Da Vinci Code on film

[Desdichado]

How does one reasonably talk about a film based on a book that deliberately slanders, defames, and distorts? If Ron Howard had decided to make a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would people be expected to "talk reasonably about the merits of the film"?

That's absurd. Nobody says that the X-files can't be talked about critically because they deliberately slander, defame and distort the role of the government in all kinds of conspiracies. I don't see how this is any different. The conspiracy Brown invented (or coopted from other nutcases who take it more seriously, actually) was essential to the plot, not an attempt to defame or slander.

 

[Hijinks]

I would also prefer that personal opinions about the subject matter behind the novel not be included in this thread, because then it will inevitably be locked. I'd prefer that didn't happen.

Some people prefer to think the novel/movie are based completely in fact. Some people believe it's all claptrap. Fine. If you saw the movie, please judge it based on the standards of movie criticism here. If you want to complain about religious ideals, it's well-known on this board that such things are not allowed, so please keep it on other forums.

 

[Darthjaye]

I agree. A previous thread on this topic devolved into this same arguement. Keep your personal beliefs to yourself people. If you can't babysit your own mouth, then a moderator will end up doing it for you and surely will close this. Try harder to be more respectful of the rest of us out here. We don't all share your "beliefs" and would appreciate your not sharing yours here.

If you can't do this, don't come here anymore please.

I tried to be polite in the last thread this happened in and it got me nowhere. Have your philosophical arguements elsewhere, but stop or leave, that's the only request I'm making now.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I was going to wait and read the book first, but I think I'll go see this on vacation next week. I'm a conspiracy buff so this is right up my alley.

 

[Mistwell]

Not quite, but she was portrayed as a (mostly) normal person. That driving was completely insane.

Han Solo was just an ordinary smuggler who could navigate a meteor shower.
Indiana Jones was just an archeologist who could crawl below a moving truck and survive.
The hobbits were just ordinary hobbits, who could do extraordinary things they never even dreamed about.

And yet this one single POLICE INVESTIGATOR (which is what she is - someone in a profession that generally includes emergency driving in the general instruction course) was a fantastic driver in an emergency situation, and you find it so unbelievable as to call it insane?

 

[Mistwell]

How does one reasonably talk about a film based on a book that deliberately slanders, defames, and distorts? If Ron Howard had decided to make a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would people be expected to "talk reasonably about the merits of the film"?

It's a fiction film. It doesn't deliberately slander, defame, or distort anything real, as it is not real. It's fiction.

Yes, I would be happy to see a film about the elders of zion. In fact, I think they should use the graphic novel "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by Will Eisner" as the basis to make such a film. It would be great. It would do well. I would see it. Most people I know would see it. A fine suggestion.

 

[Mistwell]

I actually disagree with that. Star Wars offers credentials for its characters. Han made the Kessel run in X many parsecs, Jedi are famed
warriors so on and so forth. Thus it does not strain credulity when Han is an expert pilot, or Luke becomes more powerful as he advances in his learnings about the Jedi.

Han pilots the Falcon through a meteor shower where the exact odds are mentioned just so everyone is clear exactly how incredible impossible what he is doing really is. There is no question left in the viewers mind - we are seeing essentially a miricle in piloting skills take place. A lot greater of a miricle than smashing into all sorts of stuff for literally 3 blocks in a tiny little car at relatively slow speeds as done by a police investigator.

Sophie is a code breaker, yet she breaks no codes, and drives in a fashion befitting a trained driver.

She is a trained driver. She is a police investigator who specializes in codes, but who had the same training as all police investigators which includes emergency driving.

Langdon is a Historical Symbologist, yet he seems to be able to break codes with the greatest of ease. Langdon seems to be a better code breaker than Sophie.

He is essentially one of the best on the planet. It's his gift. They even show you how he can see things others cannot by almost total recall of not just words but three dimensional images in a way nobody else can do it. That IS the point. He's special, and one of the aspects that makes him the hero.

It is the same as if C3P0 piloted the Milienum Falcon like Han, it does not fit the character.

c3po isn't the hero, and NOBODY can pilot the millenium falcon through a meteor shower and survive without a miricle....

 

[Mistwell]

But that isn't actual history.

Correct. It's fiction.

Dan Brown himself has said more than once that the core claims of his novel are all true, which is precisley not the case.

