Ron Howard: "Yeah, 'The Lost Symbol' really does suck"

[Gaith]

Naturally, his actual quote about backing out of a third Langdon movie is somewhat subtler and politer - something about wanting to move on to other artistic endeavors. I, however, choose to believe that this is rather a reflection of the fact that The Lost Symbol, unlike the other two Langdon books, is a totally uninteresting jumble of a non-story, with none of the intrigue of the European locations, and shot through with magic-is-science crapola besides. I'll be genuinely surprised if Hanks really goes on to do a movie of it after this.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Hanks is still attached to the film despite Ron's decision to step down. Who knows if he'll step away from the franchise as well. Dan Brown himself is co-writing the screenplay I wonder if this more hands on approach with this film had anything to do with Howard's decision to leave.

While not as fun as the first two books, I found "The Lost Symbol" enjoyable and was looking forward to this final film in the Robert Langdon series.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I don't blame him. I hated The Lost Symbol in just about every way possible. I loved The Da Vinci Code (both book and film) despite all of its faults and I enjoyed Angels & Demons the film (I haven't read the book yet but I still feel burned by The Lost Symbol so I'm not sure if I'll ever get to it). I really don't care one way or the other about making the third film.

 

[Skywalker]

Angels & Demons is, IMO, a better book than The Da Vinci Code (though I thought the DVC movie was better than A&D's), but The Lost Symbol was just terrible. I can't believe it took Dan Brown six years to write it. I think he just got lazy after the success of DVC, then finally decided to put something out after the film adaptation of Angels & Demons was released.

 

[Amaris]

Not a fan of the books, but I ended up liking the movies even though I was skeptical when they first premiered. Now, I love Tom Hanks, so I'd be willing to see it as long as he's in it.

 

[Gaith]

I can't believe it took Dan Brown six years to write it. I think he just got lazy after the success of DVC, then finally decided to put something out after the film adaptation of Angels & Demons was released.

Well, in his defense, the idea of setting it in DC, which is then viewed in the same Langdonesque light of mystery and ancient intrigue, was a terrible one that probably held no potential whatsoever.

 

[IndyJones]

I don't blame him. I hated The Lost Symbol in just about every way possible.

I read The Da Vinci Code in 2003 and Angels and Demons soon after, and I could still tell you the general plots and name some of the characters.

I read The Lost Symbol a few months after it was releases, and honestly can't remember anything about it other than it took place in DDC (and even then only because I was reminded of that when I saw Gaith's post).

 

[Kegg]

the idea of setting it in DC, which is then viewed in the same Langdonesque light of mystery and ancient intrigue, was a terrible one that probably held no potential whatsoever.

....that's pretty much Dan Brown's thing, though. Misrepresent the heck out of a location and then string people along with a lot of trivia.

Aside from it being set in a location the author of that column's actually familiar with, from whence is the difference?

 

[Skywalker]

I'm not from D.C., so I don't really care that he wildly misrepresented the city, especially since (as Kegg pointed out) that's kind of what Brown does. Brown screwed up a lot of things in both Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code, yet they still turned out to be decently entertaining reads. The Lost Symbol was just a mess.

 

[bigdaddy]

Cant they just Bourne it and just use the title to make a final movie.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I knew I was going to be the lone person who actually enjoyed "The Lost Symbol" despite it's flaws and messiness. I am interested in the subject material that it attempted to depict.

 

[Saga]

i thought 'The Lost Symbol' was a fun book. was it as good as the previous books, no. still, a fun and entertaining read.

 

[Gaith]

It's not the misrepresentation of the cities that are the problem. The problem is that Washington barely has any mystical/secret history to misrepresent in the first place.

Aside from it being set in a location the author of that column's actually familiar with, from whence is the difference?

Really? What's the difference between DC and Rome? Okay, I'll play...


London and Paris: cities up to two thousand years old, and that's just the Romans. Home to empires, kingdoms, generations-long wars, and both locally-grown and imported/modified religions.

Rome: more than two thousand years of history, and more than 1500 years of Christian history specifically (the Catholic Church being the world's oldest continuously operating organization). Home to even more empires, kingdoms, wars, and arcane supernatural rituals of many different sorts.

