ACor58 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I have read both and I must say that while I liked the DaVinci Code, I felt as if Angels and Demons would have made a much better movie, especially since it happened first. Maybe they will make a prequel (Kind of like how Temple of Doom happened before Raiders of the Lost Ark.) I wasn't sure about Tom Hanks as Robert Langon. Though I am sure that he will do a fine job, for some reason I was picturing George Clooney as the main character in the film. While I am sure that the film will no way live up to the book (Hard to cram 500 pages into a 2 hour movie) I am excited to see how it translates on to the screen. Here is to hoping that Angels and Demons makes it to the theatres next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I have read both and I must say that while I liked the DaVinci Code, I felt as if Angels and Demons would have made a much better movie, especially since it happened first. Maybe they will make a prequel (Kind of like how Temple of Doom happened before Raiders of the Lost Ark.) I wasn't sure about Tom Hanks as Robert Langon. Though I am sure that he will do a fine job, for some reason I was picturing George Clooney as the main character in the film. While I am sure that the film will no way live up to the book (Hard to cram 500 pages into a 2 hour movie) I am excited to see how it translates on to the screen. Here is to hoping that Angels and Demons makes it to the theatres next. 666900[/snapback] A lot of the Da Vinci Code was expositionary; I could see the actual action fitting in a 2-hour film. The problem then being: some of the most interesting parts of the book were the expositionary ones (e.g. the description of Da Vinci's The Last Supper). I don't know how good a movie it'll be without that...or even with it, as there's a lot of ways to do that wrong on film. And having re-read the book this past weekend...yeah, I can see Hanks as Langdon. He probably wouldn't have been my first choice, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Paulson Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 agreed, i am not a big Tom Hanks fan so we will see how this plays out the French chick is hot so that shouild make up for me having to look at Forest Gump i liked Angels and Demons better also- maybe because i read it second as most people have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I read them both and enjoyed both even though there are obvious flaws and all Browns book follow the same formula. The Davinci Code is gonna set records at the box office. I think it will be one of the highest grossing films of all time. Massive protests will only draw more attention to it. I too preferred Angels and Demons but did not like the ending of that one. I saw many of the Angles and Demons obelisks and landmarks in Rome. I met some people from West Point there on an Angels and Demons self guided tour. I look forward to the Davinci Code film and the protests and controversy sure to follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 The problem then being: some of the most interesting parts of the book were the expositionary ones (e.g. the description of Da Vinci's The Last Supper). I don't know how good a movie it'll be without that...or even with it, as there's a lot of ways to do that wrong on film. 666919[/snapback] I was wondering the same thing, as it is almost impossibel to translate that onto film. The other thing was how Brown would put the characters thougts into italics, like Of course he knew I was bluffing I am not sure if they can capture that in the screenplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I have read both and I must say that while I liked the DaVinci Code, I felt as if Angels and Demons would have made a much better movie, especially since it happened first. Maybe they will make a prequel (Kind of like how Temple of Doom happened before Raiders of the Lost Ark.) I wasn't sure about Tom Hanks as Robert Langon. Though I am sure that he will do a fine job, for some reason I was picturing George Clooney as the main character in the film. While I am sure that the film will no way live up to the book (Hard to cram 500 pages into a 2 hour movie) I am excited to see how it translates on to the screen. Here is to hoping that Angels and Demons makes it to the theatres next. 666900[/snapback] I know two other people who thought Clooney would have been perfect. I'd wait til you see it before you judge, as Hanks can pretty much do anything. He's a FAR better actor than George. He may not seem like the right "type", but if anyone can pull it off, he can, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I think hanks will be fine in the role. Robert Langdon isnt your typical "hero" or "good guy" from normal movies. Hes supposed to be a dorky professor. I cant see clooney fitting into that role terribly well. I'm anxious to see how the movie turns out. I need to finish 1776 asap so i can read da vinci code again before i see the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 I know two other people who thought Clooney would have been perfect. I'd wait til you see it before you judge, as Hanks can pretty much do anything. He's a FAR better actor than George. He may not seem like the right "type", but if anyone can pull it off, he can, I think. 666926[/snapback] Oh, I agree with you, Hanks is a great actor and works well with Ron Howard. I am sure he will be fine. Whenever I read a book, I always picture hollywood actors as the characters. rown's initial description of Langdon, which was much more detailed in Angels and Demons, made me think of Clooney first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I know two other people who thought Clooney would have been perfect. I'd wait til you see it before you judge, as Hanks can pretty much do anything. He's a FAR better actor than George. He may not seem like the right "type", but if anyone can pull it off, he can, I think. 