Movie Angels And Demons Full Of Lies

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817172' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:17 PM']I suppose that's partially why I found it anti-Catholic, as he went out of his way to have a Pope who committed an act against Church teaching with no remorse to pull off an unecessary plot device that had no basis with the rest of the book.[/quote]

It was a plot twist.

This is the jist of what is going on in the novel, taken from Wikipedia:

[spoiler] Langdon, Vittoria, and the cardinals confront the camerlengo in the Sistine Chapel, where the truth is finally revealed. Shortly before the events of the novel, the Pope was scheduled to meet with Leonardo Vetra concerning his research at CERN. Vetra, a devout Catholic, believed that science was capable of establishing a link between Man and God, a belief that was manifested by his research on antimatter. Vetra's beliefs caused great discomfort to the camerlengo, who firmly believed that the Church alone, not science, should dictate the moral creed of the Christian faithful. While discussing Vetra, the Pope reveals that his support is due to science having created him a miracle: a son conceived by artificial insemination. Horrified that the Pope has fathered a child, the camerlengo plots to "rectify" the situation. He poisoned the Pope and, under the guise of an Illuminati master (Janus), he recruited the Hassassin, a killer fueled by the same zeal and animus towards the Church as his ancestors during The Crusades, to kill Vetra, steal the antimatter, and kidnap and murder the Preferiti just as the papal conclave was set to convene. The camerlengo planted the antimatter in St. Peter's and feigned his last-minute "vision" from God in order to be seen as a hero and the savior of Christendom by those who witnessed his brave acts. The Illuminati thus had no actual role in any of the novel's events, and its "involvement" was merely a plot engineered by the camerlengo to cover his own plans. As Langdon suspected from the very beginning, the Order of the Illuminati was indeed long extinct.

As one final twist, it is revealed that Camerlengo Ventresca was the birth son of the late Pope, conceived through artificial insemination.[/spoiler]

[CatholicCid]

Did you read the novel? As I said, I thought it was a decent detective novel, but the ending ruined it. I don't really think anyone here is overreacting. The novel itself did seem to go out of it's way to distort both Church members and Church history, which is why I think it was anti-Catholic. The "plot twist" had little to no basis to the actual story, so it seemed he went out of his way to include the unnecessary ending. I've actually contemplated going to see the movie since I did enjoy 90% of the novel.

My main concern, I suppose, would be the interview you posted of Dan Brown... Why did he state certain fictional items he wrote about as fact? Clearly, he should know they are fiction, but he seems to think they are actual fact. So, perhaps he does not realize that part of his writing is actually fiction and instead is presenting it as fact? e.g. Stating the Illuminati's existence in the 1600s was historical fact, when they weren't actually founded until 1776. Considering that the "fact" he believes is the major premise of his book, you'd think he'd realize it was infact fiction.

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[Luthien]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817184' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:28 PM']I've always thought that the pyramids were actually spaceship-landing docks.....[/quote]

Okay Daniel Jackson.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1817202' date='Mar 26 2009, 03:56 PM'] Okay Daniel Jackson. [/quote]

I was hoping someone would pick up on that...I was kinda expecting an "Indeed, Daniel Jackson." (Kinda a Stargate Junky...sorry...I thought that smiley kinda looked like Teal'c in his pi[i][/i]mp-hat...except more yellow)

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817204' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:00 PM']I was hoping someone would pick up on that...I was kinda expecting an "Indeed, Daniel Jackson." (Kinda a Stargate Junky...sorry...I thought that smiley kinda looked like Teal'c in his pi[i][/i]mp-hat...except more yellow)[/quote]

You deserve a SHAM WOW for your efforts.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817201' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:53 PM']Did you read the novel? As I said, I thought it was a decent detective novel, but the ending ruined it. I don't really think anyone here is overreacting. I've actually contemplated going to see the movie since I did enjoy 90% of the novel.[/quote]

Yes, I read it. Otherwise I would not be talking about it. It irks me when people (in general) who have not read the novel pass immediate judgment.

I found the part with Robert [spoiler] falling out of a helicopter, and into a body of water, and surviving[/spoiler] to be lame.

[quote]My main concern, I suppose, would be the interview you posted of Dan Brown... Why did he state certain fictional items he wrote about as fact? Clearly, he should know they are fiction, but he seems to think they are actual fact. So, perhaps he does not realize that part of his writing is actually fiction and instead presenting it as fact? e.g. Stating the Illuminati's existence in the 1600s was historical fact, when they weren't actually founded until 1776.[/quote]

His story line was complete fiction. Obviously there is going to be SOME fact involved but the majority of his novel was for sheer entertainment, not education. When he mentioned in that interview about teaching his readers, I think it was more "the Illuminati is real" rather than "the Illuminati is not only real BUT it did this crazy thing..."

