What on earth made them think that Angels & Demons would be a good movie? Didn't The Da Vinci Code stink bad enough?
Oh wait. People will still pay to see it. Silly me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's the same as when every book in Michael Crichton's catalogue was being made into a movie -- books in the thriller/action genre can make for fun movies. I didn't read The Da Vinci Code, but I enjoyed the movie just fine.
Posted by Ken (Member # 10082) on :
I read the Da Vinci Code and liked it but thought the movie was slow and boring mostly b/c I knew what was going to happen.
They are in business to make money and they will probably make a good deal of money on Angels & Demons though I will not be overly eager to see it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Didn't The Da Vinci Code stink bad enough?
Wait, you saw it?
It is clearly your fault that this new movie is being made.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I confess my guilt for this horrible movie being made out of pleasantly metiocre novel.
Angel's and Demons was still better than the Da Vinci Code... saying not very much.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I think it was alright, even if they did change it a bit much.
Also, no offense meant, but I keep getting this feeling on this thread that anything mainstream is kind of treated snobbily. I still enjoy it very much, just making a comment.
Angels & Demons could be good. Don't judge before you see it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Don't judge before you see it.
I think I can safely say that I won't judge it before I see it. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The fact that the film was mainstream did not make it bad. It was mainstream, and it was bad.
The fact that we are deriding it, and that it is mainstream, is really not enough to connect the two. Plenty of mainstreams stuff gets talked about on Hatrack, so I think really, you're barking up the wrong tree there. I wish you were more right, actually, I think too much mainstream is a bad thing, (but that's another discussion).
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: Angels & Demons could be good. Don't judge before you see it.
I'm a medieval church historian. You'd have to talk awful fast to get me to think of Angels & Demons as "could be good." The book was awful. I don't think I'll be wasting any money, time, or sanity on the movie.
mph, I didn't see it. I was reacting based on the rottentomatoes reviews. And my general dislike of Dan Brown and his writing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I keep getting this feeling on this thread that anything mainstream is kind of treated snobbily. I still enjoy it very much, just making a comment.
quote:The DaVinci Code made a alot of money at the Box office.
Thus proving, as if we needed more of a reminder, that people are idiots.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, I didn't see it. I was reacting based on the rottentomatoes reviews. And my general dislike of Dan Brown and his writing.
You read his books?!?
I blame you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The DaVinci Code made a alot of money at the Box office.
Thus proving, as if we needed more of a reminder, that people are idiots.
How was The Da Vinci Code any worse than Spider-Man? 300? [insert action/thriller]?
Then again, I liked the Star Wars prequels. All three of them. I think it's simply a matter of setting your expectations for a given movie at the right level.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Pretend it is a scifi/alternate history action movie, and I think it did have some entertainment value. As action books I think all 4 of his novels work, though I preferred the two without Langdon. They are beach reads, fast paced without much thinking involved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How was The Da Vinci Code any worse than Spider-Man? 300?
It was an action thriller that replaced both the action and the thrills with pretentious exposition.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
I absolutely hated Angels and Demons when I read it because it proved to me that Dan Brown was not only a bad writer, but that he was manipulative and boring. I read Da Vinci Code first, and I thought it was kinda fun. Angels and Demons ruined both books for me, and I will never read another Dan Brown novel.
That said, I might see it just for the Bernini sculptures... *innocent look*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I was mildly interested in reading The Da Vinci Code (just to see what all the fuss was about) until I read this parody by a friend of mine and all these posts on Language Log. That was enough to completely kill any interest I had.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: 'Angels and Demons' was better, but not by much.
I agree.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Okay, this is just funny to me. I read the book (actually, both books we're talking about here). I found them to both be fun page-turners written with a style that was... well, I've definitely read worse.
I've also read novels written with more stylistic skill that I absolutely could not get through in a fully conscious state.
Not making value judgments, because there's no accounting for taste, but Dan Brown caught people's eyeballs, and kept 'em to the end, and that is an accomplishment. Yeah, swiss cheese plots and exhaustive flashbacks, whatever.
He got the eyeballs. So all of us who wish to make a living by our words, well, dang-- Dan Brown should give us hope. Writers don't compete with each other, as Uncle Orson has oft chided. Their rival is the Nap. If Brown kept a lot of people up past bed time, then more power to him!
That said, I agree with Scott R and kmbboots. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Pretend it is a scifi/alternate history action movie, and I think it did have some entertainment value.
Problem is, Dan Brown refuses to play pretend. Otherwise, it'd just be a book really not to my taste. And, well, I wasn't very entertained. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
To my knowledge, the only thing Dan Brown claimed true about his stories is that his descriptions of art and architecture are accurate. In other words, he didn't make up the symbols, etc. I don't recall him ever stating that the interpretations his characters make of these symbols are true.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)