I think I might be the only person who has yet to read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. And I'm not going to catch the film any time soon either. But with the film opening this week, Da Vinci Mania is upon us.I hear Dan Brown writes very crafty, intriguing novels (he even had one set in the NSA before all the wiretapping and phone record monitoring came about) and that the Da Vinci Code is filled with enough conspiracy, history, religion, cryptology and suspence to keep a mind interested, entertained, and of course, guessing.
Anyway, here's my problem with novels being turned into movies. Novels are like 300 pages and the author has the space to detail every minutia and introduce numerous characters and subplots and the like. A movie script is basically 120 pages of dialogue. A movie thriller has a couple main characters and the action (and the movie) basically revolves around them. So the gist of what I'm trying to say is that trying to fit an entire novel into a film script is like squeezing a bowling ball into a baseball glove. In my opinion, novels are great material for a mini-series or a television show. In this case a novel's length and detail can be adequetely addressed. And on the other hand, plays and novellas and short stories make for great film script material.
Well, that's my thinking on the subject matter. Now it's your turn to chime in. Please comment!
9 comments:
I think you've got a point there. But you have to think of the illiterate, don't just think of yourself! We have so many illiterate ppl here that also want to know what everyone else is talking about w/ "da DaVinci Code".
Also, it cracks me up that, of course, you would use a sports metaphor to illustrate your point!
I'm glad to meet the only other person in the Western Hemisphere to admit that he has read the Da Vinci Code! As for the movie, it sounds like it got canned at cannes.
I think you're exactly right about novels versus screenplays. That's why so few adapted works actually turn out to be excellent films. As for The Da Vinci Code: haven't seen it (yet), and I'm not expecting big things if/when I do finally go see it.
Books to me are ALWAYS better than the movie. I too have yet to read and/or watch The Da Vinci Code. I also will not because it doesn't interest me, plus the movie received TERRIBLE reviews.
I think tv mini-series are pretty awful most of the time. I will stick to the book reading.
you're completely right about books being turned into movies. I always want to slap someone when they tell me that they're so surprised that the book was better than the movie!!
Now, the movie can be better than the novella. Or just as good. (ie, brokeback mountian).
I have not read the DaVinci Code (and actually sort of avoided it) but I did catch the movie last night. I know there's a lot of flim-flam surrounding this film that I wasn't even aware of until I thought about watching it (the trailer looked interesting to me).
What I got was what I expected. A good ol' mystery caper. It's a bit overacted but I LOVE Ian McKellen, Audrey Tatou is adorable and a pretty good actress, Tom Hanks finds his stride about halfway through the film...if you aren't all huffed up about whatever controversy this film created and just sit back and enjoy a fun little jaunt (not unlike National Treasure) then go check it out.
Tom Hanks' hair scares me.
You are not alone! We have the Da Vinci Code but neither one of us has read it yet. I always wonder whenever they say however many millions were sold - yeah but how many people actually read it?
I started reading it after we got home but it just didn't grab me and I never picked it up again. There are so many books that are really super that when I don't get pulled in, I usually don't come back to one that I'm not into.
Maybe I'll see the movie, I usually like Tom Hanks.
Saw the movie - and my opinion is, you will enjoy the movie more, if you do not read the book beforehand. Otherwise, be prepared to be let down. (Although it's not a bad time waster on a Sunday afternoon.)
Post a Comment