Planetarion Forums

Leshy · 3 Dec 2004, 01:20

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=7198

And apparently Kate Beckinsale will join him as Sophie Neveu, in the upcoming movie version of The Da Vinci Code. They're not quite the actors I had in mind. Tom Hanks really isn't a charismatic and physically fit university teacher, and Kate Beckinsale is too British to be French.

I personally was imagining the characters more as these two. At any rate, I just thought I'd share the info for those who have read and liked the book.

Event_Horizon · 3 Dec 2004, 02:35

Although he is a bit old, I think Harrison Ford would've been a better choice for the male lead.

JBOY · 3 Dec 2004, 03:15

I always pictured Langdon as a young Robert Redford myself.
With Keira Knightley as Sophie.

I realise that redford is a bit past it now.

Dace · 3 Dec 2004, 03:33

I've not read the book so i dont really care.

However if i had read it i would be pretty pissed off right about now if that's true about "Hank the fag".

I hate his Jew face so much.

pig · 3 Dec 2004, 03:50

never knew he was jewish.

Event_Horizon · 3 Dec 2004, 04:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

never knew he was jewish.

everybody in hollywood is Jewish....

pig · 3 Dec 2004, 04:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

everybody in hollywood is Jewish....

oh...

Nusselt · 3 Dec 2004, 04:50

ffs kate beckinsale!!!

tom hanks was bad enough

Radical Edward · 3 Dec 2004, 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

everybody in hollywood is Jewish....

will smith?

Kurashima · 3 Dec 2004, 10:12

I like Kate Beckinsale. Underworld was

and the sequel will also be

JC · 3 Dec 2004, 12:09

For 2 tough roles like that you need some proper actors. I think these two would be more suitable.

NEWSBOT3 · 3 Dec 2004, 12:17

The da vinci code is a terrible book that only stupid people think is great.

[/opinion formed entirely without reading it and on the advice of housemates whom read about ten books a day].

SYMM · 3 Dec 2004, 13:22

I wouldn't say it's a great book, but it's a good read, and better than a lot I've read recently.

And it's "who read", not "whom"...

NEWSBOT3 · 3 Dec 2004, 13:25

shrug

Phalon · 3 Dec 2004, 14:00

Kate Beckinsale was great in Underworld but was decidedly awful in Van Helsing.

It'll either work really well or it'll be as shit as a chuck norris movie.

Knight Theamion · 3 Dec 2004, 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leshy

these two

i am wanking over the right one as we speak

Leshy · 3 Dec 2004, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

i am wanking over the right one as we speak

Can we consider this your formal coming out then?

Marilyn Manson · 5 Dec 2004, 01:06

My thanks to Leshy, who helped young Hans to come out of his closet.

Leshy · 5 Dec 2004, 03:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

My thanks to Leshy, who helped young Hans to come out of his closet.

It was all his own work. I'm proud of him.

Sunday8pm · 6 Dec 2004, 06:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

The da vinci code is a terrible book that only stupid people think is great.

[/opinion formed entirely without reading it and on the advice of housemates whom read about ten books a day].

Guess he totally missed that it was a book explaining religions and cultures and that the plot line was just a bullshit hook.

Sounds like your friend who reads 10 books a day is obviously not reading them very well.

That said I would of casted Nicolas Cage and Sean Bean in the roles of Langdon and Teabing, just because they made me laugh so hard in National Treasure, and let's face it there is no way the movie is going to get the ACTUAL content of the book over, that is explaining lots of wonderful things about religions and nature.

JonnyBGood · 6 Dec 2004, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Guess he totally missed that it was a book explaining religions and cultures and that the plot line was just a bullshit hook.

It certainly nailed the catholic church and opus dei then

SYMM · 6 Dec 2004, 16:50

Quote:

Guess he totally missed that it was a book explaining religions and cultures and that the plot line was just a bullshit hook.

I think you missed the boat to loonyland. Just about everything the book says is made up, and it does nothing to explain religion (accurately) or culture (in any way at all).

Knight Theamion · 6 Dec 2004, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leshy

Can we consider this your formal coming out then?

Sunday8pm · 6 Dec 2004, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It certainly nailed the catholic church and opus dei then

Did you not see my sentence about the bullshit hook and plot?

Or did you totally miss it was a book about paganism? Then again people like yourself were to of likely of missed it.

p.s. Sometimes you have to be contraversial about somethings to actually spark interest in them, if your audience base is people who read books then they are more than likely to be intelligent enough to research things that they think are conjecture, and viola you've got them hooked on reasearching cultures and religions they'd of not normally have done. Most people have come into that book knowing nothing about mostly anything religious, then they get hooked, some will believe what they read but the main thing is it get's people talking about it and backing things up, I see nothing wrong with sparking interest in paganism amongst other things.

meglamaniac · 6 Dec 2004, 20:07

When is this yarn hitting the screens then?

MrL_JaKiri · 6 Dec 2004, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Guess he totally missed that it was a book explaining religions and cultures and that the plot line was just a bullshit hook.

If we ignore storyline, then the only things we have to criticise it on are 'writing quality' and 'content'!

It's like Foucault's Pendulum, but so much worse it makes my eyes bleed.

JonnyBGood · 6 Dec 2004, 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Did you not see my sentence about the bullshit hook and plot?

Or did you totally miss it was a book about paganism? Then again people like yourself were to of likely of missed it.

p.s. Sometimes you have to be contraversial about somethings to actually spark interest in them, if your audience base is people who read books then they are more than likely to be intelligent enough to research things that they think are conjecture, and viola you've got them hooked on reasearching cultures and religions they'd of not normally have done. Most people have come into that book knowing nothing about mostly anything religious, then they get hooked, some will believe what they read but the main thing is it get's people talking about it and backing things up, I see nothing wrong with sparking interest in paganism amongst other things.

Or he could have written a factually accurate book or not claimed that

Quote:

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate

Frankly I thought it was a book about christianity considering the fact that it was about Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, the Catholic church, Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion. But you know me, all wrapped up in "facts" and "accuracy"

Nodrog · 6 Dec 2004, 21:45

I've never read it but I'd wager large sums of money on it being vastly inferior to the Cosmic Trigger trilogy, which contains writings on exactly the same thing (and before it was trendy too).

Leshy · 6 Dec 2004, 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

people like yourself were to of likely of missed it.

TO HAVE. H-A-V-E. And only once. People like yourself were likely to have missed it.

Quote:

they'd of

THEY'D HAVE. H-A-V-E. They would have.

God damn it.