Da Vinci code

[Josh Bass]

Let me put it this way then:

 

I am quite certain that if I read Dan Brown's work/see a movie based on such, I will be pissed off at myself for having wasted my time and money, based on my personal tastes, and what I think makes a good writer/movie. This is also based on the fact that I used to read stuff like this when I was less discerning, so I know what I'd be getting into. Better?

Edited May 27, 2006 by Josh Bass

[Guest]

Gee you guys are bumming me out. I need to take the Mrs to see this in two hours, tonight.

 

Now I'm expecting the worst.

 

Oh well maybe that's a good thing, if any thing positive happens from the experience, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

I'll let you know.

 

R,

[Max Jacoby]

Well I'd be dubious of the literary quality of anything which features an Albino Killer Monk...

[Brad Grimmett]

Let me put it this way then:

 

I am quite certain that if I read Dan Brown's work/see a movie based on such, I will be pissed off at myself for having wasted my time and money, based on my personal tastes, and what I think makes a good writer/movie. This is also based on the fact that I used to read stuff like this when I was less discerning, so I know what I'd be getting into. Better?

Better? Not really, since you're saying basically the same thing. I guess it's one thing to say, "It doesn't look interesting to me", but that's not what you're saying. You're making judgements based on what you've heard, and based on other books you've read. You're calling the book garbage and saying that reading it would be a waste of time and money, and you haven't even read it, which just isn't fair to the author.

It's a fun book Josh. A good read. It would be nice if you had an informed opinion before you dismissed it.

[Josh Bass]

Alright, guys, let me try this tack:

 

There are certain genres of literature/movies I just don't care for. I don't care who makes 'em, who's in 'em, etc. If it looks like any kind of silly action flick (if it's a silly action flick with puzzles, relgious themes, and riddle-solving), then it's a dealbreaker, period. Maybe that seems close-minded, but I don't see the point of reading something/going to see a movie I'm almost certain not to like. For me, it's the same as saying "I don't need to see "RV," or "The Honeymooners" (the one that just came out) to know it ain't for me. Dig? Not trying to offend anyone, but I get kind of annoyed when stuff becomes overhyped and omnipresent to where you can't avoid it, especially when I feel it's undeserved. So excuse my overly negative reaction.

 

 

By the way, one thing that really annoyed me, just in trailer, is the whole "The greatest coverup in human history. . .if the secret ever got out, it would shake mankind to it's knees" business. How many people in the entire world are Christians? It's around 250,000,000, isn't it? Or am I way off? It's not the majority of the world population, so the entire premise that Jesus' well-kept secret (I don't want to spoil anything for anyone) is going to affect the whole human race is just a tad arrogant. There are an enormous number of people who simply wouldn't give a damn. That really bothered me.

[Brad Grimmett]

Not trying to offend anyone, but I get kind of annoyed when stuff becomes overhyped and omnipresent to where you can't avoid it, especially when I feel it's undeserved. So excuse my overly negative reaction.

You keep saying basically the same thing, you're just hiding it better. How can you feel that hype for a movie or book is undeserved when you know next to nothing about it? I just don't get this attitude. You act like you're too good for it. How can you have such a high and mighty attitude when you're completely un-informed? I'm really confused by this.

The thing is, I like the book, but I thought the movie was bland, so it's not like I'm arguing that it's some great work of art.....I'm just really bothered by un-justifiable judgement based on nothing. It irks me.

 

What if I said, "I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I'm really sick of hearing how great Josh Bass' work is. I know his type and I just hate it. I'm absolutely certain that anything he does will be crap, and I'd be wasting my time if I even bothered to watch anything he's shot. No, I've never seen anything he's done, but I'm not into what he does because it's really inconsequential garbage, and it's so overhyped and I can't avoid it, so I think it sucks. Excuse my negativity, but this is how I feel based on all my knowledge of other stuff I don't like. How could he NOT suck, with all the good things being said about him? I mean, come on......"

 

Wouldn't it bum you out if that was my attitude?

 

There are certain genres of literature/movies I just don't care for. I don't care who makes 'em, who's in 'em, etc. If it looks like any kind of silly action flick (if it's a silly action flick with puzzles, relgious themes, and riddle-solving), then it's a dealbreaker, period. Maybe that seems close-minded, but I don't see the point of reading something/going to see a movie I'm almost certain not to like.

