The DaVinci Code

[Guest Nanks]

Credit: 411mania

 

George Clooney, Russell Crowe, Tom Hanks and Hugh Jackman are all in the running to star in a film adaptation of the best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown.

 

The pic deals with clues in Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings that unlock secrets relating to the foundations of Christianity.

 

Credit: IGN

 

Interesting.... I'm not sure how well this one will translate to film. Fantastic book, no doubt, but I don't know about a movie. I'd be interested to see if there'll be pressure from religious groups on this one too. The book more or less presents "evidence" that debunks a lot of Christian beliefs.

 

Either way, I hope they give the role to Russell Crowe, this character would suit him. Just anyone but Tom Hanks....

[Mik 0]

It's a high probability of being Russel Crowe because the film is going to be directed by Ron Howard.

[Guest MikeSC]

Credit: 411mania

 

George Clooney, Russell Crowe, Tom Hanks and Hugh Jackman are all in the running to star in a film adaptation of the best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown.

 

The pic deals with clues in Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings that unlock secrets relating to the foundations of Christianity.

 

Credit: IGN

 

Interesting.... I'm not sure how well this one will translate to film. Fantastic book, no doubt, but I don't know about a movie. I'd be interested to see if there'll be pressure from religious groups on this one too. The book more or less presents "evidence" that debunks a lot of Christian beliefs.

 

Either way, I hope they give the role to Russell Crowe, this character would suit him. Just anyone but Tom Hanks....

I wouldn't call anything in the "Da Vinci Code" as being evidence to de-bunk anything.

-=Mike

[razazteca 0]

Will it make more money than The Passion?

[Guest Vitamin X]

Anyone feel like going a little more in depth with what the movie is about?

[Guest MikeSC]

Will it make more money than The Passion?

It would have no prayer, whatsoever, of approaching the money made of "The Passion". Quite honestly, the book has LONG stretches of, well, inaction.

Anyone feel like going a little more in depth with what the movie is about?

If I remember, Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and had children and the Church has spent its entire existence trying to cover it up. Mary and Jesus' siblings moved to France at some point. The Illuminati knew about this fact, but disappeared after the Church tried to wipe them out.

 

It's really quite silly.

-=Mike

[Cran Da Maniac 0]

It wasn't the Illuminati, it was something called the Scion or something of that nature. And saying it debunks Christian religion is a gross overstatement.

[2GOLD 0]

I can buy Jesus had kids more than I can buy he was a virgin his whole life and was fine with the whole "son of god" thing.

 

Can't buy trying to erase them or wipe them out, but I can buy J.C got him some and had a kid or two. I don't see why it would be a big deal if Jesus had children anyway. Does it really hurt the legacy if he did have kids?

 

And seriously, would it be a horrible thing if he did marry Mary and had kids? I mean, what would be the big deal? Out of wedlock, sure I can see an uproar and pissed off folks but you would think any children of Jesus would be a sign that he was always with his, not only in spirit.

 

Hell but I'm not religious so I'm sure there is some reason why rejecting any thought Jesus had kids is ok.

[Guest MikeSC]

I can buy Jesus had kids more than I can buy he was a virgin his whole life and was fine with the whole "son of god" thing.

 

Can't buy trying to erase them or wipe them out, but I can buy J.C got him some and had a kid or two. I don't see why it would be a big deal if Jesus had children anyway. Does it really hurt the legacy if he did have kids?

 

And seriously, would it be a horrible thing if he did marry Mary and had kids? I mean, what would be the big deal? Out of wedlock, sure I can see an uproar and pissed off folks but you would think any children of Jesus would be a sign that he was always with his, not only in spirit.

 

Hell but I'm not religious so I'm sure there is some reason why rejecting any thought Jesus had kids is ok.

Well, the mere fact that Dan gives absolutely no evidence to back up his assertions does kind of hurt things.

-=Mike

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Why would he get married? He only lived to be 33 and he knew it was going to happen. That would be a horrible thing to do, marrying someone and having kids when you knew for a fact you weren't going to be around for them in a few years. Plus that wasn't his purpose of coming.

[cynicalprofit 0]

Man that books sounds like something outta preacher.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

So let me get this straight. A painter who lived 1400 years after Jesus leaves clues in his paintings based on a rumor he heard and now 500 years later someone writes a book based on said clues that were based on said rumor...and it's supposed to debunk Christianity?

[Mik 0]

It's not a rumor. He was one of the heads of the Priory of Scion, the people who were entrusted with keeping the secret. So, he left hints in his paintings, such as Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus at the last supper (check it out, it's true).

 

Not saying that it's all true, but there are many non-fiction books on the subject. Either way, the book is fiction, playing off some non-fiction ideas.

 

I think it will make an excellent movie.

