Slick marketing: Vatican criticizes "Da Vinci Code"
Posted by:: "Modemac"
Date: 18 Mar 2005 04:17:24 -0800
--------
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da Vinci
Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitism.
Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor that
"The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those lovely
dollars...
Posted by:: Pope Phil
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:55:01 +0000 (UTC)
--------
they should criticise it for being SHIT. I almost threw this down after reading JUST ONE SENTENCE,
but I was stuck on a 7 hour bus ride with nothing else to do.
Modemac wrote:
> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
>
> It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da Vinci
> Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
> complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitism.
> Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor that
> "The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those lovely
> dollars...
>
Posted by:: "Kevin Cunningham"
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:22:12 GMT
--------
"Pope Phil" wrote in message
news:d1ej35$hgc$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> they should criticise it for being SHIT. I almost threw this down after
> reading JUST ONE SENTENCE, but I was stuck on a 7 hour bus ride with
> nothing else to do.
>
> Modemac wrote:
>> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
>>
>> It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da Vinci
>> Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
>> complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitism.
>> Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor that
>> "The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those lovely
>> dollars...
>>
Learned Pope Phil, since when has bad writting hurt a book? Geez, look (if
you dare) at Joan Collins.
Rev. Dr. Junior Mints
Anti-Pope of Atlanta
Posted by:: Pope Phil
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:28:30 +0000 (UTC)
--------
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
> "Pope Phil" wrote in message
> news:d1ej35$hgc$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>>they should criticise it for being SHIT. I almost threw this down after
>>reading JUST ONE SENTENCE, but I was stuck on a 7 hour bus ride with
>>nothing else to do.
>>
>>Modemac wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
>>>
>>>It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da Vinci
>>>Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
>>>complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitism.
>>> Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor that
>>>"The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those lovely
>>>dollars...
>>>
>
> Learned Pope Phil, since when has bad writting hurt a book?
rarely - but it HURT ME
Posted by:: ert
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:03:59 GMT
--------
On 2005-03-18 06:17:24 -0600, "Modemac" said:
> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
>
> It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da Vinci
> Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
> complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitism.
> Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor that
> "The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those lovely
> dollars...
Nah, the book and the condemnation of it are part of a stealth
marketing drive by the C-lick church. They are insinuating that if you
join up with the priesthood you might be recruited into some secret
society where you get to kill people, learn ancient secrets, partake of
sinister rituals.... blahhh.
Posted by:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:05:23 -0500
--------
In article <1111148244.467871.150630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Modemac wrote:
> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
>
> It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da Vinci
> Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
> complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitism.
> Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor that
> "The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those lovely
> dollars...
>
I have declared "ARISE!" to be un-SubGenius.
http://subgenius.com/scatalog/video.htm
--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB
Posted by:: "tomcervo"
Date: 18 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0800
--------
You're all wrong. Whiter-than-white-bread Hollywood mainstreamers chose
major best seller to adapt, expecting major business from book's fans.
Vatican fossels realize after two years that someone's been selling a
ton of books saying that they're a bunch of sneaky creeps executing a
cover-up of dark deeds. They issue a fatwa, convincing no one.
The subtext is the sexual abuse scandal. They ARE a bunch of creeps,
and a prosecuter with guts could have put them all in jail under a RICO
prosecution. The cases build up, the cover-ups come to light and they
have zero credibility among the thinkng faithful--leaving only the
plug-uglies like William Donohue or Pat Buchanan to whip the
bead-telling drones to outrage.
And, the usual gang of cable blowhards will jump in now that Robert
Blake and Scott Peterson are old news. You can't run Michael Jackson
for 24 hours, and Donohue has cleared his calender.
Posted by:: RichA
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:08:11 -0500
--------
On 18 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0800, "tomcervo" wrote:
>You're all wrong. Whiter-than-white-bread Hollywood mainstreamers chose
>major best seller to adapt, expecting major business from book's fans.
What hardly anyone has mentioned in this whole episode is that Dan
Brown is not a very good writer. He just tapped into the idiot
public's fascination (of late) with religious superstition.
