According to Cinematical it appears that Sony are actively engaging the Church in order to consider the alteration of the story of The Da Vinci Code for the movie adaptation.
…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?
I’ve left in their editorial comments afterwards as I wholly agree, I have the same opinion, there was no surprise going into this project and surely they realise that the movie version would also court controversy with the Church as has the book. So why the hell are they starting to ask what they could change in order to make it more palatable to them?
Sure, and as both Cinematical and John would say, money is the answer, it always is. Yet who are they really concerned with? Isn’t it just the US audience? I do think other world movie markets would be much more accepting of this movie and wouldn’t just stand up against it without realising that this is a movie based on a piece of fiction. I think the Church need to realise that gone is the age of wiping out opinions that are not your own.
Where’s Sony’s dedication to the original material? The power of the Church is definitely strong, we’re seeing all religious references removed from His Dark Materials: Golden Compass, and now could it be the same with the Da Vinci Code? I find that incredible if it’s true, how could they make the story work then?
People….PLEASE DON’T BE STUPID!!! If you change the plot of the movie, you change the whole movie. If that happens, Da Vinci Code will be a dud and Ron Howard will be greatly criticised, along with Sony.This movie is looking to be a future box office hit, but if Sony changes it this movie will make CRAP for money and be another waste of time. Why do you think Mel Gibson made a profit off of his movie? It followed a chain of events that really happened in the life of Christ and it was one of the most controversial films ever to be made. So I beg and plead with you Sony, don’t change the Da Vinci code. Changing it will ruin it. America NEEDS a good movie to come out. We have been wasting our money on bad movies for too long now.
John, again I’m not taking point with the Church I’m taking point with the Studio seeming to bow to pressure over the story.
A prominent group has PUBLICLY announced that they are against the book and PUBLICLY told its members not to read it. Sure, that’s not come from the head of the group, but from areas within it.
Then we hear that the Studio is contacting the group to ask how they could change it to make it more palatable to them.
Taking precedent into account, the move with His Dark Materials after this action was to remove all references to that group.
Also bear in mind that the group is publicly against the material due to their beliefs.
As per the comment earlier it is PUBLICLY on record that the Studio have approached the group and the outcome is the request to remove three of the central themes and make it more ambiguous.
Those are the facts with all religios feeling removed.
This is what I am concerned about, the radical changing of material from the source to the movie. The story is what people want to see and made it a bestseller, these three themes build what the story is, to take it to a movie without these themes does not make it the same work. I want (and presumably all the readers of the book) to see the work in the movies.
John Campea: ” I also disagree with some people who say “If you have to change something from the book… then just don’t make the movie”. Bah! I WANT to see this movie. Millions of people who have read (and have not read) this book want to see it.”
You got me there. I’m not excited about this movie anyway, so it’s easy for me to say “do it right or forget it.” Those who don’t want to forget it will feel differently.
Hey Rich,
I think you’re missing my point. Who said anything about “the church” changing everything? They’re not going to. Would they like to? Sure they would… but that happens in almost all movies.
This has nothing to do with “the church” having control over the movie making process at all.
The Pope didn’t order Ron Howard to appear before him at the vatican to instruct him to make changes to the movie.
This is the studios move. They took the inititive here to consult “the church”. This is not about the church exerting some sort of power. They (like any other group) are going to voice their objections and concerns (like any other group) and then Howard and the producers will take some of what they hear… and ditch most of the rest (like most director’s and producers do).
And keep in mind… many books have things changed in them when converted to the screen and it has nothing to do with outside groups.
I’m just worried now that IF (and that’s a big IF) Howard decides to make some changes to Davinci, that people will automatically associate the changes with “the church”… when Howard (like many many other directors) may just decide to make serious changes on his own because he feels like they would play out better on screen.
And on the Topic of Dark Matters… remember, some subject matter just doesn’t do well. Look at The Last Temptation of Christ… the film that made only a touch over $8 million dollars. I think that has more to do with the change of direction for Dark Matters than any outside presure or influence.
Just a thought.
G’night
Oh, before I do go. Darth you’re right, people should be listened too, again that’s not what the post or the comments is concerned about, and I’ve not said (nor do I think the others have) that groups should not be consulted.
I know I’m allowed to disagree with you, it’s my right as a living, breathing Scottish Bastard. Although my parents would argue with that…just have to track down the milkman.