666926[/snapback] Clooney? The Langdon character is supposed to be a bookish-type professor; while I think Clooney's a very good actor in his own right, I have a hard time seeing him in that role. I'd sooner consider Johnny Depp or Harrison Ford "perfect" for the role than I would Clooney. Hell, I have an easier time picturing Morgan Freeman in that role than Clooney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Clooney? The Langdon character is supposed to be a bookish-type professor; while I think Clooney's a very good actor in his own right, I have a hard time seeing him in that role. I'd sooner consider Johnny Depp or Harrison Ford "perfect" for the role than I would Clooney. Hell, I have an easier time picturing Morgan Freeman in that role than Clooney. 666962[/snapback] It's funny you mention Depp and Ford. When my friends (women) were saying they saw Clooney (they think the character is sexy-bookish) in the role, I suggested Depp or a younger Harrison Ford. They didn't disagree...but, when they were reading the book, Clooney is who they imagined. I think Hanks will be fine. Your off-the-wall suggestion of Morgan Freeman as Langdon is ALMOST as inspired as my choice of Denzel Washington as the next James Bond. And, yes, I'm serious about both of these being good inspired choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 It's funny you mention Depp and Ford. When my friends (women) were saying they saw Clooney (they think the character is sexy-bookish) in the role, I suggested Depp or a younger Harrison Ford. They didn't disagree...but, when they were reading the book, Clooney is who they imagined. I think Hanks will be fine. Even an older Harrison Ford. The Langdon character is not very active...like I said, bookish, and with a bit of Hamlet indecisiveness thrown in. Ford can pull that off in his sleep. Your off-the-wall suggestion of Morgan Freeman as Langdon is ALMOST as inspired as my choice of Denzel Washington as the next James Bond. And, yes, I'm serious about both of these being good inspired choices. 667007[/snapback] More inspired, I think. Freeman could manage everything about that character except skin color. Washington could play everything about Bond except skin color...and accent. And Denzel Washington with a British accent would be so jarring it would distract from the rest of the movie (kind of like Halle Berry as a Bond girl...does anyone remember what the last Bond movie was actually about, outside of "Well...it had Halle Berry in it...") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Even an older Crap Throwing Monkey. The Langdon character is not very active...like I said, bookish, and with a bit of Hamlet indecisiveness thrown in. CTM can pull that off in his sleep. 667053[/snapback] There Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Even an older Harrison Ford. The Langdon character is not very active...like I said, bookish, and with a bit of Hamlet indecisiveness thrown in. Ford can pull that off in his sleep.More inspired, I think. Freeman could manage everything about that character except skin color. Washington could play everything about Bond except skin color...and accent. And Denzel Washington with a British accent would be so jarring it would distract from the rest of the movie (kind of like Halle Berry as a Bond girl...does anyone remember what the last Bond movie was actually about, outside of "Well...it had Halle Berry in it...") 667053[/snapback] Denzel would be an American Bond. An offspring of James and one of his dalliances. This would do wonders to invigorate a dying franchise. As you noted, nothing of note (except Halle) has happened with Bond in many many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Denzel would be an American Bond. An offspring of James and one of his dalliances. This would do wonders to invigorate a dying franchise. As you noted, nothing of note (except Halle) has happened with Bond in many many years. 667066[/snapback] Its been downhill since Connery left. Moore was decent but the last few I did not care for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I know two other people who thought Clooney would have been perfect. I'd wait til you see it before you judge, as Hanks can pretty much do anything. He's a FAR better actor than George. He may not seem like the right "type", but if anyone can pull it off, he can, I think. 666926[/snapback] I was thinking that a new unknown talent would have been better to cast as Langdon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I was thinking that a new unknown talent would have been better to cast as Langdon. 667077[/snapback] Like who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 A lot of the Da Vinci Code was expositionary; I could see the actual action fitting in a 2-hour film. The problem then being: some of the most interesting parts of the book were the expositionary ones (e.g. the description of Da Vinci's The Last Supper). I don't know how good a movie it'll be without that...or even with it, as there's a lot of ways to do that wrong on film. 666919[/snapback] I can think of many examples of movie translations that failed to capture that kind of writing...Dune and Hitchhiker's Guide come to mind...but I wonder if there are any good examples where that style of writing is done well on the big screen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 as there's a lot of ways to do that wrong on film. 666919[/snapback] And they, of course will find a way to do this. Yeah, I hate Hollywood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I can think of many examples of movie translations that failed to capture that kind of writing...Dune and Hitchhiker's Guide come to mind...but I wonder if there are any good examples where that style of writing is done well on the big screen? 667086[/snapback] "Hunt For Red October" is the closest example I can think of. And maybe the most recent "Pride and Prejudice"...but I haven't yet read the book (it's in the "to read" stack), so I'm making that judgement based on others' speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Like who? 667085[/snapback] Chef Jim, I hear he really digs hot French actresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts