censorship and DaVinci Code

[gp101]

*SPOILER ALERT*

So I see on the news that the studio producing the movie to Dan Brown's mega-hit got cold feet, after shooting began BTW, about the subject matter in the novel. Specifically they're afraid of a couple religious issues, primarily the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a child. I don't know what changes they may have already made, but they are supposedly consulting religious leaders on how to either soften or replace this part of the story.

As was discussed in another thread, the controversial claims made in the book about the Catholic Church were part of the reason that made the story so fascinating. I wonder how much they'll change the story, how much Ron Howard or Tom Hanks may fight it, and what Brown thinks of it. Personally I'd be pissed if it were my book. I'm pissed already and I didn't even write the damn thing. I realize studios invest a lot more money in producing a film than a publisher does printing copies of a book, and therefore try to hedge their bets, but you would think some things would be obvious to studios: the controversy was a huge part of the story, the story sold gazillions, maybe we should not change things.

This fiasco makes me more comfortable in the "novel" world than the "screenplay" world. Screenplays are too collaborative, with too many finger prints on the final product, too many egos, and too many opinions. Usually the person with the most money wins, leaving the writer helpless as his/her baby gets re-invented, or massacred, WTCMB. At least when writing a novel, though you have to cut significant scenes out, I think you have an opportunity to get way more of your story out, controversial or not, than you do with movies. Why publishers are less worried about religious groups potentially picketing or boycotting them because of controversial material is a mystery to me, but I'm glad they got more cajones than studios.

[Mistook]

I have no idea if your sources are accurate, but let's look at the facts -

"Book posits that Jesus was a sexual being who sired children with a woman who the Catholic Church has identified as a whore."

Director of movie is Opie, from Mayberry - Richie Cunningham from Happy Days.

Lead actor is Tom Hanks - the most cinnemon sweetened, apple pie actor since Jimmy Stewart.

This is obviously an example of that other cherished American virtue - greed. Movie studio sees best selling novel. Hires big name director and actor to depict said blockbuster. Everybody signs on because there's butt-loads of money to be made.

Only after shooting starts does it dawn on all idiots involved, that the subject matter is about as taboo as it gets, and enormously offensive to legions of dogmatic moviegoers. OOPS!

SOLUTION: Disnify the plot to the point of Pocahonts, and pray to the virgin Jeus that somebody will actually come to watch the trainwreck. ]


Let's all sign away our movie rights! It's good, and good for you :)

[James D. Macdonald]

Many years ago, James M. Cain (author of The Postman Always Rings Twice and Double Indemnity) was asked what he thought of what Hollywood had done to his books.

Hollywood hasn't done anything to my books, he said. Look, they're right there on the shelf.

Or look at the James Bond films -- based on the titles of novels by Ian Fleming. Or Starship Troopers, loosely based on the back-cover blurb of a book by Robert Heinlein. Hollywood changes books when making them into movies? That's not breaking news.

(Besides, they already made a movie of The DaVinci Code: They called it National Treasure and it starred Nicholas Cage.)

[Christine N.]

LOL UJ - that's exactly what I was thinking. National Treasure was good, too.

Fine, let them make Angels and Demons into a movie - that ones MUCH less controversial.. or maybe we're not far enough away from the last Conclave to do that one yet.

[Mistook]

Well, as much as DaVinci Code gets bashed around here, I still think it's ridiculous to hire Ron Howard for the movie. They stood to make this thing a blow-out on par with Exorcist or Jaws, but no. Let's give it to Richie Cunningham.

What's next?

"Lolita" adapted to Nickelodion?

"The Shining" as an animated after school special?

At some point, you have to drop the old "well, the books are there on the shelf" routine, and admit that these idiots need to be slapped in the head.

[Garpy]

that's why I switched form writing screenplays to writing novels...too many idiots, and self-serving suits get pulled into the loop.

I'm just waiting for Hollywood to serve up 'Aliens: the Musical'

[Sassenach]

Well, as much as DaVinci Code gets bashed around here, I still think it's ridiculous to hire Ron Howard for the movie. They stood to make this thing a blow-out on par with Exorcist or Jaws, but no. Let's give it to Richie Cunningham.

What's next?

"Lolita" adapted to Nickelodion?

"The Shining" as an animated after school special?

At some point, you have to drop the old "well, the books are there on the shelf" routine, and admit that these idiots need to be slapped in the head.

Your knowledge of ron Howard's post-Happy Days career seems a bit sketchy. That was 30 years ago, and since then, he's become one of the most successful directors in Hollywood.

Writers sell their books to Hollywood for one reason: lots of $$. Once you sign your rights away, it's no longer yours to ***** about.

[maestrowork]

I won't be surprised if they changed the story and sugarcoated everything. This is, after all, Opie. I don't think Tom Hanks would back down, but Opie would easily buckle under pressure. I think it's a shame because if you strip away the conspiracy and the religious stuff, the Da Vinci Code is a BORING thriller with nothing to offer.

[maestrowork]

Your knowledge of ron Howard's post-Happy Days career seems a bit sketchy. That was 30 years ago, and since then, he's become one of the most successful directors in Hollywood.


He's still mostly known for his sappy melodramas that shy away from controversies.

[AdamH]

I think it's a shame because if you strip away the conspiracy and the religious stuff, the Da Vinci Code is a BORING thriller with nothing to offer.

Precisely! That's what made it an interesting book. If they neuter the conspiracy out of it, you might as well just rename the movie to something else starring the characters of the book. It won't be the DaVinci Code any more.

[JerseyGirl1962]

I'm just waiting for Hollywood to serve up 'Aliens: the Musical'

The Simpsons did a take on that, by turning Planet of the Apes into a musical ("Dr. Zayus, Dr. Zayus" yadda yadda yadda). I practically roll on the floor when that particular episode comes on (I think it's the one where the Simpsons head to Branston, Missouri).

Back to your regularly scheduled topic... :)

~Nancy

[Christine N.]

Yeah, Tom Hanks would probably do something like that. He did a heck of a job in "Philadelphia".

Trying to think of a Ron Howard movie that was controversial.... nope.

[gp101]

because if you strip away the conspiracy and the religious stuff, the Da Vinci Code is a BORING thriller with nothing to offer.

Take away the object the heroes are after (the religious stuff) as well as the baddies that chase after them (the conspirators) and DV is boring? Well, yeah, but what thriller works without goals and antagonists? Silence of the Lambs is like a two-hour CSI episode if you take away the cannibalism aspect. Still probably good, but nothing compared to the actual movie.

[scribbler1382]

For me, novels involving controversial themes always remind me of the Oscars. The rule being, if an actor plays a character that's somehow different from the norm, he can start dusting off his award shelf. I think the same logic can apply to these kinds of novels. Whether they're good, bad or just so-so doesn't even come into the equation.

I read DV when it first came out, lo-o-ong before the controversy forced Dan onto the speaking circuit to explain to reading clubs and church groups how he was indeed a Christian and wasn't malevolent in any way, shape or form. I bought the book for two simple reasons: I liked Dan's previous books and this one had the words "Da Vinci" and "Code" in the title. And despite everyone's verve for attacking the 800 pound gorilla of the day, I quite liked DV. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad, either. At the time I thought it was about as controversial as an Indiana Jones movie. But then I forgot we were talking about the same "people" who thought Tinky Winky was gay. <sigh>

[Perks]

How funny is that? This occurred to them after filming started? Someone wasn't eating their Wheaties or even staying at a Holiday Inn Express.

What did they think the movie was going to be about?

[veinglory]

Yeah, Tom Hanks would probably do something like that. He did a heck of a job in "Philadelphia".

Trying to think of a Ron Howard movie that was controversial.... nope.

24 was fairly unconventional, althoigh he does tend to do 'apple pie' content. And if the book has become such a big hit I guess middle America isn't that worried about the sang rail idea. I would think that it would be too much trouble to take it out entirely as it pins down the whole plot.

[scarletpeaches]

I see it was on the news today that Westminster Abbey refused permission to film there so Lincoln Cathedral (perhaps it needs the money) has allowed itself to be 'done up' to look like the Abbey. So when the film comes out that's what you'll see. I wonder if Lincoln Cathedral is a member of Equity?

[Mistook]

I went searching and read a few news articles about what's going on. Apparently it's true that the studio is consulting with the church to find a way to "soften" the plot, or make it "more ambiguous". It's also being discussed that they change the name of Opus Dei, to something fictional.

It just strikes me as incredibly silly. I mean, here we have this novel that depicts the church as an organization that likes to cover things up, and here they are in real life, trying to cover things up!

