Da Vinci Code-I saw it today.

I feel the same way about the movie as I did about the book... mediocore and overrated (in the book's case anyway).

All I kept thinking to myself as I read the book was bad writing, bad writing, bad writing. And oh my god this is so boring.

There was an intriguing mystery in there somewhere but Brown was not the writer to tell it.

The movie to me was exceptionally long and moved slower than a snail's pace. Most of the actors looked bored or uninterested, and I distinctly heard the sound of snoring several times.

Write a so-so mystery and throw in some "controversial matter" about the Catholic church and you're sure to have a hit. You don't even have to be a good writer to make millions off of it.
 
Ought2bCommitted said:
I feel the same way about the movie as I did about the book... mediocore and overrated (in the book's case anyway).

All I kept thinking to myself as I read the book was bad writing, bad writing, bad writing. And oh my god this is so boring.

There was an intriguing mystery in there somewhere but Brown was not the writer to tell it.

The movie to me was exceptionally long and moved slower than a snail's pace. Most of the actors looked bored or uninterested, and I distinctly heard the sound of snoring several times.

Write a so-so mystery and throw in some "controversial matter" about the Catholic church and you're sure to have a hit. You don't even have to be a good writer to make millions off of it.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's possible for me to disagree more. Brown had to be one helluva creative/smart mofo to write that book. The so-so mystery???

Who do you think would've been a better author for this book?

If it's that easy to sell 40 million copies of a book, I should expect you'll be very rich, very soon right?
 
I read the book and loved it. got me back into fiction reading again. it was a page turner and fast read. I disagree that "there was an intriguing mystery in there somewhere." This completely undermines how radical an idea Brown presented in a piece of fiction, so much so it got people from varying parts of the world all riled up, not to mention the Roman Catholic Church: "intriguing mystery in there somewhere"?
 
Slimothy said:
I don't know if it's possible for me to disagree more. Brown had to be one helluva creative/smart mofo to write that book. The so-so mystery???

Who do you think would've been a better author for this book?

If it's that easy to sell 40 million copies of a book, I should expect you'll be very rich, very soon right?
Click to expand...

Okay, Brown "borrowed" much of his "research" from the Holy Bloodline book. What he then did was fashion a so-so murder mystery around it that FOR ME-how many times do I need to say that-ran oput of steam very quickly. Once you know the hook, it's really not that interesting.

Jesus H, man, how the hell should I know who would have done a better job with the story, but I can tell you this-I have read 3--yes 3, incl. Da Vinci Code, John--of Dan Brown's books and while they are "researched" well, his writing is poo poo. There are LOTS of examples of bad writing on every page. Great "researcher", so-so writer.

As for the last remark, that was kind of rude and all I can say is it was uncalled for. I'm not attacking you for your opinion so I would expect the same in return not 5th grade smart ass comebacks.

And yes, I do hope to sell tons of books soon because I know I can write.
 
Rasquachemedia said:
I read the book and loved it. got me back into fiction reading again. it was a page turner and fast read. I disagree that "there was an intriguing mystery in there somewhere." This completely undermines how radical an idea Brown presented in a piece of fiction, so much so it got people from varying parts of the world all riled up, not to mention the Roman Catholic Church: "intriguing mystery in there somewhere"?
Click to expand...

Since the idea has been presented in several books and documentaries since the 1960s and 70s, I fail to see how Brown came up with a radical idea. It's radical if its new. It wasn't new.

It may have been new to the fiction lovers of the world, however, the idea has been circulating in many forms for years.

Therefore, I'll say it AGAIN, FOR ME, the idea/hook was hardly radical or even that interesting. IT took me a long time to get through the book since the pages weren't turning themselves for me. For me its a real toss up as to which I found more boring-the book or the movie. As for getting people upset all over the world, I guess controversy makes something good? It's really not to get the Catholic church riled up and sell a ton of books or spin off documentaries on how YOU can crack Da Vinci's code. Controversy sells. I give Brown credit for that and for "borrowing" extensively from other books. I am SHOCKED he won the lawsuit.

I love a good page turner, a good mystery. Just not this one. I don't mind being one of the 40million who read the book and shook their head going whatever. I'm sure I'm not alone. In fact, I know I am not. My wife has been reading it for 6 months and is so bored by it as well. Go figure.

Da Vinci Code. You either love it or hate it. Sorry but I fall in the hate it category.
 
Last edited:
I can live with being in the minority, John. I can actually think for myself and not going along with crowd. I won't say I like something because everyone else does. I guess if everyone's doing it, I should too because clearly everyone else knows better than me.

I also have no problem saying I haven't seen as many run on sentences in one of Dan Brown's books since 5th grade english class. So maybe I should clarify that as a TECHNICAL writer, Brown sucks.

I guess having a movie released means you're a good director too? Uwe Boll? I hardly think that's proof.

44 languages, etc.. blah blah... controversy sells. I won't argue that. More power to Brown. He'll never have to write another book again (thank god). Of course his other 4 books were on the bestseller list at once--no one else knew he even wrote another book until the Da Vinci controversy hit. That's really a silly point.

Take a gander through Amazon or Barnes and Noble and read some readers reviews of the book. Apparently some read the same edition I did. All of the good writing was taken out and shoddy writing was put in.

Just because it sold 60 million copies doesn't mean there are 60 million satisfied readers out there. But true, probably more liked it than not. People liked Titanic too. :-) (sorry couldn't resist!)

He's the perfect example of pop-fiction. He's hardly a literary master.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't attacking you for your opinion. I was just noting that you mentioned how easy it is to do what Dan Brown did.

