$224 million on its opening weekend...
polycounter lvl 19
...is what The Da Vinci Code has made. I thought the movie stuck to the story pretty well, save that last 30 seconds of the movie.
The beginning is a little rushed, but otherwise its spot on. Good flick.
The beginning is a little rushed, but otherwise its spot on. Good flick.
Replies
And it's very good to hear it was good,apparently the critics hate it. But they hate all the good stuff. :P
I never read the book, but my friend who saw it with me, said it was pretty close.
Never read the book, thought the movie was pretty good. From what my g/f has told me about the Langdon character(as in the book), I didn't see Tom Hanks as the proper actor for the role.
Though, I think he did a good job.
i wont see the film, i'm simply sick of hearing about the bloody thing. Added to that, I also read Angels and Demons, which naturally means i want to throw dan brown off a cliff onto some horribly sharp rocks.
On a similar note, J.K. Rowling is also a very talented writer. I've read the full HP series. They are very good books.
With all that being said, neither of the above authors or their books are by any means the best around. That doesn't mean they aren't good though.
The reason I say this is that the simple fact is that he cannot be a bad writer. If he was a bad writer the greater majority of the population wouldn't have flocked to his works. Hype only gets you so far, and if something with hype to it isn't good, it flops, hard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Youre kidding right? Hype can get the biggest pile of shit put on a golden throne. Do you really want me to go back and start listing the talentless, God-Awful, piss poor, pop bands that have sold ga-jillions of CDs!?
Back on topic, Im not really interested in the movie, but I might watch it if its on TV sometime. The book was mediocre. The Harry Potter for adults phrase fits it perfectly
Look at Daikatana. Fable. Etc...
Hype only works if the time required is minimal.
Also, pop tends to sell more for image than music it seems. So yea, britney spears music sucked, but at the time all the guys wanted to bang her and all the girls wanted to be her. She sold. :P
Cliched writing is something only people who have read a decent number (100+) books will catch.
The theologist thing is annoying though.
However, I still don't see any of this making the book any worse. It was still well written. I've read badly written books, and believe me, it wasn't one.
[edit]I'll agree with the above that the writing style is a bit cliche, but not to the level that it's annoying.[/edit]
A game can't survive on hype alone as can some music/movies.
[/ QUOTE ]
Explain: Enter the Matrix?
Wasn't too disappointed by the movie either, and while most of it was uninspired retelling of the book, the ending is one thing they got right. Audrey Tautou made it a lot more bearable than it could have been..
I don't like how they dumbed down Aringarosa, though sticking to his character in the book probably would've made the movie even longer than it already was...
[ QUOTE ]
A game can't survive on hype alone as can some music/movies.
[/ QUOTE ]
Explain: Enter the Matrix?
[/ QUOTE ]
Umm... it's generally considered a brutal game?
"However, I still don't see any of this making the book any worse. It was still well written. I've read badly written books, and believe me, it wasn't one."
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding? It was probably the worst book I have ever read. The man cannot write. I'm not saying that to be cool. I'm not saying that becuase I hate mainstram. I'm saying that because Dan Brown cannot write.
He took interesting plot elements and barely wove them together into a cohesive prose. I read Digital Fortress by him also - this lacked any interesting background and held brown up for what he is - talentless.
Anyway, keep it on track: Have you seen the movie?
Suppose that could be true. Dunno, I read it before it became popular, and was one of the only people that read in my school at the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Probably why most people these days have such shocking taste in books. Nobody reads enough to know what a good book is.
Try The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco. That's a real book.
Edit: I don't mean to sound like an asshole but it just gets to me when people pass over really good literature because people don't know how to market it.
If it is still well known in 10 years I might consider reading it, otherwise no thanks.
haha
i love all the elitists who're come out to play!
haha
i love all the elitists who're come out to play!
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you would think reading is elitist. The situation is like when people say "OMG! Madden is the best game ever"! All that tells me is that that person hasn't played many video games.
'Nobody reads enough to know what a good book is.'
haha
i love all the elitists who're come out to play!
[/ QUOTE ]
:P
And you don't need to read to know a good story. Although it is a shame more people pass up on reading.
Mister Sentient, I've read a lot more than Dan Brown. :P
And you don't need to read to know a good story. Although it is a shame more people pass up on reading.
[/ QUOTE ]
No worries mate
This is also the case with the Da Vinci Code. I kept on reading, and actually liked it, but in hindsight, it's probably because I wanted to know the solutions to all the puzzles. It's a nice book while reading, but doesn't leave any lasting impressions, nor did I want to re-read the book... Whereas I re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four the same week I read it the first time.
Brown's not the most horrible writer ever though. I absolutely loathe Tom Clancy.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's basically a detective story set in 14th century Italy. A Franciscan friar is investigating some strange occurances at a monastery. It's really a great read. Lots of fascinating historical references.
Funnily enough they also made a film of the book starring Sean Connery. Haven't seen it myself but I hear it's good.
And I might have to check the movie as well. Though that comes after the book.
Thanks for telling me about it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091605/
Good flick if I recall correctly, despite Christian Slater.
Whereas I re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four the same week I read it the first time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have a look at Fahrenheit 451 then (if you haven't already)... it might be even better (I have to re-read both again to compare directly).
Fahrenheit was a good book but especially in the beginning his loooooong descriptions of everything got on my nerves. Took a lot of time to get used to it.
I think the most annoying writing I've ever encountered was Poe's The Duc d'Omlette where every third word was french and I couldn't even follow the plot. I know it makes you look like high society but I prefer my text in one language.
As for horrible writers, try Robert Ludlum. That's horrible.
Though I'm not a good judge of most english books, often I read the translated version.
I'm not touching The Name Of The Rose for now, in school we had to perform the play with the entire class and I don't like being reminded of that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm baffled how anyone could have produced a movie of the book let alone a play. I just can't see how a movie could ever do the book justice. There is so much in there.
[/ QUOTE ]
That goes for almost every movie made from a book that's happened.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345368754/002-0270041-6460878?v=glance&n=283155
I found it a little more accessible than 'Rose' and enjoyed it more than DaVinci Code. Haven't seen the movie yet but probably will later this week.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=14666
Fire up the money making machine!
If you like The Name of the Rose, I'd recommend Foucault's Pendulum as well, also by Umberto Eco.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345368754/002-0270041-6460878?v=glance&n=283155
I found it a little more accessible than 'Rose' and enjoyed it more than DaVinci Code. Haven't seen the movie yet but probably will later this week.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. Will have a look.
Somehow reading a book is more mentally challenging than watching a TV show?
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. A book requires the active participation of the audience at an intellectual level in order to gain the information within, while a t.v. show does now. (ie: To read a book you have to be mentally concentrating enough to read the words and decipher their meaning all on your very own. To watch a t.v. show you barely need any level of concentration. [I know, I do it regularly]). Whether this negates t.v.'s purpose is a different matter, as not every activity a person does needs to be engaging at an intellectual level in order to be justified. In fact, I'd argue that non-engaging activities are very important as it gives an easier way to relax and thus have stress free periods.
(For the music part, the composition required to make a truely great piece of music for a full orchestra is much more intensive than that required for brittany spears. Atleast according to what logic and most musicians I know have told me thus far.)
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I wrote all of this because I hate someone. And it's probably you!
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, love me again?