Comments on: Da Vinci 2: Sony Strikes Back http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2006/05/da-vinci-2-sony-strikes-back/ Watching the watchers watching what we watch Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:33:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Klaus http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2006/05/da-vinci-2-sony-strikes-back/#comment-1807 Klaus Thu, 25 May 2006 16:48:58 +0000 http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2006/05/da-vinci-2-sony-strikes-back/#comment-1807 Because religion has no right to special treatment. Some people see Missing in Action as the Real Deal, but it has no special disclaimer either. And so on. Because religion has no right to special treatment. Some people see Missing in Action as the Real Deal, but it has no special disclaimer either. And so on.

]]> By: Nunsploitation.Net http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2006/05/da-vinci-2-sony-strikes-back/#comment-1806 Nunsploitation.Net Thu, 25 May 2006 15:23:03 +0000 http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2006/05/da-vinci-2-sony-strikes-back/#comment-1806 I have to disagree with both you and Sony on this one. If the film is screened uncut and unedited, I don't see why Sony can't meet them halfway and run the disclaimers. After all, the disclaimers don't say anything that author Dan Brown hasn't been saying all along. In fact he's been screaming it at the top of his lungs trying to quell these nonsensical protests. The movie really shouldn't be as objectionable as it is because it has never tried to pass itself off as historical fact. It's FICTION, pure and total fiction. The teeny, tiny small print that runs at the end of an hour and half's worth of credits isn't nearly the same thing as running a READABLE disclaimer at the beginning of the film. What's the big deal? If Sony refuses this one little concession, then I wouldn't blame the censor board one bit for yanking the movie. I have to disagree with both you and Sony on this one. If the film is screened uncut and unedited, I don’t see why Sony can’t meet them halfway and run the disclaimers.

After all, the disclaimers don’t say anything that author Dan Brown hasn’t been saying all along. In fact he’s been screaming it at the top of his lungs trying to quell these nonsensical protests.

The movie really shouldn’t be as objectionable as it is because it has never tried to pass itself off as historical fact. It’s FICTION, pure and total fiction.

The teeny, tiny small print that runs at the end of an hour and half’s worth of credits isn’t nearly the same thing as running a READABLE disclaimer at the beginning of the film.

What’s the big deal? If Sony refuses this one little concession, then I wouldn’t blame the censor board one bit for yanking the movie.

]]>