oh no it's davinci code week

[gfunkusarelius]

anyone caught anything on the history channel dealing with the da vinci code this week? from what i have seen, it is chock full of shoddy, biased programming. well, to be fair i havent seen any shows in their entirety this week, but they are replaying some shows i have already seen over the past few years since the book was written. my beef is how they make these things look like unbiased, factual endeavors of historical research. for example, last night there was an episode of digging for the truth (i think, its the one where the dude dresses like indiana jones) and i watched quite a bit of it and they were talking about all the standard stuff and when they talked about the priory of sion and i watched for about 10 minutes and never saw any indication that their was an alternative theory about them to what they dan brown presented in his book.
another example, they had "the bible code" show on and they had a couple of people arguing against the bible code, but the vast majority of the show was focused on people promoting the bible code's effectiveness and when it came time to end the show, they concluded with a couple of minutes of people basically summing up its validity. it was clear which whay they were steering the viewer. especially since one guy's (very brief) report on how many "predictions "moby dick" got right with the same method totally blew the bible code theory to pieces in my opinion.

i think it comes down to selling the ideas that are more "interesting" rather than the truth and t his annoys me about the history channel

 

[elliotfc]

Hey, real quick vote!

Will the Da Vinci Code make more money in it's opening weekend then Gibson's Passion of the Christ?

I vote no, but it will be pretty close.

-Elliot

 

[Kopji]

Saw the History Channel last night.
They had a guy from Opus Dei that looked really spooky.

The LDS Mormons used to teach that Jesus was married to Mary. Don't know if they still do though.

Ron Howard will blow Gibson away.

 

[Upchurch]

Hey, real quick vote!

Will the Da Vinci Code make more money in it's opening weekend then Gibson's Passion of the Christ?

I vote no, but it will be pretty close.

-Elliot

That's an interesting question. I am not very familiar with how opening weekend is calculated. Looking at IMDB, what number would you go with for PoC?

 

[elliotfc]

That's an interesting question. I am not very familiar with how opening weekend is calculated. Looking at IMDB, what number would you go with for PoC?

Definitely the 83 million, that's the actual opening date, the others are either re-releases or international releases.

I don't see Da Vinci doing that sort of level...I'm hardly an expert on opening weekend numbers...50 million sounds about right to me. I don't feel any sort of *buzz* about Da Vinci that I felt with the Passion, or with the Lord of the Rings movies.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Saw the History Channel last night.
They had a guy from Opus Dei that looked really spooky.

The LDS Mormons used to teach that Jesus was married to Mary. Don't know if they still do though.

Ron Howard will blow Gibson away.

Perhaps. 100 million would be the number I nominate as "blown away" worthy.

My beef with the movie isn't the Jesus/Mary stuff, that's old hat. The Opus Dei bashing is remarkable. I could see if they changed the name of the group...we're talking an organization that is recent...has millions of lay members...really really good people too. All of the Opus Dei members I know believe in living consecrated lives, where they don't just live as Christians for one hour on Sundays. This conspiracy nonsense are figments of the imaginations of others. I'm not doing a good job of articulating my specific problem with the movie. Opus Dei = evil is out of order. Too specific, and too offensive to millions of good people who are members of the order.

-Elliot

 

[Trantor]

I saw a couple of the shows on the History Channel. I think they have been running these Davinci shows all weekend. There were a few interesting details, but mostly it was crap.

At one point Benny Hinn was featured as a Bible Expert!!!!

 

[psy kick]

Try watching the Van Impe's on Sunday late night. Jack is ranting and foaming and mad as heck at Howard and Hanks!

 

[Trantor]

I love watching that Van Impe. He is great for a laugh. Very few can rant about our impending doom like Jack. And that wife of his - wow, what a mental giant that woman is.

 

[elliotfc]

I love watching that Van Impe. He is great for a laugh. Very few can rant about our impending doom like Jack. And that wife of his - wow, what a mental giant that woman is.

Hey, they don't like him over at RaptureReady, at least he has that going for him! Note the angry apple at the top of the page. -Elliot

http://www.raptureready.com/who/Jack_Van_Impe.html

 

[atari24]

I love watching that Van Impe. He is great for a laugh. Very few can rant about our impending doom like Jack. And that wife of his - wow, what a mental giant that woman is.

Yeah, the impending doom thats been coming since the last six years I've seen him on tv.

 

[elliotfc]

Have you seen the History Channel show about the antichrist or the apocalypse or the end of the world, all of the above? It was on this weekend. The antichrist is some guy with curly black hair who stands around, usually in the middle of the street, sometimes in alleys, and stares menacingly, and sometimes he'll run down the street too. -Elliot

 

[gfunkusarelius]

Try watching the Van Impe's on Sunday late night. Jack is ranting and foaming and mad as heck at Howard and Hanks!

yeah, dont get me wrong, i am sort of glad the story annoys certain people, but just from a historical accuracy perspective, its irksome that so many people will think they understand the "truth about christianity" based on this movie. i know its impossible to really know the whole truth, but there are degrees of reliability

 

[Trantor]

Hey, they don't like him over at RaptureReady, at least he has that going for him! Note the angry apple at the top of the page. -Elliot

http://www.raptureready.com/who/Jack_Van_Impe.html

An interesting read indeed. I've never heard Van Impe say good things about the Catholics or Muslims. Maybe he's trying to expand his business possibilities. There's a whole lot of Catholics and Muslims in the world. They seem just as gullible as the average Fundy, so all they need to do is call the prayer line and send in their donations.