I still don’t think you are, I think you’re focusing on the religious aspect rather than the point of the post which is about the serious possibility of the main plotline of the book being removed because it offends a certain group. Removing that thread means the story holds no meaning or connection to the original and they might as well write a new story from scratch, there would be no point connecting it with the original work of the book. It’s the same deal if it offended any group and the film was made anyway, as many films that are made in Hollywood do.
There’s plenty of examples of movies being made and distributed that offend groups, yet they go ahead anyway. Michael Moore springs to mind, then there’s all the examples given before in this thread about movies that have offended certain groups. Even the post about Secuestra Express offended the Venezuelan’s because of what it said about their country. So, people do say things when it is other groups, I’ve been vocal on a previous post about war movies forgetting the groups of other fighters in WWII.
There’s one thing to consult a group of people about a movie and make small changes out of compassion for them as victims of some event being shown, there’s another to totally rewrite a story and remove the entire plotline because a group doesn’t want the story heard, and that’s what they’ve publicly said. That’s what it comes down to for me.
This is not about demonising the Church, putting it down, portraying it in a certain light or any of those things. The arguement would be the same for me if the group were Palestinians disagreeing with a Hollywood movie about Isrealis and the Studio were seriously engaging them with a publicised view to removing the main plotline. It wouldn’t matter what groups were involved, for me it’s the same issue.
The studio are adapting the book into a movie, the suggestion from some sources is that the entire plotline of the book may be radically reworked and removed because the group object to it. That’s it.
Let’s face it, there’s already a precedent been set with the action over His Dark Materials.
On the subject of religion, I never said “Religion is about control” and this is a huge difference, I said “the very phrase ‘organised religion’ is just that, organised. Organisation means control”, and that is a very different thing. Leaving the meaning of the post behind, it’s the organisation of religion I was referring to. Having read a fair bit on the history of the Church, the Papacy (and by those I mean the organisation) as well as other religious organisations I know that it’s the organisations that I have an issue with. Again, that is not a debate for a Movie Blog, perhaps I’ll drop it on my site and we could continue it there?
Oh, and just in case you’re wondering, I’m not taking this personally, I love a good debate. Plus, you can’t fire me…my boss wouldn’t let you! You Canadian Zealot!
Now I’m off to bed.
If you wanna see a post where someone got upset when they WEREN’T included in the film making process just look at “Terry Gilliam Pissed Over The Brothers Grimm”
I a gree 100%:
“Even if they don’t take ANY of the churches suggestions (and they’ll probably only take about 2% of it) the important part is to LISTEN and not instantly dismiss someone or a group of people”
Some posts in this site are of people often mad at the studios for not consulting other groups “why didn’t they speak to those responsible for the original tv show” “why didn’ they speak to those who experienced the event first hand”, doesn’t that sound familiar?
And “god forbid” (lol) if they didn’t consult the muslims, or the jews or the homosexualls or any other minority when making a movie that portrays them in a negative way, or is against their beliefs.
On the other hand:
The studio should be allowed to make whatever they feel like without any interuptions since that’s the freedom of story telling.
And naturally any organization is going to swing anything they can in their favor if given the chance. (all the homosexuall stuff on tv and in movies about this minority demonstrates that by being outspoken you can get more than your share, althout before they didn’t have a share but that’s besides the point)
Yes Rich… your ass if fired (LOL)
Yeah… I am grasping your point. Just because the Church is against the book doesn’t mean it’s opinions or feelings are invalid… as a matter of fact that’s a good reasons to consult with them. Just as Gibson did with the non-catholics and several Jewish leaders and Spielberg did with certain German groups.
Also, I think the blanket statment “Religion is about control” is really a biased and rather slanted presuposition to begin an discussion.
Look, I abandoned all my religious faith years ago… but I have to ask this simple question:
Did anyone stop to consider that “the church” has some real honest and legitimate concerns about the book (right or wrong)? And that perhaps given the nature of it, the producers should be commended for consulting with them to understand their objections (rather than just dismiss them by saying “religion is just about control”) and seek out their input? What is wrong with that? Input is good. Even if they don’t take ANY of the churches suggestions (and they’ll probably only take about 2% of it) the important part is to LISTEN and not instantly dismiss someone or a group of people
Let’s look at the Karla Holmolka movie that is being released soon (the true story of a woman and her husband who raped and kill several young women together including her own little sister).
The Holmolka victim’s families were totally against this movie being made. To be smart and sensative, the producers did consult with members and took their objections into consideration. Did they impliment ALL of their changes? No. Neither will the producers of Davinci. But it’s a good practice to understand WHY someone objects to your material and see what you can do to aliveate their fears without betraying the spirit of your project. That’s all that’s happening here.
