da vinci code

playdead

i heard that da vinci code was being made into a film. anybody hear anything about it. the book is brilliant. i notice when books are made into films, the films are worse than the book.

Rabies

http://imdb.com/title/tt0382625/

Goodshape

Staring Tom Hanks.

It'll be out next year.

IMdB link

Rcuomo

i dont have much hope for this film, considering the master of mediocrity, Ron howard, is doing it...im sure it will be a nice, entertaining piece but it'll be no silence of the lambs (another book to film i thought of...)

Le Rack

No comparison, the books are SOOOO much better! Half of it is left out in the film! For example, Mason has a female bodybuilding, somewhat gay sister who cares for him.

Orange Elephant

I thought the book was crap. It was so badly written and all the interesting facts were from a book written 25 years ago (The Holy Grail). With Ron Howard directing it, I think it will be pretty dull.

Le Rack

The Da Vinci Code or Hannibal? I'm guessing the Da Vinci Code...

Franky Boy

The book was pages of crappy fiction and I think the film will be the same a the book - ****.

Stompbox

Goodshape wrote:

Staring Tom Hanks.

It'll be out next year.

IMdB link

I couldn't really imagine Tom Hanks as Langdon. I always pictured yer man out of CSI:New York as Langdon. I forget his name.

fade2black

Oh your man from CSI:Las Vegas and FEAR would be a good langdon

In defence of howard his last film cinderella man was very entertaining. harrison ford should be langdon!!!

Fence

To be honest I really don't care about this film. Tried to read the book but it was so poorly written that I gave up. Still there are a few good names attached to this, I just wish they'd stop with the trailers. Bloody film isn't out until May 2006 and already I'm bored with their teaser trailer.

haven't they ever heard of marketing-fatigue?

misty floyd

I don't understand why people say "the book is way better than the film".........Of course its gonna be better than the film. In saying that, I've been told that the film of fear and loathing in las vegas is better than the book. Can anyone think of any films that are better than the book? I bet there aren't many.

Kingp35

Well I dont usually like watching movies of books that I have read because I already know whats going to happen etc and this takes away from it. I might have to check this out though. Im not too sure about Howard directing as I certainly wouldnt be a fan of his. Still it will be worth a look

Nimrod's Son

playdead wrote:

i heard that da vinci code was being made into a film. anybody hear anything about it. the book is brilliant. i notice when books are made into films, the films are worse than the book.

I don't think it's possible to make a film worse than that book. It's God-awful.

I don't think it's possible to make a film worse than that book. It's God-awful.
__________________
Thats why its been a best seller for how long now? thats why its old so many millions of copies?
The book had many flaws but was certainly an entertaining read, unless you are so against the white lies he used to sell his book it blocked your enjoyment of it

s8n

and your all experts ????? :rolleyes:

Take it for what it is a fun piece of fiction, based on an ounce of fact. Fun when it lasts but easily forgotten. The movie will probably be similar.

Nimrod's Son

Deleted User wrote:

The book had many flaws

Says it all really, doesn't it? Being a best-seller doesn't make it necessarily any good. Look at Westlife for example. They've been best-sellers for a decade now but does it make their music any good? No. It's only about finding a target audience gullible enough to gobble it all up.
It's not the "white lies" that put me off. The book reads like it was written by a ten year old. Ridiculous plot (complete with flaws), terrible narrative, zero character development etc. I've read Deception Point as well and that was worse again. Brown's just not a very good writer. All his material is essentially souped-up Nancy Drew.
If Howard somehow makes a decent movie out of it then I'll be the first to give him a big, fat 'Bravo'.

NoDayBut2Day

misty floyd wrote:

Can anyone think of any films that are better than the book? I bet there aren't many.

Phantom of the Opera. The book was kinda dull and boring in my opinion... but the musical/movie was awesome!!

Anyway, Da Vinci Code... I wasn't too thrilled with the book, but will probably go see the movie, just to see how it was...

faigs

How can you guys say that is was a bad book? That is ridiculus, everyone I have spoken to have enjoyed it as did I. Dan Brown is a master at storytelling and I don't know how you can argue against that; short paragraphs, cliff hangers, revelations about artists and hisorical movements/organisations.

I know the church have taken it too seriously, and I hope you aren't too; it is a work of fiction with some facts that have already been revealed "in some book 25 years ago". This may be, but they weren't pesented in such an interesting way like in Brown's work Brown. Such an intricate plot and method to keep the reader page-turning requires serious talent and that is why all of his books have been best sellers. Alas, the film will probably not do the book justice.