I have seen the antichrist shows advertised this last weekend on the History channel, but did not watch them. I've seen similar shows in the past. It seems that we(the unbelievers) will get to stay here on Earth and get what's coming to us, while the Fundies go meet Jesus in the air. Seems fair to me.

 

[wolfgirl]

yeah, dont get me wrong, i am sort of glad the story annoys certain people, but just from a historical accuracy perspective, its irksome that so many people will think they understand the "truth about christianity" based on this movie. i know its impossible to really know the whole truth, but there are degrees of reliability

I think it's just good that it has people talking or thinking about some questions about the early church, the pagan basis for many of xianity's figures and customs, Constantine's role in early xianity and the bible, etc. Anything that makes people wonder about those things is good in my book.

 

[elliotfc]

I think it's just good that it has people talking or thinking about some questions about the early church, the pagan basis for many of xianity's figures and customs, Constantine's role in early xianity and the bible, etc. Anything that makes people wonder about those things is good in my book.

I agree...*as long as they actually wonder about them*.

If they see it and let their opinions, say, about Opus Dei be exclusively about the representation they are provided, they are not wondering. They are accepting it without thinking. Now, if someone sees the movie and does some research into say the pseudepigrapha, then they are wondering.

-Elliot

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

anyone caught anything on the history channel dealing with the da vinci code this week? from what i have seen, it is chock full of shoddy, biased programming. well, to be fair i havent seen any shows in their entirety this week, but they are replaying some shows i have already seen over the past few years since the book was written. my beef is how they make these things look like unbiased, factual endeavors of historical research. for example, last night there was an episode of digging for the truth (i think, its the one where the dude dresses like indiana jones) and i watched quite a bit of it and they were talking about all the standard stuff and when they talked about the priory of sion and i watched for about 10 minutes and never saw any indication that their was an alternative theory about them to what they dan brown presented in his book.

I find it interesting that this program did not (apparently, because I did not see it) refer to Holy Blood, Holy Grail which is the book from which Brown appears to have lifted his entire framework (though the Court in London disagrees). It is a crock though it purports to be factual there are so many glaring errors of logic it is hard to follow.

AFAIK the entire "proof" about this "Priory" was gotten from a safe deposit box in Paris, very mysterious and absolutely no proof at all.

No wonder the authors of HBHG sued Brown - every time I hear more about The Da Vinci code the more it sounds like their book.

i think it comes down to selling the ideas that are more "interesting" rather than the truth and t his annoys me about the history channel

The History Channel, along with Discovery Channels were the final straws that persuaded me and my wife that TV programming was not worth paying for. Haven't had it for two years and haven't regretted it for a minute.

Reading about the latest round of idiocy inspires me to have a quiet little gloat about how much money I have saved.

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060428/en_nm/vatican_davinci_dc_3

The Pope hates that book.

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps. 100 million would be the number I nominate as "blown away" worthy.

My beef with the movie isn't the Jesus/Mary stuff, that's old hat. The Opus Dei bashing is remarkable. I could see if they changed the name of the group...we're talking an organization that is recent...has millions of lay members...really really good people too. All of the Opus Dei members I know believe in living consecrated lives, where they don't just live as Christians for one hour on Sundays.

I thought this was over the top as well. On the other hand, I had never heard of them before, so I did some google research, and there are at least some who say that they really are a scary bunch, with some cult-like aspects. There is something out there called an "Opus Dei Awareness Network". Those folks aren't fond of Opus Dei at all. Also, in the book's defense, their treatment of Opus Dei wasn't as bad as it might seem superfically, but to explain why, I'll have to go into a spoiler mode.

Throughout most of the book, it looks like the head of Opus Dei is engaged in a conspiracy with a high-level church official to kill people and keep the grail secret. At the end, you learn that isn't true. The Bishop in charge of Opus Dei thinks he is going to buy the Holy Grail. Meanwhile, the monk who does the killing is being manipulated by another, secular, conspirator. Opus Dei is pictured as a bit fanatical, but not actually evil. Their fanaticism allows one of their devout but mentally weak members to be manipulated by someone pretending to be a man of God.

It still isn't a flattering picture, but it isn't what you think it is throughout the course of the book.

 

[Meadmaker]

I find it interesting that this program did not (apparently, because I did not see it) refer to Holy Blood, Holy Grail which is the book from which Brown appears to have lifted his entire framework (though the Court in London disagrees). It is a crock though it purports to be factual there are so many glaring errors of logic it is hard to follow.

I mentioned it in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. Brown actually cites Holy Blood, Holy Grail within the DaVinci code. It wasn't that he denies lifting the premise. He denies, correctly in my opinion, that this was the essence of the book. It takes that premise and builds a fictionalized account around it.

If I were to write a novel about the discovery of aliens visiting Earth in ancient days, I don't think EriK Van Daniken (sp? author of "Chariots of the Gods") could sue me.