Honestly, from my point of view what I’m seeing here is a deeper issue of anti-church sentiment more than anything else.
There is nothing wrong with the Church objecting to the book. I would object to a book that depicted Canada in an untrue and harmful way. What’s wrong with objecting?
And as far as the Priests go, they are the church. I have no problems with a priest being portrayed as a “bad guy” at all. My point is just that these iconic representations of “the church” are shown in a negative light the majority of the time. So what?
If the church wants to object to the popularization of what is commonly held as false information about their faith… who can blame them? I would if it was about my mom. You would if it was about your girlfriend (at least I HOPE you would)… why can’t they object without being scrutinized and demonized for doing the same thing for something as precious to them as their faith?
Honestly… I’ve read all the comments here… but I still fail to see the problem. if this was ANY other group, no one would be saying anything… but becuase it’s the church… well… you know the rest.
And yes Rich… you are allowed to disagree with me buddy.
… stupid scottish bastard. :P
John, religious debate is for elsewhere I guess, but the very phrase “organised religion” is just that, organised. Organisation means control, and you just have to look at the rulings and beliefs to see how controlling they are.
I still don’t think you’re grasping the issue. Sure, adaptations are fine. I like the first Planet of the Apes, it was an adaptation. Indeed I think that was much better than the Burton version which was very true to the original text. Great example of your arguement.
However, for some of us here the concern is that the Church is against the book. They have publicly denounced it. So what do you think their advice to Sony would be? I think here is where we have the issue and that’s where my editorial comments came from regarding the alleged radical changing of the books content.
Thanks to Johnny and T-Jax for the back-up! Both demonstrate the feelings the Church have against the book perfectly.
The same as the comments and actions from the Church when the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (from which many of the story themes in DaVinci are taken) was released and brought to TV in the eighties.
John, another thing (here goes our working relationship and I’ll be dropped within the week), I think the reason that Priests are so often used as the evil characters in stories is not an attempt at the Church. It’s a powerful iconic image of all that is good and pure, and to discover in the terms of a story that it is in fact evil is a perfect vehicle to use in a story. It has a twist, surprise, (although now overused not that much, but hey that’s Hollywood) and above all demonstrates how evil Evil really is, it can corrupt the image that man holds as uncorruptable. I don’t think that it’s an anti-Church image as such.
Just to add a little more weight to Richard’s argument, I found this on the NY Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/movies/07waxm.html?8hpib):
‘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. In doing so, the studio has been asked to consider such measures as making the central premise – that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene – more ambiguous, and removing the name of Opus Dei.
“The question I was asked was, ‘Can you give them some things they can do to change it, to make it not offensive to the Christian audience?’ ” said Barbara Nicolosi, executive director of Act One, an organization that coaches Christians on making it in Hollywood. She said she was approached by Jonathan Bock, a marketing expert hired by Sony for his knowledge of Christian sensibilities, and included in the discussions Amy Welborn, who has published a refutation of “The Da Vinci Code” titled “De-Coding Da Vinci.”
“We came up with three things,” Ms. Nicolosi said: the more ambiguous approach to the central premise, the removal of Opus Dei and amending errors in the book’s description of religious elements in art.
…
Whether the screenwriter, Mr. Goldsman, has made any of those changes is uncertain, though the studio has publicly hinted that the film is a thriller that will play down religious themes.’
Reading John’s post I remembered what a cardinal had to say when the book came out:
Asked about commentary that the book’s success is “only further proof of the fact that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice,” the cardinal exclaimed: “It’s the truth. There’s a great anti-Catholic prejudice,” Bertone said. “I ask myself if a similar book was written, full of lies about Buddha, Mohammed, or, even, for example, if a novel came out which manipulated all the history of the Holocaust or of the Shoah, what would have happened?”
Am I religious? Not on your life. Do I see a bit of hypocricy here? You bet.
Not in the posts here I may add, but in a small chapel in Rosslyn, just outside Edinburgh. They are doing very nicely out of increased visitor numbers, they aren’t moaning about -=that=- particular aspect of the interest in the book. The Catholic church is quite happy to bash the book until the pound signs are forthcoming.
BTW Westminster Abbey bashed the book AND refused filming permission, so do not show the hypocrisy stated herein.
Hey David.
Dude… I’ve got to disagree with you on some points.
Are you saying the way the gay community is presented in the media has not changed VASTLY for the better over the last 10 years? I think it’s clear that it has (and that’s good). Are they sometimes misrepresented? Yes. But so is everyone.
