Hanks Decodes Da Vinci?

It's worked pretty well in the past.

According to the ever-reliable IMDB, it came down to Hanks, Crowe, Jackman, and one other guy. I would've liked to see Crowe get it, although when I read the book "Angels and Demons," which is the same character, I pictured someone like Dennis Quaid or Gary Sinise.

I agree with dojo...I was hoping that when this was made, the casting director would find somebody relatively unknown for the part of Robert Langdon. It's not as if they need to worry about getting an A-list actor to bring in more money. People would go and see it anyways.

Yes, we wouldn't want the personal and artistic integrity of this book ruined by some commercial choices.

I agree with you there. It should be Dennis Quaid. From when I read the books (I resisted at first, but damn they're page-turny), he seemed to be a bit more athletic than I think Hanks can convincingly pull off, but from what I've seen of Quaid in The Day After Tomorrow and some shots from Flight of the Phoenix I think Quaid can.

Plus Hanks' voice is wrong. And he'll cost too much. And I never really liked much of his work sincs Joe vs the Volcano.

Cost too much? This film will make 100 mil opening weekend for sure. I don't think cost is an issue. I can't wait to see the protesters, though.

I actually read this book last month. Absolute fluff, but it was a nice diversion from the heavier stuff I had been reading.

Isn't Langdon specifically described as 'looking like Harrison Ford' within the first 3 pages - a description that made me throw the book across the room while giggling in disgust at it's nakedness. You try giggling in disgust. it's not easy.

Liked the book well enough, hate Hanks. This is a travesty to me.

I really hate when I read the books first because I agree Hanks is just plain wrong for Langdon.

I'll be protesting. This is the only time I'm for book burning.

Hell, instead of waiting for the "Da Vinci Code" movie, just go see "National Treasure" this weekend. It's probably not any worse than the "official" film will be.

Actually interesting you should say that because I can picture Cage more as Langdon than Hanks & even Cage is quite a stretch.

Along with the Catholics & religious right. Interesting bedfellows...Devin, Catholics & religious right.

Well, then you might like "National Treasure" cause the plot it pretty much identical.

Actually I notice that when I saw the trailer during the Summer. Someone is being HEAVILY influenced by (nice way of saying "Jacking") Dan Brown's narrative style.

It jacks everything from everywhere. It's a relatively inoffensive mish-mash of better movies and better ideas served on a family-friendly platter. Nothing memorable, but nothing I'd consider terrible.

FYI:

The Da Vinci Code first saw print in March of 2003.

National Treasure had been in the works as a film since at least 1999, when it was originally planned to start filming for a Summer 2000 release.

Who jacked who?

Ah, good question. I was not aware National Treasure had been in production for so long. I've never read the Da Vinci Code, but I read a couple of reviews and the two stories seem real damned similar. Secret societies, ancient treasures, clues hidden in historical pieces....

Davinci Code jacked a book called HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL.

I'm sure it's safe to say National Treasure would still be frozen in pre-production right now if it weren't for the success of DaVinci Code.

Actually Da Vinci Code is almost exactly the same in tone, style, & narrative as the "other" adventures of Langdon, Angels & Demons (May 2000), hence my mentioning of the "jacking" of "Dan Brown's narrative style" & not the book "Da Vinci Code."

Holy Blood, Holy Grail though is non-fiction. Well, I guess that depends on how you look at it...

aren't the authors suing Dan Brown for essentially taking their book and putting a formulaic plot over it?
Holy Blood Holy Grail (and the "sequel" The Messianic Legacy) = good reads.

DaVinci Code = crap. in a hat. on fire.

Actually Da Vinci Code is almost exactly the same in tone, style, & narrative as the "other" adventures of Langdon, Angels & Demons (May 2000), hence my mentioning of the "jacking" of "Dan Brown's narrative style" & not the book "Da Vinci Code."

I was going to mention that to, everyone forgets (or doesn’t know) it seems that this is actually the SECOND book Dan Brown wrote. Most people I know seem to have read the Da Vinci code first and then find out its a sequel.

The books are nothing more than modern Indiana Jones stuff mixed with a load of current conspiracy theories. That however doesn’t make them bad; it just makes them the literary equivalent of popcorn flicks.

Well, to be exacting Da Vinci Code is his forth book but the second involving Langdon. The other two are Deception Point (2001) & Digital Fortress (1998).

Trying to force my way through Angels and Demons right now. What a slog.