How can you guys say that is was a bad book?


Well there is a lot of problems with the book. Personally as i said I thought it was entertaining, and a good read. Saying Mozart was writing music about organisations at the age of 4 blue it apart for me on a credibility level.
But from a writing angle it is poorly written strictly from a literary sense, and depending on the way you look at it, the cliffhangers at the end of each chapter get very repetatative and almost ridiculous in that there are so many.
What Brown did was find a formula for the masses to enjoy and a plot that everyone would revel in. you can look at it in terms of pop music and how its very catchy but theres no depth to it. Thats what the masses like ......

Goodshape

Sweet wrote:

I couldn't really imagine Tom Hanks as Langdon. I always pictured yer man out of CSI:New York as Langdon. I forget his name.

Gary Sinese? (spelling?!)

fade2black wrote:

Oh your man from CSI:Las Vegas and FEAR would be a good langdon

How many bloody CSI shows are there anyway?!

/checks imdb... hmm, just the three it seems. CSI, CSI: Miami and CSI: New York. Wtf are you on about?!

LoLth

the book was enjoyable and if nothing else served to push people on to the better works the ideas were borrowed from (I hadnt read Focaults pendulum but after reading the davinci code I decided I would give it a go, best decision I've made in a long time tbh!).

as for being a great story teller.... digital fortress, deception point?? I think these prove that he's really not all that hot. Personally I preferred angels and demons to the davinci code but that was more for the tour of rome aspect of it.

I reckon I will go see the film. It might be enjoyable too. Has to be better than that nicholas cage twoddle that came out earlier in the year.....

vibe666

i really love it when sad internet geeks go on about how crap a writer/musician/actor/director is.

you might as well go and judge how good/bad an shuttle pilot or brain surgeon is.

the man obviously has a huge amount of talent compared to every poster in this thread because he's raking in millions of dollars from his work and has the admiration of a great many people for his storytelling.

nothing is original any more, there's just nothing left that hasn't already been done. he took ideas from a book that was harder going than swimming through treacle and condensed it down, added a bit of action, romance & intreague and turned it into an amusing piece of pulp fiction that the vast majority of people enjoyed immensly.

the fact that so many people here seem to think it's crap just because they didn't like it smacks of something other than constructive criticism.

anyone think they can do better? go ahead, you're already sitting in front of a keyboard, why don't you start now?

Dan Brown stumbled on a formula for writing stories that seemed to work pretty well, and ran with it, developing it over the course of his 4 or 5 popular works and has made a mint. whether you happen to like hs style of writing or not, several million people seem to think he's great, so credit where credit is due, well done Dan, it looks like you've cracked it. I'm fairly certain you're more sucessful at what you do than anyone here, so fair play to you.

let the games begin.

ixoy

vibe666 wrote:

you might as well go and judge how good/bad an shuttle pilot or brain surgeon is.

Not quite a valid comparison is it? We regularly read books so we've a decent idea about quality. We don't regularly witness brain surgery, so we've far less idea about what's involved. And, in the way we did have to write essays in school, we didn't have to examine ganglia in school. We're at least better equipped to judge novels.

the man obviously has a huge amount of talent compared to every poster in this thread because he's raking in millions of dollars from his work and has the admiration of a great many people for his storytelling.

Surely though you must admit that popularity != talent? By that token, Westlife are very talented, Siguar Ros (offhand) not nearly so much.

What he did was seem to get a very formulaic, accessible style in much the way popular sitcoms, such as "Everybody Loves Raymond" (*spit*) have. It doesn't necessarily make it good - just lowest common denominator material that people can pick up and chuck away afterwards.

My problem with "The DaVinci Code" is multi-fold:
Firstly, the plot's a hodgepodge of other ideas that I've seen expressed better elsewhere (offhand "Millennium" and "Preacher").

Secondly, the style of writing I found to be actually quite poor. Particular phrases were repeated too often and the dialogue seemed quite flat. None of the descriptions in it were particularly imaginative - they'd just skim over details so there was nothing but a tenuous image generated of scenes.

Thirdly - and this was my biggest problem with the novel - was that it had its protaganists act like idiots. The clues they were left were sometimes painstakingly obvious - one in particular. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the legacy of DaVinci would have instaneously cracked one particular puzzle (as I did) but yet the leads, despite being very familiar with the field, spent chapters trying to work it out, as if Brown wanted to let his audience feel clever for puzzling it out before them or bump up the page count. It made litte to no sense that they would act so stupidly...

