Posted on 05/28/2006 11:30:50 PM PDT by dangus
And my LOL was planted by the same someone!!
Only by a month.
It lost its audience because that Christian epic "X Men: The Last Stand" hit the theaters. I'll bet that "DaVinci Code" is still the solid number two at the box office this weekend. And your 'crash and burn' theory will prove to be nonsense. Like it or not, this movie will make a ton of money and will do nothing but enhance the reputations of Hanks and Howard in their industry.
That is one well-written rant. Nice way with words.
Another factor is X-3, the last X-men movie opened, and sucked away the "action" audience. Good flick. A little lacking in character development, but loved Angel and Beast.
I do not own any Jar-Jar Binks action figures, but I did go to see this stupid movie. I didn't go because I was interested in viewing this drivel but because I felt compelled to be there for a non-Christian friend who was going. Someone had to be there to refute the lies and utter nonsense presented by this movie. As it turned out, this one friend had 4 Christian go with him to the movie to make sure he knew it was tripe. So 5 tickets sold. I can't speak for the other 3 Christians, but I resent Ron Howard making a movie filled with lies. He got his last few dollars out of my pocket ever as did Tom Hanks. They are skilled at what they do, but just as I won't buy a Dixie Chicks CD because I refuse to put money into their pockets (plus I didn't really care for their music anyway), I also will no longer put money into the pockets of people that make movies so full of lies that I feel compelled to refute them. And to top it off the movie stunk.
It wasn't even internally logical. Perhaps Brown or Howard can explain why the people who supposedly were attempting to keep the non-divinity of Jesus a secret were praying to Him? If He's not the son of God then it's pointless.
Opus Dei is a real organization. Is it evil?
Is it evil??? Don't know - Don't care. Not my business. Noone from Opus Dei has blown up buildings, boats or planes - to the best of my knowledge. Also, as far as I know, none of them have ever kicked my dog. So, to me, they are whatever they are. It's not my place to approve nor condemn them.
When a book calls evil an organization dedicated to the Catholic teaching that everyone is called to become a saint and ordinary life is a path to sanctity, however, there is an obligation to take issue with it.
I see the "historical" data in the book for what it is - it conveniently substantiates the premise upon which the whole book is based - it's literay liscence. But I also see (more in the book than in the movie) the underlieing use of this data to define the development of Catholic doctrine and policy (or, to be blunt, "rules") in the early days of the Church. Brown's books portray the Church as fearful that the fold will discover the secret of Jesus's relationship to MM and that it will undermine the "divinity" of their teachings. To keep the masses (no pun intended) in their place, they developed a dictatorial attitude with a stringent code to be adhered to. Of course no one could ever adhere to it, so you were left with the tremendous guilt of never being good enough. The Church also weilded tremendous power throughout the Middle and Dark ages. If I am not mistaken, this was when a lot of its doctrine was written. Keeping the people under their thumbs was critical to the continued expansion of the Church's domain.
As a former Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic education, I am more interested in this protrayal of the Church's attitude of indoctrination, than in his use of questionable historical data. Dan Brown uses the "Holy Grail-Mary Magdeline" secret to establish the need for the Church to adopt an attitude of secrecy and intimidation and the development of its extraordinary demands upon the congregation and the threat of eternal doom if one didn't comply. I always wondered about some of the teachings of the Church - like plenary indulgences and Pugatory. Who was it anyway, that told the powers-that-be that a person needed to say a given number of prayers to get another soul into heaven (yes, there were lists with numbers)? Or how did they know that another soul , who wasn't "good enough" when they died, would be waiting in Purgatory until enough prayers had finally been offered up for them. Of course, a person or persons never knew if enough prayers had been offered. In school, we were actually given detailed lists of what was a mortal sin and what was a venial sin. I can't even remember all of the other categories of sin that we were taught. And, by the way, this was an all girls high school with nuns and priest doing the teaching. Think that was a fertile climate for indoctrination?
I am in my mid fifties. Most Catholics (or former Catholics) remember the Vatican Council in the 70's. Out of nowhere, the Church endorsed the prospect that Catholics could, in some circumstances, be a free thinking entity and that maybe, some of the things that had been taught as rigid truth, should now be considered "suggestions". That rocked my world. Many of us were suffering under the oppressive nature of the Church and its "demands". Slowly, the Church's endorsement of free thinking (and the general attitude of the Freedom Movement in the 70's) led us to "questioning" and then "denial". I stayed with the Church for many more years until my children were grown and moved away. Then I became an agnostic for several years. I looked back at my life and realized I would never be good enough. I try not to harbor bitterness toward the Church (for one thing, I am still afraid it might be a Mortal sin).
Finally, this thought. I have to wonder if Dan Brown is a "recovering Catholic" also. He sure put into words a lot of things that I had been pondering for a long time.
P.S. At the age of 50 I began to attend the Baptist Church and one day it hit me - I WAS good enough because Jesus died on the cross and forgave all of my sins. He didn't expect perfection. What a releif it was to invite Jesus into my heart!
>> How can acting in a movie for several million dollars be a career mistake? <<
Here's nickle. Buy yourself a sense of humor. =^P. (Only a nickel? Well, it a cheap joke!) Seriously, I threw that in just for the "Wilson" crack. You did know that Wilson is a volleyball, right?
>> Tom Hanks is the highest grossing actor of all-time. <<
So, it won't take much a proportional dent to make the Da Vinci Code very unprofitable...
>> Therefore, I think your analysis is wrong. <<
Uh-oh, sounds like somebody wasted $9. See, opinionator, this is what I was trying to warn people about. YOu USED to be a reasonably smart fellow. Now you're laughing at the fact that "analysis" starts with "anal." ("huh-huh. He said anal.")
And if you were reading box office mojo, did you notice that the movie's biggest day was its opening Friday, and not its first Saturday, which said something for its acceptance as a film, too.
Wonder how long before the DVD release, and how long after that before the DVD is in the bargain bin?
>> Now who is misleading. <<
Actually, it might be... What I had read was actually said, "distribution costs, SUCH AS the theater owner's take...
>> They are fortunate to make 5%. <<
But only 5%? I don't think so. Or we may be talking apples and oranges. It's widely said that supermarkets have "profit margins" of 0.5% and less on their groceries. And yet, I KNOW markup is about 70% on much of it, because I've done the ordering. Heck, we used to order Macaroni salad for 6 cents a pound (circa 1993) and turn around and charge $2.99! My guess is that they meant after all other costs were paid for. And I've also heard restaurants make their profits off the drinks, yet their markups are often around 1,000%! So maybe you're thinking NET profit, and I'm talking GROSS markup?
Yeah, what a disaster. MY investments should fail like this.
They're predicting $350 million -- and then there's DVD sales.
And X-Men III is far more believable.
[Valley Girl voice]: Hellooo? He was, like, taking the picture!
>> They're predicting $350 million -- and then there's DVD sales. <<
See, that's what I meant by saying the movie crashed in the second week. I never claimed the movie wouldn't make money. In fact, I clearly stated the opposite to be true. But a lot of people WERE predicting around $350 million domestic, and the movie looks likely to land short of $200 million, based on the bad reviews and bad word of mouth. Hence the crack about "Fandango" that started the article: the bad word and mouth and reviews couldn't dampen the opening weekend of what clearly was one of the most talked-about and awaited movies of all time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.