-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Vatican says: "Boycott Da Vinci Code film"
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
- Status
krypt0nian
Banned
Vatican lol.
Leatherface
Member
Silly Vatican, you've just increased sales 10 fold. :lol
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Well, if the Pope tells me not to see it, I'll buy a ticket for sure!
Prince of Space
Banned
Meh, I didn't really plan on seeing it anyway after reading the book.
Didn't Michael Crichton do a similar introduction for Jurrassic Park & Timeline claiming that it was fact? Of course, Michael makes it pretty clear the introduction is "in character" and part of the story. Either Dan Brown is not very good at making that distinction, or he actually believes his own BS.
If the Da Vinci Code were remotely true:
Nathan
If the Da Vinci Code were remotely true:
Who would have bothered following a Jesus who was just flesh-and-blood?
Nathan
BobJustBob
Member
There must not be any gay pedophilia in the film. No wonder they don't like it.
Pope Benedict XVI
Member
aw damn it. backfire total 
krypt0nian
Banned
Perhaps if they were as offended by pedophilia we'd have some real results?
Flynn said:
If anything, the book and film strengthen the Christian view of Christ by emphasizing that he was not immune to temptation, fear, and other negative human traits. That makes the figure all the more powerful. I guess the Vatican wants people to believe that Christ, while a man, was completely immune to temptation and fear and that dying on the cross was easy as pie for him.
Kazantzakis's vision, not the Vatican's, presents the more impressive savior.
White Man said:
I don't know if you remember, but the intial protests to the film took place long before anyone had seen it. The protesters were quite frequently interviewed admitting that they hadn't seen the movie, but declared it blasphemous regardless.
It's sad, because the moment of doubt is the strongest part of Christ's story. It's really what makes the whole thing tragic and compelling.
I think were the movie made again today, it would be done with the same kind of media-savvy cooperation with religion, just as Passion enjoyed.
Flynn said:
Couldn't people have read the book it was based on before they started protesting it? Kazantzakis had famously almost won the Nobel prize -- I figured people would've been more familiar with his work by the time the movie came out (I was too young to remember when the movie came out, so I have no idea if the book was used to further fuel controversy or what).
Learn2read
Member
Crap...I wasn't planning on seeing it but now I might have to go out of spite. (I grew up Catholic)
Although now that I think of it, Amelie is in it, hmm...
Although now that I think of it, Amelie is in it, hmm...
And they still haven't fully kicked out the kiddie fiddlers in their own ranks, but they want to take up the cause of boycotting... a movie.
Right.
Focus on the tree in thine own eye before focusing on the splinter in another's hand maybe? Hello? Bueller?
I'm going to go drink some crappy diet orange soda now, because that makes more sense than this.
Right.
Focus on the tree in thine own eye before focusing on the splinter in another's hand maybe? Hello? Bueller?
I'm going to go drink some crappy diet orange soda now, because that makes more sense than this.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Ninja Scooter to the Vatican: "Go fuck yourselves."
It's not like the Catholic Church said anything like "You aren't a true Christian if you watch this film".
They have every right to percieve it as an attack on their religion. They could be right, and could be wrong, but I don't see any problem with an organization looking out for it's people's best interests.
Secondly, it's not like they are pulling a "let's put a bounty on the writer's head!" like the Salman Rushdie incident.
Of course, offering a counterview to the situation would be far more logical, rather than asking people to close their eyes and ears.
They have every right to percieve it as an attack on their religion. They could be right, and could be wrong, but I don't see any problem with an organization looking out for it's people's best interests.
Secondly, it's not like they are pulling a "let's put a bounty on the writer's head!" like the Salman Rushdie incident.
Of course, offering a counterview to the situation would be far more logical, rather than asking people to close their eyes and ears.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Forget the boycott -- where the hell is the hidden Greek Cross on the map??
penguinonapole
Member
krypt0nian said:
Ouch. That was below the belt.
Does anyone actually care what the vatican says anymore?
Wait, so the movie doesn't have some kind of disclaimer tagging it as a work of fiction? Weird. I'm Atheist, but that seems like an asshole move on the studio's part, to me. Why wouldn't they do it? There's real organizations being portrayed in a fictitious light in this film... they were unwilling to put up a brief disclaimer?
Fresh Prince
Banned
The Da Vinci Code is stupid (Dan Brown's writing and some of the 'facts') however it has brought to the attention of some people of how fragmented the story of Christ really is.
MetatronM said:
No, you absolutely don't need one. But this group is asking for one. It hurts nothing for them to add it at their request. Just seems like they're saying "no" just to be dicks. Esp. when the group is portrayed in such a negative light.
BobTheFork
Member
ok, let me just put that on the list
*grabs notepad*
No touching my self
No condoms
No stem cells
No questioning how a man in Israel 2000 years ago could be white
No Da vinci Code
ok got it
*grabs notepad*
No touching my self
No condoms
No stem cells
No questioning how a man in Israel 2000 years ago could be white
No Da vinci Code
ok got it
Given the history of anti-Catholic sentiment in the USA, putting forth such a film without a disclaimer that it is fiction seems a bit... shall we say, daft?
Imagine a film where it is "revealed" that a secret society of Jewish folks run the world and/or eat Christian babies at night.
Are you confusing it with American Protestantism?
Imagine a film where it is "revealed" that a secret society of Jewish folks run the world and/or eat Christian babies at night.
...? The Catholic Church claims Jesus was white?BobTheFork said:
Are you confusing it with American Protestantism?
BobTheFork
Member
DavidDayton said:
Its not so much a claim as every picture of him when I was growing up in
catholic school is white, white-white
BobTheFork said:
Check out images of Jesus in Asia or South America... artists tend to make Jesus look like someone of their ethnic group. It's a stylistic thing... I don't think it's some secret underground plot to hide origins.
I've always been fond of some of the Japanese holy cards of Mary and the infant Jesus.
DavidDayton said:Check out images of Jesus in Asia or South America... artists tend to make Jesus look like someone of their ethnic group. It's a stylistic thing... I don't think it's some secret underground plot to hide origins.
I've always been fond of some of the Japanese holy cards of Mary and the infant Jesus.
A good point but I'm pretty sure the image of Jesus used by the international church (Vatican, whoever runs the Protestant branch, the Greek church, etc) who would be considered the head authorites on any particular significant religious division tend to favor the white Jesus. At least from my understanding of things. I mean we have images of a black Jesus but no significant portion of the Chrisitan population takes such an interpretation of Jesus seriously.
Crocodile said:
Er, the Vatican is located in Italy. Again, it's a stylistic thing... check out the artwork in Asian, African, and South American churches. While I can't speak for the myriad of Protestant groups, I do know that the Catholic Church makes no claim that Jesus was white. Catholic churches tend to portray Jesus and the saints in their own image, as it were... see medieval European artwork for examples.
- Status