Da Vinci Code on film

Vocenoctum

First Post
Hijinks said:
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.



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.


IMO, He's obviously trading on the idea that the book is factual in the most part in order to get people to see the movie. "It really makes you think" style of movie. He wants to portray it as the "true" history of the bible to draw interest in it and I think it has worked for the book. Only when directly asked does he get more specific. It's hype.

The movie is simply because the book was popular.

I think the point is that the guy is trying to sell books and thinks the controversy helps (which it obviously does), so he keeps going. It's not that he's looking to defame anything, he simply doesn't care.

The best I saw in a movie on TV once was "based on a true story, some events have been changed for dramatic effect". Basically we changed anything boring. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Piratecat

Sesquipedalian
Listen up, everyone.

From this point forward, this thread wil discuss only the movie. If I or another moderator feel that a post discusses the philosophies and/or history behind the movie, or religion, or starts/continues an argument with another poster, or tries to debate whether or not the movie is based on fact, that person has a good chance of taking a free vacation from EN World for a few days. Expect no additional warnings. This is true even if you feel like the aggrieved party, just fighting back, so please bite your tongue and walk away for ten minutes before pushing the "submit" button.

Does this stifle all intelligent discussion of the movie? Maybe. But it's better than the alternative, which is not discussing the movie at all.

We're tired of threadcrapping, and we're absolutely tired of babysitting these threads. Head on over to Circvs Maximvs if you'd like to discuss the stuff that isn't allowed here.

If this is somehow a problem or if you have a question, feel free to email me by clicking on my username or getting my address from the sticky thread in Meta.
 
Last edited:




Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
So, I really liked the Cryptex they portrayed in the movie. They are apparently the hot selling thing right now. I can see putting one in a D&D game :)
 

Klaus

First Post
danzig138 said:
That paints an intersting mental picture. :)
LOL!!!

Can't believe I typed that!

But ideed, Batman Baggins sounds great, specially with his faithful butler Alfred Gamgee, trying to free Shire City from his archnemesis, Joklum!
 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
I think at this point the chance of having any reasonable discussion of this movie here is moot, not due to the mods mind you.

Hopefully I enjoy it next Tuesday. I'll try to remember to write up a quick review when I get back.
 


Someone

Adventurer
Mark Chance said:
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.

I just finished Foulcault´s pendulum, and if someone makes a decent film out of it I´ll think of him as one of the greatest scripwriters and directors. On the other hand I laughed a lot when the main characters used a sentence randomizer program and got "Da Vinci´s Code" argument.
 

Elf Witch

First Post
Mistwell said:
So, I really liked the Cryptex they portrayed in the movie. They are apparently the hot selling thing right now. I can see putting one in a D&D game :)

Our Shadowrun GM after seeing the movie said to expect to see things from the movie added to the game.

I also liked the Cryptex and I would like to own one do you know where they are selling them?
 

Taelorn76

First Post
I seem to remember this coming up before, but I don't remember seeing an answer.

In the movie there was only one codex. But I seem to remember 2 in the book. The first one the code was Sophie, IIRC, then the second was apple.

I'm in the process of moving so my copy is packed away.
 

John Q. Mayhem

Explorer
Klaus said:
LOL!!!

Can't believe I typed that!

But ideed, Batman Baggins sounds great, specially with his faithful butler Alfred Gamgee, trying to free Shire City from his archnemesis, Joklum!

86369.jpg
 

bolen

First Post
I heard the movie was boring, is that true?

A freind of mine told me that the book although poorly written (I am talking about his writing ablility here not anything about the story); it is a real page turner of a story. So saying the movie is boring is a big slam. Am I way off base here? I have not seen the movie but if it a good thriller, I am game.
 

Vocenoctum

First Post
Elf Witch said:
Our Shadowrun GM after seeing the movie said to expect to see things from the movie added to the game.

I also liked the Cryptex and I would like to own one do you know where they are selling them?

It's funny, since reading Black Madonna (the SR book from a decade ago with the Davinci Code plot basically, but IE's instead) is the reason that I would never read or watch the Code. What a horrible book.
 

WayneLigon

Adventurer
I just came from seeing it. I quite liked it, with all the twists and turns. Ian McKellan was great in it. I would not have beleived that was Tom Hanks, though; man has he aged since The Terminal. Surely some of that was makeup. If not, whew.

I liked the codes, the multiple clues, the various interpretations of the Rose Line. I was sure I knew what code he put into the Cryptex, but I was wrong :/ I thought 'the orb' would be
Venus
.
 

Bront

The man with the probe
KenM said:
I just got back from seeing it. I thought it was decent. Not great thou. I have not read the book. IMO it could have used some kind of action closer to the end of the film. I also thought that Hanks' character
Should have go right to the US embassy once he found the tracking device in his pocket and through the cops off. I am glad thet they did not do the standard hollywood end of having Hanks and the girl hook up at the end.
FYI, they did, the french police were at the gate blocking it.

I did enjoy the film, having not read the book. It wasn't the most suspenseful film, but it did make you think while looking at a few of the clues to try to figure them out. I did connect a few of the points in my head thanks to the visual cues.

I actualy liked the ending, closing things off as Langdon can assume his new role as a guardian, without the heir knowing.

Honestly, my biggest problem is the issue of what does being the decendant of Mary Magdolin prove? It's the father that matters, his DNA is a different issue. Even then, I don't see how the revelation ruins the church if he did have a sun. But, to discuss it more would go into religion.

But, overlooking a few things is part of enjoying a movie. Very interesting conspiracy film.
 

Bront

The man with the probe
WayneLigon said:
I was sure I knew what code he put into the Cryptex, but I was wrong :/ I thought 'the orb' would be
Venus
.
Yeah, that's what I came up with, but he mentions that it can't be that earlier when he says they're all represented except for a few
moons
, which also would have been a good answer.
 

FoxWander

Adventurer
Just came back from the movie myself. I thought it was a decent suspense flick. It wasn't "great cinema" and certainly not Oscar material- but it was an enjoyable use of my time. For those who have seen/read one or the other, or neither, and are wondering how the film compares to the movie- pretty much everything in the book is in the movie. The use of "flashbacks" and visual tricks during the necessary exposition and puzzle solving sequences kept those scenes from being a complete bore. I was disappointed in how wooden Hanks played Langdon, but, if I remember the book correctly, I think that might be an accurate portrayal of the character.

Overall, it's worth the ticket price- but then, I caught the matinee. ;)

Incidentally, for those wanting a real cryptex, they can be bought at the following sites...
The Noble Collection
The Cryptex
Cryptex Security Boxes
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Elf Witch said:
Our Shadowrun GM after seeing the movie said to expect to see things from the movie added to the game.

I also liked the Cryptex and I would like to own one do you know where they are selling them?

The nicest ones seem to be from here:

http://www.cryptex.org/

But they are quite expensive.

This one is good:

http://www.noblecollection.com/catalog/product.cfm?id=NN5335 &catid=0

And this place lets you make your own:

http://www.flying-pig.co.uk/pagesv/combination.html
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top