1) We are discussing the movie, not the book. Ron Howard made the movie. Ron Howard is the one who needs to make claims in this case.
2) Brown says what he says. That the art, architecture, documents, and rituals are based on historical things. That's all true. He doesn't say the core claims of his novel are all true. He says what I just repeated. It's a specific list.

So, in essence, Dan Brown has written a book which says many defamatory things,

No. He has written a fiction book which says nothing about anything real right now.

is so full of historical errors

Fictional history. Not real history. Cannot be an error if it's not supposed to be real.

that any scholar would laugh himself silly reading it,

It's not a scholarly historical work. It's a fiction novel.

and which the author himself claims is based on facts.

No, he does not. And, in this case, the "author" is Ron Howard.

IOW, it sounds a lot like the aforementioned Protocols.

Bring on the Protocols!

But the current discussion is about a "controversial" film. How can one discuss the film while ignoring the mountains of lies and distortions it is based upon? If Ron Howard's next film was about how Jewish bankers are subverting world governments, would you likewise suggest that people who find anti-Semitism offensive "change the channel"?

Yes. I would indeed say just that. Particularly if it was a fiction film.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

For those who have seen the movie and read the book, how close are they?

 

[Mark Chance]

1) We are discussing the movie, not the book. Ron Howard made the movie. Ron Howard is the one who needs to make claims in this case.

So am I.

2) Brown says what he says. That the art, architecture, documents, and rituals are based on historical things. That's all true. He doesn't say the core claims of his novel are all true. He says what I just repeated. It's a specific list.

False. Dan Brown in his own words:

“I wanted to write a book that while it entertained at the same time, you close that last page and go ‘Wow, do you know how much I just learned? That’s fascinating.’ That is really what I set out to do.”

“When I started researching Da Vinci Code, I really was skeptical and I expected on some level to disprove all this history that is unearthed in the book and after three trips to Paris and a lot of interviews, I became a believer…”

When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”

Similarly, in an interview with “Good Morning America” when asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?” Dan Brown responded: “I don’t think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.”

In the same interview, Dan Brown strove to substantiate his theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married. He claimed: “The people who ask me how much is true need to realize that this theory about Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries. It’s not my theory. This has been presented, really over the last 2000 years, and it has persisted.”
​

So, while Ron Howard can be given props for distancing himself from Dan Brown's claims, the fact still remains that the author of the book upon which the movie is based says that his book is essentially factual except for its obviously fictitious characters.

Now, what does the movie claim? It claims the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers and that Opus Dei is an assassin-employing cult. These falsehoods are predicated upon a structure that deliberately distorts history.

So, then, we're dealing with a movie that at its core is a deliberate insult to slightly more than 1 billion in the world. Of course, those of you who see no problems in anti-Semitism as a form of entertain don't see this as a problem, while those of us who beg to differ are summarily dismissed by self-appointed moderators huffing with self-righteous indignation.

But back to the movie. First, it's deliberately offensive and based on the claims of seriously deluded man who claims to believe his own fiction (or, more precisely, fiction he plagiarized from others). Second, it's just not a very good movie. In almost every case, the acting is wooden. The plot is a muddled mess, which isn't surprising considering the poor quality of the source material. The storyline is overlong and pedantic. It strives less to be entertainment than it does to be documentary.

To repeat my earlier review: By all means, boycott this movie. You'll sleep better at home.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So are you determined to get this thread closed to silence discussion of it? Please go away.

 

[Mistwell]

So am I.



False. Dan Brown in his own words:

cut interview​

That, my friend, is NOT in the book, OR the movie. It's an interview. And if we are including author interiviews as necessary stuff to be able to comment on a movie, there isn't a thread left in this entire forum.

Interviews with people involved in projects are pretty much useless. If Joss Weadon did an iterview saying Buffy was real...we would laugh about it, but it wouldn't ever come up as "we cannot comment on Buffy without commenting on what was said in the interview". The interview is extraneous stuff. You can read it, or not. You can comment on it in a separate thread about that interview. But it's not part of the book, or the movie. There is nothing core there at all.