[2GOLD 0]

I just asked WHY it would be such a bad thing. Truthful or not, why would it de-bunk Christianity even if it was true?

 

What would be the big deal if Jesus had a kid? I don't get what harm it does? It sounds like an interesting little story.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

It's not a rumor. He was one of the heads of the Priory of Scion, the people who were entrusted with keeping the secret. So, he left hints in his paintings, such as Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus at the last supper (check it out, it's true).

Hmmm....I'm looking at the painting online right now and I don't see her. If she's supposed to be the person to the left of Jesus then there would only be 11 of the 12 desciples in the picture (not to mention you can see a beard on him if you look close). If you're referring to the feminine looking guy three people to the right of Jesus, well then she's NOT sitting next to him, plus the earlier mentioned problem of only 11 desciples.

[Guest wrestlingbs]

It's not a rumor. He was one of the heads of the Priory of Scion, the people who were entrusted with keeping the secret. So, he left hints in his paintings, such as Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus at the last supper (check it out, it's true).

Hmmm....I'm looking at the painting online right now and I don't see her. If she's supposed to be the person to the left of Jesus then there would only be 11 of the 12 desciples in the picture (not to mention you can see a beard on him if you look close). If you're referring to the feminine looking guy three people to the right of Jesus, well then she's NOT sitting next to him, plus the earlier mentioned problem of only 11 desciples.

That's the big joke. According to the DaVinci code, that feminine-looking guy IS Mary Magdelene, and Leonardo covered it up by painting her like a man.

 

To me, the whole thing is ridiculous. This guy takes an unfounded rumor based off of VERY unique interpretations of DaVinci's work, and presents it like fact. Even if it is true, the guy doesn't present any facts. Do you realise how sad it is when shit like this is presented as "the next big hit" i the media?

[Secret Agent 0]

The book is excellent, but you have to remember one thing... It is fiction.

[Guest Nanks]

Right, let me start by referring to the "" around the word evidence in my initial post. It's important to remember this is a work of fiction. Dan Brown isn't trying to convince anybody of anything.

 

In answer to your question, 2GOLD, the reason it would be seen as improper for Jesus to have been married to Mary Magdelene, and indeed, have had a daughter, is that 1) The Bible portrays Magdelene as a prostitute, not really befitting of a wife of "The Son of God" 2) Marriage and having children aren't really things that one could associate with a deity. They are very human things to do. A divine entity wouldn't do these things. The point being made is that Jesus was not the Son of God, but in fact, just a man.

 

Don't anyone jump down my throat on this please, I am taking this from the book. If there is anyone that is religious and objects to the suggestion that Jesus was a mortal man rather than a Deity, then you are my exhibit A for the possibility of religious group backlash against the film.

 

On The Last Supper, the figure sitting on Jesus' right is fairly obviously female, furthermore, the hand that appears to be "cutting the throat" of the figure is without an owner. Little tidbits like this are what make the book really interesting. I'm not sure how well this kind of thing will be translated to film.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

 

If you mean the one on the left the hand belongs to the grey haired man right there (looks like he's resting it on the other guy's shoulder) and I see a beard on that guy to the left of Jesus. Maybe it's just me.

 

The grey haired man is clearly pulling the person to the left of Jesus closer so he can whisper about Jesus' decleration that someone will betray him.

[chaosrage 0]

[Guest Nanks]

Beard on the figure to Jesus' right??? I don't know what you're looking at. Sorry, I was mistaken on that point.

 

The hand on Mary's shoulder appears to be "cutting her throat". The hand is way too big, especially considering Da Vinci's attention to detail, normally.

 

The "ownerless hand" is to be found poppping out in front of the man leaning towards Jesus. It's holding a knife pointing the opposite direction. That hand is nowhere near anybody. It's been a while since I read the book, but I think it's meant to be pointing at Judas or something

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Well regardless of the beard...the hand is not in front of the other guy and I see no knife.

 

EDIT: Okay I see the knife, but like you said it's pointing somewhere else (Judas maybe) and that doesn't seem to effect her.

[Guest Nanks]

The fingers on that hand are way too long, and extend past the shoulder.

 

The knife takes some finding. It's in a hand with a brown cuff. Look at the left hand of the bloke holding his hand up, palms out. Trace downwards and it's right there. Take a moment to find it, it's quite odd. Pull up a cleaner image perhaps.

 

EDIT (In response): No, it's nothing to do with "Mary". But it's just another weird thing in the painting, goes to suggest that not everything in that painting is at is seems...

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

It's all interesting, but it reminds me of a lot of conspiracy theories. Something little get's twisted around to the point that others start seeing it too even though there was nothing there to begin with or what was there had a totally different meaning.