-Rich
Posted by:: BTR1701
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:21:03 GMT
--------
In article <8r5n319jth0ueprq630nmsqcrabqgo9eiu@4ax.com>, RichA
wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0800, "tomcervo" wrote:
>
> >You're all wrong. Whiter-than-white-bread Hollywood mainstreamers chose
> >major best seller to adapt, expecting major business from book's fans.
>
> What hardly anyone has mentioned in this whole episode is that Dan
> Brown is not a very good writer.
Whether he is or isn't a good writer is irrelevant. The controversy
(such as it is) would exist regardless of his talent level.
Posted by:: Pope Phil
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:50:10 +0000 (UTC)
--------
he's a shockingly bad writer
RichA wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0800, "tomcervo" wrote:
>
>
>>You're all wrong. Whiter-than-white-bread Hollywood mainstreamers chose
>>major best seller to adapt, expecting major business from book's fans.
>
>
> What hardly anyone has mentioned in this whole episode is that Dan
> Brown is not a very good writer. He just tapped into the idiot
> public's fascination (of late) with religious superstition.
> -Rich
Posted by:: "krustymadfaker"
Date: 19 Mar 2005 04:10:43 -0800
--------
>>>they should criticise it for being SHIT. I almost threw this down
after reading JUST ONE SENTENCE,
but I was stuck on a 7 hour bus ride with nothing else to do.>>
You should have acted out that scene in SPEED it would have went by
faster.
Rev-Sci-Fi-entist KrustyMADfaker
"This is the most uncomfortable coffin I've ever been in."
-Bela Lugosi
Posted by:: trotsky
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:20:23 GMT
--------
RichA wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0800, "tomcervo" wrote:
>
>
>>You're all wrong. Whiter-than-white-bread Hollywood mainstreamers chose
>>major best seller to adapt, expecting major business from book's fans.
>
> What hardly anyone has mentioned in this whole episode is that Dan
> Brown is not a very good writer. He just tapped into the idiot
> public's fascination (of late) with religious superstition.
Have you read the book, Rich, or is this just your usual m.o. of talking
out of your ass again?
Posted by:: RichA
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:14:23 -0500
--------
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:20:23 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0800, "tomcervo" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're all wrong. Whiter-than-white-bread Hollywood mainstreamers chose
>>>major best seller to adapt, expecting major business from book's fans.
>>
>> What hardly anyone has mentioned in this whole episode is that Dan
>> Brown is not a very good writer. He just tapped into the idiot
>> public's fascination (of late) with religious superstition.
>
>
>Have you read the book, Rich, or is this just your usual m.o. of talking
>out of your ass again?
Should I? Is it worth reading? Or, should I do the right thing
and let it come to the big screen and see it as the paranoid
fantasy that it is? At least on the screen it has a chance to be
entertaining from an "Indiana Jones Meets Catholocism" kind of
perspective.
Besides, I prefer spending the time reading history, actual history.
-Rich
Posted by:: mutefan@yahoo.com
Date: 20 Mar 2005 04:39:45 -0800
--------
>Should I? Is it worth reading?
Thanks for asking this. The posters on this newsgroup can be such
short-sighted hypocrites. They'll write articulate analyses of
particular films and outline why the films (or in this case, books) are
rotten, then if you are honest enough to say you haven't gone or won't
go to the films (or read the books) because you're sufficiently pliant
to the opinions of others, you're somehow talking out of your ass when
you commit the sacrilege of offering your own opinion on the subject.
Jonathan Swift, where are you when we need you.
Posted by:: "Nick Macpherson"
Date: 20 Mar 2005 05:44:52 -0800
--------
mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Should I? Is it worth reading?
>
> Thanks for asking this. The posters on this newsgroup can be such
> short-sighted hypocrites. They'll write articulate analyses of
> particular films and outline why the films (or in this case, books)
are
> rotten, then if you are honest enough to say you haven't gone or
won't
> go to the films (or read the books) because you're sufficiently
pliant
> to the opinions of others, you're somehow talking out of your ass
when
> you commit the sacrilege of offering your own opinion on the subject.
>
Because if you offer an opinion on a book or movie you haven't read or
seen you are talking out of your ass? That might be it.
Posted by:: trotsky
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:20:19 GMT
--------
mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
>>Should I? Is it worth reading?
