Badmovies.org Forum

Director Ron Howard defends "Angels & Demons" 
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Ron Howard on Tuesday defended his film adaptation of "The Da Vinci Code" author Dan Brown 's " Angels & Demons " from criticism that it smears the Roman Catholic Church , heightening an ongoing battle over fictional depictions of the Vatican.

Howard, who also directed the 2006 movie adaptation of " The Da Vinci Code ," posted a blog at The Huffington Post website saying that neither he nor his new movie "Angels & Demons," which debuts in May and stars Tom Hanks , are anti-Catholic...

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/director-ron-howard-defends-quotangels-demonsquot-reuters (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/director-ron-howard-defends-quotangels-demonsquot-reuters)

Ron Howard's movies have been indefensible for quite a while now.

Oh no, of course not!  Just because they throw down the absolutely insupportable theory that the entire Christian faith is based on lies and misogyny doesn't mean they are anti-Catholic or anti-Christian AT ALL!  :hatred:

That can be said about the Da Vinci Code, but having read Angels and Demons, I didn't find it particularly anti-Catholic or even anti-religion. It deals more with the bad blood between science and religion through history, and seems to favour the view that both are ultimately after the same answers and can coexist if people on both sides were more flexible in their thinking. I kind of like the way it sets up the Vatican and CERN as the strongholds of the two sides, but presents Leonardo Vetra, a brilliant physicist and a Catholic priest, as someone who has managed to bridge the chasm in between. Naturally, he gets brutally murdered in the first couple of pages.

Between Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code, I'd say this is the better book. Unfortunately, the later one got more attention because it was more controversial.

Digital Fortress, similar in style but not dealing with religion at all, would also make a good movie.

My comments were mostly based on the DA VINCI CODE.  I need to read ANGELS AND DEMONS, but I really don't want to put any money in Dan Brown's pocket!  I'll have to bum a copy from someone.

Since the book is fiction, I'm not really sure what the big deal is.  Of course, I guess I shouldn't say that, as Dean Koontz's books have offended me a few times as a non-religious person. 

But, in all honesty, I don't think Dan Brown takes the theories in his own book too seriously.  Just the impression I get.  And the books suck anyway.

During the hoopla over the DA VINCI CODE, he said in a number of interviews that, although the book is fiction, he believed most of its claims about the origins of Christianity to be true.  Make no mistake - that book was a direct assault on the foundation of Christianity, in the clever guise of a fast-paced thriller.  But it was designed to promote a modernistic version of the ancient church as a bunch of goddess worshipping sex addicts which has absolutely no basis in fact.  It was a punch in the face to all Christians who take the historical claims of their faith seriously.

Thanks for the context.  That does help.  I've looked at the conspiracy theories about Christianity related to that, and they really are total bull****.  Didn't realize Brown took it seriously...

However, I can't help but look at books with titles similar to "Disproving the DaVinci code" and laugh. 

I remember seeing some Discovery Channel type show in which the host (I think it was Tony Robinson) went around to the locations in the book and spoke to various scholars about the book's assertions. Wasn't as exciting as the advertising made it sound, that's for sure. Basically, each claim was explained, investigated and very quickly shown to be an absolute crock. Not many surprises there.