarding theories in the book, so we're done, I think.

And sure, Freemasons exist. Who do you think runs the CIA?

Jan 25 - 06:36 AM

Bane Of Anubis

C M

[b]What's the big deal.[/b]
Technically, The Bible is mostly a compendium of theories (and those theories have been promoted by people who have great stake in its existence)...

Ask a Scientologist about Dianetics (sp?) and see what their theories are (I'm just sayin')...

Anyway, as for the book, it should make a good movie. Not the best piece of writing, but entertaining and quick to read -- which is probably while it will translate into a highly profitable movie (300 Million, 400 maybe -- this will pull most of the Potterphiles and Narnians in + some more of the old guard).

Jan 25 - 10:30 AM

ninjaandy

Andrew O'Neill

The Bible is a compendium of theories? Really? Could you go ahead and name me one, and then prove it's a theory and not a fact?

Now of course many passages in the bible were not meant to be taken literally or historically and many were, but I'm sure you'll be able to tell the difference. I mean, clearly you're enough of a biblical scholar to be able to tell the difference between, for example, an historical text and an allegorical one, according to the various writing styles of an ancient middle-eastern culture.

Hey, or maybe you've studied the linguistic distinctions of ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and Attic Greek, or have researched those who do know such things. And of course you have an intimate knowledge of the anthropological and cultural issues that impact those local languages.

Perhaps your intimate awareness of thousands of years of study and reflection by some of the world's greatest thinkers on that particular collection of texts gives you sufficient knowledge to comment on the validity of its presuppositions.

If none of those things apply, at least you, personally, have read and studied the bible in your own language on numerous occasions. Let's not forget THAT.

Yes, I'm sure you're capable to make some kind of intelligent commentary on the bible. I'm just waiting to read it.

But hey, if you don't feel like answering, that's fine. We'll just leave the bible out of it (since as you know, some people take their holy books very seriously), and take it as a given that the bible is full of stuff that neither of us want to discuss in a thread that has nothing to do with bibles, or Scientologists, for that matter.

Jan 25 - 11:39 AM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE The Bible is a compendium of theories? Really? Could you go ahead and name me one, and then prove it's a theory and not a fact? END QUOTE

My lord, what have I started? I have this incredibly mischevious knack to go off topic, don't I?

Erm, let's see, so what other movies are gonna be at Cannes?

Seriously, though, if Brokeback Mountain can get its ass-reaming (pun intended) from the religious right, I can't wait to see how frothy-mouthed they get over Da Vinci Code. That's gonna be funny.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 25 - 02:31 PM

cowsfan

Kevin Levan

QUOTE The Bible is a compendium of theories? Really? Could you go ahead and name me one, and then prove it's a theory and not a fact? END QUOTE

My lord, what have I started? I have this incredibly mischevious knack to go off topic, don't I?

Erm, let's see, so what other movies are gonna be at Cannes?

Seriously, though, if Brokeback Mountain can get its ass-reaming (pun intended) from the religious right, I can't wait to see how frothy-mouthed they get over Da Vinci Code. That's gonna be funny.

Cheers,
Kevin

Jan 25 - 02:31 PM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Ethan Hawke's 10 Best Movies

The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer

24 Frames
24 Frames

Pictures of great movie apes

Gone Girl Trailer
Gone Girl Trailer

New film by David Fincher

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile