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

[Lonemagpie]

TBH, they already made a movie of this split into two parts- National Treasure and Book Of Secrets...

ETA - ah, I see they've already been mentioned...

 

[TheSeeker]

Yeah, I was pretty underwhelmed by The Lost Symbol. It was pretty easy to figure who the villain really was.

 

[JWD75]

Though it wasn't a great novel, I enjoyed The Lost Symbol and thought that there were a few interesting ideas in it. I would put it on par with the overrated The Da vinci Code.

 

[Gaith]

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.

I'm sure the bias plays a part, aye... but I'm also pretty sure that Paris and Roman natives view their own cities with a greater sense of poetry and mystique than Washingtonians view theirs. The context of the cultural and civil history is king here.

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

No attack perceived; not at all. I read half of The Lost Symbol, and couldn't be bothered to finish it. I just find it far more engaging, on a gut emotional (not to say visual/cinematic) level, to spin weird stories (however factually unfounded) about religious elites and thousand-year-old societies than a couple of American businessmen and New Age magic crap around the District of Columbia.

Now, Eyes Wide Shut, that did an American secret cabal far better than anything in the half of TLS I read, in positing cheap and tawdry private clubs in the present, not making any having pretensions to mythic traditions from the past.

 

[Jetfire]

'Eyes Wide Shut' is a masterpiece...it is awesome on so many levels and I don't even like Tom Cruise that much.

 

[Kemaiku]

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.

It may be the final film, but Brown has 12 more books planned in the series.

 

[TheSeeker]

^Source?

 

[Kegg]

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.

Having been to both, I'd probably be more worried in Washington than Paris.

I'm sure the bias plays a part, aye... but I'm also pretty sure that Paris and Roman natives view their own cities with a greater sense of poetry and mystique than Washingtonians view theirs.

And I suppose I think of Dublin as Joycean?* The answer would be no. I don't think of the town I live in in touristy terms, and I don't think a lot of people do, generally. There's touristy stuff in Paris, there's... less touristy stuff in Paris (hello banlieues) but if you mean to suggest Dan Brown was telling 'a profound story' that wasn't a highly implausible and ridiculous and ahistorical pulp book that has as much bearing on Paris as subsequent books do in Washington.

When your criticism of The Lost Symbol is 'hey, my kid goes to school near there' or 'they got these directions wrong', then it's not unique except to the Washington resident who penned it.

*The obvious difference being that Joyce actually knew Dublin pretty well, and that shows.

 

[Gaith]

When your criticism of The Lost Symbol is 'hey, my kid goes to school near there' or 'they got these directions wrong', then it's not unique except to the Washington resident who penned it.

Again, you're skimming the surface/opening paragraphs of the piece, and ignoring the larger point:

The fundamental premise of The Lost Symbol is that Washington is a "mystical city," and it is this error that makes the book so maddening. In Brown's Washington, the marble, the wide streets, the monuments all signify some kind of connection with the divine. The city encodes transcendental secrets about God and the potential of the human mind. But anyone who has spent more than a Tourmobile ride in D.C. knows that what makes Washington interesting is its very smallness, the contrast between its grand architecture and the human machinations that take place within it. From high to low, from Democracy to The Pelican Brief, Washington novels have exploited and reveled in this human spectacle. There are conspiracies in Washington, but they are conspiracies about money, sex, elections, and public policy. Those are the currencies of our city.

Brown posits a Washington oozing with spiritual energy and secrets of the known universe. But in the real Washington, if you held a panel about the Ancient Mysteries, the unification of religion and science, and all that other Brownian hoo-ha, you couldn't fill a small conference room at the Brookings Institution—even if you served a free lunch and invited all the interns. Washington is the least spiritual, and least mystical, place imaginable.
​

But we don't even have to consider DC an inferior setting to Rome, London and Paris in mystical terms to find fault with the story, and doubt any film adaptation. The villain is laughable, the characters totally uninteresting, all the really dramatic stuff takes place in flashback, and the ending involves neither a kickass explosion nor a moving reconnection with long-lost family members. It's just a pallid, shapeless story. Could some of that be remedied by a competent screenplay? Maybe. But enough? I doubt it - and from my perspective, it seems as though Howard does, too.