>
>
> Thanks for asking this. The posters on this newsgroup can be such
> short-sighted hypocrites. They'll write articulate analyses of
> particular films and outline why the films (or in this case, books) are
> rotten, then if you are honest enough to say you haven't gone or won't
> go to the films (or read the books) because you're sufficiently pliant
> to the opinions of others, you're somehow talking out of your ass when
> you commit the sacrilege of offering your own opinion on the subject.
You're giving Rich credit that he doesn't deserve, and never deserves.
He frequently voices opinions on stuff he hasn't seen or read, and then
pontificates out of his ass as if he has something to say on the
subject. For the record I have read TDC, and can say beyond a shadow of
a doubt that Dan Brown is a competent writer. The novel has the
intensity of something I would recommend to an eleven or twelve year
old, but the writing is certainly competent. The best thing about it is
that gives people something to talk about, and if it gets dialogue going
on Da Vinci and his rendition of the Last Supper, that's certainly a
good thing. Notice how Rich didn't open his big fat cyber mouth on that
topic, though.
Posted by:: "Nick Macpherson"
Date: 19 Mar 2005 05:21:34 -0800
--------
RichA wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0800, "tomcervo" wrote:
>
> >You're all wrong. Whiter-than-white-bread Hollywood mainstreamers
chose
> >major best seller to adapt, expecting major business from book's
fans.
>
> What hardly anyone has mentioned in this whole episode is that Dan
> Brown is not a very good writer. He just tapped into the idiot
> public's fascination (of late) with religious superstition.
> -Rich
We're going into a phase of religious PC-ism. People with one set of
beliefs were all over every aspect of The Passion of the Christ they
disagreed with. Now, people on the other side are gearing up for a
full-on attack on The Da Vinci Code. And people wonder why Hollywood
doesn't make more religious movies. Why would they want to, when every
time they do they wind up going to war with one pressure group or
another? Hollywood might as well play it safe and make more movies
like The Pacifer or Ice Princess.
Posted by:: aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour)
Date: 19 Mar 2005 16:59:08 GMT
--------
In rec.arts.movies.current-films Nick Macpherson wrote:
>
> Hollywood might as well play it safe and make more movies
> like The Pacifer or Ice Princess.
Hey! Leave that delectable little crumpet Michelle Trachtenberg
out of this!
--
A.E. Jabbour
"Dancer in the Dark" is one of the most sadistic
films I've ever seen, but it also raises the
possibility that sadism might be, in spite of itself,
a species of love." - A.O. Scott
Posted by:: RichA
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:15:43 -0500
--------
On 19 Mar 2005 05:21:34 -0800, "Nick Macpherson"
wrote:
>
>RichA wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2005 06:30:47 -0800, "tomcervo" wrote:
>>
>> >You're all wrong. Whiter-than-white-bread Hollywood mainstreamers
>chose
>> >major best seller to adapt, expecting major business from book's
>fans.
>>
>> What hardly anyone has mentioned in this whole episode is that Dan
>> Brown is not a very good writer. He just tapped into the idiot
>> public's fascination (of late) with religious superstition.
>> -Rich
>
>We're going into a phase of religious PC-ism. People with one set of
>beliefs were all over every aspect of The Passion of the Christ they
>disagreed with. Now, people on the other side are gearing up for a
>full-on attack on The Da Vinci Code. And people wonder why Hollywood
>doesn't make more religious movies. Why would they want to, when every
>time they do they wind up going to war with one pressure group or
>another?
Same reason they ever do, to make money. Look what "Passion" did.
I'd say it's worth a little controversy for them to do it.
-Rich
Posted by:: Mark Steese
Date: 21 Mar 2005 02:14:21 GMT
--------
"Nick Macpherson" wrote in
news:1111238494.870479.260060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> We're going into a phase of religious PC-ism. People with one set of
> beliefs were all over every aspect of The Passion of the Christ they
> disagreed with.
And it earned a bazillion dollars.
> Now, people on the other side are gearing up for a full-on attack on
> The Da Vinci Code.
Which'll most likely *also* earn a bazillion dollars.
> And people wonder why Hollywood doesn't make more religious movies.
Not me -- I wonder why Hollywood doesn't make more dinosaur movies.