I will definitely investigate the historical inaccuracy. Frankly, Dan Brown is not an idiot. He knew that writing a novel like this would spark controversy, regardless of his intentions. Call me an optimist, but I have to think that he has some basis for this, even if the information is incorrect. But I am punching it into Google now.

[Veridicus]

I just think it's a cheap shot to make the Catholic Church look so corrupt at that high level in the hierarchy. I mean seriously, after reading that synopsis...I don't even really care who dies...EVERYONE was bad. Sure the "murdered Pope" was a progressive and pro-science (which the 'world' would consider good)...but his ethics were utterly against Church teaching. And the wackjob orchestrating the whole thing actually seems to have a more orthodox view of Church authority and its place in the world relative to science (but of course who stands for the 'traditional' Church is the BAD GUY). Seriously, I wasn't even sure who I was supposed to like and dislike by the end of that synopsis...but that is because I am Catholic. If I didnt' have a formed conscience, I would just assume that everyone was corrupt and Church power was being bought by the most power-hungry, insane, and ruthless men possible. And to top it all off...let's add more scandal with [color="#FFFFFF"]Artificial Insemination[/color] and [color="#FFFFFF"]Fratricide[/color] and [color="#FFFFFF"]Suicide[/color] (PLEASE tell me the oil wasn't Sacred Chrism...) and a Papal Electoral Process shown to be a sham privy to false propheteering and madman's whims.

Yeah, that's not a bad image of Catholicism to sell the world? Especially for a world CRAVING for any reason to hate a Church that stands for objective moral and theological teaching. At least [i]most [/i]people take the time to do independent research and be well informed on historical and ecclesial history and policy...

Edited March 26, 2009 by Veridicus

[CatholicCid]

Alright, wanted to make sure. And yes, that part was very annoying. That alone shows the book was fiction

Yes, the story line is fiction, but the trouble comes when the author claims he has interwoven truths into the story. It makes matters even worse if the "facts" he believes he's included are really fiction.

I would hope he had some basis for his "facts", otherwise that just shows him as a poor researcher. Fiction or not, research is key.

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[HisChildForever]

It looks like Dan Brown says something different in another interview piece:

[quote]50. Angels & Demons, like all my books, weaves together fact and fiction. [b]Some histories claim the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/b] The early Illuminati - those of Galileo's day- were expelled from Rome by the Vatican and hunted mercilessly. The Illuminati fled and went into hiding in Bavaria where they began mixing with other refugee groups fleeing the Catholic purges --mystics, alchemists, scientists, occultists, Muslims, Jews. From this mixing pot, a new Illuminati emerged. A darker Illuminati. A deeply anti Christian Illuminati. They grew very powerful, infiltrating power structures, employing mysterious rites, retaining deadly secrecy, and vowing someday to rise again and take revenge on the Catholic Church. Angels & Demons is a thriller about the Illuminati's long awaited resurgence and vengeance against their oppressors. But most of all, it is a story about Robert Langdon, the Harvard symbologist who gets caught in the middle. Much of the novel's story is a chase across modem Rome - through catacombs, cathedrals, piazzas, and even the Vatican's subterranean Necropolis.[/quote]

You will find that quote on the fifth page: [url="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article741005.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1"]http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...et=0&page=1[/url]

One page four he explains what got him to thinking about writing the novel:

[quote]I still had not decided on the main topic for my new novel when Blythe and I visited Rome. We were beneath Vatican City touring a tunnel called il passetto -a concealed passageway used by the early Popes to escape in event of enemy attack. It runs from the Vatican to Castle Saint Angelo. [b]According to the tour guide, one of the Vatican's most feared ancient enemies was a group of early scientists who had vowed revenge against the Vatican for crimes against scientists like Galileo and Copernicus. History had called them many things - the enlightened ones, the Illuminati, The Cult of Galileo. I added the Illuminati to my mixing pot of ideas.[/b][/quote]

[CatholicCid]

Of course, I'm sure Dan Brown also included historical research somewhere showing that Galileo was part of the Illuminati, and that it existed in the 1600s (and not in 1776).

[Veridicus]

Dan Brown did do research. He heard it from a tour guide getting paid to sensationalize the catacombs in Rome in order to bring in money for the tourism business. What could be less biased and dependable than a tour guide?

[HisChildForever]

If Dan Brown wanted to spread anti-Catholic filth, he would have mocked the teachings of the Church. He would have ridiculed the OFFICE of the Pope.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817209' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:10 PM']Seriously, I wasn't even sure who I was supposed to like and dislike by the end of that synopsis...but that is because I am Catholic. If I didnt' have a formed conscience, I would just assume that everyone was corrupt and Church power was being bought by the most power-hungry, insane, and ruthless men possible.[/quote]

Woah, this sort of insinuates that non-Catholics do not have a formed conscience.

