Da Vinci Code-I saw it today.

I have read the book too. so should I expect the feeling of "I have imagined this scene in another way"?
 
surf said:
I have read the book too. so should I expect the feeling of "I have imagined this scene in another way"?
Click to expand...

Of course you should. Has any book to film adaptation come out exactly like the way you pictured it? :) I guess not, unless you personally adapted and directed it!
 
I saw the movie and I understood it, I just didn't think the story was all that interesting. I had high hopes of it being good and was ultimatley let down. I never read the book which i heard from trusted sources was phenominal. I guess in my head I had a better movie envisioned, with a more complex and appealing plot. If the book is as good as i hear then this movie was just poorly delivered.
 
I should, but I don't have time right now.
thanks MOVIE STUNTS, I think I will watch it only on the telly
 
Damn, that movie was D-E-A-D-L-Y.

Long-winded, suspense-free, slow, tedious...

I felt SO cheated after I sat through that, I owed it to myself to get my money's worth that evening... so I sneaked into X-Men 3.

Good thing I did. X-MEN 3 rocked.

So far, my aversion to RON HOWARD continues. 3 for 3. A BEAUTIFUL MIND, CINDERELLA MAN, and now this. Unbearable. Last thing of his I could stand was THE MISSING and that only because it starred CATE BLANCHETT and TOMMY LEE JONES... RACHEL EVAN WOOD wasn't bad either...

What a hack... and he always choses the safest possible projects. However bland the results, he's always assured some B.O. gold what with the Tom Hanks and Russell Crowes of this world... I always feel like he makes his films just to appeal to Oscar and the academy.

Total manufactured B.S.
 
just saw the movie. didn't read the book. thought the movie was very good but not great. def. worth seeing. very entertaining. i can see how the book might be amazing..... great story. though, too much info to cram into a tight little 2 hour thriller IMHO.
 
E_D_N said:
Last thing of his I could stand was THE MISSING and that only because it starred CATE BLANCHETT and TOMMY LEE JONES... RACHEL EVAN WOOD wasn't bad either...
Click to expand...
I hated that movie!!
 
Yeah, well, too many people confuse a gun being drawn with "drama."

The movie was too long, too windy, too contrived. "National Treasure" was a far better execution of a similar idea.
 
SPZ said:
Of course you should. Has any book to film adaptation come out exactly like the way you pictured it? :) I guess not, unless you personally adapted and directed it!
Click to expand...

Weirdly enough, 'The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe' *did* look just about exactly the way that I'd visualized it, when I read the book. Only time I remember that happening, though.

'DaVinci Code' was painful to sit through, for me...party because I found it badly paced/poorly written/indifferently acted/disappointingly designed, but mainly because the book upon which it's based is nothing more than a pablumized version of older material that has been around since the 1950s, and before, much of which has been conclusively debunked by people who made a minor effort to research it.
 
Sad Max said:
mainly because the book upon which it's based is nothing more than a pablumized version of older material that has been around since the 1950s, and before, much of which has been conclusively debunked by people who made a minor effort to research it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I don't the X-Men, because I think it's pretty well known now that those guys aren't real. :evil: C'mon. There's all kinds of reasons not to like the story, but not to like it because its theories have been debunked doesn't quite cut it, since it is a work of fiction. Using that logic, you've got to hate Fargo, since the Coen Brothers said it was a true story...and lo and behold, they lied!!!! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
The creators of 'X-Men' and 'Fargo' never tried to pass off their creations as having any objective connection to reality or accurate history (what the Coen Bros. did was obviously parodic - and since they didn't use high-profile historic events and prominent individuals, and weren't trying to invent never-happened key events in western history - whatever they might have been doing, isn't the same). 'The DaVinci Code' has been consistently presented as something that has some historical pedigree, by people who really ought to know better.

When the book came out, I had a lot of friends who read it, talking at me about 'wow, 'The Last Supper' this, and 'wow, Freemasons' that, and 'wow, Priory of Sion' whatever - it was clearly intended to come off as having some connection to history.

Example: the depiction of St. John the Divine as effeminate, female-looking, is traditional, so anyone who's interested in Renaissance religious painting, knows that the 'it's a woman at the Last Supper!' business, is bogus. Brown's work is intended to appeal to people without a good grounding in the history he's mis-representing, and that's good marketing, I guess, but basically dishonest.

