Da Vinci Code on film

[kirinke]

Thrillers don't interest me much anyway. I'll catch it on DvD.

 

[Mistwell]

Da Vinci #1 in Every Country It Opened

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/da-vinci-1-in-every-country-it-opened/

Monday, May 22nd, 2006
Da Vinci #1 in Every Country It Opened

Final May 19-21 numbers have come in for The Da Vinci Code: a $231.8 million worldwide opening, making it the 2nd biggest ever -- $154.7 mil international, $77.1 mil domestic. Sony is telling me it was #1 in every territory it opened. I'm frankly flabbergasted that mainstream papers such as The New York Times treated this like an afterthought in its pages today since phenomenons don't happen everyday in the movie biz. There's not even much talk about it in Hollywood today. Guess it's symptomatic of what we already know: this town really hates good things to happen to anyone except themselves. This should make Hollywood denizens happy: News reports say bootleg DVDs of The Da Vinci Code were on sale for 5 yuan ($.60) all over Shanghai today, but the camera work on the pirated copies was so horrendous it showed people walking in front of the cinema screen and had sounds of someone drinking a soda.

 

[bolen]

Wow. This movie did GREAT this weekend. 13th biggest opening weekend ever, beating out all three Lord of the Rings movies, and making $77,000,000 for the opening weekend.

I thought CNN said 2nd best what gives

 

[Mistwell]

I thought CNN said 2nd best what gives

2nd best worldwide, 13th best US only.

 

[jasper]

I read the book and saw the movie yesterday. The movie is better. But it is a standard thriller movie. Main character thrown into a mess some how survives.
But since is standard modern thriller (hey i like hitchcock) i may pick it up when hits the 7.50 bin.

 

[Desdichado]

I enjoyed watching this. It's been slated by the critics, I think for three reasons:

Well, some of the critics. I'm kinda in Ebert's camp on this movie; it works better as a movie than as a novel.

Or at least, better than a novel written by Dan Brown. Sure, it's not exactly high-brow entertainment, but then again neither are most movies, even those that include high profile stars and directors. So what? The controversy around the subject material sadly, will overshadow any attempt to talk reasonably about the merits of the film anyway. I have a feeling it's really impacting the critics response too.

 

[Mark Chance]

The controversy around the subject material sadly, will overshadow any attempt to talk reasonably about the merits of the film anyway.

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"?

 

[satori01]

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"?

I understand how the film and book can be disturbing to some. With all due respect and sensitivity, the book and film are fiction. It is fiction based off the history that the Bible had editors, and that in the early days of Christanity, the religion was non centralized and pretty much free form. After that everything else is speculation and imagination.

I would respectfully sugest,(and I truly mean respectfully), that those who find the subject matter of the film conterviersial, or want to discuss the theological aspects of the film, exercise their right to "change the channel", as it were, so that those of us who want to continue the current discussion can do so.

I understand that the subject matter of the film can give rise to some extreme feelings, and the desire to discuss can be strong, but the management of Enworld tends to frown on those discussions as they can be quite divisive.

I am merely stating my opinion as a thread participant who wants to see this thread continue. I intend no, and hope I have not offered, any offense to anyone in my comments above.

 

[satori01]

You really the kind of moviegoer who needs foundational evidence of the driver's ability to drive well to deem a wild car chase "justified" in a fiction action movie?

Wow, remind me to never discuss Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, or pretty much any action movie with you.

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.

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

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

 

[Mark Chance]

I understand how the film and book can be disturbing to some. With all due respect and sensitivity, the book and film are fiction. It is fiction based off the history that the Bible had editors, and that in the early days of Christanity, the religion was non centralized and pretty much free form.

But that isn't actual history. For example, one of the central theses of Brown's claptrap is that Constantine convened the First Council of Nicea to "edit" the Bible in order to foist upon the world the thentofore unheard of idea of Jesus' divinity. Dan Brown himself has said more than once that the core claims of his novel are all true, which is precisley not the case. The First Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon the Bible. Belief in the divinity of Jesus dates back to the first century C.E.

So, in essence, Dan Brown has written a book which says many defamatory things, is so full of historical errors that any scholar would laugh himself silly reading it, and which the author himself claims is based on facts. IOW, it sounds a lot like the aforementioned Protocols.

I would respectfully sugest,(and I truly mean respectfully), that those who find the subject matter of the film conterviersial, or want to discuss the theological aspects of the film, exercise their right to "change the channel", as it were, so that those of us who want to continue the current discussion can do so.

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"?

I am merely stating my opinion as a thread participant who wants to see this thread continue. I intend no, and hope I have not offered, any offense to anyone in my comments above.

I'm not offended in the slightest by your comments.