Why do the books get bestseller status yet film critics absolutely pan the films? I mean I have seen far worse films than this trillogy so what is everyones problem. Yes they may have change odd things like a different ending but that does not dictate if a film is any good.
shareWell some of the reason but not all, is books contain inner monologues thoughts that can flesh out a character and when translated to film it doesn't always come across. And for these books that is some of the reason in my opinion anyway.
shareI think Inferno is the best example for this out of the 3. It felt so rushed and the character just ran from one location to the other to solve a puzzle in less then a minute and move on. In the book it´s way more detailed and you get more informations about the history of the cities, buildings and artefacts. I really like that aspect of the books.
shareNo one could have said it better. I also love Dan Brown's books <3
shareThat's why great screenwriters are scarce. Translating a book to film is an art form. They missed the mark with Inferno. It was OK, but nothing to rave about.
shareThis. I just hope they have a great screenwriter if The Lost Symbol gets made.
That was the film I was looking more forward to than Inferno.
select * from earth.population where clue > 0;
No rows selected.
In Inferno case Book have logical plot and ending.
Movie version of ending and changes from book plot make no sense. So book is perfect and movie is really bad.
Inferno, the book is definitely not perfect. Its no where near the addictive levels of the previous Langdon books. In fact, both Inferno and The Lost Symbol are considerably inferior to The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons.
shareI agree with you about the Lost Symbol. A year after reading it I couldn't even remember what it was about any more so I decided to read it again. I just don't find the setting and the story appealing, although the deviation from the typical Dan Brown culprit (someone who pretends to be friendly and helpful) was refreshing.
Inferno, on the other hand, sucked me right in. I may be biased, though, as I love all three locations as well as The Divine Comedy. The solution to the problem of overpopulation is pretty great too.
"The solution to the problem of overpopulation is pretty great too."
Really? To kill 95% of humanity, which will basically cause the complete breakdown of civilisation. No more shopping at the supermarket or water on tap, sewage, electricity at the push of a button. They'll be back in the stone age within weeks. Great idea.
What's worse is that overpopulation is not actually the problem. The problem is the complete opposite - which you will learn if you do the research. We will 'top out' at about 9 billion people in 30 years and then decline. The birth rate is simply not high enough to sustain us.
Did you make up the first bit based on a guess what the book is supposed to be about? No-one gets killed. One third is rendered infertile.
You're spoiled, as most people are. I personally would have little trouble adjusting to life without supermarkets (hooray, actually), electricity or tap water. Where I live, people even had to take care of their sewage and empty septic tanks in collaboration with the authorities up until this year. We're all still here, and our nature is very clean.
You talk of research but don't provide sources of your information, just saying you did it kinda isn't enough. :P
I don't read Dan Brown since the interview where he claimed everything he wrote in the Da Vinci Code is factual.
I was bored so watched the movie and in the movie the idea is portrayed that the virus will kill 95% of the human race. It wasn't clear how it would do that (a moot point I suppose).
Even with 1/3 infertile, do you think those 1/3 would react rationally to having been forcibly made infertile? Pretty sure it would cause massive instability - I can imagine people kidnapping children, even killing others. That would be an interesting movie, to see wars over children instead of money, religion or land for a change. Ha ha.
Population research: https://www.pop.org/content/debunking-myth-overpopulation
Quote:
Europe’s decline, however, is something to worry about. A UN report titled “World Population to 2300” paints a picture of Europe’s future if European fertility rates don’t rise above current levels: “The European Union, which has recently expanded to encompass 452-455 million people (according to 2000-2005 figures) would fall by 2300 to only 59 million. About half the countries of Europe would lose 95 per cent or more of their population, and such countries as the Russian Federation and Italy would have only 1 per cent of their population left.” In other words, the French, German, Italians and British will virtually cease to exist. Arrivederci, Roma!
One of the first lines of the movie:
"There is a switch, if you throw it, half the people on earth will die.
But if you don't, the human race will be extinct in a hundred years."
I don't know from where you took 95%, 50% makes sense and 95% doesn't.
I extrapolated, so perhaps I should rephrase what I meant.
The virus will directly kill 50% (as you say, stated in the movie).
From that, then take that it will leave 33% of the remaining population infertile.
The consequences of both of those together will (in my extrapolated estimate) result in the wholesale breakdown of modern society (food production, water treatment, electricity production etc). This would most likely result in wars and a fight for survival in a typical dystopian post apocalyptical scenario...resulting in the deaths of many more...in my estimate 95% of the current world population would eventually be gone as a result of such a virus initially killing 50% and making a third of the remainder infertile.
