"I've got too many legs!"
Aug. 4th, 2005 04:59 pmApparently the producers of The DaVinci Code have been keeping details of the movie's production under pretty tight wraps. This confuses me. Hasn't everyone and their mom read the book? Are they changing it drastically? What's the purpose of big secrecy when the book is pretty highly publicized? (Although, honestly, I don't think I've ever read an article or review that did actually give any of it away...)
They're also having trouble casting extras. I'm finding that marginally amusing. Mostly because I don't understand the reluctance to get involved with it. Or, rather, I do understand the reluctance, but I don't follow it. Or something. It's 'cause I'm too laid back about certain things. You want to claim Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married? ::shrug:: OK. There's no point in getting worked up over it because there is nothing I can personally do about such a claim. Except for argue against it. Which I'm not inclined to do. Because a claim like that? Doesn't hurt anybody.
It's similar to my views in Philosophy of the Human Person last fall. The professor purposefully chose varying texts that would get a reaction out of the students. If one text didn't get you, the next probably would. Except for me. Because what is the point of getting your panties in a twist over something a dead man said 100 years ago? I'm willing to discuss it, to debate it, to argue with it, but I refuse to get upset by it. (The professor noticed this and called me a "mature student" and I didn't know whether it was a compliment or what.) You just can't spend your classes pissed off at a dead guy. It won't get you anywhere.
*
Meanwhile, back at the farm. I'm a little fed up with the boys. They are dumb. And completely inept at following through with anything.
Maybe I'll go dig up Coupling to cheer myself up....
They're also having trouble casting extras. I'm finding that marginally amusing. Mostly because I don't understand the reluctance to get involved with it. Or, rather, I do understand the reluctance, but I don't follow it. Or something. It's 'cause I'm too laid back about certain things. You want to claim Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married? ::shrug:: OK. There's no point in getting worked up over it because there is nothing I can personally do about such a claim. Except for argue against it. Which I'm not inclined to do. Because a claim like that? Doesn't hurt anybody.
It's similar to my views in Philosophy of the Human Person last fall. The professor purposefully chose varying texts that would get a reaction out of the students. If one text didn't get you, the next probably would. Except for me. Because what is the point of getting your panties in a twist over something a dead man said 100 years ago? I'm willing to discuss it, to debate it, to argue with it, but I refuse to get upset by it. (The professor noticed this and called me a "mature student" and I didn't know whether it was a compliment or what.) You just can't spend your classes pissed off at a dead guy. It won't get you anywhere.
*
Meanwhile, back at the farm. I'm a little fed up with the boys. They are dumb. And completely inept at following through with anything.
Maybe I'll go dig up Coupling to cheer myself up....
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-05 12:52 am (UTC)Honestly, though, I love the claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married because, hello, men have needs. And so do women. Jesus didn't even start his whole teaching thing until the later part of his life! What was he doing up until then? Making babies. Hell yeah.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-05 12:58 am (UTC)....Er. Huh.
I really like the Jesus/Mary Magdalene claim, too. I think it brings out Jesus' human-side. Afterall, he was supposed to be both divine *and* human. So I have no problem with the thought that he and MM were shagging like bunnies and making babies.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-05 08:07 pm (UTC)