# The Da Vinci Code (2006)



## Neon (Dec 18, 2004)

No this isn't a post in the wrong forum.  They are going to make a movie of the Da Vinci Code based off Dan Brown's #1 seller.  Rumors have it that Tom Hanks will play the role of Robert Langdon, while the female role of Sophie is still up in the air.  The film is scheduled to be out in May 2006.  I personally loved the book and will be interested to see how well they do the movie.


----------



## Leto (Dec 18, 2004)

Julie Delpy for the girl part. 
Oh boy, means we'll have yet another filming here. Means more traffic jams, more identity controls around the area, and my favorite museum closed partly during it. 
Any scene of the book take place in the Antiques and medieval areas of the Louvre ?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 18, 2004)

Last week on British daytime-TV chat show, "Richard and Judy", Tom Hanks expressed surprise when told he was already cast. He stated an interest in actually seeing a script for this - so not sure what's going on with the film plans, or whether Hanks was jesting.


----------



## LadyFel (Dec 18, 2004)

They did what they always do, make up a list of people they'd like in the movie, release the names of a few and hope they intrigue them...

Somehow I can't really see Hanks in the role...Harisson Ford, maybe, in his 'prof. Jones' suit sounds better...


----------



## Cailleach (Dec 20, 2004)

Well thatwas to be expected. Took them long enough


----------



## dwndrgn (Jun 30, 2005)

*Hanks for DaVinci code*

not sure if you guys knew this already yet or not but Tom Hanks is playing the lead role and Ron Howard is the director.  They've already started filming and it is supposed to be out next May.  They are not allowed to shoot scenes at Westminster Abbey - apparently the monks don't like the underlying story of the book.  I wonder why?


----------



## longplay (Jun 30, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

I'm not sure Hanks is right for the part, but then, he is a talented actor.

Some of the other casting was a bit odd too I think.

I'm not sure how well this'll convert to the screen, it's too long and the topic needs too much explaining.


----------



## alexhurry (Jun 30, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

Although I really like Hanks.  I don't think he will be suitable for Langdon.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jun 30, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

gah!
don't like Ron Howard as a director and Tom Hanks (post Burbs) irritates me!

woe is me, what am I to do??


----------



## kaneda (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

will be interesting to see if this works.....

Please film cut out all the twists after twists after twists PLEASE


----------



## Alexa (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

I bet it won't be easy to get a place the first week. 

I'm not surprised by the reaction of the monks. After all, the story goes against two thousands years of religious doctrine.


----------



## Cougar (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

I doubt they will make a decent movie conversion. 

I just hope they dont try to hype the movie by claiming that it is fact, when the so called facts in the book were highly embellished by the writer.


----------



## Animaiden (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

Check the link for a couple of pictures and a set report.
comingsoon.net


----------



## GOLLUM (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

Not sure why a film is even being made on a book that has been shown to contain a lot of histroical errrors and incorrect suppositions according to a BBC investiagtive pogram I recently saw into the vaercaity of the whole DaVinci Code saga.

Then again this is partly a "fantasy" forum so maybe it is appropriate we discuss this after all..


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

Haven't we discussed the futility of expecting historical accuracy from Hollywood before around here?

I'm not here to defend Dan Brown or "The DaVinci Code", god knows, but I'm not sure why so many people have gotten so upset about the historical inaccuracies in that book, when there are novels published all the time that take at least as many liberties with history and nobody ever gets upset about them. And movies are made all the time that purport to portray historical events but get everything all wrong. I mean, soneone once cast Charlton Heston as Michelangelo, for goodness sake, and as far as I know nobody said anything about that. Problem is, Michelangelo was actually about the height and build of Michael J. Fox.


----------



## GOLLUM (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

If you're referring to my comments specifically friend I was merely making a statement of fact with some enthusiasm... 

I'm sure the issue about the distortion of historical facts has been discussed but I've so far missed it on this forum. 

If I hadn't seen the particular program debunking some of the implications Brown's book makes I probably woudln't have brought it up here. The point of my post was simply to make people aware of this issue in case they weren't already, after all that as I see it anyway is an important component or aspect of fourms like this one as a disseminator of information.

Thankfully we do live in an environment that allows for deabte, some people are not so lucky.. 

All the best...


----------



## Leto (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*



			
				GOLLUM said:
			
		

> Not sure why a film is even being made on a book that has been shown to contain a lot of histroical errrors and incorrect suppositions according to a BBC investiagtive pogram I recently saw into the vaercaity of the whole DaVinci Code saga.
> 
> Then again this is partly a "fantasy" forum so maybe it is appropriate we discuss this after all..


And even simple geographical errors. Which generated profit for us Parisians, as several tours already exists to show the main locations cited on the book and how the descriptions are wrong. Runned into one of them on Wednesday in Louvre museum (the filming is done at night time, not during the day, except on Monday).


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

I understand what you're saying, gollum.  And that's fine.  I'm not trying to criticize you for saying what you did.  I wasn't even really answering you specifically except in that your comments triggered a train of thought in my mind.  I'm just trying to analyze why this particular book, and by extension the film as well, is such a target.  I think my point is that everyone and their brother are debunking (that's a word I hate, by the way) Brown's book all over the place, so much so that it seems like a person would have to have been living in a cave for the past year or two not to be aware of the issue.  And my question is, why is everyone so concerned to correct this particular book, when there are so many other films and books that could benefit from the same treatment.

I don't know.  To me, it's abundantly clear that most of what Brown tries to pass off as fact when he is interviewed about "The DaVinci Code" is actually a combination of historical misinterpretation, confabulation, and outright hoax.  There are certainly other books and films out there that purport to tell a historical story but don't get it quite right or anywhere near right.  Although I haven't seen it myself, I understand that the film "Pearl Harbor" that was out a few years ago is one of those.  Apparently "A Beautiful Mind" (also directed, by the way, by Ron Howard) doesn't quite follow the the real life of John Nash.  This became somewhat of a controversy as I recall, but only after the film was nominated for several Academy Awards.  Lots of historical novels play fast and loose with the truth, by lack of research or by design.  Very rarely does anyone comment on them.

Actually, I suppose the big deal about Brown's book is that he takes on a religious theme.  But so what?  If you read the four books of the bible that claim to set out parts of the life of Jesus (which is what "The DaVinci Code" talks about, after all, although in an oblique manner), you will find four very different accounts.  There are literary reasons for this, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.  My point in mentioning it is that people (outside of theological and biblical seminaries) are not really terribly concerned that there are contradictions there, or that there are controversies about the historical accuracy of those books.  In my humble opinion, the religious authorities that appear on programs trying to discredit "The DaVinci Code" are shooting themselves in the foot by even bothering to comment, because those who actually believe that there are historical facts in Brown's book are only going to point to all of that shocked indignation as a sign that the religious establishment really is trying to hide some esoteric truth.

Look, I didn't think that Brown's book was all that great.  I read it.  It was mildly enjoyable for all the fact that it had plot holes you could drive a starship through.  I had the most fun of all counting all the "facts" Brown cribbed from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".  There were quite a lot of them.  And when the film comes out I'll probably go see it, as I have enjoyed the other films I've seen that Ron Howard has directed.  And I"ll take it for what it is, two hours or so of escapism that may be silly but is in the final analysis harmless.  And I won't be keeping a scorecard on which "facts" are true and which are not.


----------



## GOLLUM (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

I here you loud and clear littlemissattitude... 

I've never read any of Dan Brown's books and have no intention of, was merely reporting about this program that focused on apparent dodgy apsects of the book. To me these books are simply another example of mass pop culturalism where book sales at least in Australia appeared to snowball dramatically once this book received some strong publicity.

I think it's probably a combination of mass popularism (blind leading the blind perhaps in terms of growing sales), religious aspects, the poweful "romanticsm" people have associated with a topic like The Holy Grail because it also hints at for some at least an Eternal Life, Leornado DaVinici being mentioned (fairly big drawcard), people liking a good mystery/story and I suspect other countires like OZ tending to follow the US line/propoganda on certain things like I guess books/films that have seen such focus on this particular book. My intial thoughts anyway.. 

BTW "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was also well and truly shot down in flames in the same program..


----------



## Animaiden (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: Hanks for DaVinci code*

My thought on the historical and other inacuracies(sp)

The book is fiction.  It is in the fiction section along with Nora Roberts, Dean Koontz, Stephen King, Tom Clancy, Neil Gaiman, among others.  Many people who read it think that it is truth, espically with the "disclaimer" in the begining that says "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are correct".  It is a work of fiction. It is not based in fact.
Just my 2 cents


----------



## nicobam (May 17, 2006)

*Eurostar and Da Vinci*

Hi all, 

Just booked a ticket to travel to Paris on
Eurostar, and there was a wicked competition
there for the Da Vinci code. You can win some
great prizes. 

What do you think about the forth-coming film? i think it's really thought provoking? going to check it out as soon as.

Check out: quest:eurostar.com


All the best 
Have a good day....nico


----------



## kyektulu (May 23, 2006)

*The Di Vinci Code.*

*I went to see this film yesterday and I must confess it exceeded my expectations.
I usually dont take much stock in film critiques but I had also seen public reports on the film and the bad seemed to outweigh the good to me.
Yet seeing it for myself changed my mind. 
I do admit to hoping that the movie would improve on the flaws in the book (lets face it, it has more than a few) but sadly it didnt, the charecters did not have depth to them and, to me, seemed quite hollow.
The lack of much persoanl history and cheesy flashbacks did not improve the situation.
Yes they did alter some things in the book, mainly charecter comments but they did leave out some important aspects that made the book what it was (I will not go into any more detail for fear of spoiling the film for those who have not watched it yet.)
Tom Hanks was a suprise to me too, when I first heard he would play Robert Langdon I was not impressed, you know what it is like when you read a book, you visualise what you think the charecter would look like and lets just say Tom wasnt Langdon to me!
Yet he was good in the film and played a beleivable role.
Audrey Tatou turned out to be a good actress too, I had no expectations of her as to be honest I do not recall her in any films I have seen. 
Paul Bettany's role as Silas was excellently done and as ever the multi talented Jean Reno was brillient.
All in all I was impressed, and what did it for me was not hiding behind the more grusome aspects of Opus Dei, including ''corprol mortification'' and the use of the cilice belt.*


----------



## roddglenn (May 23, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I went to see it the other day too.  I enjoyed the book - thought it was fast-paced and an interesting story, but prefered Angels & Demons.  I thought it was very well made - clever direction and use of CGI (in the over-laying of past events with the present).  I couldn't initially see Tom in the Langdon role, but I agree that he was good overall.  Paul Bettany and Jean Reno were both excellent in my view.  Opus Dei and the cilice belt I think were handled well, as was the slight changes in Langdon's views in the film as opposed to the book.  Overall, impressed.  The film managed to capture 90% of the book and stick 90% true to the book too.


----------



## nicobam (May 23, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Havent seen the film yet but played the game relating to it on the eurostar site trying to win the money they are putting up for grabs 200,000 if i win hand on heart i will be throwing a party and inviting you guys who are in the UK and anywhere as long as you can afford to come .


----------



## roddglenn (May 23, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Cool, I'm always up for a party!


----------



## purple_kathryn (May 23, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

i really enjoyed the film - especially the merging past and present as Rodd mentioned.  Didn't deserve the mauling the critics gave it certainly.


----------



## steve12553 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				purple_kathryn said:
			
		

> i really enjoyed the film - especially the merging past and present as Rodd mentioned. Didn't deserve the mauling the critics gave it certainly.


 
I thought the film was decent not great. I was also very suspicious of the critics on this one because of the massive prejudices. Too many clergy and church goers were challenged. With the amount of proof available for these suppositions this movie really boils down to a pretty good "what if?" type movie.


----------



## Rane Longfox (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

The acting of Bettany and Reno certainly made up for the fact that the story itself is pure bovine residue


----------



## j d worthington (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Kye: if no one else has suggested it, Tatou is in *Amelie*, which is an utterly charming film, in my opinion. I hadn't realized she was in the *Da Vinci Code*; but, then, I hadn't really been keeping up on movie news for a while; it's been a crazy year.


----------



## Teir (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Saw this last night and loved it 
I already own the book i just have to read it, now that it wont ruin the movie for me lol

God i love Paul Bettany...never disappoints me that man


----------



## Paradox 99 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I also saw The Davinci Code last night and thought it was excellent.
I don't think I've ever watched a film that so closely followed the book as this one, and Ron Howard used the visual medium to perfection IMO.
There were one or two minor changes (as roddglen mentioned), but they're hardly noticable.

I read the book quite a while ago and can't work out why people think it's so bad. Can anyone explain that? It's one of the few books I've read that I really had trouble putting down once I started reading it. Isn't that what people want from a book after all? Is it the writing style or the actual content that rubs people up the wrong way?


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I must stress I haven't seen the movie but most of the reviewer's complaints say that there's too much exposition and Audrey Tatou's character chirps up with "What does that mean?" whenever more is required 

Also a lot of reviewers accuse Tom Hanks of "phoning in" his performance - i.e. wooden/dull acting.


----------



## Thunderchild (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Rane Longfox said:
			
		

> The acting of Bettany and Reno certainly made up for the fact that the story itself is pure bovine residue



going troll'en are we?


----------



## roddglenn (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I think there's a lot of snobbery from critics about this film, mainly because it was such a commercially successful book and they knew it would be hugely successful on screen too. They (nearly) always snub the really commercially successful films.

Yes, there was plenty of exposition, but it was needed to ensure the viewers understanding - I thought it was done as well as possible, given the time constraints. To do it more subtly would mean adding an extra 30-60mins to the film. They were trying to keep it fast-paced like the book and I think they achieved that.

As for Tom's performance, it certainly wasn't one of his best by a long shot, but I still think he did a decent job. For critics to call his performance wooden is unfair in my opinion.


----------



## MJM (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Yes, it was a thought provoking movie. I saw TDVC on opening night and the theatre was full. It's got 'Legs' all right. What I liked about the film was its unpretentiousness. It didn't try to be anything other than what it is: a stimulating expose on what may or may not be true.

Having traveled to all the places in both the book and the film years before, I can tell you that some of it is true. For those who thirst for more on the subject, I suggest Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince’s book “The Templar Revelation.”

How many of you think the film 'The Da Vinci Code' is science fiction?

And yes, there is a lot of 'science' in this supposed fictional story. It involves the science of alchemists and the ancients which I talk about in my blogspot 'Top 10 Secrets.'

So what do you think?

MJM
Author of 'Universal Tides: Barbed Wire Blues'


----------



## iansales (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				MJM said:
			
		

> How many of you think the film 'The Da Vinci Code' is science fiction?



No, not science fiction. Fantasy. There have been a flood of books and television programmes disproving just about every assertion made by Brown in The Da Vinci Code. 

Here's an interesting, and amusing, review of the film:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/060529crci_cinema


----------



## steve12553 (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				iansales said:
			
		

> No, not science fiction. Fantasy. There have been a flood of books and television programmes disproving just about every assertion made by Brown in The Da Vinci Code.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## iansales (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Central to The Da Vinci Code's premise is the Priory of Sion, a secret organisation which (allegedly) has protected the bloodline of Jesus Christ for 2,000 years. Past leaders of the society include Leonardo da Vinci and Isaac Newton...

Er, no. The Priory of Sion was a scam invented in the 1960s by three Frenchman. They have admitted as much in interviews.