It won't even take an event like this anyway - as you can see in the quote I added from the UN:
"95 per cent or more"
of the population will be gone at current breeding rates in 300 years. That is for Europe with a FERTILE population and a starting population of over 400 million.
So extrapolate Europe as an example:
1 Start with roughly 450 million
2 Virus hits: take away half the current population, left with 225
3 75 million of those are infertile
5 That leaves 150 million who can breed
Those 150 million will be busy finding food, clean water, power, animals and killing eachother. Breeding will take an even lower priority than it does now.
As a result, my opinion is that the overall population would diminish to 22.5 million (95% of the starting total) quite quickly. Triggered by the virus.
But yeah I accept you are right and the movie does say 50% (and doesn't have time to extrapolate like I did).
In the book they think the virus will wipe people out but it turns out to make people infertile instead, not both. I assume the film is the same. Also in times of war and heavy casualties the human race has actually compensated by procreating more. WWII gave us the baby boomers and the Black Death gave us the golden age, which is the crux of the film.
We really don't need more people, with unemployment as it is and wages and the quality of life so low for many people in developed countries, a reduction in populace can only help. Then you have global warming, over fishing, over farming, animals becoming extinct, the list goes on.
"You're spoiled, as most people are."
Yes, I like to live in a world where I have clean water, a doctor around the corner with access to the most advanced medicine in the history of the race, food delivered to my door (I don't actually use a supermarket), instant communication worldwide, a device with almost the entire knowledge of the human race at my fingertips, access to music, movies, books, art of every conceivable genre. I could go on.
I accept I am spoiled, I like it (who wouldn't?) and that I am selfishly interested in a comfortable life and my own healthy survival.
So, no, I don't want to give all that up and have to scrub in the dirt to grow food, hunt for animals and kill/skin them, continually fighting my fellow man and environment just to stay alive every day. Hominds arose roughly 2.6 million years ago. Only about 10-12 thousand years ago (the Sumerians) did we establish a stable farming civilisation. It then took 10,000 years to progress to where we are now. Reverting to hunter/gathers for another x million years may appeal to you and others. Not to me.
In that case I like to be mental. :P
Try scrubbing in the dirt and growing your own food, actual food, not the poor excuse that's nowadays sold as such, it's very satisfying.
Why would we need to revert back to hunters? It's not so hard to keep and take care of a few animals in the barn. Quite honestly, I'd love to see companies that produce meat on a large scale go to the dogs as most of them treat animals like crap and inject them with dodgy stuff to grow. And we then eat that meat. Lord knows what's in that.
[deleted]
The main charm of the books is the history/culture lectures that prof. Langdon keeps giving throughout. Without them, the books would just be dull. And that's what movies are. Freaking dull and pointless. Also, the movies are horribly miscast most of the time.
shareThis. History and culture lectures. I'm reading his books mostly because of that. Like you said, without that, the books would be just average thrillers.
shareI think it would be much better if the books were adapted into TV series, rather than films.
I agree with everything you said about the films. It's like they pick up the first actor they bump into. Wouldn't Sienna Miller make a great Sienna Brooks? I haven't seen Inferno yet, so can anyone tell me if they even bothered to make Dr Sinskey a beautiful white-haired dignified elderly lady or did they decide to make her younger?
In all honesty, I think they are not really panned, especially not the first two, I feel they were pretty successful weren't they, otherwise I doubt they would have even made Inferno.
Maybe the critics hated them, but who cares about them (I think critically even the books are not that loved). But I remember a lot of people liking the movies. And don't forget because of the religious controversy, that attracts a lot of haters and makes it sound like more people hated them than in reality.
However Inferno is more mixed audience reaction, and rightly so as it's not as good as those two, though personally I still enjoyed it. However this time I haven't read the book so different outlook.
I am definitely a mad man with a box!
because the books are crap,kinda like 50 shades of grey and twilight ect
shareFifty Shades of Grey shows that this is nothing new.
What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.
Fifty Shades of Grey shows that this is nothing new.
They books should also be panned. I remember Reading The DaVinci Code 10 years ago and thinking how bad written it was. It took me about 2 months to finish it. Terrible writing there. It kind of works for a movie script but I I don´t know how it got so famous.
shareBack than religion bashing weren't as popular as it is now. So it spark a lot of controversy back than.
shareThe books are *beep* too. BUT condensed *beep* is worse.
share