What silly action flick are you talking about? I thought we were talking about The Da Vinci Code....oh, that's right, you haven't seen it, so you don't have a clue that's it not even remotely an "action flick", which is why you're so confused.

Seriously man, you need to stop judging things based on.....well, I don't know WHAT you could be judging this based on, because you don't even know what it's about.

 

And yes, you're being extremely close-minded. I guess you won't go to a museum either since you'll almost certainly not like some of the art on display. It must be a real bummer to try so hard to avoid new things just because you think you might not like them.

[Guest]

It really wasn't that bad, 7 out of 10 stars. It was no "Man Who Would Be King" but how do you compete with that?

 

What was with all the out of focus shots! There where at least 20!

 

Who do we shoot for that? The DOP? 1st AC? Or camera operator?

 

R,

[Josh Bass]

Alright, let's stop this before it goes any farther.

 

 

Brad, we'll agree to disagree. I'm still refusing to see it on principle (whether anyone understands that principle or not), and that's all there is to it. I try to see movies I think I'll like, and this one doesn't qualify, for any number of reasons. Ditto reading books. I mean, okay, if I'm really desperate, I'll read something I know is crap just to make the time pass in situations where time needs to pass more quickly than it actually is. Movies don't work that way.

 

If I called it an action thriller by mistake, I'm sorry. I saw a car chase in the trailer, and several shots of people running from something. So my bad.

 

Anyway, I'll try to be less incendiary in the future, so, good day to you all. Happy Da Vinci Coding.

[Brad Grimmett]

Alright, let's stop this before it goes any farther.

Brad, we'll agree to disagree. I'm still refusing to see it on principle (whether anyone understands that principle or not), and that's all there is to it.

That's totally cool. I can certainly respect the fact that you don't want to see it. That was never the discussion. I'm sure you're aware of the point I was making.

 

What was with all the out of focus shots! There where at least 20!

 

Who do we shoot for that? The DOP? 1st AC? Or camera operator?

 

R,

I didn't notice that many soft shots. Maybe the projection you saw was slightly soft.

On the other hand, I did notice wildly inconsistant grain in some scenes. It would be a single and then cut to the other single and the grain was jumping. Then back to the other single and no grain. This happened a couple times.

[nathan coombs]

I can unreservedly say without ever having read the book or seen the films that it is a piece of poop.

 

Same goes for Harry Potter, except I was actually forced to watch one of the films, and it was even worse than I dared dream.

 

Mindless entertainment or the intellectually dulled masses.

[Lav Bodnaruk]

ok, so I saw the film last night. It definitely wasn?t as bad as some talked it up to be...

 

I mean, I didn?t like it, there was no suspense, the action was weak and don?t get me started on the whole ?code breaking? ? that wasn?t even addressed properly, it didn?t allow the viewer to even consider the breaking of the code (which the book does to a degree) and some shots I'd definitely question...

 

Even though I wasn?t a big fan of the book I think that the bunch of stuff they left out from it, was rather vital, for now they were left with a story that was dull and meaningless (not that the book was a fat stretch from that, but it was much better then this film, if that makes sense). So I would say it is definitely worth questioning the screen play writer and the process of it all - how quickly was it done, what supervision, what research... etc etc... we all already know that these Hollywood blockbuster formulated pictures are all the same and are nothing but a quick buck for many involved... I sure see arguments of the screen writers, that they had to translate the 10hours from the book into less then couple for the big screen, but yeah... I guess I'd say, thats what a good script writer is meant to do... i don't know;

 

I didn?t mind the grain so much. I wasn't impressed with the inconsistency of it, having it in one shot and not the next, but other then that I didn?t mind it... However, I did mind that the film was predominantly set in 'dark' locations, so much so that I felt a headache after a while? and I also wasnt a fan of the car chase, that whoe "SMART CAR"... So much marketing went into that vehicle, there were some parked infront of the theatre with the "Da Vinci Code" stickers... and it was in there for 10min in a bad car chase, that obviously lacked wide shots.

 

Soft shots wise, I think I saw over 20! I just assume it was the projection, because I could never believe they would release a film like that... I did see it at a Megaplex, hence why the poor projecting wouldn?t surprise me? ($5 bucks a ticket AUD ? huge screen but, best value in town no doubt)

 

Hope my opinion doesn?t offend anyone. It is just that, an opinion. After all it is not like I had much choice in seeing many other things on there, remember I was at the Megaplex surrounded by number of other wonderful films, so I ought to give the Davinci Code a break and move on...

[Josh Bass]

Uh oh, Nathan. Brad's gonna lay the smackdown on ye.

 

 

Quick! Defend yourself before he can post again! Say it's just a personal opinion! Oh well. I tried to help you.

[John Allardice]

I can unreservedly say without ever having read the book or seen the films that it is a piece of poop.

 

Same goes for Harry Potter, except I was actually forced to watch one of the films, and it was even worse than I dared dream.

 

Mindless entertainment for the intellectually dulled masses.

 

...and who exactly appointed you as the arbiter of quality and taste for the cinematic world?

This is the worst kind of artistic snobbery. The assumption that because something is popular that its automatically poop.

 

Whilst the studios embark on these endeavors as an obviously calculated moneymaking exercise, ( and why not, they don't make any money, we don't get any more movies) apart from above-the-line talent, these movies are made by people like us. They're out there working, trying to do the best possible job they can using the time & budget allotted, they're not deliberately out to make poop, why would they?

 

I'm not defending this particular movie. I thought frankly, that it was it was an uninspired adaptation of a middle-of-the-road potboiler. But to dismiss it in such an uninformed an arbitrary fashion is pretty foul, coming from someone who supposedly likes cinema, ( if you didn't you wouldn't be here, right?)

 

This kind of elitism actually works against good cinema, making the public more wary of 'art-house' projects. It propogates the idea that 'art' in cinema should not, under any circumstances, attempt to be enjoyable. "One should never attend the cinema to be entertained, that is just for the great unwashed, one should attend only for intellectual, social or political enlightenment".

It's the sort of thought process that holds Brecht in higher regard that Shaw or Wilde. Why? Because the latter two were actually popular...so therefore they must be woth less artistically

 

It's also bullshit

 

Popular cinema does not need to be mindless, it often IS, but the fact that it is enjoyable, accessable and occasionally profitable entertainment is not what MAKES it mindless.

 

end of rant.

 

J

[nathan coombs]

...and who exactly appointed you as the arbiter of quality and taste for the cinematic world?

This is the worst kind of artistic snobbery. The assumption that because something is popular that its automatically poop.

 

No its poop because it is children's fantasy dressed up as adult entertainment. I enjoyed the Indiana Jones series, they were not trying to be anything they weren't and were even funny. I lost interest in mainstream cinema around the time of the 'Mummy Returns' when I realized Hollywood could not even do silly action-adventures well any more.

 

Lets hold no illusions this film will sell like mad purely due to the marketing hype surrounding it. People will turn up and pay for their ticket for some sort of shared cultural experience, not in the expectation of good cinema. Meanwhile great directors such as Bela Tarr, Von Trier and Haneke have to scramble about to get funding for their next films which no-one is even interested in because the idea of quality cinema has been drowned out by the a banal popular culture shoving King Kong and Da Vinci Code's in our face.

[Lars.Erik]

Meanwhile great directors such as Bela Tarr, Von Trier and Haneke have to scramble about to get funding for their next films which no-one is even interested in because the idea of quality cinema has been drowned out by the a banal popular culture shoving King Kong and Da Vinci Code's in our face.

 

Do you know Lars? Well, I'm Norwegian, and Lars von Trier is Danish. Kinda like English and Scottish type of thing. Anyway, a friend of mine edited his feature at Zentropa. Lars's company. He spoke a lot to him. And a focus puller friend of mine has also worked for his company. And Lars can basically make any film he wants to. In Europe. He doesn't travel to the US because he has a huge fear of travelling, and he has about 60 other fears. Zentropa is a big company who is constantly producing. They earn a lot of money, and the funding system for Danish films also give them quite a bit of money. So I don't know where you get your info, but it's wrong.

 

LE

Edited May 28, 2006 by Lars.Erik

[Brad Grimmett]

Uh oh, Nathan. Brad's gonna lay the smackdown on ye.

Quick! Defend yourself before he can post again! Say it's just a personal opinion! Oh well. I tried to help you.

No need to lay the smack down. First of all, it's obvious that Natan is just trying to stir things up and start an argument. Pretty silly actually, and I saw right through it. Second, John already took care of it, and in a much more elegant way than I could have.