 

[Kegg]

Again, you're skimming the surface/opening paragraphs of the piece, and ignoring the larger point:

No, I'm honing on a specific point. As I've already observed, more generally the mysticism that is imparted to Paris is nonsense and often has little to do with Paris. To say Washington is a mystical city is ridiculous, but to suggest Paris has a mystical secret about hiding facts regarding the life of a man who lived in the Levant is equally stupid - and unreal. Paris, however, is far away.

Likewise, Paris - like Washington - has real human machinations. It's the capital city of one of the wealthiest countries in Europe and one of the most noteworthy participants in the eurozone. I really wouldn't be so sure you'd have a bigger Gnostic audience in Paris than in Washington for any hypothetical seminars - my general experience as the unlettered tourist is to be baffled about the levels of spirituality and the intense interest in the topic I can accidentally stumble across in the United States, as far as that goes.

 

[Skywalker]

Word is Dan Brown's next Robert Langdon adventure will be set in Duluth, Minnesota. Can't wait!

 

[od0_ital]

Angels & Demons was a better movie than The da Vinci Code...and I've read both books, too.

Haven't touched The Lost Symbol, but if Ron Howard is out as a director, not sure if I'd be interested in the movie...though if Tom Hanks is still in it, I'll probably still see it.

 

[Gaith]

To say Washington is a mystical city is ridiculous, but to suggest Paris has a mystical secret about hiding facts regarding the life of a man who lived in the Levant is equally stupid.

But that's not what I'm arguing.

It's a simple question of math. Generally speaking, the older a city, with the larger history of dead governments, inhabitants, and religious traditions, the more mystical the city. Which is why Rome is more mystical than London, which is more mystical than DC, which is more mystical than Duluth, Minnesota.

If you still disagree, I guess we'll just have to continue to do so.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

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.

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.

Having been to both, I'd probably be more worried in Washington than Paris.

No kidding. Doesn't it have the highest per capita murder rate in the country?

I'm sure the bias plays a part, aye... but I'm also pretty sure that Paris and Roman natives view their own cities with a greater sense of poetry and mystique than Washingtonians view theirs.

And I suppose I think of Dublin as Joycean?* The answer would be no. I don't think of the town I live in in touristy terms, and I don't think a lot of people do, generally.

I sure don't. But that's because I live in Phoenix, where there's little of any interest to natives or tourists alike (unless you like the novelty of playing golf in January). I was struck by that during my last couple cross-country road trips, which included stops in such scenic, historic cities as Chicago, New York, & San Francisco. Granted, I was looking at those cities like a tourist. But still, I realized, "We don't have any open-top bus tours in Phoenix." We don't even have any token tourist trap like the UFO museum in Roswell or the Texas Book Depository in Dallas. And yet somehow, this unremarkable cement island in the Arizona desert has become the 5th largest city in the U.S. (Of course, Houston is 4th largest and I don't know that they have anything remarkable either.)

 

[Admiral_Young]

The poster from the last page who stated Brown has ideas for 12 post is partially correct. What he actually stated in this 2006 interview with EW is that he has ideas for 12 books and wasn't sure if he would get to write them all.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1176351_1,00.html

Since that was done in 2006, I don't recall Brown having said anything about a sequel to "The Lost Symbol". The ending seemed pretty final to me from what I recall about the book. I don't have actual sales figures but obviously this book wasn't as critically positive as it's predecessor was. I would be surprised if Brown announced a fourth book and if he did we probably won't see it for as long as it took to finally get "The Lost Symbol".

 

[Saga]

Word is Dan Brown's next Robert Langdon adventure will be set in Duluth, Minnesota. Can't wait!

 

[Owain Taggart]

I greatly enjoyed the book and I found it to be an exciting read, but I can see why it wouldn't make a great movie. Most of the story doesn't really amount to much, and part of that is likely due to the lack of intrigue and mystery that the city evokes. It's like he tried to make too much out of nothing. I think the best one in the series is Angels & Demons. I read that one just as Pope Jean Paul II was coincidentally dying, almost in parallel to the pace I was reading the book at, so it was a pretty powerful story considering that.

Even saying that though, I think Ron Howard has lost touch as a director. He used to be great and even had a bit of that Spielbergian quality in him, but lately his movies have felt lacking in magic.