Da Vinci Code changing to please Christians?
Filed under: Newsstand
Regarding the upcoming adaptation of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes the New York Times: "[Sony] studio officials have consulted with Catholic and other Christian specialists on how they might alter the plot of the novel to avoid offending the devout." Okay, hasn't this humongous bestseller that everyone and their dog has read (or at least knows about) been the bane of many Christians since it was first published? Did the studio forget all of this when they set out to make the movie? Why base a movie on a controversial book when you want to avoid controversy? Yes, I know the answer is, and always is, "money." Still, getting worked up about controversy at this stage seems more than a little foolish, and I think any attempt to water down the more controversial elements of the story will only be to the film's detriment. 
Discuss: From Big Screens to Boob Tubes
Harrison Ford Returning for 'Indiana Jones 5'?
A Trailer for Gyllenhaal and Maguire's 'Brothers'
Ron Weaseley Has Swine Flu
Quick List: Romance for Boys
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-10-2005 @ 11:14PM
Daniel said...
I thought the controversy is what made it have such a unique and engaging plot. But, oh well, its not my blunder to make.
Reply
8-11-2005 @ 2:19AM
Okami said...
I think the screenplay should stick to the book, however controversial it may be.
Reply
8-11-2005 @ 8:12AM
Peter Nellhaus said...
From Opus Dei to Opie Duh?
Reply
8-11-2005 @ 9:11AM
Camron said...
This is the major problem I see in hollywood, studio always cater to some activist group. They should just make the movies the way they want it to be made. People will either go see it or they won't. If you water it down but still talk about the same ideas does it make the meaning/intent less of a blow to the particular group?
Reply
8-11-2005 @ 9:22AM
gnec said...
Her analogy that Gibson should have consulted other religious groups before making The Passion is a bad one. The Da Vinci Code controversy is that Christians feel the book presents fiction as fact, whereas Ms. Erbe is complaining that The Passion shows Jews in a bad light (which is a skewed truth...the movie shows EVERYBODY in a bad light).
A better analogy would be to say that Wiccans should be consulted before making Witchcraft, and Bhuddists should be consulted before making Crouching Tiger. Or at the very least, Ms. Erbe should have questioned the truthfulness about Gibson's portrayl of the Jews.
Ignoring her secular bias, it still hard to respect this article.
Reply
8-11-2005 @ 12:03PM
Finished.Law.School said...
This should come as no surprise. Studio execs seem to be thoroughly stupid when it comes to adapting material. They are convinced that they have better ideas as to how the story should progress. Yet they complain as to why people are not going to the theater as much as executives want them to...
Reply
8-11-2005 @ 1:30PM
Duane said...
Wait'll they decide to make a movie of Angels & Demons, Dan Brown's other Catholic-bashing novel. Turns out the Pope is alien!
Well, not really, but the ending turns out to be about as unbelievable. :)
Reply
8-11-2005 @ 6:14PM
Da Weave said...
Wait till you see what they'll do with The Omen remake.
Reply
8-12-2005 @ 9:10AM
gnec said...
#6 - I'm assuming here that Bonnie Erbe (the author of the article) is a woman.
Reply
8-12-2005 @ 1:21PM
Donny said...
This book is popular not becuase it is controversial, but because it is good. The movie since it is based on the book should also be good (even though that is not a given) If they make any signifigant changes to the story, it will be a detriment to the movie, because of this massive popularity.
The connection with the controversy is easy to conclude, and the church would only be drawing attention to itself {both negative (how darew you change this) and positve (thanks for sticking up for...)}
That attention (publicity) is wanted by all. In fact if you are familiar with Angels and Demons, it is exactly what the church wants. Instead of staunchly protesting the film, how about opening a dialouge on the thosands of inaccuracies in Catholic history that this book does not even touch on. A renewed interest in Catholicism? It could be possible...
Besides the church should focus on Micheal Moore's next film instead (not the healthcare one, the NEXT one) It focuses on the Catholic Diocese in Boston, and stares Michael Jackson...
Reply
8-14-2005 @ 3:27PM
Jackie said...
"This book is popular not becuase it is controversial, but because it is good."
It's popular because it's controversial, and the book is not good. The best thing about the book was the fact that it presented alternate truths to what is received as fact. The characters were shallow, the plot was thin and unbelievable, and it felt like it was written for a child, with each clue glaring at you so that you are aware of the next step before the professionals are.
If they cut the controversy out of the story, there's nothing left worth watching.
Reply
9-13-2005 @ 5:01PM
Erik Purne said...
Jesus tapdancin' Christ. This is retarded. The most offensive and detrimental thing you could possibly do as far as the Catholic church and the Vatican are concerned is make a 100% non-fiction documentary. Maybe one about the Inquisition. Yeah. That would put them in a good light.
Besides, if the book was so libelous and offensive but still went on to sell a gazillion copies, why try to water down the movie? If it's money they're after, controversy is a good thing.
#5 (gnec): when you say "Her analogy that Gibson should have consulted...," who does "Her" refer to?
Reply