"Write a so-so mystery and throw in some "controversial matter" about the Catholic church and you're sure to have a hit. You don't even have to be a good writer to make millions off of it."

That's exactly what you said. If the equation is that simple then I REALLY do expect you will be very rich soon!


The fact of the matter is: It's not that easy.
 
Slimothy said:
I wasn't attacking you for your opinion. I was just noting that you mentioned how easy it is to do what Dan Brown did.

"Write a so-so mystery and throw in some "controversial matter" about the Catholic church and you're sure to have a hit. You don't even have to be a good writer to make millions off of it."

That's exactly what you said. If the equation is that simple then I REALLY do expect you will be very rich soon!


The fact of the matter is: It's not that easy.
Click to expand...

Really it is. Take out the "controversial" matter of tDVC and tell me honestly if you think it would have sold 60million copies and anyone would have cared. I doubt it. It was a good formula and one he worked on over the course of several books.

And why would that mean I was going to be rich soon? What makes you think I am remotely interested in ripping off other people's work and making some controversy just to make a buck. Sorry not for me. I write about things I actually care about, and ideas that are my own. If I never become a multi-zillionaire like Dan Brown, whooppeee. I don't write to make a buck. I write because I have to.
 
You seem to hold it against Mr Brown for no apparent reason; attacking the subject matter, attacking the writing style, allegations of plagiarism ....

What's the hoopla ?

(And Titanic rules. Awesome popcorn. If one doesnt like Titanic I just cant fathom that from purely a filmmaking perspective.)

-

I agree; the book was so-so. I was more intrigued by the subject matter itself.

-

I am not the literary giant (although am writing here and there) but gotta disagree that anyone can do or the other claims you have thrown out.

Oh well; opinions.
 
[SIZE=+0]Terrible movie:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]I'm not a fan of Ron Howard at all. He's a studio guy, that's why this film turned out the way it did. The movie should have been darker, I think with a better director it would have been. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]The only Ron Howard film I enjoy is The Grinch, everything else is just sentimental crap. [/SIZE]
 
Jeez... now I feel bad for saying that the movie was simply "alright"...

I sure wouldn't call it a terrible movie... I enjoyed it... I just thought it felt dumbed down in a couple parts and that annoyed me.

To say the book was stupid is kinda' nutty... I don't get that at all.

On an off-subject about TDC... did anybody else pay attention to the motivated lighting? If you're trying to learn about lighting then pay close attention during TDC and you will see the point that I am constantly making about lighting... all you need is the TINIEST reason to justify the light that is required for the actors. In the private jet the Bishop and young guy are perfectly lit by light coming in through the jet windows... ever been on a plane like that? They don't have light pointing into the windows from outside... then in the car... it's common knowledge to put a small light on the dash or at the wheel and the viewer can pretend as if it's the guages lighting the faces... but when she backs up and both faces are looking out the rear... the SAME light is filling the faces from that side too. Didn't notice did you? TDC is filled with motivated lighting that isn't really justified, but it's fun to pick out when you see all the light fill coming from places that wouldn't emit it in the real world.

Great movie? No.

Good movie? Yeah I think so.
 
John_Hudson said:
(And Titanic rules. Awesome popcorn. If one doesnt like Titanic I just cant fathom that from purely a filmmaking perspective.)
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I try to tell people. It feels good that a real bad ass is on my side.
 
John_Hudson said:
I wonder how many people here actually read the book.
Click to expand...

Probably the main reason I enjoyed it, I know movies are known to butcher their book counterparts so I avoided this one.........
 
I have to side with Ought2BCommited here.
Dan Brown is not a great writer. Selling millions of books does not a great writer make, anymore than selling a million tickets makes one a great filmmaker.
His style of writing is often described as 'airport ficiton' and I'd tend to agree. It's pulp.

As for being a great researcher, well I don't know. What I do know is that almost all of his material came from one source: the book 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. In fact, his character Lee Teabing (sp?) is a name fashioned from a combination of the names of the authors of that book.
Unfortunately, the entire foundation upon which the authors of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' rested their argument was shown to be a hoax put forth by one very imaginitive French man by the name of Pierre Plantard and a couple of his buddies in the mid 1950's.
Nevertheless, Dan Brown insists on page 1 of his novel that the Priory of Sion is a real organization founded in 1099 which simply isn't true. But explaining that it was all a hoax wouldn't sell too many books, I suppose.

That said, this could've been a really intriguing movie but, alas, it was not.
It was basically an episode of Scooby-Doo dressed up in fancy clothes, except without the interesting characters. The only thing missing was Ian McKellan's character uttering the line, "And I'd have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"
 
THX1138 said:
It was basically an episode of Scooby-Doo dressed up in fancy clothes, except without the interesting characters. The only thing missing was Ian McKellan's character uttering the line, "And I'd have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"
Click to expand...

I have to agree, this is how dumb it was
 
THX1138 said:
It was basically an episode of Scooby-Doo dressed up in fancy clothes, except without the interesting characters. The only thing missing was Ian McKellan's character uttering the line, "And I'd have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"
Click to expand...

is it so bad?
 
surf said:
is it so bad?
Click to expand...

Of course not. My suggestion? See the harshest opinions from both sides (good and bad) and then try to find the middle ground. It is an entertaining movie. Just don't take it for a masterpiece, which its not.
Definetly better than a Scobby Doo episode, by the way... You want Scooby Doo? Watch "I know what you did last summer"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top