The Da Vinci Code also posits that the Templars hid their "treasure" at Rosslyn Chapel. There is no documented link between Rosslyn Chapel and the Templars. The chapel was begun in 1440; the Templars were disbanded nearly 150 years prior to that.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I see your argument Steve, but I don't think it applies in this case.

The assertions made by the Da Vinci code book and subsequent film do not refute the divinity of Jesus, they merely put forward a theory that Jesus the man, had children before dying and becoming transfigured.

And to be honest most of the Da Vinci code isn't even concerned with that, it's concerned with a secret society that has kept safe the supposed line/progency from the "evil" elements within the Church trying to destroy it for heresy, which is a far more 'sexy' story.

Basically it's a nice way of stringing together real historical events (such as the Cathar Crusade) and characters (such as Issac Newton & Da Vinci) into a ripping yarn.


----------



## iansales (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Granted, The Da Vinci Code is first and foremost a "ripping yarn". However, as one reviewer of the book pointed out, in alternate history novels there is usually a clue that the setting of the story is not the world as we know it. Brown has effectively written an alternate history, but given no such clue to the reader. 

Further, Brown has claimed in interviews that the book's premise is based upon "historical fact", a claim that has subsequently created an entire industry--all those "real" / "decoded" Da Vinci Code books, etc.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				iansales said:
			
		

> Further, Brown has claimed in interviews that the book's premise is based upon "historical fact", a claim that has subsequently created an entire industry--all those "real" / "decoded" Da Vinci Code books, etc.


 
I know - even "reputable" organisations like the BBC are creating "Da Vinci Code" documentaries to discuss it.

I think it's quite rare that a novel has got this much attention and scrutiny devoted to its construction, as opposed to its value as an entertaining story.
I'm undecided whether or not this is a good development or not


----------



## MJM (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

RE: The New Yorker article on The Da Vinci Code.

There are so many negatives in this article, I don't know where to begin. So I won't. It is so pro-conservative-thinking that it's not worth wasting time on. It's an intentional debunking with obvious mistakes. Anthony Lane should check his facts before publishing in the New Yorker.

The film and the book was not meant to "cause a single member of the flock to turn aside from the faith."  They are meant to provoke thought and thinking for oneself, something conservative religious traditionalists don't want us to do. 

'Faith' is individual and personal, and no one's business but your own.

Think for yourself!

MJM
Author of 'Universal Tides: Barbed Wire Blues'


----------



## MJM (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I agree with Dan Brown. His novel is indeed based on "historical fact" and like all well-written stories, fact is exaggerated into "a good yarn."

One thing to think about is this: Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. In Jesus's time, all Rabbi's were expected to marry and have children. So it's quite normal that Jesus married and had children. 

MJM
Author of 'Universal Tides: Barbed Wire Blues'


----------



## iansales (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				MJM said:
			
		

> One thing to think about is this: Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. In Jesus's time, all Rabbi's were expected to marry and have children. So it's quite normal that Jesus married and had children.



Did Jesus marry? We have no documentary proof that he did, and Biblical Israel was a well-documented period. But it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. 

Did his wife and child travel to France and found the Merovingen dynasty? That's a bit of a stretch. And again, no proof has come to light supporting this.

Did the Priory of Sion, an organisation dedicated to preserving Jesus' bloodline, ever exist? That's a resounding no. It's been well-established for more than a decade that the Priory of Sion was a scam.

There's not much in the above that can be called "historical fact"...


----------



## Paradox 99 (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				iansales said:
			
		

> Did Jesus marry? We have no documentary proof that he did, and Biblical Israel was a well-documented period. But it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.


No, we don't have any "proof" that he married. But in actual fact, we don't really have any "proof" that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels even existed at all (contrary to popular belief), but I think that the point is that if Jesus _were_ a Rabbi, then yes, it would be unusual for him not marry, and you'd have to provide some sort of evidence to show why he wouldn't.

I think the real issue about the whole thing is not really the divinity of Jesus, but the idea that the Biblical accounts cannot be trusted because of the way they have been manipulated to serve the early church's agenda.

If a Christian can't rely on the Bible, how can they rely on their salvation?


----------



## MJM (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

You asked: "Did his wife and child travel to France and found the Merovingen dynasty? That's a bit of a stretch. And again, no proof has come to light supporting this."

In those days, there was a well-travelled trading route from the Middle East to southern France, namely to Saint-Marie-de-la-Mare. It's not a stretch that a traveler paid passage on one of the trading ships and arrived in France. That is "historical fact." It happened daily. 

I attended the annual festival there. Thousands of Gypsies arrive for a weekend of festivities. On the Sunday they parade to the sea two statues of the two Mary's from the small church. But more importantly, they also parade to the ocean a Black Madonna that is hidden in a chapel crypt below the church. This Black Madonna who is worshipped throughout Europe, represents Sara, the daughter of Mary of Magdalene and Jesus of Nazareth. 

Fact of fiction? I don't know, but millions of Europeans think so. 

It's time to open our minds and live outside the box of media propaganda. To think and research for ourselves.

MJM


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

To live outside the box of media propaganda would be to ignore _The Da Vinci Code_ altogether.


