This is an archive of past discussions about The Da Vinci Code (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
in the novel the writing was on an acrylic glass cover of the painting, so maybe the director took multiple shots just to have options when editing
Langdon and Neveu are taken to London unexpectedly from Paris and board a bus, any money they carried would be in euros,how did they pay their fares?94.196.207.156 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.207.156 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Move
I moved the code around to get rid of a blank area ath the top of Cast.Dark jedi requiem 03:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If it wouldn't be "apple", the whole story from the beginning on would be real strange. Pschychologists interpretation sometimes tell, the reason for all sins, mankind suffer from is an apple. The magic canon, there are five letters and it could be pussy!
Godess much more shame in!--Hum-ri (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Differences between the book and the film
Although the movie isn't released yet to the original...I based this list on the trailer and some three 30-second footage from the film that I've seen somewhere from the net. Tiamy16:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
But how? How did you get all that infomation from the trailer? Trailers are not good sources for infomation on something that hasnt been released yet! Shouldn't we wait for the movie to come out before this section is in the article? dposse20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Banning the Film
Well I've read the section in this article concerning the reactions to the film and I was really not pleased. I'm talking about the reaction in the Philippines, because that's where I am currently. I remembered an article I read somewhere about the movie The Last Temptation of Christ where in there's a love scene between Jesus & Mary Magdalene and yet it states there that only two countries banned the film and Philippines wasn't among them. Why the hell they didn't ban this flim where there's a love scene between the Son of God and the so called "prostitute" and why will they ban a film in which they'll just hear statements saying Jesus was married?! I've been waiting for three years to see the film and I'm sure that the current political issues in the country will probably keep this issue in the dark; anyway many people in the Philippines haven't read the book yet, so I've doubts many will see the film if its allowed anyway, besides films like Mission: Impossible III and Poseidon will be showing when the film will be 1st shown. Ultimately, its a matter of faith: Do you belive the flim or not?InGenX02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
--- People need to understand that this is fiction. This movie should not be band in any country because it is not attacking the church like many people say it is. It is simply a work of fiction. If people think fiction can change the way people think of the christian religion then they must have some doubts themselves! Pedram-e03:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
At a conference on April 28, 2006, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican curial department, Archbishop Angelo Amato, specifically called for a boycott of the film version of The Da Vinci Code, which will debut later in May; he said the movie is '"full of calumnies, offenses, and historical and theological errors."
Sheesh, somebody tagged the "citation needed" template on this statement: Although, The Da Vinci Code was banned in Manila and SM Malls, it was still shown in other cinemas all over the Philippines. It was already mentioned in reference #10 on inq7.net that "MOVIEGOERS in Manila may have to go to neighboring cities to watch “The Da Vinci Code”..." Should we always have to repeat the reference? Can you read all the previous references before you tag it as "citation needed"? Furthermore, I'm from the Philippines and I can testify that it was shown outside Manila and SM Malls because I was able to see this film outside Manila. --Jojit fb05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"The Truth"
I just reverted a section added by "Oneway2christ";
This movie is not true. It is just man trying to put God out of the picture completly. there is only 4% of this new generation that is Bible based believers. Jesus is the Savior. He did not marry Mary. The entire Holy Bible is true. The book of Matthew says As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Its happening slowly now. Look at this movie. It is a false prophet. Turn to Jesus and He will do more than you can even imagine.
Not only fiction, but also cheap, low quality fiction. I had a very good laugh at the movies today. I would rank "The Da Vinci Code" next to "Batman: The Movie" (1966). I could just hear Robin say, "Holy bloodline, Batman!".
"The entire Holy Bible is true." PROVE IT! There is factual content in the film in regard to the violence of church history. Regardless of whether the claim of the book/film is true, it causes people to question millennia of lies. [See Penn & Tellers Bible Bullshit
Why hasn't this film been released in Bahrain?
On imdb.com, The Da Vinci Code release dates page, it is mentioned that the film is supposed to be released there today (17 May). But when I saw the newspapers and the website for Dana Cinema -where the film is supposed to be shown-, I was shocked to find that it wasn't released! How the hell could this happen? Why won't they release it today? --166.87.255.13209:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Christians in Bahrain opposed and now they are reviewing the movie to decide whether to release it . This process could take up to June.
Is it widely reported in the world media that several journalists needed medical attention for laughing-locks and unstoppable booing after seeing the Cannes festival press screening of DVC. Most film journalists commented the movie is even more confused, has no nose or tail, takes itself too seriously, too much music, too little git and too grandiose compared to the already poorly written book. The actors are wooden, etc. They say the movie's ending has been changed compared to the book to avoid offending the Vatican and USA, but it made a joke of the entire storyline and ruins everything. I think this is big victory for the christians, the occults have managed to make a clown of themselves in public. Big time to expand the article! 195.70.32.13614:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Now even the CNN web carries a lot of catcalls and hisses:
Wow, god forbid anyone questions the catholic church. "Oh my god, someone wrote a fictional story about the children's stories we were told in this house called a church, let's make fun of them and ban the movie!" People get so offended when someone questions the stories they grew up with. Get over it already!!! It's just as ridiculus as all those riots because someone drew a cartoon containing Mohammed. Oh, and fyi, anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's as to whether or not Jesus was married, yada yada yada, because noone has absolute proof one way or the other. So don't get into a hissy fit because someone decides to take the other stance on a completely debatable issue. Just my 2 cents.