 

Oh and I zoomed in on the hand. The fingers aren't as long as they seem. Wear and tear on the painting has caused a lot of that to blend together to make the fingers seem longer, but if you zoom in you can still see the original outlines of where the fingers are.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I don't see why it would be a big deal if Jesus had children anyway. Does it really hurt the legacy if he did have kids?

 

The big deal about Jesus having kids (according to many conspiracy theories) is that Jesus' line didn't die out, and exist to this day, in the form of the Merovingians.

 

Why is that important? Because anyone who was a direct descendant of Jesus Christ would also be a descendent of God Himself; I don't think something like that could debunk Christianity, but do you really have to wonder why Christians would see it as a big deal if there was more then one direct descendent of God upon the Earth?

 

Anyway, I haven't read The Da Vinci Code, but having read Angels and Demons (written by the same guy and has the same main character - this one deals with antimatter and the Illuminati) I can say I'm looking forward to it, and am actually about to go start.

 

That said, I think Angels and Demons would make a kickass movie, so hopefully The Da Vinci Code does really well so they'll make the prequel to leech out some more money.

[2GOLD 0]

See, I don't see how thinking the Jesus line didn't die out was a bad thing. The one thing I learned from the story of Jesus is, he really WAS just a man and wasn't perfect. He did what he thought was right and knew he was dead for doing it. He was a man, he wasn't a divine spirit till he died so I don't see why the Christian religion would be so pissed off if he had children.

 

God, he more than likely had a brother so the bloodline was still alive. And unless people want to start arguing that Jesus had "holy sperm" and therefore his children should be blessed with the powers of God then I don't see the huge deal. And maybe Jesus and Mary agreed that his kids should never know he was the father to protect them from the dangers since they really would just be human just as he was.

 

It could be an interesting story, but I don't understand still how he would ruin all of a religion if he did or didn't. I mean, that sounds really uptight and frankly Jesus being a man is the only thing that even interests me about his story. He was a man and the story becomes 1000 times better if even he was unable to stop the power of love placed inside of his heart. Hell, you'd think Christianity would EMBRACE something like this since it would have given people another reason to connect with him.

 

So Mary wasn't perfect when he first met her, if Jesus could forgive her then what right would anyone else have to complain? See, honestly I don't see why this movie or book would cause such a big uproar. It sounds like an interesting story and would make the story of Jesus that much more believable since it would show he WAS just a man like us all when on Earth.

 

Having a problem with something like this sounds like a religion needs to pull the stick out of their rear and realize the greater story they would be missing.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

The thing is though, assuming that Jesus had siblings (which isn't a stretch), his siblings wouldn't be children of God - they'd be children of Joseph. They'd share some of the same blood as Jesus, but not the divinity.

 

And if Jesus had kids himself, then they would be, in part, divine. Which means they probably would have whatever "powers of God" which come with being divine.

 

I agree with you that this sort of thing shouldn't cause an uproar, but it's easy to see why it would. Besides the fact that it potentially means descendents of God Himself are walking around, imagine how people would respond if they learned the Catholic Church had been lying to them for two thousand years about something extremely important in Jesus' life.

 

And Jesus, being the son of God, was divine before he died. That's how he did all those miracles and such.

[2GOLD 0]

Divine yes, but also a man. Look, for all we know Jesus was the Worlds First Magic Man like David Blaine or Copperfield. The walking on water thing and the water to wine thing....man, Jesus did a lot with water didn't he? Anyway, those aren't the things people should look up to when they think of him. I much rather like seeing him as a simple man forced into a tight spot by his father but determined to make life better not just for himself but his family as well. I'd like that story much better than the "he was perfect in every way with magical powers and could do no wrong"...it really ruins the story for me. I can't relate to that guy at all.

 

Plus just because he is the son of God doesn't mean he could pass on the genes of God. I mean, not all of us get blessed with the skills of our fathers right? And if Jesus was a divine man then it's not out of the realm of belief he could control what was passed on to his children.

 

As for the catholic church lying....well, they have lied a lot in the past when the church was filled with corruption (long long LONG time ago and no one can deny they were corrupt for awhile there like say the Dark Ages) and maybe said records were destroyed at the request of the church and Mary. It's not totally unbelievable to think Jesus had kids but Mary, Jesus and the church didn't want them known about so they could live the normal life their father never got to have.

 

Personally, I'd like the story MUCH better if it was this tale. Hell, if this HAD been the story then I think I'd be Christian right now. The sad thing is if you WROTE said story you would be blasted by everyone for writing an anti-Jesus story when it's actually a much better tale.

 

The Da Vinci code is a lot extreme on this from what I remember, but it still is interesting when you think about the possiblities and how much greater a man it makes Jesus. I mean, we all know we are going to die but we still have children and get married so it makes Jesus just like us but greater in a way.

 

I'm just finding it laughable anyone would be upset by such a tale.