----------



## pokernut951 (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I did not read the book, but I did see the movie and liked the story.  I imagine the book is better, seeing as how that's always the case.


----------



## kyektulu (May 28, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				iansales said:
			
		

> No, not science fiction. Fantasy. There have been a flood of books and television programmes disproving just about every assertion made by Brown in The Da Vinci Code.


*
I wouldnt class Di Vinci Code as Science Fiction or Fantasy really, maybe a crime thriller... certainly not fantasy.*


----------



## lizzybob (May 28, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I aggree with Paradox with how well the film stayed to the book. It is one of the most faithful cinematic adaptations I have seen, and while there were some changes they were minor and didn't seem out of place. It is also one of the few books I have had trouble putting down once I began reading it. I had read a lot about the movie in the run up to its release and was actually quite anxious about it due to the fact that many aricles stated that Howard had changed the ending. However was pleased that the changes were subtle. I loved the way he superimposed the past events ontop of the current action. Also loved Tom Hanks as Langdon ... he wasn't the same as the person I had pictured in my head but he worked really well. Teabing's character in the movie also differed to the Teabing I had pictured when I read the book. I just felt sorry for Ian McKellen's Teabing in the movie. 

I think the reason that the movie got bad reviews was because of the obvious religious issues surrounding the book. I can't really understand why the church is making such a fuss about it really if they know that everything Dan Brown said was false. In my opinion by making such a fuss they are making me question the real truth of the matter. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Alysheba (May 31, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

It was okay for me. I just couldn't get into Tom Hanks...


----------



## Hypes (Jun 6, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

For me, the film was worse than the book. While the book goes by at such a pace you're left with no time for reflection (thankfully, for otherwise how could one miss the gaping plot holes to which the only suitable analogy is a black hole?), the movie drones on for such a long time you're left with alltogether too much time. And for the latter half of the movie, while squirming in my seat, I couldn't put it out of my mind how ludicrous the entire thing was. No doubt it's fiction, but there is also very little doubt it's _bad_ fiction.

Not helping matters were the characters whose "cardboard-ness" was hardly understated by putting a human face to them. Not even Tom Hanks, whom I consider one of the better actors of today, couldn't rescue the sheer dullness that Robert Langdon embodies with his entire existence on the page, or on the celluloid. And though I love and respect Tatou as an actress, her english did very little to improve the situation (oddly enough I was thankful for her understated participation - all she did was, as someone else mentioned, to be a device for further, dreadful exposition. Or rather, a cricket bat used to maul the dead horse even more). McKellen seemed to be not only mocking his own character in a subtle way, but also the entire farcical business in which he enrolled himself for a sizeable paycheck. 

Maybe the remake (for that is all Angels & Demons ever will be) will be better.


----------



## Dianora (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I read the book a couple of months back and thought it was ok. Not one of the best books I've ever read, but it was a good read nonetheless. I have heard nothing but bad things about the movie. Everything from the chemistry between the characters to bad acting to not doing the story justice. Probably way too much hype to begin with. I haven't seen the movie, nor do I plan to until it comes out on pay-per-view, then I'll watch it at home.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I just watched this movie, not expecting much and I got what I was expecting.

Fairly generic detective yarn with the odd obligatory tacked on 'action chase sequence'. For the person which earlier said that it was very faithful to the book - erm, you mean apart from the ending which was changed completely presumably??

Tom Hanks performance was bad. Really bad. In fairness you see none of the buildup or thought behind the solving of the riddles in the movie that you do in the book. In the movie it's "Tom Hanks looks quizzical for a few sceonds and then goes - Of course! It's so simple!" and then demonstrates how complex the answer actually is. 

It's an 'ok' movie if I'm feeling generous but the book was actually far superior. The pacing in the novel was much more coherent rather than the jerky stop-start feel to the movie.


----------



## Dianora (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Winters_Sorrow said:
			
		

> Tom Hanks performance was bad. Really bad. In fairness you see none of the buildup or thought behind the solving of the riddles in the movie that you do in the book. In the movie it's "Tom Hanks looks quizzical for a few sceonds and then goes - Of course! It's so simple!" and then demonstrates how complex the answer actually is.


 
That is too funny... I thought, even in the book, that decoding a lot of the stuff would take the average cryptologist years to figure out, and yet the two of them seemed to figure it all out in a matter of days.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I've seen it today, and am even more glad I didn't read it.


----------



## Paradox 99 (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Dianora said:
			
		

> That is too funny... I thought, even in the book, that decoding a lot of the stuff would take the average cryptologist years to figure out, and yet the two of them seemed to figure it all out in a matter of days.


Probably because they were supposed to figure the code out. Saunier intended his message to be understood by Langdon and his granddaughter.



> I've seen it today, and am even more glad I didn't read it.


Ok, I'm going to ask the question again, because nobody answered last time.
What is so terribly bad about this book? (not directed at you Marky, because you've obviously decided not to read it - but since the issue has raised its head again...).As I mentioned before, I was absolutely hooked when I read it - couldn't put it down.

At the risk of being completely slammed - it strikes me that there's a lot of snobbery surrounding this book. I thought it was superb.


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Paradox 99 said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm going to ask the question again, because nobody answered last time.
> What is so terribly bad about this book?