Though many have quite possibly overreacted, at the end of the day the book, and to a lesser extent, the film, have put forward things about the church and church history which are demonstrably false. Any organisation has a right to point out when it is being lied about.
This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.004:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
rotten tomatoes
i have a problem with that infomation. It is only seven votes, at a time where the movie is only being seen at a film festival where not many get to see it. Those votes could have been put there by religious fanatics who gave the film a bad vote just because it is controversial. dposse22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate, at least for now. The other articles coming out of Google News seem to confirm the general feeling[1][2], so the Rotten Tomatoes count is representative. I've been familiar with the Rotten Tomatoes system for years, and for any movie to have that many unanimous "splats", even at such an early stage, is notable. --Elonka22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
heh, alright. Do you mind if i move the paragraph to the "Pre-release reactions", since the movie is not released in theaters yet? It doesn't feel right for it to be in the intro paragraph. dposse23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that sounds like a reasonable way to handle it, and appropriate under Wikipedia's "Neutral POV" policy. --Elonka23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I was suprised that Thailand banned the movie. I also heard India did as well. Is this true? Why is this movie banned in Buddhist and Hindu countries???? What other countries have they banned this in? Zachorious00:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thailand did not ban the film - they were going to allow its release with the last 10 minutes cut and a few changes to the Thai subtitles. However, 24 hours later, they reversed this decision. --Captain Idiot01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the part re. "da vinci code" being "confiscated" from cinema across beijing and shanghai and so on, after checking both CNN and reuters. Although the movie has been pulled, I am not aware of media being banned from even talking about the film nor is there any indication of "confiscation" going on. Feel free to change it back if a valid source can be provided. --mean00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I was in China when the movie premiered. I saw it in a fully operation, perfectly legal-seeming movie theater on May 24, 2006 in Beijing in Oriental Plaza on WangFuJing. I guess it could have been pulled after that. Anyway, thought someone might be interested. Also, I saw copies for sale on the street on May 18th, the day it premiered in Europe, I believe. Thought that was sad, but funny. -Joe 05:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
post release review.
Since we have a pre release review section, i think that it is only fair that we have a post release section. what do you think? dposse19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should probably rewrite the "reviews" section to provide a summary, and only separate out "pre-release" and "post-release" reviews if they are substantially different. A simple section entitled "Reception" is what's recommended at WP:FILM. --Elonka19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Speculation in Vatican section
The paragraph quoting Francis Cardinal Arinze ends in POV speculation:
"There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you,"
This is followed by the speculation:
The apparent reference to "other religions" is to the violent protests against the depiction of Prophet Muhammad in cartoons.[1]
While I'm not going out on a limb to defend the violent protests, is there a quotation or source which indicates that is who Arinze was referring to, given that he didn't name names? Until there is affirmative followup, I'm removing the last sentence. --plaus 09:17 20 May 06 GMT
I'd say it would be current affair context. If the muslem violence about the cartoons had been going on around the same time, it could easily be inferred that he was talking about the cartoon violence. --Lendorien17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Underwater
The article states: "Pinewood's state-of-the-art Underwater Stage was used to film underwater sequences. The stage opened in 2005 after four years of planning and development. The water in the tank is filtrated using an ultra violet system which creates crystal clear water and a comfortable environment to work in for both cast and crew. The tank is permanently filled and the water is maintained at 22 ℃ (72 ˚F)." I've just come back from watching the film and I don't recall any underwater sequences... Is my memory that bad? Or should this be removed? – drw25(talk)22:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I added a "Reactions to the Film" section to cover any public reaction to the film. I included information on protesters, learned from both a local news report, and also what I saw out front of the Muvico Pompano when I went to see the film. Information that can also go into this section includes box office information, rankings, and overall public reaction to the film. Feel free to add information, rename the section, etc. I just figured that since this is a controversial film, we needed a section to cover public reaction to it. Possibly we could also merge this with the Pre-Release reactions section.
Note to Batman2005 and others: this thing on the news was just a quick little "ooh, the film's opened. Look, protesters! The film's about this" and not available online. I have also seen the protesters at the showing I went to this afternoon, and am willing to scan a copy of my ticket stub to prove that I was there. I can also see if any of the friends I went with have any cellphone camera pics, as they usually take pictures of that stuff.