But even more silly is... who would watch a neutered version of this movie? The huge fanbase for the novel wouldn't bother to see it, and at the same time "the devout" aren't going to see it no matter what changes have been made.

[gp101]

Sorry, Mistook, but I'm a huge fan of the book and I still plan on seeing it, unless there are new changes even more gross than the ones already planned. I think most of the fans of the book will also still go see it. Most of them probably won't even know about the watering down of the story going into it. Call us suckers but I'm dying to see this damn thing.

Though I think Tom Hanks is too old for the part. Great actor, but doesn't meet my particular mental picture of Langdon. What if Brown does another Langdon book, and the studios decide to film that one as well as the first book Angels and Demons? Hanks will be pushing sixty for a character that to me seemed to be mid-thirties or forty at the most. And he always hooked up with a young hottie. That's one of my biggest pet peeves in movies, having a way older male hooking up with a way younger female. Just doesn't happen that often in real life. And when it does, it's usually because either he's rich and/or famous, or she's a stripper. Doesn't happen when the guy in a symbiologist or numerologist.

I actually don't mind Ron Howard as a director and enjoyed his take on Apollo. But I would have loved to have seen how someone like Tarantino would have done this book; not for slash and thrash effect, but I think he would have come up with more creative ways to include the backstory (without bringing the narrative to a stop) than most directors could. That's part of the reason movies are seldom as good as the book IMO; because back stories have no room in film without turning the movie into a four-hour crawler.

And this brings me back to my original comment on this thread: I'm more satisfied with the "novel" world than the "screenplay" world insofar as I can get most of my story out. That is, I will be satisfied when I finally get freakin' published.

[scarletpeaches]

And this brings me back to my original comment on this thread: I'm more satisfied with the "novel" world than the "screenplay" world insofar as I can get most of my story out. That is, I will be satisfied when I finally get freakin' published.

Which is why I've never wanted to do anything other than write. Yup, I'm in total agreement with you there.

Course, I have the added 'thing' of being an anti-social grumpy old woman at the grand old age of 29, so perhaps it's best I work on my own.:)

[pconsidine]

In defense of Opie, the world has changed somewhat since the book came out. The religious forces in America have stepped up quite a bit and the media has taken to censoring itself far more than it had been doing. (Rerun episodes of "The Family Guy" make that perfectly clear, where scenes that ran unedited a few years back now have to be cut.) Granted, Ron Howard was never going to take a stand to defend an offensive story. But it's much more of an uphill battle than it used to be. And if Brown ever thought that he was going to get any kind of satisfaction out of the movie, other than the big fat check, he was out of his mind. It's still Hollywood, gang.

[maestrowork]

In defense of Opie, the world has changed somewhat since the book came out. The religious forces in America have stepped up quite a bit and the media has taken to censoring itself far more than it had been doing. (Rerun episodes of "The Family Guy" make that perfectly clear, where scenes that ran unedited a few years back now have to be cut.) Granted, Ron Howard was never going to take a stand to defend an offensive story. But it's much more of an uphill battle than it used to be. And if Brown ever thought that he was going to get any kind of satisfaction out of the movie, other than the big fat check, he was out of his mind. It's still Hollywood, gang.

Sorry, but then he shouldn't have taken on the project. There are plenty of less controversial projects out there for him to direct. And plenty of other people would have loved to direct it.

[pconsidine]

But that's what I'm saying, M. It was a different world when he took it on. If you want to take him to task for not bowing out when the going got tough, that's a different story. But to say he should never have taken it on isn't really fair. Nor is it really mindful of the reality of making big-budget movies.

[blacbird]

As a slight aside, everyone here is aware that the "Priory of Sion", the cabal supposed to have been guarding the Big Secret for a thousand years, is a complete hoax generated in the 20th Century (having been openly admitted to by the hoaxers, who did it mainly as a lark)?

bird

[kikazaru]

My apologies in advance in saying this to those that loved the book, but imo The Da Vinci Code, while an interesting premise, just was not very well written. There are scads of thrillers out there that are much better written by much better novelists and with more compelling characters and stories. This book took off "because" of the controversial plot and it is really the only thing that it has going for it. There is no way that they can soften the plot and still remain, even somewhat true, to the story line, because the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene and it's cover up by the church, is the entire point of the book. Anything else and it would just be another "Ron and Tom's Excellent Adventure"

If Howard and his financiers feel that the controversy will hamper their reputations - and worse yet their bottom line, then they should relinquish their rights and let someone else who is willing to gamble that the public would like to see a movie that is true to the story line and let the Church and other censors go hang. Or better yet, allow the admonishments of the Church and censors to do all the movie's free publicity. Nothing like telling everyone not to do something - and then seeing them do it in droves.