So, then, we're dealing with a movie that at its core

See, there you go. You are calling a single excerpt from an interview with the author of a book that a movie is based on as the core of the movie. That doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you? If I quoted an excerpt from Lucas in an interview commenting on A New Hope saying Luke represented to him the elephant-god diety Ganesh from Hinduism when he wrote the character, would you feel the excerpt was the core of the movie rather than, say, THE MOVIE BEING THE CORE OF THE MOVIE?

is a deliberate insult to slightly more than 1 billion in the world. Of course, those of you who see no problems in anti-Semitism as a form of entertain don't see this as a problem, while those of us who beg to differ are summarily dismissed by self-appointed moderators huffing with self-righteous indignation.

Nobody said "no problems with anti-semitism as a form of entetainment". I said I'd like to see a movie about the protocols of zion, and even suggested the graphic novel as a great template for it. It's an interesting subject that would make for an interesting movie. Will Eisner wrote a great graphic novel on the subject. I hope someone picks it up to do a movie.

But back to the movie. First, it's deliberately offensive and based on the claims of seriously deluded man who claims to believe his own fiction (or, more precisely, fiction he plagiarized from others).

No, it is not. The movie is in no way deliberately offensive. If you feel it is, show me a quote from Ron Howard saying he is attempting to deliberately be offensive to anyone. Nor is it based on claims of the author...it's instead based on the fiction book this author wrote and not his interview.

Second, it's just not a very good movie.

Did you see it?

In almost every case, the acting is wooden. The plot is a muddled mess, which isn't surprising considering the poor quality of the source material. The storyline is overlong and pedantic. It strives less to be entertainment than it does to be documentary.

Fair enough. Your view is different than mine, but I accept that some people agree with you on the acting and plot. Can you suggest a way you would have done this movie with a better flow to the plot?​

 

[Taelorn76]

So am I.
When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”

You answered your own complaint

 

[Mistwell]

So are you determined to get this thread closed to silence discussion of it? Please go away.

I am worried that is the intent...to effectively boycott this thread by having it closed. I hope that is not the intent.

To Mods: I would be happy to erase or edit any post I've made in this thread if that is what it will take to allow the thread to continue.

 

[Mistwell]

Now, what does the movie claim? It claims the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers and that Opus Dei is an assassin-employing cult. These falsehoods are predicated upon a structure that deliberately distorts history.

Sorry, I missed this comment earlier.

The movie does not claim the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers. In fact, the movie specifically says that the liars and murderers are doing this without the permission of the Church in any way shape or form and if they are ever discovered the Church will excommunicate them. I do not see how someone could get the sense that the bad people are operating with the sanction of the Church, when they go to such great lengths to make sure you know it's the opposite.

They also specifically show you how Opus Dei does not know any of this is going on. It's all done in secret by a few people in Opus Dei. It's never represented as being the view of Opus Dei as an organization or even many members. It's show that a few people in that organization are secretly doing this, and taking great pains to make sure it is secret.

Is it that you didn't see those parts of the movie where they talk about how the church is not sanctioning any of this, or that you saw those parts and still thought it was portraying it differently, or what?

 

[paradox42]

So am I.

No, you really aren't. You're consistently bringing discussion back around to Dan Brown, despite the fact that this is Ron Howard's work- as others have said. I must concur with those others that you are clearly being trollish, most likely in an attempt to get the thread closed. What your motives for getting the thread closed are, I won't speculate openly.

But back to the movie. First, it's deliberately offensive

How so? Did you actually see the movie? I saw nothing offensive to the Catholic Church in it. It had one bad Bishop, who turned a deluded fanatical monk into an assassin essentially as a sort of crusade. The rest of the Church, hells, even the top hierarchy including the Pope, had nothing to do with it.

It also had nothing offensive to Opus Dei in it- it mentioned that some "extreme" members practice painful rituals to bring them closer to the Divine (which is true), and mentioned accusations brought by outsiders that it's like a "cult," which are also true and existed well before this book or movie. And on top of that, it also features a member who, when he finally realizes what his corrupt Bishop has been doing, does the right thing and turns him over to the Law. I thought he represented the "average" Opus Dei member, not the insane monk or the bad Bishop, and if so it is actually highly complimentary to the group rather than offensive.

...and based on the claims of seriously deluded man who claims to believe his own fiction (or, more precisely, fiction he plagiarized from others). Second, it's just not a very good movie. In almost every case, the acting is wooden. The plot is a muddled mess, which isn't surprising considering the poor quality of the source material. The storyline is overlong and pedantic. It strives less to be entertainment than it does to be documentary.