Well being as this article is about The Da Vinci Code film, then it obviously refers to just the earnings of the film. Or it should do anywayTammiMagee12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Pre-release reviews
Removed the first paragraph (below), because it is mostly POV and contains unsourced quotes and misquotes:
During the May 16th grand preview for movie critics at the Cannes Film Festival, the main climax of the film, when Hanks' character discloses to Tatou's character that she is "without a doubt" the descendant of Jesus Christ, was met with thunderous laughter. As reported by many newscasters, one scene during the film, meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter from the audience, and when the credits rolled, there was no applause, as usually the case, but only a few catcalls and hisses."[3]
The "thunderous laughter" is unsourced. The "As reported by many newscasters" is unsourced (not in the CNN article); the "meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter" comes from the CNN article, so it's only that author's observations at his/her viewing, not the broader context indicated in the removed POV paragraph.
FICTITIOUS
The fictitious storyline proposes that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and conceived a child, resulting in the bloodline being carried on to the present day
I removed the word fictitious since the controversy IS over whether or not it truly is fictitious or not...any suggestion?Jmlk1708:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What, you're expecting to settle 'fact' vs. 'fiction' in the context of Christianity and the Bible? Next, we conquer hunger, world peace, and create clean, cheap fusion power for all! ;-) -anon
No, the controversy is that a book was written on a topic that christians believe to be blasphemy. The story itself, both as a book and movie, is fictional. I think "fictitious" might be the wrong word. "Fictional" might be a better word to use in that sentence. dposse19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I do believe the word "fictitious" can be legitimately added, as not only christian, but non-christian historians at large, find such claims rather ridiculous. the books on which da vinci code derives its ideas from, namingly The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and such, have made dubious claims that has been heavily criticized. If anyone but take a good look at Dan Brown's website, you'd realize he did not claim all that much. "Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and conceived a child', for example, was not claimed to be truth. -mean14:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Differences between book and film
I removed this section "In the movie, there are a sequence of dots that appear for only a few frames. These dots are similar to the laser etchings on the key that Langdon and Sophie discover behind the painting". Those are anti-piracy marks, coded dots that identify the indivudual print, not part of the film. Brian Schlosser4216:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
anti-piracy dots? or is he mentioning, when in theaters, the Reel Change signal at the top right corner? it flashes on two frames everytime a reel is changed 68.44.178.19221:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler
It seems to me that the introduction to the article constitutes a spoiler after the point where it mentions the Catholic Church's criticism of the film. Can we move it? At least into the spoiler protected region. It's not really fair to those who've neither read the novel nor seen the film. The article on the book does a much better job of avoiding spoilers. Cheers, --Plumbago18:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
gross box office revenues
"But for the gross box office revenues at the opening weekend it reached only rank 13."
A complete and well-written plot summary is needed for this article as well as for the one about the book! There's so much talking here about every single aspect of this film, but we only have TWO lines about the story! This is really ridiculous, because it represents the character of the whole Da Vinci Code debate; everyone knows the summary from the evening news, some have read the book, some have seen the film, but most people don't know a thing. Like when this nun in europe cursed Brown and the film crew over this book, but did not know ANYTHING about the plot. Pro Knowledge! -- Imladros02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's now 3 lines long. Why hasn't anyone given a synopsis of the film? I would but havent seen it
He's right. A complete synopsis of the plot is necessary and should be addressed immediately. It ends after about 1/3 of the way through the movie. I saw it, but I don't really remember the details. -TheChancellor Jan. 14 2007
Plot summary is well written except its the book version, not the movie.
Actually, i believe he said something similar to it in the book, as it's mentioned in the "differences" section. However, i have no idea what the hell this guy is talking about. I just saw the movie ten minutes ago and i didn't find the line funny. dposse20:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the unintentional humour is a bit culturally specific but to many of us - particularly those who are neither librarians nor researchers? - the notion of urgency in the context of a library is quite hilarious. Bhasi23 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
External links from main article
I've moved these links from the linkfarm on the main article to this talk page. If they can be used, use them, if not, just leave them here, noting that we can't use them for whatever reason. I don't think the first one is notable, and the second one is already linked from IMDB. —Viriditas | Talk01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Does it really need to be about three pages? And if so, would it not be better placed in it's own article with a "For more information see" at the top? --Falcorian(talk)05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the differences section a little bit. I personally don't feel that it is necessary for it to have it's own section. dposse20:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Middle East.
"Middle East
The film is banned in Lebanon"
I deleted the section because it has been up for weeks with no citation or additions to it. If someone can find any infomation on it, then please add it to the article. dposse20:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to support the deletion of the category of "Christian film" to this film
The Da Vinci Code is not a Christian film. This category should remain deleted. It is clearly anti-Christian, although, one has to be NPOV. This is my POV. A "Christian film" would set forth Christianity, not give the viewer the impression that Christianity is a lie. The whole point of this film is that Christianity is a lie and a fraud.--Drboisclair23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am changing the category to reflect the new category that satisfies the major religious subject matter of this film.--Drboisclair01:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Templates are helpful for readers to navigate through related pages. If you don't like the length, a hide/show bar can always be added.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added back the template, now with a hide bar. If you think its too long, click the "hide" button on the template to reduce it's size.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
How does it mess up the article? If anyone finds it too long, they can always click the hide bar to reduce its size.--TBCTaLk?!?18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 7, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:
1. Well written?: Passed, but there is an excessive use of bullet points, in my opinion. Prose would be prefered in many cases.
2. Factually accurate?: Does not contain enough references, for such a long article. Whole sections even are not cited, such as the differences between the film and movie section.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, but too detailed. Far too much trivia, and many of the sections could be cut down in length or (possibly) even put into a seperate article, such as the pre-release reactions.
4. Neutral point of view?: Passed.
5. Article stability? Passed.
6. Images?: Failed. None of the images have fair use rationale.
I just watched the dvd of The Da Vinci Code which is released here in Australia and before the film is played, a small teaser trailer is shown describing production which begins soon. That is so cool! Empty200511:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Extended DVD version
Ive seen the 25 minutes extended DVD mentioned in the article:
It adds the following major scenes not present in the cinema release :
an extended scene wherein Sophie threatens to destroy "Madonna of the Rocks" during the encounter with the guard
A scene that describes Silas's back story as a flashback
the scene in the Saint Sulpice has been extended to show that Silas has remorse over killing the nun
a flashback scene showing the death of the senechaux
a scene in which Collet has found has found the surveillance equipment
also confirms Remy's name as Remy Languedec instead of Remy Jean
makes mention of Remy's allergic reaction to pinda's
Fache making an apology to Langdon and Neveu
i can also confirm that this edition has been released in the Netherlands (im dutch and ordered he box 3 days ago)
if someone else can account for all these scenes present in the extended edition we can add them to the article without any disputes
In the article as it stands currently, the plot summary ends abruptly about halfway through. Is it just unfinished, or did it get vandalized or otherwise removed from the article? Before I go looking through the last 100 revisions, I thought I'd ask if anyone had seen it, or if it's just not completed yet. --MCB04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Possible error in DIFFERENCES
It states "There is no verbal reference to PHI and the Divine Proportion".
Actually there is a really very small reference. Right after the Lecture, at the begiing of the signing-book session,people are chatting and you can hear something like "his take on phi are a little far fetched, but the use of the dive proportion..." etc
This section is pretty huge. Would is be a good idea to someone divide and categorize it? Maybe, "Characters", "Documents", "Claims", "Actions", etc? It's just that it kinda sucks to see something insightful like the comments about the Witch Hunts and the changes in Robert's attitude sitting alongside rather more basic comments like the difference in the colour of Sophie's hair. 81.159.210.3715:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Oli Lea, 16:46 GMT, 16th April 2007
Answering the demand for WP:V
The section that lists the differences between the novel and the film are arrived at by looking at the book and watching the film. Why would there need to be verification?--Drboisclair23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Geographical errors
I'm not sure if there's a reason this hasn't been mentioned but there is an appalling gaff in the movie concerning Rosslyn Chapel. Being that for a start, it's been CGI'd as the real Chapel has a permanent scaffold built around it to protect it from the elements.
Presumably this was done to make it look more ancient and historical, but it also makes it even more amusing in the shot afterwards where Hanks looks across the valley at the Chapel from the old Rosslyn House. Where he is looking at an effect as the real chapel is in the opposite direction.
Some of the filming was done at Temple Church - I sang in the choir there for 7 years and therefore recognise why the Doves were seen to fly from the round part of the church - this appears to be a clear reference to Ernest Lough, one of Temple's most famous boy singers whose most famous song was "Oh for the wings of a dove" sung at Temple Church. Should I put this in the main article and if so where? 172.215.102.17120:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Silas DaVinci.jpg
Image:Silas DaVinci.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Image:Silas DaVinci.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Fair use rationale for Image:Dvcode giftset box.jpg
Image:Dvcode giftset box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Image:Picsony2006-15.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
How about brinking back the differences section back?. It was originally moved to its own article, but that's now gone. The differences section is common in film articles. --RossF18 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Differences between film and novel
Note: Some of these differences are based on the first edition of the book. Newer versions have been revised and in some cases are more similar to the film.
Novel
Film
Note
Plot
Langdon is contacted after he returned to his hotel.
Langdon received the photograph of Saunière's corpse after giving a symbology lecture in a university, while he is autographing his books.
Several of the points made by Langdon in the lecture regarding symbolism (as seen in the film) are referenced elsewhere in the novel.
Characteristics
Langdon agrees with Teabing on just about every accusation Teabing levels at the Roman Catholic Church and gives a "soft nod of concurrence".
Langdon is more moderate in his views of the Roman Catholic Church than he is in the novel.
At one point in the film, Langdon accuses Teabing of distorting facts to fit his theories. Langdon is also much more skeptical about the existence of the Priory of Sion in the film than he is in the novel.
Other
In the film, Langdon's book on the sacred feminine is a published work. In the novel, Langdon was still working on the book.
