The Da Vinci Code

[Thorpe]

Really looking forward to seeing this tomorrow at midnight. Anyone lucky enough to have seen it already? I know the critics haven't taken a liking to it but I enjoyed the book and really like the cast. I tried searching for another thread, since I remember one of the sorts, but had no luck.

[Lenardo]

points to the movie forum...

its Thataway

that said,, gonna see it this weekend most likely,,,that or that new cgi one

[Vorph]

The reviews are making it sound like it's actually worse than the book was, which is almost inconceivable. I was really hoping that if someone like Ron Howard freed the underlying story from the abysmal writing skill of Dan Brown there'd actually be a good movie in there. Ah well, I'll probably still go see it anyway, just to throw my $4.50 into the 'fuck religion' pool.

I will have a good laugh on Sunday night if it turns out that Over the Hedge beats it in ticket sales, however.

[Kan]

From what I am seeing it is being trashed by nearly every critic who has seen. I was looking forward to seeing this but from what I am hearing I am starting to not care if I do.

[Eomer]

Make no mistake, quality has nothing to do with how successful this movie will be. The book is a clear indication of that. I mean shit, the audience going to see this movie is either a) so stupid that they actually enjoyed the book and bought it's bullshit or b) so incredibly stupid they couldn't even read the book, which had a reading difficulty level roughly that of a Curious George book.

This movie will make money hand over fist, I guarantee it. Some are saying one of the highest of all time, and while I doubt it will go that high, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Make no mistake, quality has nothing to do with how successful this movie will be. The book is a clear indication of that. I mean shit, the audience going to see this movie is either a) so stupid that they actually enjoyed the book and bought it's bullshit or b) so incredibly stupid they couldn't even read the book, which had a reading difficulty level roughly that of a Curious George book.

This movie will make money hand over fist, I guarantee it. Some are saying one of the highest of all time, and while I doubt it will go that high, it wouldn't surprise me.

Have you read the book? Never heard anyone who has read it speak so badly about it... or are you just going from what you heard about it?

Personally I loved the Da Vinci Code, and I don't consider myself stupid or gullible

There are many accurate facts and descriptions in the book (things you can verify in books written by respected historians), but in the end it's fiction. There's no Robert Langdon and the curator of the louvre hasn't been murdered. The entire clue hunting, the Swiss vault, etc - that's obviously not realistic, and it's not supposed to be.

A swiss movie critic said on TV that the movie was very fast paced and if you lost track of the plot at one time, you wouldn't be able to make sense out of it. My guess is the movie was made for people who've already read the book. So it'd be nice to know if those critics who believe the movie sucked had read the book first. I can see how one could easily lose track of all that's going on.

It's probably suffering from all the hype as well. This "controversy" has given it so much publicity, that even the best movie of all times couldn't live up to the expectations people now have.

[Faltigoth]

I thought the story was good, but I don't like Dan Brown's writing - I personally think he sucks.

The reviews I read of the initial screening were not all that favorable - but the above posters are probably right, this is going to make shitloads of money not because it is of 'Citizen Kane' quality, but because the Da Vinci Code was one of the relatively rare works that really captured the imagination of millions of people; I think this has the potential to turn into a Titanic-style megahit.

I'll be going to see it this weekend, without a doubt; hell, I watched like 4 hours of Discovery channel shows this week about the book, the art it talks about, the 'facts' of the book, the Templars, etc etc.

[Furism]

'nuff said ?

[Coren]

Originally Posted by Soriak

There are many accurate facts and descriptions in the book (things you can verify in books written by respected historians), but in the end it's fiction.

There are even more inaccuracies passed off as facts than there are actual facts in the book though, a lot of it so easily verified that it's hard to believe Dan Brown thought he could get away with listing them as facts. Heck, the organization that Dan claimed was protecting the grail in fact didn't exist until the 1950's and was proven to be a scam. (The glass pyramid does not have 666 glass panes, the painting that chick used as a shield was actually bigger than Dan described, and painted on wood...well if I were to continue listing I'd be here all morning).

I actually enjoyed the story regardless, but there's no reason whatsoever to treat anything in the book as more than fiction - He got near everything wrong historically.

[Cybsled]

I like this movie purely for the fact it has the Vatican pissed. They act like it's the devil...rofl.

Vatican: "OMG YOU ARE UNDERMINING PEOPLE'S FAITH!"


I got news for you, you guys did that yourself!

*zing*

[Faltigoth]

Originally Posted by Cybsled

I like this movie purely for the fact it has the Vatican pissed. They act like it's the devil...rofl.

Vatican: "OMG YOU ARE UNDERMINING PEOPLE'S FAITH!"


I got news for you, you guys did that yourself!

*zing*

The Vatican isn't half as pissed as Opus Dei.

[Eomer]

Have you read the book? Never heard anyone who has read it speak so badly about it... or are you just going from what you heard about it?

Personally I loved the Da Vinci Code, and I don't consider myself stupid or gullible

There are many accurate facts and descriptions in the book (things you can verify in books written by respected historians), but in the end it's fiction.

I read it, yes. I borrowed it from my sister, who warned me that it was a pretty poorly written book. And she was right. It's interesting no doubt, and the pacing is breakneck. I read it in probably 3-5 days, it's certainly a page turner.

But it's no literary masterpiece. It's several rungs lower than a typical Crichton, Clancy, or Grisham book. Brown is a brutal writer.

On top of that, he's also apparently a terrible researcher. I wouldn't have an issue with a lot of the inaccuracies in the book (which yes, I wouldn't have spotted on my own, but dozens of others have), if it wasn't for the note at the beginning about how all facts and descriptions are totally true, and how the Priory of the Scion is a REAL organization. Numerous facts throughout the book are apparently wrong, whether because of Brown and his wife's poor research or bad intentions I don't know. The Priory of the Scion is apparently a hoax started by some Frenchman in the 50's. There's dozens of books debunking pretty much every bit of DVC that is claimed to be accurate or true.

He blatantly misrepresents a lot of stuff about Opus Dei as well. For example, they don't have monks, which is what that albino dude supposedly is.

My main problem with DVC is that Brown tries to pass it off as being "nearly" non-fiction, like it's a historical theory on the true life of Christ. He's even been asked how the book would be different if he had written it non-fiction, and his answer was that it wouldn't be different. He's a hack, and a liar. And none of what he presented is even remotely new or fresh, as evidenced by the lawsuits swarming around him for ripping off other's ideas.

And filthy rich. Fucker.

[Kiely]

I guess it boils down to him at the start of the book then. Thats the issue, not just inaccuracies.. it is a fiction novel of course. I wouldn't be annoyed if he said the Bush administration is secretly the Bin Laden family and wrote a book on the mistruths if it brought another good pageturning book, just don't stamp 100% verified truthful evidence on it if it isn't..

[Coren]

Yepyep. I do have mixed feelings about what Dan Brown did in writing the book, I have nothing against taking creative license to tell a story - and this is a case where his story simply would not work without drastically altering quite a few historical facts.

But then stamping two "Facts" up front, one of which is dubious, to indirectly lend credibility to a book full of misinformation...I think that crosses the line.

Another example that came to mind, is DVC claims that a commitee voted on the divinity of Jesus and that it was a close vote - In actuality that's not what the vote was really about, and there were only 3 votes against anyways. (iirc)

[Thorpe]

Originally Posted by Lenardo

points to the movie forum...

its Thataway

Sorry about that. Long day yesterday and didn't realize I was in the TV forum.