Code Red for DA VINCI -

Book News

8 Comments | Add


Rate & Share:


Related Links:



Code Red for DA VINCI

By News Editor     February 28, 2006
Source: Associated Press

© Doubleday
AP reports Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of the 1982 nonfiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, are suing publisher Random House over the allegation that parts of their work formed the basis of Dan Brown's THE DA VINCI CODE.

If the writers succeed in securing an injunction to bar the use of their material, they could hold up the release of THE DA VINCI CODE, starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard.

Baigent and Leigh's lawyer claims Brown, was "interested in taking, and took, short cuts rather than doing any of the work himself."

Baigent and Leigh are suing Random House, which also published their book. The company denies the claim and a Random House says they believe the lawsuit was without merit.

"Both books hinge on the theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and they had a child, and that blood line survives to this day. The earlier book set out the notion that Christ did not die on the cross but lived later in France," notes AP.


Showing items 1 - 8 of 8
lracors 2/28/2006 1:53:40 PM
Wes nailed the reason why are doing this now. The rest is immaterial. Face it some of our court system sucks horrible eggs when these types of "subjective" similarities can cause book and film to come to a grinding halt.
wallyrus 2/28/2006 4:26:38 PM
This is CLEARLY a publicity stunt! If nobody remembers, Dan Brown mentions "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by title in The DaVinci Code. It inspired me to buy it for someone as a gift. The only thing this could possibly do is increase ticket sales and sales of both books.
coldhardtruth 2/28/2006 7:05:45 PM
westend - Thanks for expressing your stupidity.
coldhardtruth 2/28/2006 11:34:27 PM
I think you missed the context in which I posted. The two books (The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail) are obviously fiction. Everyone is allowed their opinion, yes. Westend's opinion isn't stupid because he wanted to express it, rather it is stupid because of the content of the opinion.
coldhardtruth 3/1/2006 9:10:25 AM
It is my opinion that westend's opinion is stupid. You think my opinion is stupid. I just hope westend has a good time celebrating Athiest's Day on April 1st.
coldhardtruth 3/1/2006 7:36:11 PM
I find it interesting (or is it ironic?) that people are trying to lecture me about being "open-minded", while telling my that faith is wrong. Christianity and Catholicism are quite different. Catholicism is a blasphemous cult created by heretics. You can't use any of your considerable dirt on Catholicism (there is a LOT- let's not forget that the current pope was a Nazi!) any more against Christianity than you could against Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormans. I don't have faith in religion or people, my faith lies in God.
coldhardtruth 3/2/2006 6:03:54 PM
jackbquick - I never said I was open-minded, and you CERTAINLY aren't. Actually, the "first Christian faith" started in around 30 A.D., but good try! 'A' for effort... Anyone who reads the Bible realizes that Catholicism blatantly disregards many key areas of Christianity (aka heresy). Add that to the propensity for violence (Dark Ages, Crusades) and perversion (raping kids, selling absolution, etc.) that a number of Catholics have had (without condemnation, and/or even at the behest of the Catholic leadership), and Catholicism is less and less like true Christianity all the time. That being said, individuals are responsible for their own actions, and it is not only unfair, but also intellectually dishonest to declare Christianity to be the cause of evil that is committed when those actions are against the teachings of both Christianity's leadership and the Bible.
lracors 3/3/2006 2:56:29 PM
man o' man... three things never to argue about on the Internet. Religeon Politics Porn


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.