To repeat my earlier review: By all means, boycott this movie. You'll sleep better at home.

Fair enough. You've given your review. Now let those of us who had no desire to boycott the film discuss it and lurk in peace, and accept that you won't be able to control our moviegoing impulses.

 

[mmu1]

I agree. A previous thread on this topic devolved into this same arguement. Keep your personal beliefs to yourself people. If you can't babysit your own mouth, then a moderator will end up doing it for you and surely will close this. Try harder to be more respectful of the rest of us out here. We don't all share your "beliefs" and would appreciate your not sharing yours here.

If you can't do this, don't come here anymore please.

I tried to be polite in the last thread this happened in and it got me nowhere. Have your philosophical arguements elsewhere, but stop or leave, that's the only request I'm making now.

1. You made no contribution to either this thread or the previous one except to pop in long after it began to lecture people on how they should behave.

2. You (along with other people) chose not to comply with the moderator requests in the previous thread, directly contributing to its closure.

3. You're making inflammatory off-topic posts again. (or being outright insulting, depending on whether putting the word "belief" in quotes was an intentional thing, in the context of your post, or just bad syntax)

In other words, you're really not helping.

 

[Hijinks]

I'd like to say that, in my opinion, saying that a novel is "based on fact" is NOT saying that every single thing said in that novel is a fact.

“How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”

Ok so, Matt Lauer asks him, "Is this book based on reality?" (i.e. fact), and Dan Brown says "yes." He took some historical facts and expounded on them. Whether he added unrealities to those factual bases is irrelevant - the book is, as he says based on fact.

He says: "all of the art, architeture, secret rituals, secret societies ... is historical fact." Does anyone dispute that those things exist now or existed then? I don't think anyone does dispute that these things exist(ed). So they ARE facts. If he based things in a novel on those facts, then I fully believe what he says above.

To be BASED on fact does not mean a book is 100% true. I see no lie in his words above.

 

[Mark Chance]

Face it. This is a horrible movie based on an even worse book. Although, I suppose, this is one of those very rare instances where the movie is better than the book. Even still, the entire pile of schlock is so ridiculous as to be completely laughable. That is if it weren't so mind-numbingly dull. Heck, the movie can't even get its own title right. No one with any sense calls Leonardo "Da Vinci". Da Vinci isn't his last name; it's where he's from. What's next? The Secret Life of Stratford-Upon-Avon?

Mistwell claims the movie isn't deliberately insulting, and that to prove otherwise one must quote Ron Howard being deliberately insulting. Okay. Fine. It's not deliberately insulting. Ron Howard was completely clueless that anyone would find the work patently offensive.

The movie claims the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers, Howard's attempts to nuance with the presence of sympathetic elements this notwithstanding. It also unequivocally states that the central doctrines of the Catholic Church are the fabrication of cabal of women-hating bishops in cahoots with Constantine. This isn't insulting, both to general civility as well as the intelligence? Of course it is.

How would I have improved the movie? I'd have not filmed it. I'd have made a serious push to the film rights for a good conspiracy theory book, such as Foucault's Pendulum, instead.

 

[Darthjaye]

1. You made no contribution to either this thread or the previous one except to pop in long after it began to lecture people on how they should behave.

2. You (along with other people) chose not to comply with the moderator requests in the previous thread, directly contributing to its closure.

3. You're making inflammatory off-topic posts again. (or being outright insulting, depending on whether putting the word "belief" in quotes was an intentional thing, in the context of your post, or just bad syntax)

In other words, you're really not helping.

I find this complete ignorance on your part that you feel that if someone doesn't post in every thread that they don't read and enjoy or dislike what they see. The fact that your telling me I can't say something makes your commentary even more offensive. Your assuming that because I chose not to name a faith or jump into the arguement but be peripheral, is nothing more than absurd as are any of your nitpicking arguements thus far. You read what you want in things and then jump to horribly wrong conclusions. You definately need to work on reality a bit there. Your comments in fact started problems in the aforementioned thread and you can't seem to stop. Your the kind of person who will take anything and try to inflame a larger arguement for it's sake alone. My last comment in the previous posting about stopping......that is something you should definately consider.