Brown is the worst writer of dialogue ever.

"The Mona Lisa contains a secret code."

"Wait a minute. Are you saying that DaVinci put a code in the Mona Lisa?"

"Yes. A code. DaVinci was a mason!"

"The Masons? Isn't that a satanic secret society?"

"No, that's just what the Church wants you to think!"

"What? The Catholic Church lied about the Masons?"

ad infinitum.

Someone should make a film out of Foucault's Pendulum instead. Same territory it seems (I haven't read the book) but Eco is the better writer from where I sit.

Could some one to a Cliff Notes summary of Da Vinci Code?

The Institution of the Catholic Church has been trying to systematically erase the notion of the 'divine feminine' from history - because of various reasons involving killing off rival, older religions (the type that worshipped Goddesses like Mother Earth and so on), and the fear of the feminine which symbolises freedom and balance (which would be a threat to their power which is apparantly always based on a hierarchical (and male), top down control structure). so all the burning of witches, the stuff about Eve eating the evil apple, and the notion that a women's place is in the home doing what the husband tell her to is just ancient spin for the purposes of keeping power and control.
The Holy Grail is in fact a woman and this is the big twist and reveal. though it is interesting to note that EVERYONE knows this twist, including the main character who we are supposed to be following - it's just that they choose not to tell the reader until two thirds of the way through the book.
the plot involves one secret organisation that is on the side of the sacred feminine that guards the holy grail and one that seeks to suppress the truth (that would be the church) - which leads to a set of uneventful and exposition bound adventures to find the grail when the members of the first organisation start getting murdered.
there's a twist towards the end that says the church is not in fact the true evil force - that they are just trying to follow their teachings and deeply held beliefs as well as they can and, as such, are quite honourable. which, by the way, is a stunning piece of backtracking or open hypocrisy as the book is mostly a prolongued attack on the notion of the Truth of religious beliefs and the Catholic Curch in particular.

the point is - all of the twists are based simply upon witholding information from the reader, which is the cheapest and dirtiest of narrative tricks.

the moral is - If you haven't read the book: DON'T! wait for the movie and laugh at it then. it will only eat up 2 hours of your time.

I'm sure that Dan Brown is a very intelligent man who has learnt the lesson that is you want ot mak lots of money you have to write absolute drivel.

The funny thing is there are other pieces of church history he could have put in the book which would show how the church went from co-ed to single sex priests and bishops (spend some time with the Jesuits; bastards know everything and can go through the highs and lows).

I thought The Da Vinci Code was ok. It was like Cussler without the fun and excitement. Although, after hearing Angels and Demons (I listened to both on very long car rides), I see now it is just a xeroxed copy.

=====I don't think this is a SPOILER but it might be=======

==
=
=

Since we are turning this thread more into a discussion of the book I personally thought it quite convenient of Dan Brown to omit the entire emphases (& practical worship) that Catholics place in the Virgin Mary and their female saints. The Catholics did not entirely "destroy" the concept of the "divine feminine" they just changed it. I found this to be a major flaw in the reasoning of the tale or at least a convenient, bias laps on the part of the author.

Da Vinci Code aint fit to lick the boots of Foucault's Pendulum

"That was when I saw the Pendulum"

Now THATS a real conspiracy book. And Eco can write, unlike this Brown bloke, who clearly attended the Tom Clancy/Steven King school of pandering to the lowest common denominator crappy Amercian writer school.

Someone earlier compared Dan Brown's writing to that of a "popcorn flick". I think this is a fair comparison. Don't go into the book expecting it blow your socks off or change your life (and for the love of Pete it is a work of FICTION, so let's not argue the whole "Catholic" thing). Read it for a nice distraction on a cold (well if get them) day. You read this book over a weekend in the winter, it makes a nice little read. While it was cheesy and a little similar to A&D, I thought it was fun..

And to stay on topic, I think Hanks will do fine. The man has a pretty good ability to transform himself physically into a character (from Philadelphia to League of their Own he has two different body types, his 6 month layoff in Castaway to go on a diet, then chubbing up to get lost in Terminal, hell now he even transformed himself into a computer character - that's gotta be hard).

I pictured Russell Crowe (L.A. Confidential Crowe) when reading the book (well at first you picture a young Harrison Ford but he is way to old to be doing this now) but I am not that disappointed with Hanks.. well at least without seeing some footage..