The film makes no verbal reference to the Divine Proportion, but during a sequence in which Langdon cuts his face shaving, the pattern of the blood droplet in the sink vaguely resembles the shape of the Greek letter Phi. Also, the Bank of Zürich's emblem closely resembles a Phi.
In the film, Sophie found the hidden message near the Mona Lisa written at the bottom right of the painting. In the novel, it is written on the acrylic glass shielding the painting, making it appear as if it were written directly across the Mona Lisa's face.
In the film, Langdon deciphers the anagram, "So Dark The Con of Man," written near the Mona Lisa with the help of Sophie, a few minutes after they find it; in the novel, Sophie deciphered it when Langdon could not.
In the film, bank manager Vernet's selfish interest in waiting for 20 years to get the contents of the safe. In the novel, Vernet's is dedicated to protect the interests of his friend and client Jacques Saunière; he waited 20 years for somebody to return for the contents of the safe and believes Langdon and Sophie may have killed Saunière.
In the film, Sophie's relationship to Saunière is not revealed to Vernet until he holds Langdon and Sophie at gunpoint. In the novel, she notifies Vernet that she is Saunière's granddaughter when they are in the bank.
In the film, Fache meets Vernet in the hospital and tells him to turn on the homing device for the armored car, while in the novel, Vernet does so without informing Fache so that his bank's reputation would not be compromised.
In the film, the answer to Teabing's second question at the Château Villette gate is changed: the question is put to Langdon whether he wants milk or lemon with his tea, and Langdon responds that it depends on the type of tea. In the novel, he is given the choice of milk or sugar, and he hesitates before realizing that the correct answer is actually lemon and that the tea should be Earl Grey. In the film, he is offered this tea when he is already in Teabing's residence, and asks for lemon to go with it.
The film makes no mention of the surveillance equipment in the loft at the top of the barn at Teabing's manor, nor of the miniature knight in Saunière's office in which a bug had been placed, although there is a glimpse of the knight. Rémy Legaludec's criminal record is scrutinized by the police showing that he was expelled from college for rewiring phone lines to obtain free service. This ties him into the plot as a surveillance expert. However, in the extended version, there is a scene of Collet examining the equipment. In the novel, the French police uncover Teabing's central role in bringing about the actions against the Priory of Sion.
In the film, Silas kills people with no sign of conscience or remorse. In the novel, he is portrayed as killing people with remorse and knowing it is a sin, to protect the Catholic church from possible ruin.
In the film, there is no second cryptex inside the first as there is in the novel, and, in the film the solution to the cryptex is the same as that for the second cryptex in the novel.
The role of Opus Dei in the film is significantly scaled back and far less ominous than their portrayal in the novel. Aringarosa is a sinister member of a secret council of priests, called the Council of Shadows, dedicated to the destruction of the Sangreal (the Holy Grail) and the living descendants of Christ. In the book, he is the desperate leader of Opus Dei dealing with the Vatican's desire to sever ties with it.
In the film, Silas, Bishop Aringarosa, Leigh Teabing, Rémy, Opus Dei, and the Council of Shadows all either know about or are responsible for the murders while, in the novel, only Silas, Leigh Teabing, and Rémy are responsible.
In the film, Opus Dei is portrayed as an organization trying to destroy the Sangreal while, in the novel, Opus Dei is trying to gain control of the Sangreal in order to wield more influence in the church.
In the film, Rémy takes Silas to a non-descript "Opus Dei house", after their escape with Teabing and the keystone. In the novel, he drops Silas off at the London headquarters for Opus Dei, at 5 Orme Court in Westminster.
In the film, Fache decides to pursue Langdon on the basis of a false tip by Bishop Aringarosa, whom he trusted. The Bishop told Fache that Langdon confessed to killing Saunière. In the novel, Fache learns of Silas from Aringarosa who tries to stop Silas from committing crimes as he realizes that he has been duped by the "Teacher."
In the film, Langdon does not carefully hide the cryptex under a couch to prevent Teabing from discovering it prematurely, as he does in the novel.
In the film, Teabing uses sophisticated computer animation to demonstrate codes in Leonardo da Vinci's paintings. In the novel, he merely points to the prints. Due to Teabing's use of computer animation with Da Vinci's The Last Supper, Teabing was able to digitally move Mary Magdalene's figure over to Jesus's left making it seem as if the figure is resting on Jesus's shoulder.
The name of Rémy Legaludec, Leigh Teabing's butler, is changed in the film to "Rémy Jean". The only exception to this is in the extended version, in which a sequence is shown of Collet with another policeman. Collet refers to Remy Legaludec instead of Remy Jean.
After Silas is killed in a hail of gunfire, in the novel Fache is sympathetic and compassionate towards Bishop Aringarosa, whereas in the film he is vitriolic and spiteful.
