There are a couple of things I'm looking forward to about this movie's release:

- I'm interested in seeing what opening weekend gross will look like.
- I'm wondering if the film will soften any of its content to appease upset religious folk.
- I'm looking forward to Tatou's performance, it'll be weird to hear her in English. (I admit that I've only seen 'Amelie' and 1/2 of 'Engagement'...)
- Ian McKellan

:)

Yes! I love him! :snap:

And those "actual claims" are with the pages of the novel? That's what I understood from the discussion. If so, that's the nature of the conceit. If he's going on talk shows and claiming historical fact that's taking it further.

I'm saying I don't think publishers and producers should decline to publish or produce entertainment because people might think it's true. The Catholic Church is upset about something nearly every day it seems. If people believe the Church is out to get them, I'm thinking that might be more the Church's fault than Dan Brown's. If they want to start a "we're not really like that, come to Mass and get a free puppy" campaign, that's understandable (to me.) In my opinion, saying "don't watch it 'cause it's eeeeeeeeeevil" doesn't help their cause any and thus is a bit silly.

And yes, I'm not really concerned about people who can't be bothered to sift fact from fiction.

This is where I get concerned. Apparently Brown is going on various shows and during interviews he is making is seem as if this is NOT fiction. There is most certainly a problem there.

I don't watch talk shows that don't involve questions of paternity or gender of origin, so I haven't seen that.

Even then, if I had to single out a party for scolding it would be the shows airing these interviews, particularly if they claim to be actual news outlets. Not that I don't think it's silly and deliberately provocative to go around maintaining the gloss of "research," mind you, but between the two I'm more annoyed with the shows that seek out and join in the promotion of fantasy and fact. But that that just leads back to the "news" discussion held elsewhere.

Regardless, I think the Church had a much stronger case when they went after Holy Blood, Holy Grail. (They did that, right? I'm not mis-remembering?) That particular tome is shelved in nonfiction. :rolleyes:

(Although that book conveniently allows me to personally discount my father-in-law's economic and political theories without actually having as broad an economics background as he does. If he thinks HBHG is trooooooooo! all trooooooooo! then why should any of his other opinions persuade me?)

If *I* were in charge of publicity for the Church and I actually didn't want people to see (or believe) the film I'd either ignore it or take the "what a charming work of fiction. Would you like to know more about the actual history?" approach. Instead they've taken the "don't go! It's evil!" approach, which will likely be as effective in the US (land of "you can't tell me what to do! It's a free country!") as their stand against condoms and divorce.

Nor is Alex. He's just saying he understand why the church would have motivation to convince people otherwise.

And the more rational (therefor less press-worthy) members of church are doing just that. Holding classes and giving sermons to study what is an isn't true in the book and what it means.

Is this true of everything or just when you don't care about the fiction people are choosing to believe?

Do I care in the sense that people should be prevented from believing things that aren't true? No. Do I care in the sense that every reasonable opportunity should be taken to set them straight? Yes.

Pretty much every organization in existence is quick to shout some form of "heresy" whenever they feel the larger culture is embracing something that they feel attacks them.

Jewish groups did it last year with Munich. Gay groups did it when Laura Schlesinger had her TV show. The Albinism Alliance (or whatever they call themselves) are upset by the portrayal of an albino in The Da Vinci Code. The rest of society tells them "just ignore it" unless they feel they are part of the offended group and then suddenly it is an issue that should be battled.

Again, I don't think most of the people saying "chill" on this issue would be so sanguine if the book and movie were based on the "truth" of Holocaust denial (perhaps it is a myth created by the Zionist Overlords to help ensure the establishment of the state of Israel following WWII). If thousands of people put the book down, or left the movie theater saying, "I know it is fiction but that is a pretty interesting theory. How do they explain the fact that the gas ovens aren't big enough for human entry?"

I suspect we'd all find that very troubling and not just something to be ignored as the gullibility of stupid people.

As far as I know, it is true of everything.

I have no problem with a church telling its congregation not to see a film. I do have a problem when they try to force the filmmakers to have it carry a disclaimer on it or if they try to ban it outright. I also have a problem if a religious organization tries to stop theatres from showing the film ie. 'Brokeback' in Utah. I don't go to church because I don't want to be preached at, when you take the preaching to me outside of your building, that's when you'll hear the feedback from me.

Personally, I think it is a bit more interesting that people WANT to believe it. Is it the fact that the book is taking on an organization that has such a broad influence on our culture and we want to see it with egg on it's face?

It is an entertaining book - or at least I found it to be so - but I've read lots of books with "different" takes on culture and history and I never fully believed them as fact. They may have lead me to do more research on a topic, but bostly they were simply a good read.

I've thought more about the "fact" page that starts out the book. If a fact page appears in a work of fiction, is it still fact? I have to admit that I initially took it to be factual information and it did set the tone for thinking, perhaps, there was some fact in the story he was telling. There are many revisionist historical theories out there that would proport that some of the "fictional facts" about Christ are plausable. I experienced some of them in college in the mid 80's.

Oh, and vampires DO exist, don't they? ;)