And, just to clarify, I'm not coming at this from the perspective of a believer in the traditional Christian renditions of any of this stuff, either.
 
Last edited:
I think the biggest problem is people not understanding the difference between fact and fiction. To me, it was obviously a work of fiction. The cinema is not the place to learn history. At best, it can foster an interest which can then be best served going to other, more reliable sources.
 
It doesn't help when a fictional work is purposely presented as factual.

Although I suppose one could argue that anything that undermines belief in the "objectivity" of history, or the "truth" of religion, is a healthy thing.
 
Sad Max said:
It doesn't help when a fictional work is purposely presented as factual.
Click to expand...

Who did that?

I've got the paperback sitting right here. None of the blurbs say anything like that.

Well, except for the one comparing it to Harry Potter, of course.

Nowhere is there even a hint of the story being factual, or even based on fact, other than the page that says Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion are real (or were, in the latter case).

Now, if you mean the word-of-mouth from the New Age whackadoos, that's different. Then again, they think shiny rocks have special powers...
 
In a short preface, Brown lists a series of "facts" underlying the fiction of his novel. He declares that the "Priory of Sion, a European secret society founded in 1099, is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as "Les Dossiers Secrets", identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Sandro Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo da Vinci."

This statement of "fact", itself highly controversial, has apparently led many readers to believe that most of what the book says about the Priory is based on sound research. The author has created the same impression in other media. In a TV interview now transcribed on his own web pages, Brown was asked regarding his novel: "How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?" Brown responded: "Absolutely all of it." He added that his protagonist Robert Langdon "is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact." The reference to "secret societies" would include Brown's portrayal of the Priory of Sion.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Priory_of_Sion_in_the_Da_Vinci_Code

Also:

The book opens with the claim by Dan Brown that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"; but this claim is disputed by almost all academic scholars in the fields the book discusses [3]. As widely noted in the media, there has been substantial confusion among readers about whether the book is factual. Numerous works have been published that explain in detail why any claim to accuracy is difficult to substantiate, while two lawsuits have been brought alleging plagiarism in The Da Vinci Code. The second, by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail claiming textual infringement of copyright, was found in Dan Brown's favor.

Dan Brown himself dilutes the suggestion of some of the more controversial aspects being fact on his web site: "The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader." [4]. However, it also says that "these real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters", "it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit." and "the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss." It is therefore entirely understandable why there would continue to be confusion as to what is the factual content of the book.

Brown's earlier statements about the accuracy of the historical information in his book, however, were far more strident. In 2003, while promoting his novel, he was asked in interviews what parts of the history in his novel actually happened. He replied "Absolutely all of it." In a 2003 interview with CNN's Martin Savidge he was again asked how much of the historical background was true. He replied, "99 per cent is true ... the background is all true". Asked by Elizabeth Vargas in an ABC News special if the book would have been different if he had written it as non-fiction he replied, "I don't think it would have." [5] More recently Brown has avoided interviews and has been rather more circumspect about the accuracy of his claims in his few public statements. He has also, however, never retracted any of his earlier assertions that the history in the novel is accurate, despite substantial academic criticism of his claims.

In 2005, UK TV personality Tony Robinson edited and narrated a detailed rebuttal of the main arguments of Dan Brown and those of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, "The Real Da Vinci Code", shown on British TV Channel 4. The program featured lengthy interviews with many of the main protagonists cited by Brown as "absolute fact" in The Da Vinci Code. Arnaud de Sede, son of Gérard de Sede, stated categorically that his father and Plantard had made up the existence of the Prieuré de Sion, the cornerstone of the Jesus bloodline theory - to quote Arnaud de Sede in the program, "frankly, it was piffle". The program also cast severe doubt on the Roslyn association with the Grail and on other related stories like the alleged landing of Mary Magdalene in France. Detailed analysis of many other claims by Brown in The Da Vinci Code in the program showed them to be unverifiable or unhistorical.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code

Posted only as to the point of how the book was represented, not to the truth or falsity of the premise or points themselves.
 
GenJerDan said:
Now, if you mean the word-of-mouth from the New Age whackadoos, that's different. Then again, they think shiny rocks have special powers...
Click to expand...
Shiny rocks don't have special powers...?

^ what David said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top