[maestrowork]

Like UJ said, if they soften the premise, it would just be another "National Treasure." What's the point, then?

[ChunkyC]

This had the potential to be something other than the recycled tripe Hollywood has been spewing lately. Now they're gutting it. Typical. When it tanks, they'll all stand in a circle and point fingers at each other and blame shrinking ticket sales on illegal downloading. Not one of them will realize that people are staying away from the theatre in droves because the movies playing there SUCK.

What were we talking about? :)

[scribbler1382]

I think you're over-reacting a tad. Howard has yet to make a movie that hasn't rocketed to first place at the box office. And the fact of the matter is, they paid for the option. Paid BIG. They can do whatever they want with it.

To be honest, if the movie had played up the religion angle I probably wouldn't want to see the result. The last thing I want to see when I watch a thriller is a bunch of proselytizing, in any direction.

[maestrowork]

Howard has yet to make a movie that hasn't rocketed to first place at the box office.

Actually, his two recent films didn't do too well in the box office: The Missing and Cinderella Man.

And the fact of the matter is, they paid for the option. Paid BIG. They can do whatever they want with it.

Yes and no, depending on the contract. DVC is such a huge phenomenon world-wide with a lot of fans, I don't think they can do "whatever they want" with it. Just like the HP books -- Chris Columbus stayed pretty close to the book in the first few films.


To be honest, if the movie had played up the religion angle I probably wouldn't want to see the result.

They why bother with DVC? Without the religious/consipiracy angel, there's no story.

It's like trying to make To Kill a Mockingbird without the racial elements...

[scribbler1382]

Actually, his two recent films didn't do too well in the box office: The Missing and Cinderella Man.

Yeah, that's true. The Missing was definitely missing. :)

Then why bother with DVC? Without the religious/consipiracy angle, there's no story.

It's like trying to make To Kill a Mockingbird without the racial elements...

Built-in audience. Same reason Hollywood bought "The Lawnmower Man" from King and made a movie that had NOTHING to do with the original story. King did eventually get his name taken off the ad campaigns, but it was too late by then to really matter. Similar situation with Heinlein's "Starship Troopers".

[maestrowork]

That's why Starship Trooper was a failure, blasphemy to most Heinlein's fans. That's why we don't see a sequel (except the awful TV series)... And could you just imagine the outcry and boycott from HP fans if Chris Columbus didn't stay true to the books?

Then there's an interesting question: if they shy away from the religious angle, what would they do instead?

[Perks]

Then there's an interesting question: if they shy away from the religious angle, what would they do instead?

That's what I've been wondering since I read the initial post. There's really not much point to the book or, presumably, the film if you took away the religious aspect. You'd still have murders and clues and secrets, but no friggin' point worth killing, hunting and hiding over.

[maestrowork]

They will be codes and secrets of the biggest pig farm in Europe...

[Perks]

They will be codes and secrets of the biggest pig farm in Europe...

Hee hee, in France nonetheless. I have spent only one day in France and I'm sure there are many beautiful places there, but it was my misfortune to spend a Sunday in a closed-down cow-town directly after the entire area had been covered in a fresh layer of pig dung for fertilizing the farms (read: whole place.)

[scribbler1382]

Then there's an interesting question: if they shy away from the religious angle, what would they do instead?

They'll probably back off the whole Jesus thing, and make it about codes, ciphers and the grail. A la Indian Jones. That would be my guess, anyways.

[maestrowork]

They'll probably back off the whole Jesus thing, and make it about codes, ciphers and the grail. A la Indian Jones. That would be my guess, anyways.

Gasp.

I'd rather spend my money on Indiana Jones 4. At least Spielberg is directing... ;)

[Mistook]

Then there's an interesting question: if they shy away from the religious angle, what would they do instead?


Turns out Jesus and MM were "going steady" for a few weeks. Big hunt is to find the "Holy Class Ring" that Magdaline held onto after their break up .

[HConn]

According to Site link removed per request of other site's Webmaster half of everything you read in entertainment journalism is wrong.

