And it has Tom Hanks in the lead. I don't think even he could make it into a watchable movie.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
That's what I was thinking.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
It's controversial, The Vatican already hates it, it will get tons of free press, plus it's based on a book read by millions. And it has Tom Hanks! And Gandalf, and Doctor Octopus. Can you say blockbuster?
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Yeah, it'll probably be the one of the highest grossing films of next summer.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Wow. I didn't look at the rest of the cast. Bezu Fache was cast perfectly. That's the guy I pictured when I read the book.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The selling point for me, apart from Ron Howard's involvement is Audrey Tautou.
Mmmm. Audrey Tautou.
[ May 20, 2005, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Is anyone really surprised?
Dan Brown writes ALL of his books as such obvious "potential summer blockbuster screenplays".
Heck, several of his books (most notably "Deception Point") continually remind the reader what big name movie stars the characters look like!
Beat for beat, line by line his "novels" read like shooting scripts.
It's really silly. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I haven't read the book yet. But the preview (viewable on Apple Trailers) was a very cool teaser trailer.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I just took a college course on the phenomenon of The DaVinci Code. It didn't take more than a minute for everyone to agree that Brown's books are written to be adapted for the big screen. Not literary classics but they'll translate well.
What kills me is that the movie doesn't come out for a YEAR! Oh, and the voice on the teaser. Could it be more cliched?
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
This is going to suck as a movie.
The book was only even remotely "good" because it was a page-turner... the plot isn't anything screen-worthy. I could see them doing a good job of the beginning part, in the museum... but the rest is cracking codes and so forth, they can't do that on screen!
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Um, isn't that what National Treasure did? That movie was like a test run to see if people would see a movie about cracking codes and such.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
It's so so bad writen I haven't even finished it. Maybe it was the translation (I didn't want to spend too much money on it so I didn't buy it in English but borrowed it to a friend) but it was horrible, and I'm not joking.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Hey, am I the only one who thinks the trailer was a joke?! I mean, they didn't show ANYTHING from the movie...
Anyway, I'm just about to inflict the pain of reading Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code on myself... Probably not worth it, but I want to see what the fuss is all about. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
BTW, Audrey Tautou (Amelie) is playing in it.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Yeah, and I haven't seen Amelie... Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Well the movie hasn't started filming yet, so It's impossible to have any scenes from it...
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Corwin, really, you didn't ?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:BTW, Audrey Tautou (Amelie) is playing in it.
Okay, I'm really starting to get the idea that people haven't been reading my posts lately
Taal said earlier:
quote:The selling point for me, apart from Ron Howard's involvement is Audrey Tautou.
Mmmm. Audrey Tautou.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Amelie is a fantastic movie. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna: Corwin, really, you didn't ?
Nope, not yet... I have some friends whose movie preferences are close to mine who said they didn't like it at all. I might see it someday, but I won't go out of my way just to see it.
Edit: If it's any consolation for you, Taalcon, I did see your post. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Sorry Taalcon. I haven't read the thread at all. It's stupid, but I do that sometimes to save some time.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: Edit: If it's any consolation for you, Taalcon, I did see your post.
What is this in reference to? And who is this Taalcon you speak of?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
**shrug** Personally, I feel this will end up being a better movie then book.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I watched the trailer on Apple's site, nd couldn't stop snickering. I feel sorry for all the respectable actors involved in this.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
ugg, that movie will be terrible. I don't understand why the book sold so well.
If they want a conspiricy theory thriller, turn the matarese countdown by Ludlum into a movie. And don't butcher the plot like they did for the Bourne movies.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
I wouldn't feel sorry for the actors. This is going to be a blockbuster.
National Treasure and Sahara both did very well and they weren't based on one of the best selling books of all time.
As someone already said, Dan Brown's books are written as if they were going to be turned into movies. Basically...if you like the book, I think you will probably like the movie. I found the book to be a good enjoyable quick read. I'm not sure why everyone gets so uptight and snobbish about it. It seemed like a good beach book. I think people forget that it is FICTION.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I could probably stand it as a movie. I never read the book.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think people forget that it is FICTION."
Hm. In general, the people who like the book the most are the ones who seem not to realize that it's fiction. Those of us who recognize it as fiction also recognize, by and large, that it's bad fiction.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I don't dislike Dan Brown's books because they're fiction, I dislike them because they're so obviously written to be films. Empty-headed, paper-thin films that take potentially interesting, controversial subjects then treat them in a trite, utterly unimaginative manner.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Since Annie's not currently avliable: This is such a bad idea! It breaks Tom Hank's streak of only ever being in good movies!
Hobbes Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
Bad book does not mean bad movie.
Good book does not mean good movie.
So, why do you think the movie will be bad?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
If I dislike the source material, and said source material was obviously written in the "to be film adapated style", I'd say I've already answered why I think it'll be bad.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Heck, several of his books (most notably "Deception Point") continually remind the reader what big name movie stars the characters look like!
You mean Bill Nye?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I'd rather see an adaptation of Angels and Demons than Da Vinci Code, but that could be because I just spent four months in Rome. But I didn't really take either book seriously, for me they were just filler books to read in between doing school work, brainless stuff.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Heck, several of his books (most notably "Deception Point") continually remind the reader what big name movie stars the characters look like!
You mean Bill Nye?
No, Halle Berry. And several others.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I read the book like a year ago, and don't remember who was secretly. Would Halle Berry be Rachel? Who are the other characters? Remember the scientist guy with the TV show whose wife died? I just kept picturing Bill Nye. Made the romantic scenes of that novel come out very intersting in my head, I got to tell you.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)