Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › The Davinci Code
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Davinci Code - Page 2

post #16 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist
I'm quite dissapointed that Hanks would do this movie. The man's worth as much as a small country by now, and I doubt a man with the talent and artistic panache to pull off Forest Gump, Cast Away, Philadelphia etc... is going to do this film. I'm sure it won't be horrible, but once you reach the level of Tom Hanks, you can really pick your projects more carefully.
Tom Hanks stands to make obscenely large amounts of money from this movie. He's won his Oscars; what else does he need?
post #17 of 117
^^

He's just setting you up with shitty projects so no one gets surprised when he brings back Bosom Buddies.

Rome.
post #18 of 117
Yea, and Teabing's supposed to be fat... but right now he's being acted by the leading geezer of the moment...
post #19 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by designprofessor
They stopped?

Only in NYC, but only because we substituted smokers for witches.
post #20 of 117
I DID read it on an airplane.

I AM reasonably intelligent (Shut up Bill).

Ron Howard has never done a bad movie.

I will go see it this weekend or next.

But Tom Hanks is the wrong guy for the part I think...

I'll bet he got it because he lobbied for it.
post #21 of 117
Saw it yesterday with a friend who really, really wanted to see it. I was fairly entertained, I guess. I actually like Tom Hanks.

I never read the book - someone told me, "Read the first chapter and you won't be able to put it down!" I read the first chapter, I put it down.

There's nothing wrong with a good pulp novel, I just found Brown's style of writing, I don't know... lazy. I think that "Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed" line epitomizes this. If you want readers to think of your character as a modern-day Indiana Jones, have him do something Indiana Jones-ish, don't tell me he's super cool. If the writer doesn't care, I don't see why I should.

So, without having to wade through the poor prose, the movie was pretty good. Calling it controversial is a pretty big leap, though, if you ask me.

PS Ian McKellen is wearing EG Malvern spectators in at least one scene.
post #22 of 117
How do you know they're EG Malverns?
post #23 of 117
Interesting story, horrendously written.

I will see the movie version, but not in the theaters.

LOL at "Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed" not "Tom Hanks with a mullet".
post #24 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoopee
How do you know they're EG Malverns?
It was the chestnut and khaki twill version - I'm sure I could be wrong, but they seemed pretty distinctively EG.
post #25 of 117
I'm boycotting this crap. I do not support bad writing.
post #26 of 117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B.
Ron Howard has never done a bad movie.
How The Grinch Stole Christmas. Nuff said. Bleh.
post #27 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist
I can't stand the birkenstock wearing, kleenex in sleeve crowd who read 2 books a week and take great pleasure in slamming Dan Brown.
This demographic exists?

Rome--The ideas in Name of the Rose (my favorite book, BTW) and Holy Blood, Holy Grail are hardly unique. In fact, HBHG is very explicit about the canon of which it is only a part.

DaVinci code was entertaining, I'll see the movie. Paul Bettany rules. I recommend The Rule of Four as a better book in the genre. The jacket calls it a cross of Eco and Brown. It's more Brown than Eco.

Tom
post #28 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger02
This demographic exists?

Rome--The ideas in Name of the Rose (my favorite book, BTW) and Holy Blood, Holy Grail are hardly unique. In fact, HBHG is very explicit about the canon of which it is only a part.

DaVinci code was entertaining, I'll see the movie. Paul Bettany rules. I recommend The Rule of Four as a better book in the genre. The jacket calls it a cross of Eco and Brown. It's more Brown than Eco.

Tom

Yes, and a startling amount of people subscribe to such a lifestyle.
post #29 of 117
Tiger:

I wasn't trying to imply that topic was new but if IIRC this is how it goes... Eco's Rose was partly inspired by Holy Blood. Rose basically deals with the same topic only in a much more intellectual manner (no can debate Eco's ability to add verbosity to simple acts like flipping a light switch). The character Teabing's name is actually a crude anagram for Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh who wrote Holy Blood. Sorry if this whole thing has already been covered elsewhere. Brown draws more from these books in ideas and topics, that's why I say rape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Going to see it?

Anyone want to discuss why Jesus's 'divinity' being tarnished by a work of fiction is such a huge deal? Would it seriously ruin your day if he married a normal human woman, and maybe had a child? I'm interested to know.

JC's divinity lies on three things as far as I know. 1) Born of a virgin (borrowed from African folklore but that's neither here nor there). 2) Son of God/ God in the flesh/ Part of the Holy Trinity (however you choose to see it). 3) Died for the sins of humanity (only to come back later and say, "I told you so"). All three rely on each other.

Now if you bring into question whether JC truly died for our sins it throws everything for a loop. How divine was he if he hid out and then had children? That is something purely human. Now while I would see this as a chance to openly discuss my Christianity or topics and misconceptions of religion or faith, there are those that only see it as an attack on their system of beliefs and get on the defensive (like those wacky Albino groups). Is it reasonable? No. But it does make for good T.V.


Rome.
post #30 of 117
Weighing in...

I would go see it for the same reason I read the book; everyone is talking about it. I didn't really have an interest in reading the book except to see what all of the fuss was about.

To me, the book is kinda like Rocky or Die Hard. Kinda dumbed down, excitement, slightly cheezee but hard to turn the channel. The book was kinda intense / suspenseful. I did think the book brought up some interesting points about Christianity, some interesting points of view I never thought of or heard about.

I actually liked Angels and Demons better. It seemed to have more depth than TDC.

On Tom Hanks; His success in movies is undeniable. I definitely pictured someone else in the roll. But isn't that always the case with books? That's one reason, I think, books are so much better. They allow the imagination to take over.

P.S. Why can't the church acknowledge what it is... a fictional book?

P.P.S. Anyone remember Happy Days? Ahhhhhhhhh, those were the days...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › The Davinci Code