Also, the fact of the matter is that “the Church” is constantly slammed in popular media. The priest is ALWAYS the bad guy (just look at Sin City). ALWAYS.
Hmmm… and I’d have to say the modern media (TV and Film anyway) have paid much more attention to the Pro-Abortion moaning than the Pro-Life moaning (althought they all cry alot).
My point is, the movie industry has paid far less attention to the concerns of the church than they have to the concerns of most other religious/sexual orientation/National/enthnic groups out there. This is cut and dry clear. Which is fine… I just like jumping in the debate when the idea is raised that “the church” gets better treatment than other groups… because that’s just not the case. In my opinion anyway.
Cheers!
Hmmm… I still disagree with you Rich on the whole “the church is trying to controll things”. This isn’t the 1800’s anymore.
I also don’t see any problem with adapting books to film. For several reasons. First of all books on their own do not translate well into film. They have to be changed… adapted to work on screen.
Secondly, the movie business is much bigger than the book business (on an individual project basis that is). Thus, a lot more care and concern has to go into the PR of a film and attention to how it will play to the widest possible audience.
Ok… last point here. I haven’t read ANYWHERE that “the Studio dramatically altering content of a best selling book for the movie adaptation, so much so that it threatens to change the entire plot device and structure”. There will be some minor changes to small details (some big ones will happen to… but that will be because of the adaptation process… not the Church).
Novels (best selling or not) are not sacred tomes. They SHOULD be changed for their adaptation to screen to make the MOVIE as good as possible and appeal to the widest possible audience.
Besides… as many copies that Davinci has sold… there are still far more people who have NOT read it than there are who have. These people won’t care if such and such was writen on the back of this painting or that. It doesn’t change the story. They won’t care if the guy works for this person or that person. Because it doesn’t matter to the story.
I also disagree with some people who say “If you have to change something from the book… then just don’t make the movie”. Bah! I WANT to see this movie. Millions of people who have read (and have not read) this book want to see it. Just because some litarary purists won’t see it because they changed this guy’s name from James to Phil shouldn’t prevent the rest of us from seeing the movie.
hehe… ranting is fun. :)
Good discussion folks
Cheers!
John, in principle I agree whole heartedly with your comments. Tweaks should be made so as not to offend members of the audience. However, tweaks only seem to be made, or a big deal made when a film may offend certain individuals only.
Gay people often get misrepresented in film. Don’t you think they get offended by this? Does anything ever change? No, because they are a minority and Hollywood doesn’t give a toss really!
Asians often get misrepresented in film. Don’t you think they get offended by this? Does anything ever change? No, because they are a minority and Hollywood doesn’t give much of a toss about them either!
Non-Americans often get misrepresented in film. Dont you think they get offended by this? Does anything ever change? No, because as long as the film makes shed loads of money outside of those countries Hollywood doesnt give a toss about them either.
They may make token gestures here and there, but in the main Hollywood only listens, Hollywood only gives a toss when the Christians come a moaning, or the Pro-Gun lobby come a calling, or the Pro-lifers come a calling. Because these people are powerful people, these people run the Government, these people set Tax breaks for film makers, theses people run companies that provide sponsership and game tie-ins. In short, these people give them the money for the dribble that they continually turn out!
Jab all you want John, I still this harps back to the Church having the belief that they can control through the organisation of religion, etc, etc. A much wider topic than just movies I know, but it is.
However, that aside John you’re missing the point. The point is not about the Church trying to control other people talking about their image, this is about the Studio dramatically altering content of a best selling book for the movie adaptation, so much so that it threatens to change the entire plot device and structure, much like His Dark Materials is doing so.
That’s what it’s about.
Oh, and I don’t think any of the rest is fine, I don’t think anyone else here does, hence the comments made about other movies that are or are not changing their content because of other groups nothing to do with religion or the Church.
Yes, this does happen all the time, it does not make it right. It also happens all the time in minor ways to usually semi-original screenplays, not adaptations of works where they are suggesting major changes.
David – apologies that we’re giving you such a downbeat picture! Hopefully we can concentrate on some good movie news too, check out some of the reviews, and wait until some of the EIFF stuff comes out from me, I’m sure we’ll have more positives.
Hmmm.. ok I’ve got to disagree with most of you guys here.
First of all… Mel Gibson DID consult with Jewish, Catholic, Christian groups and showed them all advanced Pre-Final edit versions of his film.
Steven Spielberg consulted with groups of Jewish and German nationals while producing Schindler’s List.