You guys are slamming a movie that hasn't even been made. You think this "controversy" is bad news? Anything that gets the movie into the headlines ups its recognizability.

Also, the church can say anything it wants, the studios can consult with them, then the studios can make any movie they want.

Look, are you seriously worried? Here's a quote from the NYTimes article:

<i>Mr. Ammer, Sony's marketing president, said the studio would remain true to its source. "My biggest concern is that we make a movie that is entertaining, and that follows as close to the book as possible," he said. </i>

Is that quote accurate? Was it a bone the marketer threw to the fans as he takes one from religious interests? The only way you'll know is when the movie is done. So relax.

Sheesh. Everyone's an armchair producer....

[Christine N.]

Actually a lot of what happens to a book-made-into-a-movie has to do with the terms. Some authors get it put into the contract when they sell that they want input into the movie. Anne Rice fought tooth and nail with "Interview of a Vampire" - they wanted to change a lot of it, and she had some say in casting. I think SK learned his lesson with Lawnmower man, and I'm pretty sure he gets consulted on his movies now.

JK Rowling also has a lot of pull with "her" movies - I hear she's on the set most of the shooting. They were going to put a cemetary in PoA, and she told them they couldn't because that's not where it goes, and it will be important in an upcoming book (I won't spoil for those who haven't read).

Dan Brown didn't hold out for more control.

[scribbler1382]

That's true. Clive Cussler had one of his early novels (Raise The Titanic) made into a movie and he absolutely hated it. So much so, that he swore he would never sell another movie option unless he got control. He reportedly turned down tons of offers over the years because of this, some in the millions. He finally got the deal he wanted with Sahara. And based on that, I'd guess we'll see more of his books made into movies in the coming years.

[ChunkyC]

He finally got the deal he wanted with Sahara.
Maybe he should have left well enough alone. I thought Sahara bit the big one. But if it was what he wanted, more power to him.

[maestrowork]

And given how horrible Sahara was, I wish him luck.

[katiemac]

JK Rowling also has a lot of pull with "her" movies - I hear she's on the set most of the shooting. They were going to put a cemetary in PoA, and she told them they couldn't because that's not where it goes, and it will be important in an upcoming book (I won't spoil for those who haven't read).

See, this is funny. Everyone has a different story, and it goes for every movie/director/author. I heard she stays away from the filming, and frankly doesn't have the time to with her kids. I did hear she'll keep in touch with the screenwriter(s) because they're afraid of cutting something that's more important later.

As for "Da Vinci," movies.com, which always keeps up on the latest for every film, hasn't detailed any information about cutting the controversy, and neither has Entertainment Weekly (not that either of these would be the only sources, of course, see below). Check out the teaser trailer (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2006/DEFGH/DaVinciCode,The/trailer.php), if you will, and it sounds like as of now they're still on for the shock factor. "A secret that could change the course of mankind forever" is pretty mind-blowing. Anyway, check out the movie's website (http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/davincicode/site/index.html). Here's the synopsis they posted:

POSSIBLE SPOILER:
Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman, the OscarÆ-winning director and writer of A Beautiful Mind, reunite to bring Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, one of the most popular and controversial novels of our time, to the big screen with a cast headed by two-time Academy AwardÆ winner Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno, Sir Ian McKellen and Alfred Molina.

Produced by OscarÆ-winner Brian Grazer and John Calley, The Da Vinci Code, begins with a spectacular murder in the Louvre Museum. All clues point to a covert religious organization that will stop at nothing to protect a secret that threatens to overturn 2,000 years of accepted dogma.

The Da Vinci Code commences production on June 30th in Paris and is set to wrap on October 19th in England.

From the New York Times:

Mr. Ammer, Sony's marketing president, said the studio would remain true to its source. "My biggest concern is that we make a movie that is entertaining, and that follows as close to the book as possible," he said. "It's not about any particular group, it's about the mass appeal of the book. When you read a good book, you say, 'I hope they don't ruin the movie.'

This is the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/movies/07waxm.html?ex=1124337600&en=cf843bc878a342e9&ei=5070&pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=f744aad5d8265069&hp&ex=1123128000&partner=homepage) the quote is from. It sounds like if there is a change, it will be a studio/Sony decision, as Ron Howard's name is mentioned only once (as director) in the entire printing.

[James D. Macdonald]

How much do you want to bet that this "controversy" was hatched at a publicity and marketing meeting? Hey, it worked, didn't it? Got us all talking about the movie....

[LightShadow]

Book ticked me off, but they shouldn't change it for the movie (even though 9 times out of ten they do - Rowling is the exception). The controversy is what will bring people to the box office. Besides, if someone is solid in their faith, all it does is make the job of spreading the word difficult, not impossible.

[aruna]

See, this is funny. Everyone has a different story, and it goes for every movie/director/author. I heard she stays away from the filming, and frankly doesn't have the time to with her kids. I did hear she'll keep in touch with the screenwriter(s) because they're afraid of cutting something that's more important later.

.

I think JK Rowling insisted that, instead of the American child star (the kid from Home Alone) proposed to play HP they find an unknown British boy. Personally, and many people I spoke to said the same, I think the boy they chose was very wooden. But I only saw the first movie.

[aruna]

All this stuf about DVC "changing mankind forever" makes me puke, it is so ethnocentric. I promise you that if JC really were married to MM hardly one Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Pakistani, Thai, Burmese, Turk, Saudi, Nigerian, Ethiopian etc etc etc would wink an eye. But of course, they are not part of mankind....

[maestrowork]

I think Ron Howard should ask: What would Jesus do?

[Mistook]

...Besides, if someone is solid in their faith, all it does is make the job of spreading the word difficult, not impossible.]


Not to make a flame-war out of this, but I'm a fairly devout christian, and I don't feel threatened by this story. For one thing, it's fiction. For another, it's intriguing. I can suspend disbeleif over religious issues, and I can enjoy a good mystery, even if it means Jesus might have to appear on Jerry Springer to work out paternity issues.

[aruna]

]


Not to make a flame-war out of this, but I'm a fairly devout christian, and I don't feel threatened by this story. For one thing, it's fiction. For another, it's intriguing. I can suspend disbeleif over religious issues, and I can enjoy a good mystery, even if it means Jesus might have to appear on Jerry Springer to work out paternity issues.

Exactly.
Even if it WERE all true, even if JC HAD been married etc, it would not change anything at all of the actual Christian message; the Sermon on the Mount would be every bit as inspiring.
At the moment a nun is potesting the filing outside Lincol Cathedral. She is just creating free marketing for the film. For anuone offended by the book or the movie, I would suggest that silence as the best resort; if God is offended surely He will know how to handle it.

[brinkett]

Liberal theologians suggested years ago that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a thing going on, long before Dan Brown came along.

[scribbler1382]

Liberal theologians suggested years ago that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a thing going on, long before Dan Brown came along.

SPOILER WARNING:


I believe this theory has been around for a lot longer than that. And really, there's nothing in Dan's book that's new or earth-shaking. Even the grail as a person theory has been around for a long while and has even appeared in other books.

So as with most other "controversial" topics, it's much ado about nothing.

[Christine N.]

But the Catholic Church likes to quash that theory. Not b/c it would change any of the messages of the Bible, but because it would mean that Jesus was a sexual being, and we just can't have that. They like to guilt people about sex (speaking as a used to be Catholic). I think it's the basis for priests being celebate - if Jesus had a wife, and all that goes with it, how can that practice be justified? Would rock the CC to the core. Purity and Piety.

There were complaints about the book, but I guess they figure people don't read as much as they go to the movies. <shrug>

[Mags]

SPOILERS WITHIN:



(turn back now!)



(you were warned!)

I think there were objections to the portrayal of Opus Dei as well, especially the albino killer dude. Thing is, once you read to the end it was pretty obvious they were set up to look bad, but weren't really, other than being exceedingly odd and slightly creepy.

I thought the book was a page-turner, but I'd already read the Grail thing elsewhere so that wasn't a big shock for me. I agree, however, that Dan Brown won't make anyone forget Hemingway. But I bet Hemingway would've loved to have Dan Brown's sell-through. :ROFL:

[brinkett]

But the Catholic Church likes to quash that theory. Not b/c it would change any of the messages of the Bible, but because it would mean that Jesus was a sexual being, and we just can't have that.

Well, the point is that there isn't anything new in Dan Brown's book. It's only new to people who never read beyond what they're told in church. And it's not just the CC. When the book first came out, a fundamentalist protestant organization sent flyers around to churches in my area about how insulting the book is to Christianity, etc., and urging ministers to dissuade their flock from reading it. This flyer was sent to all denominations, not just their own.


