At 6/4/06 12:05 PM, worldfamous wrote:
i think they combined the two so that you get all the action and discoveries in a shorter time period. i hadnt considered that, but i think its what happened.
Exactly. In the case of the note that you mentioned, they simply took the note that was inside the first cryptex (wrapped around the second, smaller one) and make that the note that was written inside the rose box. The original message was eliminated, as that was what helped solve the first, eliminated cryptex.
and i also think your right about the difference in mediums. im sure far more people will see the movie to understand what happens and then maybe read the book and realize its much more intricate. and they have to keep peoples' attentions, otherwise it would flop and make no money. so your point makes perfect sense. and i never meant to be disrespectful to officer ghost phantom, i was just checking cause it threw me off for a second.
That, again, was exactly my point. I mean, consider a book such as Lord of the Rings. The director did a great job at bringing those books to life, but they are so long that it's impossible to get every detail in. For instance, when the hobbits are attempting to leave the Shire, they are almost overrun by the Nazgul. It was a man by the name of Tom Bombadil, who lived in the Shire, that saved them from certain death. Had it not been for him, the hobbits would never have made it to the Brandywine River and made it out of the Shire. However, he removed the character, as he could be easily eliminated without being a detriment to the plot.
Now, book enthusiasts got all pissed off about this, but it was a good decision. The moviegoers did not lose anything by not having Bombadil in the movie, and it saved precious movie time, as the film was so long, anyway. Basically, to this point, I say that booklovers that are disappointed by the movie should stick to the book. I mean, the Da Vinci Code was already 2 1/2 hours long...how long is it going to be before it's accurate to the book?
i did enjoy the movie, but it was a little disappointing after the book because the book was just so interesting and detailed where the movie couldnt be. just my opinion.
Very true. Again, like I said earlier, the book is more suited to you, not the movie. However, if you can leave such discrepancies behind and enjoy the movie for what the movie is, that is how it should be enjoyed. I could talk for days about what the movie did that was "wrong" according to the book (such as Robert Langdon immediately recognizing the backwards-English, whereas it took the three of them at least an hour to figure it out in the book), but I don't really care. I try not to critique the movie when I watch it and just try to enjoy it for what it is.
what really drives me crazy are the people who think its all christian bashing and that crap. its just a story and people are all intense about it being some kind of anti-religious propaganda. i can see how some parts might be interpreted that way, but man catholics and christians do this quite a lot i think. its just annoying is all i have to say.
That's another can of worms. While all of the paintings and the myths of the Priory of Sion are accurate, the Da Vinci Code has done nothing to prove it was true. The book cannot possibly be an explanation of the truth, as Robert Langdon, Jacques Sauniere, Sophie Neveu, and the rest of these characters are all FICTIONAL. While the Opus Dei prelature of the Catholic Church exists, Bishop Amarosa (sp?) does not. Therefore, there is no factual ties between the book and the myth. All the book did was take myth that already existed 10 years ago (e.g. the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail) and make an interesting story out of it. I'm Catholic myself, but I think most Christians can be big babies about stuff like this.
Ahh, that was a fun post.