You and Nathan can continue to make sweeping and un-informed declarations if you want, but you're not helping yourselves or anyone else. And really....what's the point? No one wants to hear the opinion of someone who couldn't have possibly formed one.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Honestly, if you aren't going to watch it and assume it's a piece of poop, then why go to the trouble of sharing your opinion here? Let the people who did watch it (like myself) decide whether it's a piece of poop (which it is). ;-)

 

I was prepared for some filmic shorthand but criminey, they butchered it.

 

All of those lovely locations for not.

 

By the way, I hate everything that's popular. Why? Because I'm not. ;-)

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I've liked Sal Totino's work in the previous films I've seen from him, but am I allowed to say that I thought this one looked quite crummy? Not knowing the circumstances, it's always unfair to criticsize a films look too heavy. But I'm guessing it was a fairly solid budget and therefore I'm surprised that the look wasn't given more work.

 

Too many close-ups cheapening it, making it look like they weren't really in all those fantastic locations. Soft, to boot. Lighting-wise, what can I say? Just not my cup of tea. To many hard, uncontrolled sources and nasty nose shadows. Too many mixed sources that didn't play well together. Too much Steadicam.

 

The overcast British weather makes for challenging shooting, but not even the worst BBC movie-of-the-week is graded that horribly (funny, how nobody can lick shooting London right with all its beautiful scenery). Some seriously high contrast exteriors that just felt un-lit and un-filled, which can sometimes work, but here it just was grotty.

 

Uninspired in both direction and lighting, I think.

 

However, there were two nicely lit sequences, though. The Bois-du-Bologne night scenes were nicely and the Land Rover chase through the woods, also at night, were gorgeous.

[Bryan Fowler]

How many people in the entire world are Christians? It's around 250,000,000, isn't it? Or am I way off? It's not the majority of the world population...

 

I was curious too. According to this page the top three go like this:

 

Christianity - 2.1 Billion

Islam - 1.3 Billion

Secular (etc) - 1.1

 

at at the bottom of the list:

Scientology, at 500,000.

 

*shrugs*

 

For the record, haven't seen the movie, liked the book, waiting for DVD.

[Lav Bodnaruk]

For the record, haven't seen the movie, liked the book, waiting for DVD.

 

I dont know wy but that line just made me laugh :D maybe cause it was so to the point...

Cheers,

 

Oh and again for the record Dan's previous book is better... :D

Edited May 31, 2006 by lav

[Josh Bass]

Holy crap? Really? 2.1 Billion. I eat my humble pie humbly. I seriously thought it was a minority, compared to the world population. Which, I guess, technically, it is, but not as much as I thought. Still, I think mankind could survive Jesus' secret.

[Oliver Ojeil]

Holy crap? Really? 2.1 Billion. I eat my humble pie humbly. I seriously thought it was a minority, compared to the world population. Which, I guess, technically, it is, but not as much as I thought. Still, I think mankind could survive Jesus' secret.

Dear Josh, one can not critisize a form, a matter, or history in this case, without being knowledgeable of the subject. Your argument is clear on the cinematic end, but to say that mankind could survive Jesus' secret is a bit off. I suggest going back to history books and getting cultured on what was done in the name of Jesus, you can start by the crusades if you want (I am not arguing whether it was right or wrong for them) or other holy wars. It is not something that humanity took so lightly in the past. Having the christians' number (not that numbers mean anything) off by that much is a little ignorant. How many states there are in the US?

Edited May 31, 2006 by Oliver S

[Josh Bass]

Look, I was just making idle conversation. I don't know where I got the incorrect figure that I had in my mind. My bad.

[Bryan Fowler]

Look, I was just making idle conversation. I don't know where I got the incorrect figure that I had in my mind. My bad.

 

*laughs*

 

(but not at you Josh...I was just thinking how much each of us don't know, but yet are supposed to know. I will be ignorant till I die I guess.)

 

anyway...I would not have guessed that high either, and i'm part of "them"... or is it us... whatever.

I didn't know it was 33% of the world.

 

so, i'm off to drink some caffene. later everyone.

 

bf

[Brad Grimmett]

Having the christians' number (not that numbers mean anything) off by that much is a little ignorant. How many states there are in the US? [/b]

Not knowing the exact number is a BIT ignorant, but comparing that knowledge to knowing how many states are in the US is silly. I don't know anyone who could have named the exact number of christians in the world without looking it up first (I certainly didn't know), but pretty much all of the people I know could tell you how many states are in the US. Just because someone is ignorant of something doesn't mean they're an idiot.