*SPOILER ALERT*
So I see on the news that the studio producing the movie to Dan Brown's mega-hit got cold feet, after shooting began BTW, about the subject matter in the novel. Specifically they're afraid of a couple religious issues, primarily the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a child. I don't know what changes they may have already made, but they are supposedly consulting religious leaders on how to either soften or replace this part of the story.
As was discussed in another thread, the controversial claims made in the book about the Catholic Church were part of the reason that made the story so fascinating. I wonder how much they'll change the story, how much Ron Howard or Tom Hanks may fight it, and what Brown thinks of it. Personally I'd be pissed if it were my book. I'm pissed already and I didn't even write the damn thing. I realize studios invest a lot more money in producing a film than a publisher does printing copies of a book, and therefore try to hedge their bets, but you would think some things would be obvious to studios: the controversy was a huge part of the story, the story sold gazillions, maybe we should not change things.
This fiasco makes me more comfortable in the "novel" world than the "screenplay" world. Screenplays are too collaborative, with too many finger prints on the final product, too many egos, and too many opinions. Usually the person with the most money wins, leaving the writer helpless as his/her baby gets re-invented, or massacred, WTCMB. At least when writing a novel, though you have to cut significant scenes out, I think you have an opportunity to get way more of your story out, controversial or not, than you do with movies. Why publishers are less worried about religious groups potentially picketing or boycotting them because of controversial material is a mystery to me, but I'm glad they got more cajones than studios.
So I see on the news that the studio producing the movie to Dan Brown's mega-hit got cold feet, after shooting began BTW, about the subject matter in the novel. Specifically they're afraid of a couple religious issues, primarily the premise that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a child. I don't know what changes they may have already made, but they are supposedly consulting religious leaders on how to either soften or replace this part of the story.
As was discussed in another thread, the controversial claims made in the book about the Catholic Church were part of the reason that made the story so fascinating. I wonder how much they'll change the story, how much Ron Howard or Tom Hanks may fight it, and what Brown thinks of it. Personally I'd be pissed if it were my book. I'm pissed already and I didn't even write the damn thing. I realize studios invest a lot more money in producing a film than a publisher does printing copies of a book, and therefore try to hedge their bets, but you would think some things would be obvious to studios: the controversy was a huge part of the story, the story sold gazillions, maybe we should not change things.
This fiasco makes me more comfortable in the "novel" world than the "screenplay" world. Screenplays are too collaborative, with too many finger prints on the final product, too many egos, and too many opinions. Usually the person with the most money wins, leaving the writer helpless as his/her baby gets re-invented, or massacred, WTCMB. At least when writing a novel, though you have to cut significant scenes out, I think you have an opportunity to get way more of your story out, controversial or not, than you do with movies. Why publishers are less worried about religious groups potentially picketing or boycotting them because of controversial material is a mystery to me, but I'm glad they got more cajones than studios.