What makes you think the "Da Vinci Code" movie will be any more religious
than the book was? It's a crappy thriller with about as much serious
religious content as "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."
> Why would they want to, when every time they do they wind up going to
> war with one pressure group or another?
I dunno...because they like money? Without the controversy, "The Passion of
the Christ" never would have become a *cause célèbre*. Any movie that
expresses a personal interpretation of Christianity is going to be
controversial, and that controversy is going to help sell tickets.
The real reason there aren't more religious movies is that there aren't
more religious directors. Thank God.
--
Mark Steese
Unscramble and underscore to email
----------------------------------
In our age, there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All
issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies,
evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. -George Orwell
Posted by:: mutefan@yahoo.com
Date: 20 Mar 2005 04:46:10 -0800
--------
Replying to Tom Cervo's opinion about a Vatican fatwa:
You're right, almost 100%, IMO. What you left out was the fact that
old childless farts who control or would like to control a
billion-dollar religious industry probably don't get out that much and
have nothing better to do with their time.
Someone should send them a copy of that most excellent cable
channel's--The "History" Channel's--documentary on the Da Vinci code to
show them they're basically taking up arms against Fox Mulder.
(BTW, is "Dan Brown" a pseudonym? Has anyone ever seen "Dan Brown?")
Posted by:: Bill Anderson
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:11:29 -0500
--------
mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
> (BTW, is "Dan Brown" a pseudonym? Has anyone ever seen "Dan Brown?")
>
http://www.danbrown.com/meet_dan/index.html
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Posted by:: "Rev. Richard Skull"
Date: 18 Mar 2005 13:50:22 -0800
--------
<
Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitism.
Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor that
"The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those lovely
dollars... >>
Hey Stang! Time to Sned the Pope a copy of Pamplet #1!
Posted by:: "The PhAnToM"
Date: 18 Mar 2005 22:05:23 -0800
--------
Modemac wrote:
> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
>
> It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da Vinci
> Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
> complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite
anti-Semitism.
> Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor
that
> "The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those
lovely
> dollars...
You obviously haven't read the book (nor _Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which
Dan Brown ripped off). The prequel, _Angels and Demons_ is so
anti-Catholic (and religion in general) that if it were a similar plot
about Islam, Dan Brown would have marked himself a dead man.
Posted by:: RichA
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 04:31:37 -0500
--------
On 18 Mar 2005 22:05:23 -0800, "The PhAnToM"
wrote:
>
>Modemac wrote:
>> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
>>
>> It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da Vinci
>> Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged by
>> complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite
>anti-Semitism.
>> Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor
>that
>> "The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those
>lovely
>> dollars...
>
>You obviously haven't read the book (nor _Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which
>Dan Brown ripped off). The prequel, _Angels and Demons_ is so
>anti-Catholic (and religion in general) that if it were a similar plot
>about Islam, Dan Brown would have marked himself a dead man.
I read his book, "Digital Fortress" about six months ago. If there
was a death penalty for bad writing, he'd earn it.
-Rich
Posted by:: "The PhAnToM"
Date: 19 Mar 2005 22:05:27 -0800
--------
RichA wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2005 22:05:23 -0800, "The PhAnToM"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Modemac wrote:
> >> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290406p-248484c.html
> >>
> >> It's obvious that the producers of the movie version of "The Da
Vinci
> >> Code" are following in the footsteps of Mel Gibson. He was dogged
by
> >> complaints that "The Passion of the Christ" would incite
> >anti-Semitism.
> >> Now we've got the producers of this new movie planting the rumor
> >that
> >> "The Da Vinci Code" is un-Catholic. Ah yes, the sound of those
> >lovely
> >> dollars...
> >
> >You obviously haven't read the book (nor _Holy Blood, Holy Grail,
which
> >Dan Brown ripped off). The prequel, _Angels and Demons_ is so
> >anti-Catholic (and religion in general) that if it were a similar
plot
> >about Islam, Dan Brown would have marked himself a dead man.
>
> I read his book, "Digital Fortress" about six months ago. If there
> was a death penalty for bad writing, he'd earn it.
Thanks for the warning. Before reading A&D, I was contemplating getting
it.