|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 9:19 pm
The movie came out yesterday. Has anyone here seen it yet? Yes, this is related to science. Although he was best known for his art, Leonardo da Vinci was a scientist too. This article says that The Da Vinci Code is causing many misconceptions about da Vinci. Now, that's for a change from all the religious people being opposed to the book and the movie because of its claims about Jesus. What do you think about The Da Vinci Code? Do you think it's causing misconceptions about da Vinci? I think many people probably don't know about da Vinci's contributions to science, and the book at least draws people's attention to that. By the way, did you know that Leonardo da Vinci invented scissors?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 11:57 am
I don't know that they're exactly misconceptions about Leonardo da Vinci. Just implying he knew things that are really just speculation. But hey, makes a good story, I suppose. Normally when da Vinci is mentioned anywhere in history, it's as the quintessential "Renaissance Man". One who's generally well rounded in the arts, sciences, philosophy, etc. I don't think a little book or movie will ever trump that perception in the long run.
Don't forget Newton gets dragged into the story too. Though he really was into that kind of stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 10:55 pm
The movie was good for entertainment purposes, but taking anything from that movie or book literally is like taking Monty Python and the Holy Grail literally. My problem was that it places Issac Newton and Da Vinci in a secret society that didn't exist back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:12 am
The book is FICTION (badly written, boring fiction at that). Why people persist in believing it, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:28 pm
Ah, put Jesus in to a book that's anything but the Bible, and people tend to go a little crazy. Can't imagine why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:12 am
CSquared The book is FICTION (badly written, boring fiction at that). Why people persist in believing it, I don't know. Fiction yes. Badly written boring fiction, not by a LONG shot. It is a very good book. And Dan Brown is a very good author. His readers are just a little too gullibe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:01 pm
Sir Padfoot CSquared The book is FICTION (badly written, boring fiction at that). Why people persist in believing it, I don't know. Fiction yes. Badly written boring fiction, not by a LONG shot. It is a very good book. And Dan Brown is a very good author. His readers are just a little too gullibe. I happen to be a writer myself. And, as my fans and own somewhat inflated ego would attest, a rather good one. I know what I'm talking about. Dan Brown's writing style leaves a very great deal to be desired. The story is clunky and pedestrian. Everything is described in far too much detail. The characters are uninteresting and do not capture the mind of the reader. It is, in fact, a terrible book. I recently gave my copy to a charity shop. I hope someone with less exacting standards can gain a modicum of pleasure from its dross-ridden pages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:13 pm
Yeah, I saw the movie. It is a compilation of many conspiracy theories about the belief that Jesus had children with Mary, and the church trying to cover it up.
Personally, I don't know what to think about whether or not Jesus and Mary had kids. I have done my research on the subject. However, I do not believe Da Vinci was apart of some underground cult. I do think that he may have entertained the idea that Jesus and Mary had kids, but was too afraid to converse about it for fear of what the church would do (kill him), and he hid clues about it in his work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:47 pm
CSquared Sir Padfoot CSquared The book is FICTION (badly written, boring fiction at that). Why people persist in believing it, I don't know. Fiction yes. Badly written boring fiction, not by a LONG shot. It is a very good book. And Dan Brown is a very good author. His readers are just a little too gullibe. I happen to be a writer myself. And, as my fans and own somewhat inflated ego would attest, a rather good one. I know what I'm talking about. Dan Brown's writing style leaves a very great deal to be desired. The story is clunky and pedestrian. Everything is described in far too much detail. The characters are uninteresting and do not capture the mind of the reader. It is, in fact, a terrible book. I recently gave my copy to a charity shop. I hope someone with less exacting standards can gain a modicum of pleasure from its dross-ridden pages. And of course, any book that doesn't meet your standards is bad. The End. No room for arguement or interpretation. Different people prefer different writing styles. Just because you prefer your own doesn't make everyone else's writing bad. Anyways.... I enjoyed it. The story was interesting. Sure it got some people believing falacies, but at least it got them thinking about those great people. And hey, they might think, "what else, besides heading the Priory Sion, has Leo done?" and then they can do some research on him, realize the truth and discover many other intersting facts in the process. =D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:23 am
Sir Padfoot CSquared The book is FICTION (badly written, boring fiction at that). Why people persist in believing it, I don't know. Fiction yes. Badly written boring fiction, not by a LONG shot. It is a very good book. And Dan Brown is a very good author. His readers are just a little too gullibe. Very good authors don't plaigarize: http://thetext.co.uk/davinci_infringement/PerdueBrown-Forensic-Linguistics-Institute-PrelimAnalysis-9JAN2004.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:30 am
Da Vinci was a great scientist, and the movie does portray some probable untruths. Aside from Tom Hank's ugly hair (which I laugh at constantly), the rest of the movie wasn't really that great anyway. It causes tons of controversy, but it's not really that good of a movie in the long run. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