Washington, DC: until the late 18th century, a swamp. Still a podunk small town until after the Civil War. Since its founding, it's been home to one continuous government, one brief battle (more like a fleeting day or so of looting), and it's never been the religious center of anything. Home to a fraction of the cultural history of NYC, let alone Europe. Barely home to any secret societies worthy of the name. Also lacks the fish-out-of-water element of an American in Europe.


... That enough of a difference for ya? 'Cause it certainly is for me.

 

[Kegg]

Really? What's the difference between DC and Rome? Okay, I'll play...

Not actually the question.

The criticism in the article is that the book indulges in nonsense that has little to do with the day-to-day realities of Washington, the real mysteries of Washington, gets practical facts about directions... in short, everything one could say about Brown in general. Nonsense that has little bearing on Paris history or mysteries is the bread and butter of the work, as is portraying a city in an irreal fashion that would not be that recognizable to residents. And obviously it evokes mysteries that have nothing to do with Paris specifically - what matter the life of a Judaean provincial or a polymath from the Florentine Republic?

All said, Paris is also an actual city where people also - believe it or not - have children who go to schools and live the regular tedium of human lives. Shadowy cabals are as concrete in a Parisian context as they are in a Washingtonian one - that is, not at all.

The point about it not seeming exotic is well taken, though.

 

[Amaris]

Really? What's the difference between DC and Rome? Okay, I'll play...

Not actually the question.

The criticism in the article is that the book indulges in nonsense that has little to do with the day-to-day realities of Washington, the real mysteries of Washington, gets practical facts about directions... in short, everything one could say about Brown in general. Nonsense that has little bearing on Paris history or mysteries is the bread and butter of the work, as is portraying a city in an irreal fashion that would not be that recognizable to residents. And obviously it evokes mysteries that have nothing to do with Paris specifically - what matter the life of a Judaean provincial or a polymath from the Florentine Republic?

All said, Paris is also an actual city where people also - believe it or not - have children who go to schools and live the regular tedium of human lives. Shadowy cabals are as concrete in a Parisian context as they are in a Washingtonian one - that is, not at all.

The point about it not seeming exotic is well taken, though.

That is a point. When I think Paris, I do think exotic, mysterious, enchanting, even a little dangerous if you walk down the right (or wrong) alley in the middle of the night. Washington doesn't evoke that same sense, though I do admit bias, due to a foreigner's perception of far away cities like Paris and London.

 

[Brikar99]

It's not the misrepresentation of the cities that are the problem. The problem is that Washington barely has any mystical/secret history to misrepresent in the first place.

But...but... those Nicolas Cage movies!

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I don't blame him. I hated The Lost Symbol in just about every way possible.

I read The Da Vinci Code in 2003 and Angels and Demons soon after, and I could still tell you the general plots and name some of the characters.

I read The Lost Symbol a few months after it was releases, and honestly can't remember anything about it other than it took place in DDC (and even then only because I was reminded of that when I saw Gaith's post).

Fair enough. I don't remember anything from The Lost Symbol (other than a guy completely covered in tattoos and extra-sketchy science).

 

[Gaith]

It's not the misrepresentation of the cities that are the problem. The problem is that Washington barely has any mystical/secret history to misrepresent in the first place.

But...but... those Nicolas Cage movies!

I can't speak for the sequel, but the reason National Treasure got away with making Washington a strange and mystical place was it embraced the absurdity of the context with lots of humor and audience-winking. The Lost Symbol, OTOH, actually seems to believe it's telling a profound story amidst the gobbledygook, and that makes all the difference.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I don't suppose that you read the book but "The Lost Symbol" and and the "National Treasure" are playing around with the notion that those theories COULD be in fact more than just theories. These types of films and books are suggesting new ways of thinking and looking at regular mundane things. It is up to the person reading/watching these books to make up their mind if they are real or not. Doesn't mean they are real or not real. It's easier to dismiss these notions than conduct actual research oneself on them...and Gaith I'm not attacking you or anything just attempting to make a point on the other spectrum of this debate or whatever it is this thread has become now

 

[Deckerd]

Fair enough. I don't remember anything from The Lost Symbol (other than a guy completely covered in tattoos and extra-sketchy science).

Polar Star, on the other hand, and completely off topic, will have you remembering the tattooed guy for years.