I read the book and thought it was ok… not that well written and too often I wanted to kick the characters for being stupid… the puzzle they were supposed to be figuring out would be childishly easy and they’d be all scratching their heads and confused… but I still enjoyed it. But then, I’m easy.
I will probably see the movie eventually, because it seems like it would make a decent movie. Plus, I really like Tom Hanks.
My fiance wants to see it so I will probably end up seeing it, although I have no real desire to.
Yes - the books are not improved by reading “Angels & Demons” and “DV Code” back to back in a very short amount of time.
No.
The books weren’t very good. And while I’m annoyed at the people who can’t separate fact from fiction, and I’m annoyed at the people who feel it’s an attack on their faith, and I’m really annoyed at Dan Brown for fueling both groups with his “the part that’s true is true” claim, none of it annoys me as much as the main character - whatever his name was - and his inability to put together relatively simple and blatantly obvious clues to come to a conclusion.
So, I read the books thinking:
“It’s a brand, moron. If it’s that hard for you to see it straight off, look at it in a mirror.” or “The Fibonacci sequence, idiot boy. You’ve only used it 80 times in the past hour, think maybe it’ll come up again.” I can’t imagine that experience will be improved on the big screen. Especially since now I know the answer and have nothing to figure out.
The fact that they aren’t previewing it doesn’t help my opinion, either.
2 & 3. No. I don’t particularly like Tom Hanks, and the hype alone would kill any inkling I had to see it, which would really just be to annoy the hyper-religious types who are so worked up about it.
Yes, I did, at the insistence of my inlaws.
Nope.
I think Dan Brown can laugh his way to the bank without my money. It was a silly book, and even if it weren’t one of the worst things I’ve read in the past two years I’d still be sick of it from all the hype and the excited people grabbing me at work and screaming “This book changed my life!!! It’s all true!!!” at me.
I read the book, and will probably rent the DVD. That said, I thought the McBook was nothing special, and I’m puzzled at the choice of Tom Hanks.
I love how the people involved with the film keep saying “it’s fiction and we’re trying to make that obvious” in response to the whole church-upset-blasphemy thing. And then they make the tagline “Seek the Truth”. Made me smirk.
I think you misread that post, which said “the texts”, not “the text”. IOW, which Gospels to include, not which words within the 4 canonical Gospels to include. I still think that original post was untrue (or at least unclear) since “over the centuries” implies a longer time of debate than actually took place concerning which Gospels to include in the NT.
No. I thought the book was pretty silly so I wouldn’t expect the film to be any better. I also find Tom Hanks extremely irritating as an actor.
Yes, twice. I found it very fun to read.
Certainly. As the OP said, it has a great director, Ron Howard, and two great actors, Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou. Plus, the story will make for a great popcorn flick. Should be pretty entertaining.
Oops, I think you are right on both points. I misread the post I was responding to; but still, the NT canon (except for debate about the apocrypha) was settled pretty early as well.
I read the book and enjoyed it, however I did not take it seriously or expect accuracy in much the same way as I don’t take the refernence material seriously or expect accuracy. It was a fictional peice with just enough historical references to give it some feeling of believeablity, but that does not bear close examination, much like the Bible (see Sophistry- a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone)
I will go see the movie although I too had reservations about the selection of Tom Hanks for the lead.
Even so, there was little – if any – disagreement about which gospels were to be part of the canon. The Muratorian canon, for example, specifically mentions Luke and John as the 3rd and 4th gospels. Because we only have a fragment of the Muratorian Canon, we don’t specifically know which books he listed as 1st and 2nd. However, subsequent canons and letters mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, with little or no evidence that any other “gospels” were considered.
In fact, disagreements on the NT canon typically centered around Hebrews (due to its uncertain authorship) and the Book of Revelation, not the gospels.
Well, Dan Brown did say that he became a true believer in the theories offered within his book. He also said that if he were to write a history book, he wouldn’t change a thing. Frankly, I think people are justified in treating this as an attack on their faith.
I didn’t see the book as an attack on my faith, but an attack on my intelligence.
I read the book. It really, really, really needed a good ghostwriter and an editor. Anyway, it is entertaining enough story-wise that I will definitely see the movie. That Hanks and Howard are involved, among others, makes it more attractive too.
Yes. I resisted the hype for a long time, then bought the illustrated version, which is probably the only way that I was able to endure it through to the end; I had a similar experience reading the Wrightson-illustrated version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; I remained interested because of the pretty pictures. In the case of the illustrated version of TDVC, there are some nice photos of the locations and items and paintings featured in the book. Echoing the sentiments of some others here, I was annoyed at the way that the supposed experts in the book couldn’t figure out some pretty simple puzzles. Then again, there have been times that I’ve been stumped on a riddle or puzzle only to say “Of course!” when the obvious answer was revealed later. So I guess it’s possible that two people being chased around Europe and having little sleep could possibly suffer some brain farts.
Yes. Funny thing; since I didn’t read the book until after I had seen a trailer for the film, I kept visualizing Hanks and company in their respective roles.
N/A
Last week I had a nice friendly argument with a Catholic co-worker about TDVC; I overheard him talking to our administrative assistant (also Catholic, although she is much more liberal-minded than he is, apparently) and he was saying that the book was horrible, that all the information is wrong, that the characters and plot were awful, etc. Well, I’ve known this guy for a while, I’ve had discussions with him before; and I knew right away that he had not read the book himself. He has a history of talking out of his ass on such topics. To make matters worse, he doesn’t even know what his own church teaches regarding certain matters (I had to inform him that the Catholic church generally does not oppose the teaching of evolution provided that allowance is made for the infusion of a soul into humans - whatever that means) but insists on following the wave of outrage over whatever has Christians pissing themselves lately. So I asked him if he read the book, and he said, “I don’t have to eat dirt to know it tastes bad.” Huh. OK. So I asked him what he didn’t like about the book, if he never actually read it. He replied, “They’re saying it’s factual but so much of it is hearsay and conjecture and some of it has already been debunked yet people still believe it’s true. A book like that should have a disclaimer, but it doesn’t.” My reply: “Wait, are you talking about the Bible?” He didn’t like that too much. Good thing that we’ve been friends for a while…
Westminster Abbey would not allow its premises to be used for making the film (Lincoln Cathedral was used in its place) , but this has not prevented it cashing in on the film . It’s selling a book about this subject and charging £25 a head for a couple of events dealing with the Da Vinci Code.
Story here
I haven’t read the book, either (have heard that the general concensus is that it isn’t very good), but am planning on seeing the movie.
I like subject matter like this. I view it as “alternate history,” mostly, but I find these sorts of things to be fascinating. The conspiracy theories, the mysteries, the countering of established religious dogma (however quasi- or counterfactual). I loved “American Treasure” (the Nicholas Cage film) for similar reasons, even though I couldn’t understand a word of the dialogue (saw it on a flight across the Pacific, dubbed in Thai).
I’m looking forward to the movie, but will probably pass on the book. If I want to read that kind of thing, I’ll turn to Foucault’s Pendulum*, or something.
[sub]*Which I think would make a TERRIBLE movie, but the book was fascinating.[/sub]
I read the book. I thought it was very badly written and it didn’t help that the translation into Danish was sloppy. I finished it mainly because I wanted to know IF, and how much, it deviated from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
I might see the movie if the reviews are ok, but certainly not in the cinema. I can wait until it gets out on DVD and then see if I can borrow it from someone.