The fact of the matter is, this type of Market and PR research happens ALL THE TIME with every kind of people/religious/sexual orientation group on the face of the earth.
Just because the producers change a couple of details to make it work better and offend less is NOT A BIG DEAL. I guarantee you there will be LESS changes in Davinci then there were in Lord of the Rings… and no one seemed to get their panties on a knot over that.
The fact of the matter is what will happen is a few details will get changed that don’t effect the overall story and plot of the film to make it more palitable to a wider movie audience. WHAT THE HELL (pardon the pun) IS WRONG WITH THAT? It happens all the time.
Change some details to not needlessly alienate the gay communtiy = FINE
Change some details to not needlessly alienate Native Americans = FINE
Change some details to not needlessly alienate Southern Americans = FINE
Change some details to not needlessly alienate the Arab community = FINE
Change some details to not needlessly alienate women = FINE
Change some details to not needlessly alienate Canadians = FINE
Change some details to not needlessly alienate the Jewish community = FINE
Change some details to not needlessly alienate Afircan Americans = FINE
Change some details to not needlessly alienate the Church = THIS IS HORRIBLE! THE SKY IF FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! THEY’RE TRYING TO WIPE OUT OTHER PEOPLE’S OPINIONS! hehe… had to take a jab at Rich :)
There is nothing stunning, or controvertial about this news. It’s just normal day to day movie business that happens all the time.
Cheers!
I have a much better idea. Tell people who may be offended by it, not to go watch it!!!!!!!!! Put out a warning “this film is FICTIONAL, howver it may contain scenes that will distort events that Christians believe to be true”. Then the remainder of man-kind who are non-christian followers / fans of the book have the right to see a film that is not dictated by a religion they don’t believe in and get to see a film that closly resembles the book. Hollywood will quiet happily piss people off from any other religion, or a different country but if anything might offend the republican voting bible belt of America then it must be changed.
The more and more I read articles on MovieBlog the more and more I get very disheartened and depressed by the whole Hollywood movie industry! It really is turning in to a joke. It is full of double standards. Sex in film is great, oh off course only if its is hetrosexual. Even a whiff of gay kiss gets the conservative jumping up and down! War is great, oh off course only if it shows Americans as the heros and the rest of the world as evil. Terror events and disasters are ripe for film, oh off course unless it is based on something that happens in America then its off limits for at least 5-years! Non-Christian religions are happily manipulated and misrepresented, yet any one dares suggest that the Bible may not be wholey accurate, there is hell to pay (excuse the pun!). So if you are a White, Bible Following, Gun Touting, War Mongering, Mass Murdering Straight man then that is fine. However, a non-white, muslim, peace loving, homosexual who likes the occasional cigarette is frowned upon!
Im in a ranty mood today!!!!
This is idiotic. If you’re going to make a movie that will automatically alienate a large number of people, either budget it so you can pass up that audience and still make a profit, or if you can’t do that, don’t make the movie. Don’t proceed with something that’s inherently offensive and then make it weak as well.
Did Mel … oh I see that one’s been covered. OK: did they make the South Park movie all g-rated and heart-warming? They did not. Did they make Marv a pacifist to give Sin City a broader appeal? They did not. Was Team America … etcetera.
If you want to make conservatives happy, make some movies for them – and next time, unlike with The Island, tell the logical audience that this is for them; and tell them in good time, so they know to show up.
Trying to make religious people happy by making movies that they are not going to like come what may and then weakening those movies is – it’s not even a bad box office strategy. It’s just brainless timidity.
See now this is just dumb, and this is what I’m talking about with Hollywood trying to play to the middle and act like something their not.
Did Mel Gibson go to NARAL, or Greenpeace, or the Communist party to ask for advice in making the Passion of the Christ?
No.
It would only have diluted his message and ruined his movie. It’s always a mistake to try to pretend to be something you’re not (the way Sony is doing here). You may offend people, you may even be wrong about what you’re message is in the end – but at least you’re making an honest effort at competing in the arena of ideas and moving the dialogue forward.
What’s bizarre to me is that all these highly paid people who run the industry continue to fail to see this. As society evolves and the media becomes more and more free, it become more and more difficult to be something you’re not.
Altering the story? ‘The Da Vinci Code’ wasn’t a particularly well-written book but the plot and the supposition about the Holy Grail made it fascinating. The rather contentious nature of the subject made it that bit more edgy. What do they want to change the plot to cover? How about the search for Robert Langdon’s mislaid pair of socks? That won’t offend anyone.