Oh, I should ask if YOU have read the book. You seem pretty quick to extract the negatives from the story and ignore the positives.

And frankly anyone who makes that assumption after reading a FICTION novel is not someone I would ever take seriously.

Edited March 26, 2009 by HisChildForever

[CatholicCid]

So, we should assume then that Dan Brown is mistaken in claiming that the Illuminati was an organization from the 1600s? Would anyone wish to counter with historical fact?

And yes, I still think it was anti-Catholic

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817229' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:36 PM']So, we should assume then that Dan Brown is mistaken in claiming that the Illuminati was an organization from the 1600s? Would anyone wish to counter with historical fact?[/quote]

You must have missed my post. In the first article I presented, Dan Brown stated it as fact. in the second article I presented, he said this: [b]Some histories claim the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/b] Obviously the man is not going to bore the interviewer with what he means by "histories." Please note that the SECOND article was from 2006, whereas the FIRST article was from 2001. We have to take into account that interviewers can distort words, and those being interviewed do misspeak.

This is what I mean by overreactions. You said earlier, after reading the first interview: [b]Really, reading through his interview is quite scary...[/b]

Come on. Seriously.

[HisChildForever]

Again, if Dan Brown blatantly stated that his book was NON-FICTION then I would take it to be anti-Catholic. The end.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817230' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:41 PM']You must have missed my post. In the first article I presented, Dan Brown stated it as fact. in the second article I presented, he said this: [b]Some histories claim the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/b] Obviously the man is not going to bore the interviewer with what he means by "histories." Please note that the SECOND article was from 2006, whereas the FIRST article was from 2001. We have to take into account that interviewers can distort words, and those being interviewed do misspeak.

This is what I mean by overreactions. You said earlier, after reading the first interview: [b]Really, reading through his interview is quite scary...[/b]

Come on. Seriously.[/quote]

Considering that the 2001 article was written closer to the publication of the book, I would consider that more heavily then a later article, as it shows what he thought when writing the book.

And he said "[b]It is historical fact[/b] that the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's."

That's quite a misspeak and/or distortion. Not, 'some historians say' or 'one thought is'... but 'It is historical fact.' Also, note that the first article seems to be a transcript of what was said... Quite hard to misrepresent that.

Considering he apparently said this, and then most likely thought it when writing the novel, I do find it quite scary. He should have done better research.

Anyway, if that's me overreacting, you should see me when I get graded exams back

Alas, I still see it as anti-Catholic (as in, not supportive or neutral concerning the Church).

-Edit-

Also, Please don't think I'll be out there with a picket sign, ect... when the movie comes out. I know some people discussed the sense of an "over outrage" over every little thing. I read the book. I enjoyed it as a detective novel. As said, it's fiction. I did think, however, that it was a bit unnecessarily harsh on the Church, did see it as harping on the Church, and it appeared somewhat 'anti-Catholic' to me. I'm not ripping my hair out over it; this is the first time I've thought of it since someone else mentioned it to me. I am, however, just calling it as I see it, which is a decent detective novel, but also anti-Catholic.

And that's the last I shall post tonight. Have a fine evening all!

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[Saint Therese]

I'm just curious as to why you are so defensive of this book. I have never read it and never will, because I don't care if its fiction; if it portrays the Church in a negative way through lies and half truths what good could it be?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817232' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:47 PM']Anyway, if that's me overreacting, you should see me when I get graded exams back[/quote]

I would also like to see what you are like when you are confronted by something legitimately scary.

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1817233' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:48 PM']I'm just curious as to why you are so defensive of this book. I have never read it and never will, because I don't care if its fiction; if it portrays the Church in a negative way through lies and half truths what good could it be?[/quote]

It's not that I'm so defensive of the book, it's that I find the reactions of most Catholics to be ridiculous, particularly when the Catholic in question has never even read a single page of Dan Brown. The CHURCH is not portrayed negatively, MEMBERS of the Church are. There is a huge, huge difference. [b]Everyone also keeps forgetting that the main character, the hero of the novel, is actually on a mission to SAVE the Church - he is searching for the canister of antimatter that the Illuminati hid in Vatican City.[/b] In most novels there is A versus B. Everyone here is discussing the A while ignoring the B.

The problem is this phrase, "anti-Catholic." I find that too many people assume "X" and "Y" are anti-Catholic when they really are not. Reading about a FICTIONAL Pope in favor of In Vitro is not what I would consider anti-Catholic. Individuals spewing blatant lies about the Church, such as "Catholics worship idols and I have proof" would be what I consider anti-Catholic propaganda.

[Saint Therese]

[i]But what good could it be[/i]? Or produce?