# Tom Hanks to star in "Da Vinci Code" movie. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 15, 2004, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831 "2004-11-15T06:54:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/41 "2004-11-15T22:26:30Z")
> [@](#): > > They might as well “debunk” Raiders of the Lost Ark on the grounds that there is no historical evidence that the Nazis found the Ark of the Covenant. With due respect, I think that’s a good analogy although slightly faulty. The bottom line is that the Ark of the Covenant did exist (presumably), while Jesus running off to marry Mary M. is pure fantasy. And the thing with RAIDERS is that the bad guys were Nazis, and it’s OK to make them out as meanies and to stir up anti-Nazi sentiments. For Brown, the bad guys are the Catholic Church, the Masons, et al. and it’s NOT OK to stir up anti-Catholic feelings, anti-Mason sentiments. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/42 "2004-11-15T22:33:08Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > When did Brown say it wasn’t fiction? And who marketed it as something other than fiction? And even if they did, it’s beyond obvious to anyone who reads it. You didn’t think Robert Langdon was a _real_ person, did you? I haven’t read it. As long as we’re splitting hairs, you’re correct that the story is marketed as fiction. But it’s fiction that the author claims is solidly grounded in fact - that is, the conspiracy is real, the clues in the paintings are real, just the people in the story are made-up. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/43 "2004-11-15T22:41:00Z")
> [@Jervoise](#): > > No, they’re not. Yes, they are. > [@](#): > > The problem is that Brown claims:This is simply not the case. Just as one example of inaccuracy–and there are dozens of errors and distortions–Brown claims the pyramid over the Louvre has exactly 666 panes of glass, a number with symbolic resonance. But there _is_ a Louvre, and it _does_ have a pyramid over it, and the pyramid _is_ a pagan symbol, right? The point is, it’s not about magical beings travelling to mystic lands to fight mythical creatures invented by the author, which a lot of people seem to think. I question whether some of you have even _read_ the book. > [@](#): > > According to the Louvre (and a mathematician who recently did the calcluations) it’s actually 673, a rather more prosaic number. There are many, many factual errors with Brown’s description of art, secret societies, the origins of the bible and buildings. He gets dates wrongs, describes art inaccurately and distorts historical fact to tortuously weave a conspiracy. Such as? I mean, if that’s your best example of the supposedly overwhelming number of factual inaccuracies, color me unimpressed. > [@](#): > > That’s perfectly okay in a novel–just don’t claim that the details described are accurate. I really don’t think that the author’s claim is that important. I don’t believe he said he was superhuman and incapable of error. The point is that there is a great deal of stuff in the book that _is_ based on actual history, which is enough to make it a compelling story. > [@](#): > > Our issue with Brown isn’t that he’s written a work of fiction–it’s that he’s written a work of fiction and passed off its many fictional supporting details as fact, and (more gallingly) that thousands of credulous readers read what they believe. I just don’t see it that way. I read the book, which was very obviously a work of fiction. I assumed that it was all made up, and was actually quite surprised to find out how much of it _is_ based on reality. Only having a passing familiarity with _The Last Supper_, I looked it up and was pleasantly surprised to see that the details used in the book are in fact in the painting. You can disagree with the interpretation, but I don’t see how you can deny that the ideas, even though they are fantasy, are compelling. The book is full of stuff like that. I think you are demanding too much from it; of course it’s not the _perfect_ book. Just because it was over-hyped doesn’t mean it’s completely without merit. That’s fine if you want to criticize it; I just get so sick of hearing people say: “Gee, I found one factual error, therefore there is _nothing_ in the book that has anything to do with real art or history.” > [@](#): > > Also, his writing style is _dire_. But is that an issue for a screenplay? ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/44 "2004-11-15T22:48:19Z")
Philadelphia - Tom Hanks movie Philadelphia Story - Katharine Hepburn movie ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/45 "2004-11-15T22:50:15Z")
> [@bluethree](#): > > Philadelphia - Tom Hanks movie > Philadelphia Story - Katharine Hepburn movie As hinted at in my post. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/46 "2004-11-15T22:55:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I haven’t read it. As long as we’re splitting hairs, you’re correct that the story is marketed as fiction. But it’s fiction that the author claims is solidly grounded in fact - that is, the conspiracy is real, Do you have a cite for that? Did he really say that? Because it was just so obvious to me, reading the book, that it was a fictional plot. The _organization_ behind the plot is a real organization, but I never had any pretense that they really _did_ that stuff. > [@](#): > > the clues in the paintings are real, just the people in the story are made-up. But the clues _are_ real; and that’s exactly why it’s a clever novel. I, and I’m sure many other readers, looked at those paintings, and I could definitely see the elements that he was talking about. And the beauty of it is that it’s just ambiguous enough that you can see what he’s talking about, but you can also suspect that, nah - he just made that up. If he had just completely invented stuff, like “there’s a cat walking across the table in The Last Supper”, or “the Mona Lisa has 3 boobs”, or whatever, it wouldn’t have been interesting at all, because you would look at the painting and say, “No, that’s not even close”. I think the fact that people have talked about it so much is a testament to how cleverly it was done. If it had just been a case where you say, “That’s just total b.s.”, nobody would have even had any interest in how many details were historically accurate. There’s just enough reality in it to make people think about it. ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/47 "2004-11-15T22:57:16Z")
I’m simply coming out of the woodwork to say “Bravo” to **blowero**. Not that you need any moral support for your position, but here it is nonetheless. Regrettably, I have neither the time nor the patience to respond beyond what has already been said. So, “what he said”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/48 "2004-11-15T22:58:02Z")
> [@Humble Servant](#): > > I’m skeptical that the movie will annoy “fundies.” I read the book more as an attack on the RCC (Whore of Babylon) . . . Fun to annoy them too! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/49 "2004-11-15T23:11:59Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Do you have a cite for that? Did he really say that? > [@Jervoise](#): > > The problem is that Brown claims: > > > [@](#): > > > > “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” Yes, there has to be some verissimilitude in the novel for the thing to work in the first place. That’s not the same as “the clues are real.” ---
**Author:** ![Made\_in\_Macau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eada6e/32.png) [@Made\_in\_Macau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Made_in_Macau)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/50 "2004-11-16T00:32:19Z")
Re; OP - it will be a hit. IMO - Hanks is a good actor getting better. The NOVEL had several good premises but wasted them through the most crass, style-free, money-seeking, lowest common denominator writing I can remember. I read it on holiday - I thought that was what it was for - and left it in the cottage in order that others wanting to buy it would be saved the cost. I finished it in order that I could be critical from an informed position. ‘Tonight, asleep she awakens to the shrill of the telephone’ Jeez The movie will be huge, as stylistically and in terms of pacing, I would hope there would be some care taken and the novel’s writing won’t matter. Hell I might even enjoy it. I agree with R Thornhill - it’s got to be better than the book. ---
**Author:** ![medstar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f07891/32.png) [@medstar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/medstar)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/51 "2004-11-16T00:58:39Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > _Apollo 13_ was a good movie. That was Hanks and Howard. > > I think that _Forrest Gump_ was overrated in some ways but that is was watchable solely because of Hanks’ performance. He found a way to play a retarded character in a totally unique way. He created a genuine, indelible character that wasn’t just a catalogue of acting tics and mimicry of retarded people. The writing sucked and the direction was saccharine but that wasn’t Hanks’ fault. I thought he made a bad movie watchable with an inspired characterization. > > He was pretty good in _Saving Private Ryan_ as well. > > **And Ron Howard has done a couple of thrillers before, hasn’t he? Didn’t he do _Ransom_ with Mel Gibson and there was some other movie with _Tommy Lee Jones_ last year. I haven’t seen either movie, are they any good?** > > **Lib** : > > “Handstabber?” Me? > > How about if I just say that I get a little kick out of the fact that the book annoyed the kind of people who would get annoyed by a book like this? People who have any genuine faith and brains are not going to let piece of fiction by a hack novelist get their panties in a bunch. Diogenes the Cynic, the movie you’re thinking of, with Tommy Lee Jones in it, was \*\*The Missing[/b} co-starring Cate Blanchett as his estranged daughter. I thought it was very good. It’s a western, set in the late 1800’s. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/52 "2004-11-16T01:38:02Z")
> [@medstar](#): > > Diogenes the Cynic, the movie you’re thinking of, with Tommy Lee Jones in it, was \*\*The Missing[/b} co-starring Cate Blanchett as his estranged daughter. I thought it was very good. It’s a western, set in the late 1800’s. Thank you, that was it. It looked pretty good from the trailers but I haven’t caught up to it yet. I’ll put it on my list. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831/53 "2004-11-16T13:07:21Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Can we please give this a rest already? Da Vinci Code wasn’t _supposed_ to be a true story. It’s fucking _fiction_ for crying out loud. The thread was about the _surprise_ that Hanks was going to be in the movie and that Ron Howard was going to direct it, as opposed to David Lynch or Oliver Stone or Cronenberg. I was merely pointing out that the book was a populist action story, NOT the exposing of a mass conspiracy, and therefore that a populist director like Ron Howard was the perfect choice for it. > [@Blowero](#): > > Nonsense. You seem to think that Da Vinci Code is entirely fanstasy invented out of whole-cloth, like Lord of the Rings or something. Da Vinci was a real person; the works of art referred to in the book are real works of art; the secret societies are real secret societies; the locations and buildings are real and are accurately described. The story, however, is quite obviously fiction. It’s actually quite clever how he takes real historic events and objects and uses them to tell a fictional story. It’s not fucking “Goonies”, and it’s not “Harry Potter” for that matter. If you guys want to criticize the writing style or the character development or things like that - fine. But if you’re going to trash something, could you at least have a valid reason for it? I’m not trashing it by calling it a populist novel. Nor am I trashing it by comparing it to Goonies. If I enjoy it half as much as I enjoyed Goonies, I got my money’s worth. And, I enjoyed the book a lot. However, I am saying is that the book is first and foremost an action/adventure/mystery. The fact that he used churches and art museums as the backdrop, instead of thieve’s hideouts and pirate caves, doesn’t elevate it above “Goonies”, not at all. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Blowero beat me to this, but the book isn’t supposed be anything but adventure fiction. The “conspiracy” is presented merely as the premise for a story. It’s just entertainment. **Trunk** : this book is fiction, action/adventure entertainment. **DTC** & **Blowero** : What are you talking about? This book is _FICTION_ and _ENTERTAINMENT_. Am I missing something here? Tell it to **BrainGlutton**. He’s the one who thinks David Cronenberg should waste his time on it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tom-hanks-to-star-in-da-vinci-code-movie/274831.md?page=2)