I really dont see Hanks as being a great langon, just as others have said, because of his popularity. I guess i could see Quaid or Sinise, but i think the best suggestion thusfar has been Crowe.

wasnt who i originally pictured as robert langdon, but i thin his character would fit that of langdon's. I honestly think that with the way this book spread like wildfire all of a sudden, they could bring a "new guy" out of the woodworks, and still have a successful movie. I personally enjoyed the book. i like to read, but dont get much time, so books like this that are a quick read always spark my interest, and i believe it to make a great movie. I just think i would enjoy the movie more, if i didnt have any pre-existing opinions about the actor that plays langdon.

"(and for the love of Pete it is a work of FICTION, so let's not argue the whole "Catholic" thing).'
That is like saying that Uncle Tom's Cabin is a work of fiction so let's not argue the whole "Slavery" thing.
I think it's pretty clear that Brown has issues with the Catholic Church. That's fine, but to imply that
the present day Church hires hit man to kill people is a bit over the top. If Brown had done that about any other religon then Catholicism the book would have been denounced as bigotry. Imagine is he wrote a novel implaying that a Council of Rabbis hired hit man to kill anybody questioning the historical foundation of Judaism. To let a writer off the hook for crap like this just because it's fiction is a little too generous for my taste.
BTW I am betting that the book will undergo drastic changes if it hits the screen . I have a feeling that a lot of the negative protrayal of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular is going to be toned downed or eliminated entirely. Of course it won't make much sense then but then making sense is not a prerequsite for the film industry.
And Hi Bernd! Since you are in the industry, agree or disagree that the novel will be changed considerably if it hits the screen.

SPOILER:





except that, erm, the Church actually doesn't hire anyone. Did you read the book at all? The bad guy took advantage of an extremely pious, very uneducated man with a violent past, and convinced him he was doing God's work. The Opus Dei leader is actually portrayed quite sympathetically, once you backtrack through the book with all the information that the author hides until the end. The only criticism actually levelled at it is the self mutilation thing.

I think Brown believes, if his ideas are in sync with Langdon's, that even though all religions are basically hogwash hijacked by powermongers from the idealists that start them, they are actually a positive influence on people. He seems to think Faith and a connection to the Divine are good for the soul. A naive view, IMHO, but calling him antireligious is simplifying his views too much.

I found it interesting that his two Langdon books mirror each other. In one the bad guy is ultracatholic, in the other he is anticatholic. Yet in both he hides this fact with sleight of hand to make you predict the opposite outcome.


Can anyone recommend a less formulaic alternative to him? I LOVE this kind of symbologic story, and books that explore the mystical side of the Church. i've read the DC in one sitting, then borrowed A&D the next day and also read it in one sitting. I recognize it is harmless pap, but it's pap about stuff I love.


And yes, I HAVE read both the Pendulum and Name of the Rose. Also the Cryptonomicon, I'm starting with Quicksilver now. All those are invalid recommendations

I doubt Dan Brown jacked anything.
Da Vinci represented a hell of a lot of research where National Treasure did not. Some studiohead with little imagination probably saw the success of Da Vinci then fast-tracked National Treasure to cash in on the hype. And there was probably a year or two of research that went into Da Vinci before it was released in 2003.

I have very little suspicion that he did. That was a response to the kneejerk reaction that National Treasure was a ripoff of Da Vinci Code, when it was actually just a matter of similar ideas in the collective unconscious, which happens all the time. Still, considering the lead time of a major movie's preproduction, I doubt Da Vinci Code had caught on as an international blockbuster by then, so it probably wasn't rushed to capitalize on the success of the book. Just a confluence of events.

I do not doubt that he has issues with the Catholic Church (based off his other books, I would go with religion in general), but the book is still a work of fiction and is listed as so. People have attacked the book and it's ideas like it was presented as fact, or non-fiction. That is what I don't understand. I can see if he came out and said this is the truth, but he doesn't. It's the same as The Matrix in my mind. While some could say that is is possible that it could exist, it is a movie and a complete work of fiction.

You have to remember that the poeple who would take offence at this are the sort that think the Bible is true.

I know there is a cute little mark you can make in a message text to imply an action. I am not 14 so I don't know what that is (no offense to anyone who is older/younger and knows what that is..anyway). If I did know what it was I would make it seem like Trinity'sGusset was opening a whole new can of worms.. (there how about a smiley to show how "hip" I am..)