Fiction being the bi... oh no, I mean the movie, right?

"I'm still trying to decide whether viewers are sophisticated enough to distinguish between fiction and accepted theology."

I'm not sure about the rest of those questions, but I'm going to tentatively answer that with a big fat NO.

I don't see how the Vatican can disapprove of Angels & Demons when FIST, Drop Dead Gorgeous and Dogma(!)all were given permission to film inside Catholic churches.

Maybe cause Kevin Smith is Catholic

I think part of the problem is that the Dan Brown books, with their tone and detail, are written in a way that sounds like they are presenting a theology competing with Catholic theology.

Even if that is not the intent, it may be how they are perceived by a less careful reader. I guess the Vatican is playing defense, instead of taking chances.

"I'm still trying to decide whether viewers are sophisticated enough to distinguish between fiction and accepted theology."

"I'm not sure about the rest of those questions, but I'm going to tentatively answer that with a big fat NO."

I am going to have to agree with you Sarah

cine what the heck is going on with your picture!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure I am sophisticated enough to distinguish between fiction and enhanced AuH2O.
If this is what happens when you go platinum, I be slowimng down.

The Da Vinci Code was an offense against man too. Horrible film.

"Would it not lend credibility to the theology created by Dan Brown?"

Liberty, based on the way you phrased that question, does that mean you think Dan Brown is presenting a theology?

I just assumed the whole thing was fiction.

Why should the Vatican turn over access to its sacred spaces for flms they consider to be blasphemous?
And sadly, yes, those books are so "real", that many people believe this is the scandelous truth.
They are fun to read, though.

jan, I changed it naked Barry to keep up with the naked Libs

Hey, popgoestheworld! I assume it's all fiction, too. But as I said earlier, it's not just intent that matters, it's perception as well. So — the Church probably pays attention to whether it appears like it is lending credibility to something that has the appearance of theology.

Well, considering he stole the whole thing from a book which claimed to be factual (Holy Blood Holy Grail... was that the name of it?), I would say he was more or less presenting an alternative theology... wrapped up in a bestselling thriller with a big Tom Hanks bow. People will believe what they want to believe, and in fairness it's no more or less outlandish than what the Vatican would have us believe.

People are simply not ready to embrace this new style of narrative called "fiction".

i agree with janneth. it's the Vatican's perogative to keep out a movie filming they disagree with. even though the books are fiction, they present the Catholic Church in an unfavorable light. I'm sure Hollywood can come up with some way to recreate the sets they were looking for.

Cine! I was thinking of you when I read the headline. Are you lurking about here on citizen? And where is Barry?

Hey Tres, I am lurking, but super busy right now.

Barry is the hot guy in my avatar! I changed it to join in with the naked Libs, but I do miss my AuH2O pic, so it will be back soon.

And honestly, I can't fault the Vatican for not allowing the film to be shot there. It does not depict the Catholic church well, and is based on a story that they do not agree with.

Basically I agree with everything ameliajc wrote

Good luck with your work on finding work! Old men are sexy. At least in theory. Go Barry and go Wolf!

I agree with the churches dissaproval. The church, and believers, should always deny what is contrary to Christ.

vatican city is it's own sovereign nation and the pope runs the show so they can do whatever they want. if some foreign country wrote a book calling the history of our country into question we'd have all sorts of people up in arms about them filming here. not religious at all, but i have to side with pope benny on this one.

Cine, I can't take my eyes off your bulging pecks!

IMO, it is the church's building, they can do whatever they want with it. It isn't like the movie will appear to be filmed somewhere else in the end anyway....they will still get the appearance of being there with movie magic. The church will keep it's sacred places protected. Everyone wins!

Oooh Cine your avatar can be naked with us ANYTIME. We'll just paper bag him.

HF!

And for the topic at hand, they made Titanic look real, they can make a church! And by all means the church can forbid them to film. Religious beliefs aside, it is their property.

oh, and kiki tee, don't worry, none of us have missed the fact you think Christianity is hooey.

i think its funny that the vatican lets everyone know how much they hate dan brown and but at the same time they give him free promotion. anyhoo, sorry but its their property so if they dont want dan brown to play on it then he needs to take his toys and find another place to play.

Actually no, Great Sommelier, I'm a semi-practicing Catholic who believes very much in the basic message of Christianity, I'm just making the point that some people think the bible is fiction, and some people think this whole bloodline of Christ thing is true. Like I said, people believe what they want to believe.

I agree with most of the comments here. I honestly don't think that most people are sophisticated enough to understand that Dan Brown's books are fiction.