Towards the end of the book Robert and Sophie share a kiss, but in the film no such kiss occurs
In the film, Rémy tells Silas that he is the Teacher while driving him to the London Opus Dei house. In the novel, Silas is given to understand that he is one of the Teacher's servants.
In the film, Rémy is apparently poisoned by a pier in the Docklands of London while sitting outside the limousine. In the novel, he is sitting in the front seat of the limo in St. James's Park with the "Teacher" when he dies due to an allergic reaction to peanut dust placed into a liquor flask passed to him by "the Teacher."
At the British airport where the Hawker lands, Teabing mentions a cannabis charge. In the book, he doesn't mention this.
In the film, Silas allows himself to be killed by police-assisted suicide in his remorse for shooting Aringarosa. In the novel, mortally wounded but still ambulatory, he flees the scene and goes to the hospital with the wounded Bishop Aringarosa, who tells him to pray. He goes out into the hospital courtyard where he dies.
In the novel, Robert and Sophie go to a library in London to discover the relevance of "A. Pope" while, in the film, they borrow someone's mobile phone (which had a web browser) on a city bus, after they realize it will take too long to get to the library.
In the film, Sophie notices Teabing's cane marks in the dust of the floor and Teabing reveals himself right at Newton's tomb. In the novel, Sophie and Robert find a message scrawled on the tomb by rubbing chalk, telling them to go to the Westminster Abbey chapter house in order to save Teabing, and there Teabing reveals himself as "the Teacher."
The revelation of the Teacher and the rest of the ending is presented differently. In the film, Langdon and Sophie discover the Sangreal documents — and with them the secrets of Sophie's ancestry — hidden beneath the Rosslyn Chapel. In the novel, the documents are not discovered. Sophie, who is reunited with her grandmother and brothers (the "caretakers" of the chapel), is told by her grandmother that she is a descendant of Jesus Christ.
Rosslyn Chapel.
In the film, the entrance to the tomb beneath Rosslyn Chapel is easily found, marked by the symbol of the unified blade and chalice over the door to the passage. In the novel, no such entrance to the underground chamber exists, and the chalice/blade symbol is less obvious as a sign worn into the floor of the chapel by the path walked by countless visitors.
In the film, Sophie's parents and brother have been killed in a car accident of unknown origin. In the novel, her brother survives and is raised by their grandmother at Rosslyn Chapel; the grandparents agree to separate in order to protect the children. Brother and sister are reunited at the end–he is the guide working at the chapel. In the film, this man is not presented as her brother.
In the novel, one of the most important aspects of Sophie Neveu's relationship with her grandfather, Jacques Saunière, is that she hasn't spoken to him in ten years. During those ten years, she never opened his many letters, nor did she ever tell another person about her reasons. The novel presents Sophie coming to grips with why she was estranged from her grandfather. With Langdon's prompting her she comes to the realization that she accidentally witnessed a Hieros Gamos sex ritual involving her grandfather. In the film, this traumatic event is presented only as a flashback: we see Sophie looking in the windows of a door at masked men and women encircling a couple engaged in intercourse. Sophie realizes that the man of the couple is her grandfather. In the novel, Langdon explains this ritual to Sophie, but, in the film, he does not.
In the film, Langdon tells Sophie that Saunière is not her real grandfather on the basis of the Grail documents in the cellar of Rosslyn Chapel. A large number of protectors of the Sangreal with Sophie's grandmother meet her as she comes out of the crypt of the Rosslyn Chapel: all else is left unexplained. In the novel, Saunière is Sophie's grandfather, and she is reunited with her grandmother Marie, who lives behind the Rosslyn Chapel with Sophie's presumed-dead brother, the docent.
In the film, Sophie and Robert develop a bind and there are several moments of warmth between them, but no romance is shown and they make their farewells at the end. In the novel, they kiss at the end and plan to meet in coming months in Florence, Italy.
In the film, Langdon tells Sophie that since the tomb of Mary Magdalene was apparently lost with the death of Saunière, it would not be possible to prove that Sophie is the last descendant of Jesus Christ and it may not necessarily be important or right to prove the bloodline. The choice was Sophie's. In the novel, Sophie's grandmother explains to Langdon that it was never the Priory of Sion's mission to reveal the "truth" about Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. Teabing believed that this was the priory's mission and that it was thwarted by Jacques Saunière.
In the film, Sophie playfully tries to walk on water and muses jokingly about turning water into wine, presumably because she was descended from Jesus. This sequence does not occur in the novel.
In the film, Silas has bright blue eyes. In the novel, he has red eyes.
In the film, Langdon dismisses most of the Grail lore as myth and even argues with Teabing about it several times. In the novel, he is a firm believer in it, after researching his book Symbols of the Lost Sacred Feminine.
In the film, Sophie's skill as a cryptologist is only mentioned once in the beginning at the Louvre. In the novel, it reiterated again and again, showing that she is adept at solving riddles, anagrams, and puzzles.