Saying people are not permitted to criticize the work is daft. If we were to remain tight-lipped on all subject matters bar the one we're employed in, then the many forums like Films, Politics, and Sports would have to be shut down and that wouldn't be very interesting now would it?

TheBigLebowski

ixoy wrote:

Surely though you must admit that popularity != talent? By that token, Westlife are very talented, Siguar Ros (offhand) not nearly so much.

Let me just say I am no Westlife fan by any stretch of the imagination. But to say they have no talent is wrong. Yes they sing dodgy pop tunes that appeal to a mass market but that IS their talent. To say I am talentless with regards pop music is fair because I have never come up with anything that might appeal to a mass market but given half the chance and the talent (and balls) to carry it off, I'd jump at it. It takes a certain kind of talent to bottle something that the masses will enjoy.

So to compare Dan Brown to Westlife is probably fair, but to suggest neither have any talent is not.

Karl Hungus

vibe666 wrote:

nothing is original any more, there's just nothing left that hasn't already been done.

Christ, I love this... The written word has evolved over the years since roughly 6000 BC, and in that time there's been countless documentations of myths, numerous writings, stories and so forth. Humankind has been through so much in that time, and with experiences comes so many diverse tales from all over the world... So now it's 2005, and it's been decided that this is all of a sudden the cut-off point for originality? :rolleyes:

Are we as a species honestly that cynical?

So right then lads, you've heard it from vibe666 first, in the countless millennia that human kind might strive through, we'll never have another original peice of writing.

TheBigLebowski

TheBigLebowski wrote:

Let me just say I am no Westlife fan by any stretch of the imagination. But to say they have no talent is wrong. Yes they sing dodgy pop tunes that appeal to a mass market but that IS their talent. To say I am talentless with regards pop music is fair because I have never come up with anything that might appeal to a mass market but given half the chance and the talent (and balls) to carry it off, I'd jump at it. It takes a certain kind of talent to bottle something that the masses will enjoy.

So to compare Dan Brown to Westlife is probably fair, but to suggest neither have any talent is not.

Well my friend if you call looking good talent then I agree, but westlife are nothing more then trained chimps to put it harshly. good looking chimps, but chimps all the same. None of them can actually sing with a high quality, depending on how you rate a singer. Its quite easy to train someone to dance and to use there vocal chords if they are reasonably coordinated. These guys like most boybands are every dudes. they dont write their own music yet they are musicians? anyway enough rant


Quote//So right then lads, you've heard it from vibe666 first, in the countless millennia that human kind might strive through, we'll never have another original peice of writing Quote//

Haha i like it. vibe666 wouldnt be the first to say this. vibe if you beleive that your not watching or listening to the right s**t!

TheBigLebowski

Deleted User wrote:

Well my friend if you call looking good talent then I agree, but westlife are nothing more then trained chimps to put it harshly. good looking chimps, but chimps all the same. None of them can actually sing with a high quality, depending on how you rate a singer. Its quite easy to train someone to dance and to use there vocal chords if they are reasonably coordinated. These guys like most boybands are every dudes. they dont write their own music yet they are musicians? anyway enough rant

Sorry sonny but it ain't all about looking good. Just look at the Boyzone boys. Hardly the best looking bunch. Talent comes in many different forms. Nobody is suggesting that they are brilliant musicians, composers or songwriters. They also need a talented manager who can push them along (hate Louis as much as you want, he has a talent for promoting dodgy boybands), talented marketing people and probably talented stylists. I'd like to see you stand in front of 20,000 people and sing and dance for an hour and have everyone leave happy...

So as much as all these people have talent for doing what they do, Dan Brown has a talent for writing fictional books with a little bit of fact thrown in.

And for people who keep saying the film won't be as good as the book. How is a film which is only about 2 hours long going to be as good as a book which is 300 pages (or whatever) and takes probably about 12 hours (or something like that) to read. Of course stuff is going to get left out. The only time a film is better than a book is when the book isn't a particularly good book and the film improves on it.

Karl Hungus

Lads, leave the Westlife related debate to the music forums, ok? As much as I'd like to jump in here and deride the group, it's just driving the thread off-topic. Go start a thread in music/radio, ok?

BrenC

The book was alright, I didn't see what the big deal was, most of it was speculation.