The book was a complete page-turner, reading very rapidly, keeping you interested in the story and dealing with compelling subject matter. It's easy to see why so many people couldn't put it down.

It was also one of the most poorly written books I have read in years, with ear-blisteringly bad prose and stunningly awful dialogue. Some of the writing actually made me laugh out loud, it was so dreadful. I jotted down notes at one point referencing page numbers I wanted to go back and make fun of later. Sadly, I lost those notes, so I can't point out some of the very worst examples.

But dear lord, Dan Brown has a way with words. A delightfully awful way, that is.

Still, it was an engrossing page-turner. Can't take that away from it. A solid thriller.


----------



## Dianora (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I don't think it's snobbery, I think that people who have read truly great stories by truly great authors get a little perturbed when a very mediocre story by a very mediocre author gets so much attention. I mean, now everyone's reading this book, and that's fine, but it seems a waste when, as shoegaze said, it really wasn't written very well at all. 

I guess the argument could be made that as long as people are reading, period, it is a good thing... and that is true. I know people who don't read at ALL have picked this one up and can't put it down. But... as an avid reader myself, I tend to appreciate the finer things... such as a great plotline, character development, and maybe, just maybe, an unpredictable ending. 

I mean... come ON... Newton? Apple? for crying out loud.... I'm sure damn glad they had Robert Langdon to figure that one out. Nobody else on earth could have put those two together...


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I've read parts of the Code, Para, and it was so badly written at some times that I couldn't believe it. Yes, I can see why people loved it and couldn't stop reading it, but it doesn't mean it is well-written. As Shoegaze said, he writes such a bad proze it can easily make you laugh--if you weren't crying so loud, that is. I think this is especially bad to read for someone like me, because when I write I try to come up with this perfect sentence, and not with some lame proze about the way the garden looked. And then, we have to face it, even though he won his case, he didn't come up with the story, really. There are those ideas about the Holy Grail and he connected the dots. With some very flat characters I have to say. So, his part is to come up with an interesting connection, and he completly failed. I don't feel "anger" towards Brown, he wrote it, credit to him. Fair-earned money. No hard feelings. But, when people who know I love reading and recommend the Code, "because it's the best damn book ever written" I just need to scream and surpress the feeling to stab someone in the eye with a Samurai sword.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

That might be overreacting just a little, don't you think? (Then again, not having read the book myself ... maybe not.)


----------



## roddglenn (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

As i've said before, I think it is a good read.  It's certainly not the best book ever written - it's a long way off that, but I still think that it is a good yarn.  The film was very faithful to the book, apart from minor changes.  The ending was completely faithful to the book (back at the Ritz then follows the markers to the upturned pyramid - exactly as the book.  They did change the meeting at Roselyn somewhat with lots of characters turning up instead of just the Granmother and brother - I didn't understand why they changed that bit, but it was only a minor change).


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I would like to stress once more that it isn't the worst book written ever, and I also don't hold a grief against Dan Brown.

It's just, when people call it the best written book ever, I start to wonder what they read beside the Code. To be honest, I think they never made it through a whole book since reading Rub-a-Dub-Dub by Nancy Parent.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				roddglenn said:
			
		

> They did change the meeting at Roselyn somewhat with lots of characters turning up instead of just the Granmother and brother - I didn't understand why they changed that bit, but it was only a minor change).


 
Apart from the fact that in the novel the church curator is her long-lost brother? Which is why the grandmother was there in the first place.


----------



## iansales (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Reasons why The Da Vinci Code is *not* a good book:

1. appalling prose

2. bad plotting - the characters spend the entire book being chased from A to B; and, IIRC, there are even some moments of idiot plotting in there too--where the plot only advances because Langdon et al can't figure something out that's blindingly obvious

3. Brown hijacking his premise from The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail and insisting, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the premise is historical "fact"


----------



## roddglenn (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Winters_Sorrow said:
			
		

> Apart from the fact that in the novel the church curator is her long-lost brother? Which is why the grandmother was there in the first place.


 
If I remember rightly they didn't change that bit, they just didn't mention it.  As I said that scene was changed, but overall the film was exceptionally close to the book - the closest film adaption of a book that I have seen to date.

I disagree the the prose is appalling.  True, it's not great by any means, but overall the book is easy to read and fast-paced and it is a good fictional story with some elements of fact, some elements of supposed fact and plenty of fiction.


----------



## Paradox 99 (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Ok, some good answers there about why people think the book isn't so hot.
I certainly wouldn't say that it's _THE_ best book ever written either, and I have to admit that the opening piece was so cliched I had to smile and show it to my wife when I saw it.

I suppose, like everything, people judge things by different standards and personally, if a book keeps me glued to the pages, it isn't badly written, whatever technique is used.

It took me a while before I got around to reading Dune, and although I like the concept, I'm almost ashamed to admit I found it quite a dull read actually, but this is a book that's hailed as a benchmark - a classic.

I'd rate the diVinci code above Dune any day - simply because I found it a more exciting read. That's how _I_ define well written - a book that keeps you reading.

I don't consider the plotting to be bad either, I rather liked the twists and the way the story unfolded.

And having a background with Theology and Christianity myself, I can see that there's more content in there that can be considered sound than not. So what if he nicked stuff from THB&THG, there's a plethora of novels that base their stories on research like that (The Left Behind series for example). The court case was probably trumped up as a neat bit of publicity more than anything else.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I found some very nice critiques on the Code by Craig Clevenger:

http://www.welcometothevelvet.com/showpost.php?p=4413&postcount=6 and http://www.welcometothevelvet.com/showpost.php?p=17418&postcount=75

Even if you loved the book to pieces, it's still very enjoyable to read.


----------



## iansales (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Paradox, I think you've missed the point. There are certain criteria which distinguish good writing. A facility with language is one. Good characterisation is another. A plot that doesn't rely on characters making stupid decisions or acting out of character. 

Keeping a reader "glued to the pages" is not one. Readers of Hello! magazine are kept glued to pages; likewise readers of the National Enquirer...

Having said that, it's clear Brown did some research. Whether that stretched beyond reading The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail is open to question. If I remember rightly, he wholly misidentified one of the cathedrals that features in the book.

Dune, on the hand... Its plot is several orders of magnitude more complex than that of The Da Vinci Code, yet it's handled so well readers rarely get lost. Despite the fact that the universe of the book is wholly invented, there is more research obvious in it than in Brown's novel. And while Herbert's style seems somewhat confusing to modern sensibilities (we are now more used to a limited PoV), it's handled consistently throughout the novel.

Dune is not a science fiction "benchmark" by any criteria. It *is* a classic. It was the first epic science fiction novel focused at the level of its characters, and displayed a level and consistency of world-building that had not been seen before. It was, if you like, the Star Wars of written SF, pretty much creating a new spin on the genre--as Lucas did when he created the "summer blockbuster" movie. 

Dan Brown, however, has merely created an industry... dedicated to debunking his books


----------



## Paradox 99 (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				iansales said:
			
		

> Paradox, I think you've missed the point. There are certain criteria which distinguish good writing. A facility with language is one. Good characterisation is another. A plot that doesn't rely on characters making stupid decisions or acting out of character.
> 
> Keeping a reader "glued to the pages" is not one. Readers of Hello! magazine are kept glued to pages; likewise readers of the National Enquirer...


I chose my words poorly in my previous post. My original questions and observations were around why people thought the bood was "bad", not whether it was badly written.
As a general standard in comparrison with other works, I'd agree with you concerning its standard of writing, but it's still a great book - simply because it does what says on the tin.
I couldn't care less if a book is written so stunningly well that it amazes the socks off literary geniuses - I might still find it boring (e.g. Dune).
Dan Brown's book, though not technically brilliant, was not boring to me at all.

On that basis, the bigger picture says to me - Is it really that baddly written? Surely it depends on the objective. Dan Brown's objective was to sell a lot of books and write something that people found exciting. Did he? Yes.
Did it fit the criteria of what "experts" believe to be technically brilliant writing? No. But at the end of the day, he achieved what he set out to do when he put pen to paper - in my book that's great writing. Certainly better that any of us aspiring to be authors have achieved so far (though I hope some of the writers who come here prove me wrong there one day. )


----------



## iansales (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Yes, Brown's novel does what it says on the tin. But writing is a hygiene factor: good writing is seldom noticed, but bad writing can spoil a book. People's thresholds on what constitutes "bad" differs. Myself, I thought The Da Vinci Code poor and entirely unmemorable--I'd read The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail 20 years before, so I thought the premise was nothing new. I also gave up on Clive Cussler because the writing had devolved to a point where I couldn't actually read it.

As to Brown's objectives... Well, anyone who sets out to write a best-selling novel is a fool. The one thing you can't guarantee is that your book will sell. Judging by his previous novels--the only one I've read is Digital Fortress, and the computing in that is bollocks from start to finish--Brown set out to write another no-frills thriller based a round a "neat idea" he'd stumbled across. And that's what he did. I wouldn't be surprised learn he was as astonished as everyone else when The Da Vinci Code became a rampaging best-seller and spawned an industry of its own.

Btw, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who claims Dune is a work of literary genius. Well, other than a complete fan-boy  Some of its prose is horrible and clunky, and Herbert's ear for dialogue also failed him on several occasions. I enjoyed the book a great deal when I first read it 25 years ago, and still do on the odd occasion when I reread it. I very much doubt The Da Vinci Code will bear rereading...


----------



## Paradox 99 (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				iansales said:
			
		

> Yes, Brown's novel does what it says on the tin. But writing is a hygiene factor: good writing is seldom noticed, but bad writing can spoil a book. People's thresholds on what constitutes "bad" differs. Myself, I thought The Da Vinci Code poor and entirely unmemorable--I'd read The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail 20 years before, so I thought the premise was nothing new. I also gave up on Clive Cussler because the writing had devolved to a point where I couldn't actually read it.


Yes, the premise is nothing new (I read HN&HG too, and a number of other books investigating the early church and paganism etc). Oddly, it might've been that which actually drew me into the book so much rather than disliking it - I do have a fondness for that kind of stuff.

As for bad writing spoiling a book, yes, I agree with that too. I gave up on Eddings because of that. You've got me thinking now - I wonder what the book could have turned out like if a more adept writer had a go at this instead.



> As to Brown's objectives... Well, anyone who sets out to write a best-selling novel is a fool.