At the end of the film, a stubborn Aringarosa is placed under arrest by Fache as he is carried into an ambulance. In the novel, an innocent, though remorseful, Aringarosa arranges to have the bearer bonds he acquired divided among the families of Silas's victims as he lies recovering on a hospital bed.
In the film, when Teabing and the rest are escaping from France, Teabing has his pilot fly to Zürich, Switzerland, from which Langdon and Sophie could not be extradited back to France. When Langdon finds a secret message on the cryptex's rosewood box mentioning London, Teabing has the pilot change course for London. In the novel, they call the pilot and directly ask to go to London.
In the film, Langdon says 50,000 people were burned at the stake during witch trials, and Teabing adds: "some people say much more, possibly millions." In the novel, Teabing claims the figure of 3 million women.
In the film, Langdon passionately challenges Teabing's claim that Emperor Constantine invented Christ's divinity. In the novel, Langdon meets this claim with a "soft nod of concurrence."
While the novel represents the Christians as waging war on the pagans in an attempt to suppress them, in the film, this claim of Teabing's is countered by Langdon that it is unknown whether it was the Christians or the Pagans who initiated the violence.
In the novel, Sophie reads from the Gospel of Philip that "Jesus loved Mary Magdalene more than the other disciples and kissed her often on the mouth". In the film, Teabing reads the passage out loud, but is significantly cut off by Robert just after the words "often on the—"! (For the very likely reason behind this, see the Gospel of Philip article.)
In the book, Langdon and Teabing agree unanimously on the existence of the Priory of Sion and its nature. In the film, Langdon challenges Teabing, stating the Priory was proven to be a hoax, which Teabing retorts is "exactly what they want you to think".
In the novel, Sophie has red hair, reinforcing her connection to Mary Magdalene, but the actress in the film (Audrey Tautou) is a brunette.
In the film, there is no mention about Langdon’s Mickey Mousewatch, although it does make a brief appearance in the sequence of Langdon and Sophie in the back of the armored van.
In the film, Robert Langdon discovers the path to the real location of the tomb of Mary Magdalene from shaving and a book he wrote. In the novel, it was mentioned that Langdon was writing a book and his editor had sent out copies, one which Saunière had read, which was the reason why he had made an appointment with Langdon before his death. Realizing that he had written something about how an object in the Louvre appears like an iceberg, as it is depicted in the film in the end, he was in shock to find that as he stood inside the Louvre over Mary Magdalene's tomb, he had known the location all along.
The novel contains a sequence in which Sophie and Langdon escape from a museum guard by Sophie threatening to destroy a Da Vinci painting. This scene is not in the theatrical release of the film, although it was filmed and images from the scene are included with the published screenplay. It is restored to the film entirely on the Extended Edition DVD.
In the novel, Collet is implied to be a younger and barely-tolerated subordinate of Fache's. In the film, he is depicted as being of a similar age, and being both colleague and friend to Fache.
The film emphasizes Sophie's spirituality considerably more than the book (almost telegraphing her ancestry). For example, during the armored car escape, she is shown "curing" Langdon's claustrophobia as if by touch, and in another scene she gives a drug addict money in exchange for privacy, trusting that the man won't simply buy more drugs. Neither incident occurs in the novel.
In the film, Bezu Fache severely beats an air traffic controller; in the book, he does no such thing.
In the film, Sophie's car is grey. In the novel, her Smart Fortwo is red.
In the novel, Silas drives a black Audi. In the film, if one looks closely during one scene, Silas is instead driving a Renault Vel Satis. Renault's badge consists of a blade and chalice superposed.
In the film, it is said that Langdon prayed to Jesus to save him from the well. In the novel, there is no scene about this.
In the novel it is mentioned that the Templars were accused of several crimes, including homosexuality. Later on, while talking with Teabing and through a flashback of Langdon giving a lecture to prisoners, the sexual orientation of famous artists, reaction to the "The Last Temptation of Christ" film, and the androgynous nature of the Mona Lisa painting are discussed. In the film the Templars are only accused of Satanism, the lecture at a prison is not seen and the conversation with Teabing is drastically cut.
In the novel, Silas kills Sister Sandrine with a large candlestick. In the film, he uses the large keystone he found beneath the obelisk.
In the film Robert, Sophie, and Teabing get into the Temple Church in London as well as finding out the statues are effigies by themselves. In the novel they are let in and told about the effigies by an attendant of the church.
Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
"PinewoodS" :
"Gordon Brown Opens Underwater Stage at Pinewood Studios," 19-May-2005, webpage: [http://www.pinewoodshepperton.com/html/News/ustageopening.htm PinewoodShepperton-Stage]
[http://www.pinewoodshepperton.com/html/News/ustageopening.htm Gordon Brown Opens Underwater Stage at Pinewood Studios, 19 May 2005]
I realize Wiki has a "Be Bold" policy. However in an article that no doubt many people are watching to change at a whim I'd rather someone with a little more weight and writing finesse than an anon fix it. The beginning of the article states:
Because of some controversial interpretations and factual inaccuracies of Christian history in both the book and movie, they were criticised by the Roman Catholic Church.