Especially given the pre-existing misconceptions of teh Catholic Church

The books are amazingly fun to read. I loved Angels and Demons more then the "Code". The DaVinci Code movie was a let down in comparison to the book, (most movies are, I'm sorry) but I still got goose bumps in the end when he figures out the clue and returns to the Louve.

And yes, these books took bits of fact and presented it in a fictional manner, and most people can't handle that.

This might be nit picky but Angels and Demons is not Dan Brown's sequel to The Da Vinci Code as it came out in 2000 and the latter came out in 2003. The events in The Da Vinci Code take place after Angels and Demons. This is Hollywood's sequel and the first movie wasn't that great. The books were really good though and I am not surprised the church would ban filming. I agree with Jinx that the books and films are only partly based in fact and mostly based on legend. There is a reason these societies are secret and we can never know how much or how little they actually control. People become obsessed with media and start to take it as fact so that is what the church is fearing with a new film and the works of Dan Brown.

Jessy, that is right, Angels and Demons was first, and I always recommend to people that they read it first!

Those two Dan Brown books were amazing reads but the DaVinci Code movie was BORING. I was so disappointed and i fear Angels and Demons won't be much better!

Anyway, the Church is within its rights to say that they don't want that movie to shoot in its churches. I mean, it's their property...

I think a lot of people got confused with the DaVinci Code because it mixed historical fact with fiction and the lines were kinda blurry. I got confused myself and i was a women's studies/religion major so i had to do all kinds of research to get a semi-objective perspective!

kiki, you did not just say that - asking for troouble
anyway i think what Liberty says is true,perception is the big factor here, and if it was filmed there then people would be like oh ok the church is fine with all the blasphemy... i think they are just trying to preserve the sanctity of their religion. hey even Kazakhstan(sp?) had problems with the borat movie.

I loved all the Dan Brown books. But the movie was poor in relation to the books (but I usually like books better anyways! )

As for the church? They are within their rights and I can't say that I blame them. YY had a very good point up in comment 20.

da vinci code a great book? please read more than what you can find on the shelf at walgreens. jeez. that's like saying TV guide is your favorite magazine.

I loved the da vinci code, read it back in 2003, hated the movie though.

I am not catholic but respect that church wanting to protect itsself with this ban.

I have seen other private organizations turn down filming access due to not agreeing with the message of a movie. It happens all the time. But people do love to get all fired up!

yesteryear, There's no need to be a snob about it. I myself, read a variety of literature, and I have never been in a Walgreens. So, excuse me if I found Angels and Demons and DaVinci Code fun to read, and enjoyed the flow of the books.

I just don't understand why Dogma was allowed to film in a Catholic church but this isn't.
Probably the difference is Rome and Pittsburgh (i think)but it does seem inconsistent to me.

Off topic sort of - I was working in a bookstore part time when the Da Vinci Code came out and I was amazed at the large number of women who came in looking for the book because they were so thrilled at the notion that Jesus was more accepting of women than the Church suggests. A lot of women feel very left out.

stephley, I was interested in that point too. I thought maybe it was because it is the Vatican, not "just a church"?
Maybe it was just a difference in knowing who they were. Angels and Demons and DaVinci are much better known then Kevin Smith and his little movie, lol.
ps I love Kevin Smith

It's amazing to me how much the Catholic Church (the early church has ostracized women. Even though several miracles were revealed to the women first, they saw fit to send the women to the perverbial back of the bus. I shouldn't complaign, because the women who get kicked out of the Catholic Church come to the ELCA and are, for the most part, very good theologians and pastors.

Yester, dang, don't be a snob. Everyone has different tastes. I love Jude the Obscure and Catch 22, as well as a juicy Anne Rice or some other cheese book. Everyone is entitled to guilty pleasures and personal taste. If we were all the same, wouldn't that be a big snore?

I understand Dan Brown's next book "Hitler: Jesus' Last Scion" is much less controversial.

I enjoyed Dan Brown's books as entertainment...nothing more. They were fun, it wasn't deep or the most difficult read I've ever had. BUT sometimes I like to read just for fun.
I think women were drawn to it because of the Mary Magdalene story. There WAS a gospel of Mary and the church DID falsely accuse Mary of being a wh*re. The Roman Catholic church only admitted that was false in the 70's and did it very quietly. It is still being taught that she was a wh*re when really it looks like she was one of his disciples.
The rest of the book was absolute fluff, but still a fun read.

RAC! Hello.

Why would they think they could film there. One word: Soundstage.

"Still, while modern moviegoers may wish the Catholic Church lightened up for the sake of art and entertainment, it's hard to imagine the Church freely giving its stamp of approval. Would it not lend credibility to the theology created by Dan Brown?"

Doesn't their reacting at all, do so?

I don't think so. I think they see it as blasphemy.