They like to guilt people about sex (speaking as a used to be Catholic). I think it's the basis for priests being celebate - if Jesus had a wife, and all that goes with it, how can that practice be justified? Would rock the CC to the core. Purity and Piety.
Given all the sex scandals the CC is involved in, you'd think a work of fiction would be the least of its worries. It can hardly hold itself up as the standard of purity and piety.

[HConn]

From Paul Levines' website:

About the [URL=http://www.paul-levine.com/tv/tv.asp]original writer retaining control of a movie made from his book (http://www.paul-levine.com/index.html)

I had a brief fling with Hollywood in the mid-1990's when NBC made a TV movie from TO SPEAK FOR THE DEAD, my first Jake Lassiter book. I served as "creative consultant," which meant I was paid to give notes to the screenwriter who was then paid to ignore them. Here's an actual telephone conversation between the naive novelist in Miami and the savvy screenwriter in Hollywood:

NOVELIST
You didn't use any of my notes.

SCREENWRITER
And you don't understand the process.

NOVELIST
There's a process?

SCREENWRITER
See, you owned a car. You sold us the car. Now, you want to drive the car. But I'm gonna drive it. You can wave as it goes by. That's the process.


heh.

[aruna]

But the Catholic Church likes to quash that theory. Not b/c it would change any of the messages of the Bible, but because it would mean that Jesus was a sexual being, and we just can't have that. They like to guilt people about sex (speaking as a used to be Catholic). I think it's the basis for priests being celebate - if Jesus had a wife, and all that goes with it, how can that practice be justified? Would rock the CC to the core. Purity and Piety.

<shrug>

Though I personally don't believe that Jesus was a sexual being - many spiritual leaders from all religions weren't - (and Im not a Catholic!) you're probably right on here. I think both sides are completey off track, the chirch and the conspiracy theorists - but the controversy will only help promote the film, and the book. To my mind it's all a storm in a teacup. I certainly wasn't bowled over by the "revelations" in the book, though I did find it a page-turner. But so badly written it made me cringe.

[brinkett]

I know Hollywood's capable of producing a decent movie from a book, but when Tom Cruise was given the role of Lestat in Interview With the Vampire, I had to wonder whether I'd ever want to sell movie rights. Anne Rice initially threw a hissy fit, but then later claimed that he did a wonderful job and was right for the role. For some reason, I've never quite believed her...

[HConn]

Really? As much as I dislike Cruise and as many boring performances as he's given, I thought he made a terrific Lestat.

Thank God they didn't cast Rice's original inspiration for the role: Rutger Hauer.

[brinkett]

I thought he was too short for the role (and I like Cruise...well, I did until he spouted all that crap about psychiatry and started behaving like a two year old).

[ChunkyC]

I was thinking the same thing, brinkett. I always had an image of Lestat as very tall. Perhaps that is partially because over the years we've been fed images of vampires as tall, dark and handsome, but still, Cruise just didn't seem right physically for the part.

I haven't read the DVC, but it will be interesting to see how fans of the book react to the casting.

[brinkett]

In Interview With the Vampire, Lestat is first described as:

"...a tall, fair-skinned man with a mass of blond hair and a graceful, almost feline quality to his movements."

That's why I didn't think Cruise was right for the part.

[ChunkyC]

Been years since I read 'Interview.' Based on that description, Cruise is the last person I would have thought of for the part, regardless of his acting ability.

[Enasteri]

Yeah, Tom Hanks would probably do something like that. He did a heck of a job in "Philadelphia".

Trying to think of a Ron Howard movie that was controversial.... nope.

Granted Howard hasn't done much that was controversial, but he is getting into more gritty stuff. On television he produces "Arrested Development" (yeah it's stupid but it's also raw) and has been a producer on such shows as "24". He was an uncredited producer on "Inside Deep Throat" (i.e. a documentary on the porn movie, not the watergate informer.)

In movies he has done some very serious directing on films like "Cinderella Man" , "A Beautiful Mind" and "The Missing". None of those could be considered "light, fluffy" films.

[maestrowork]

In movies he has done some very serious directing on films like "Cinderella Man" , "A Beautiful Mind" and "The Missing". None of those could be considered "light, fluffy" films.

And none of them is controversial (e.g. he skirted the notion that John Nash's bisexual). Also being a producer is different than being a director, as in "Da Vinci Code: A Ron Howard film."