 Surely not! Anyone who sets out _expecting_ their work to be a bestseller is a fool, yes. But surely every writer aspires for that and dreams of that achievement. What writer wouldn't? Maybe Dan Brown didn't expect it, but I'll bet, as a writer, he was aiming for it.


----------



## Quokka (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Personally I enjoyed the book well enough, mind you I was stuck in Spain at the time with nothing else to read, still as with any fiction I read, I was not really too fussed with any supposed links to reality and on that basis it passed a few hours. 

Of course to those now spending a fortune travelling to the sites mentioned in the book, just to pray at the final resting place etc, I'll be rude enough to say that's just sad and they're missing out on what the sites really could offer. 

I did make the mistake of reading _Deception point_ afterwards and reading that I felt like I could actually see Dan Brown's publisher sitting on his shoulder saying "forget thinking, forget editing, you need to publish this NOW, NOW, NOW!" 

For me kinda in the same class as Dean Koontz etc, pick up one book in between other things and it's ok, try reading a couple in a row and you get bored of the same tricks trying to carry a story.

But back to the thread.... The movie was better than I was expecting, of course I was expecting it to be pretty bad. I enjoyed watching it, wouldn't want to see it again . As others have said its one of the fewer times I thought a movie actually used special effects well and it kept fairly much honest to the book. They always have to drop some parts and I just felt that the two priests were simplified much more as the 'baddies' in the movie whereas the book was able to give them atleast some depth.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

THE good thing about the movie was Bettany's performance, which was really good. Especially the despair on his face, you could really _smell _it.


----------



## iansales (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Paradox 99 said:
			
		

> Surely not! Anyone who sets out _expecting_ their work to be a bestseller is a fool, yes. But surely every writer aspires for that and dreams of that achievement. What writer wouldn't? Maybe Dan Brown didn't expect it, but I'll bet, as a writer, he was aiming for it.



Ha ha  Point taken. Yes, we can all hope our books become best-sellers, but realistically expect them to vanish into remaindered hell. But I still think you'd have difficulty trying to write a best-seller--I mean, what is it that makes a book a best-seller? What do you have to put into a book for it to become a best-seller? Crack that, and you'll be living next-door JK Rowling...


----------



## Paradox 99 (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				iansales said:
			
		

> what is it that makes a book a best-seller? What do you have to put into a book for it to become a best-seller? Crack that, and you'll be living next-door JK Rowling...


Now there's a question - worthy of another thread I think.
There must be a whole host of ingredients that go to creating a bestseller that will be remembered. Wow! If we could only bottle them.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 8, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

The main ingredient, and the one that no one is likely to be able to define, is something that is likely to catch the reading public at that particular time and place. Look at *The Professor and the Madman*, for example. Who would ever have expected book about the Oxford English Dictionary to take off like that? Certainly he didn't; he just found the background to the tale interesting.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 9, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

If one plans to write a best-seller, that one is a threat to the entire profession.


----------



## Aeris (Jun 10, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I really enjoyed the movie, even though it DID make some changes from the book that I don't altogether approve of.  Though the scene with Silas at the end was still touching (mainly because of Paul Bettany's performance), in the book there was just more....I can't think of the word....emotional turmoil from Silas.  I don't want to give anything away, so I'll just say that what Silas did to the Bishop after...well...said more of his character than what he did in the movie after....again.  I felt the book did better with Sophie's character, too.  The story about her family was a lot cooler in the book, and her relationship with Jacques was better.

Overall, the movie was excellent, though, and I would recommend it to anyone if only to see Paul Bettany's and Ian McKellen's performances.  Both are stunning actors.


----------



## Aeris (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

Welcome to the Forums, BladeCreator!  I hope to see you around.


----------



## Alurny (Jun 19, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I really enjoyed it and again I found it hard to put down however the book should never have made it to film, it just doesn't suit motion picture. Action was forced and exadurated and all sence of mystery lost due to lack of time to explain things sufficiantly.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Jun 19, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I think it DOES suit motion picture. This is what Hollywood films are build on.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*

I saw the film recently. Lots of people said it was crap, but I quite enjoyed it. I shan't bother to read the book though- life is too short.

The soundtrack reminded me of Campion's The Sypress Curtain of the Night.


----------



## Dianora (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Esioul said:
			
		

> I shan't bother to read the book though- life is too short.


 
lol. dats funny.


----------



## steve12553 (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Esioul said:
			
		

> I saw the film recently. Lots of people said it was crap, but I quite enjoyed it. I shan't bother to read the book though- life is too short.


The book reads real fast and if your user info is correct you probably have time. The book actually stays true to itself and doesn't try to convince the church-going movie patrons that it is only kidding. Kinda tones down the controversy. As long as no one gets killed, controversy makes one think and that's probably a good thing.


----------



## Aeris (Jun 23, 2006)

*Re: The Di Vinci Code.*



			
				Esioul said:
			
		

> I shan't bother to read the book though- life is too short.


 
....umm....I read it in 2 days.  I only had a weekend to read it, you understand.  The person that let me borrow it needed it back on Monday.  You really can't put it down once you've started, and you should really read it, because Silas's storyline is so much better in the book.  SO much better.


----------