What bothers me is "Factual inaccuracies", which an euphemism for "proven and obvious blatant lies". There are several books, and authors who argue instead, ergo the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Inaccuracies_in_The_Da_Vinci_Code article (which by the way starts with the much less difficult "alleged misrepresentations"). "Because of some" also implies that what will come after it is a lot more truthful than it might be and the mention of "both book and movie" to me sounds like the person wants to make sure we understand that both are wrong.
Forgive me if I over analyzed this, but a sentence/paragraph in the beginning of the article is bound to be scrutinized like that. I don't even agree with having a pseudo-plot/reception/info in the beginning of movie/book articles anyway, as it trivializes the much larger sections in the bottom. If an article could really be summed up and still hold full information like that, then why would we even have "reception/plot/etc" sections anyway? Encyclopedias don't start with a smaller version of the article/entry so that people with less time read it, an encyclopedia has as many words as required while using as few as possible to convey the whole information. These little paragraphs undermine the whole reason for the article. At best we would have a definition (This is a movie and etc..) in the opening paragraph and nothing else.
So I would like to remove the whole:
Because of some controversial interpretations and factual inaccuracies of Christian history in both the book and movie, they were criticised by the Roman Catholic Church. Some bishops urged members to boycott the film.[2] Many of the early showings were accompanied by protesters outside the movie theatres, and early critical reviews were decidedly mixed. However, the film earned over US$230 million worldwide in its opening weekend, which at the time was the third biggest opening in history (it is currently ranked as the seventh biggest opening). It was the second highest grossing movie of 2006 worldwide — having reached US$758,239,851 as of November 2, 2006, making it both Tom Hanks' and Ron Howard's most successful film when not adjusting for inflation.[3] The film's soundtrack, composed by Hans Zimmer, was nominated for the 2007 Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score.
For being misplaced.
But if people disagree than maybe just rewording. Perhaps even an "alleged" will fix it. I apologize in advance for my English, I'm ESL. 24.91.72.168 (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
DVD Releases
I read: "On April 28, 2009, a 2-disc Blu-Ray edition of the Extended Version of the film was released in North America. While there is no regular DVD release in United States or a Region 2 release in United Kingdom, a version of the extended cut was released in Germany."
An image used in this article, File:Pyramidinv.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Pyramidinv.JPG)
I'm a fan of the movie, the book, the intrigue; and new to the Wikipedia page here. I'll read through it on the weekend—but I first glance I thought, "I would like to see more pictures, like of Sophie." There are more pictures here on the talk page (2) than there are in the article (only 1). I won't have time to find them and I don't know how to add them anyway. Thanks for all the great work here—I can see it is a huge effort, making for a very great WP Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There is still only one picture. Fortunately, it is a poster for the lede with faces of Tom Hanks as Professor Robert Langdon and Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu. How about some landmark pictures, like the Louvre or final chapel? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I just changed the plot, and I fully expect that some exasperated editor will change it back, because "how undignified would that be". Yet it's true. Langdon clearly does not stand on the tip of the Louvre Pyramid, but on the base of the Inverted Pyramid, "a skylight constructed in the Carrousel du Louvre shopping mall in front of the Louvre Museum in France. It may be thought of as a smaller sibling of the more famous Louvre Pyramid proper, yet turned upside down: its upturned base is easily seen from outside." (my emphasis) The picture in that article clearly shows the smaller pyramid that covers the Grail in the movie.
I have just modified 2 external links on The Da Vinci Code (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The film's teaser trailer was released in mid- 2005. It features crevices with some hidden symbols and was later revealed as an image of Da Vinci's most famous painting, the Mona Lisa. In reality, the painting plays a very small part in the film and is shown only for a few seconds.
A cross-promotion appeared on The Amazing Race 9, where one team earned a trip to the movie's premiere in Hollywood, California. The prize was awarded to the first team to arrive at the Pit Stop bearing two parchments and demonstrating that, when combined, they revealed a picture of Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man and a coded message.
As part of the promotional lead up to the film, various encrypted clues were placed in trailers and interviews. In mid-April, two such clues appeared in the Da Vinci Code interviews on Entertainment Tonight and The Insider, as highlighted letters in the names of interviewees.
In February, Sony, in cooperation with Grace Hill Media, launched The Da Vinci Dialogue (aka The Da Vinci Challenge), a fairly comprehensive web site which is intended to defuse Christian opposition to the film. The site mixes some mild criticisms with movie promotional material.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Da Vinci Code (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This is an archive of past discussions about The Da Vinci Code (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg)
/Archive_1#c-BetacommandBot-2007-09-06T02:30:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Silas_DaVinci.jpg){kind=link}
/Archive_1#c-BetacommandBot-2008-02-13T19:46:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Dvcode_giftset_box.jpg){kind=link}
/Archive_1#c-BetacommandBot-2008-03-08T15:10:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Picsony2006-15.jpg){kind=link}
