Talk:The Da Vinci Code (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Da Vinci Code (film) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 7, 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Da Vinci Code (film) article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Question

In this picture: http://www.davinci-the-movie.com/m_pic/mvp11.jpg Sophie has discovered the sentences "So Dark the Con of Man" in the very bottom righ tof a painting. But I remembered that in the trailer, the words are written across Mona Lisa. What is happening? Chrisyu357 09:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly an alternate scene. Chronolegion 15:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
in the novel the writing was on an acrylic glass cover of the painting, so maybe the director took multiple shots just to have options when editing

[edit] Move

I moved the code around to get rid of a blank area ath the top of Cast.Dark jedi requiem 03:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] * A woman posing as a Roman Catholic nun spent 12 hours praying ...

That's a stunning distortion of the facts. It was not a woman "posing as a nun", but a real roman-catholic nun from Our Lady's Community of Peace and Mercy in Lincoln [1], [2], and known by name (Mary Michael) and age (61). When even the constantly catholic-bashing british BBC reports this [3], one can probably trust the news.

[edit] Differences between the book and the film

Although the movie isn't released yet...I based this list on the trailer and some three 30-second footage from the film that I've seen somewhere from the net. Tiamy 16:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But how? How did you get all that infomation from the trailer? Trailers are not good sources for infomation on something that hasnt been released yet! Shouldn't we wait for the movie to come out before this section is in the article? dposse 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banning the Film

Well I've read the section in this article concerning the reactions to the film and I was really not pleased. I'm talking about the reaction in the Philippines, because that's where I am currently. I remembered an article I read somewhere about the movie The Last Temptation of Christ where in there's a love scene between Jesus & Mary Magdalene and yet it states there that only two countries banned the film and Philippines wasn't among them. Why the hell they didn't ban this flim where there's a love scene between the Son of God and the so called "prostitute" and why will they ban a film in which they'll just hear statements saying Jesus was married?! I've been waiting for three years to see the film and I'm sure that the current political issues in the country will probably keep this issue in the dark; anyway many people in the Philippines haven't read the book yet, so I've doubts many will see the film if its allowed anyway, besides films like Mission: Impossible III and Poseidon will be showing when the film will be 1st shown. Ultimately, its a matter of faith: Do you belive the flim or not? InGenX 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


--- People need to understand that this is fiction. This movie should not be band in any country because it is not attacking the church like many people say it is. It is simply a work of fiction. If people think fiction can change the way people think of the christian religion then they must have some doubts themselves! Pedram-e 03:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

At a conference on April 28, 2006, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican curial department, Archbishop Angelo Amato, specifically called for a boycott of the film version of The Da Vinci Code, which will debut later in May; he said the movie is '"full of calumnies, offenses, and historical and theological errors."

Lol, the same could be said of religion.

It is only banned in Manila and all cinemas in SM Supermalls as indicated in the article. --Jojit fb 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, somebody tagged the "citation needed" template on this statement: Although, The Da Vinci Code was banned in Manila and SM Malls, it was still shown in other cinemas all over the Philippines. It was already mentioned in reference #10 on inq7.net that "MOVIEGOERS in Manila may have to go to neighboring cities to watch “The Da Vinci Code”..." Should we always have to repeat the reference? Can you read all the previous references before you tag it as "citation needed"? Furthermore, I'm from the Philippines and I can testify that it was shown outside Manila and SM Malls because I was able to see this film outside Manila. --Jojit fb 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Truth"

I just reverted a section added by "Oneway2christ";

This movie is not true. It is just man trying to put God out of the picture completly. there is only 4% of this new generation that is Bible based believers. Jesus is the Savior. He did not marry Mary. The entire Holy Bible is true. The book of Matthew says As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Its happening slowly now. Look at this movie. It is a false prophet. Turn to Jesus and He will do more than you can even imagine.

-Senori 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"marry Mary" haha

Not only fiction, but also cheap, low quality fiction. I had a very good laugh at the movies today. I would rank "The Da Vinci Code" next to "Batman: The Movie" (1966). I could just hear Robin say, "Holy bloodline, Batman!".

"The entire Holy Bible is true." PROVE IT! There factual content in film in regard to the volience of church history. Regardless of weather the claim of the book/film are true, it causes people to question millenea of lies. [See Penn & Tellers Bible Bullshit

[edit] Why hasn't this film been released in Bahrain?

On imdb.com, The Da Vinci Code release dates page, it is mentioned that the film is supposed to be released there today (17 May). But when I saw the newspapers and the website for Dana Cinema -where the film is supposed to be shown-, I was shocked to find that it wasn't released! How the hell could this happen? Why won't they release it today? --166.87.255.132 09:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Christians in Bahrain opposed and now they are reviewing the movie to decide whether to release it . This process could take up to June.

Hmm, I think we've all been wondering why this film hasn't been released in Bahrain... --Wetman 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riddikulus

Is it widely reported in the world media that several journalists needed medical attention for laughing-locks and unstoppable booing after seeing the Cannes festival press screening of DVC. Most film journalists commented the movie is even more confused, has no nose or tail, takes itself too seriously, too much music, too little git and too grandiose compared to the already poorly written book. The actors are wooden, etc. They say the movie's ending has been changed compared to the book to avoid offending the Vatican and USA, but it made a joke of the entire storyline and ruins everything. I think this is big victory for the christians, the occults have managed to make a clown of themselves in public. Big time to expand the article! 195.70.32.136 14:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Now even the CNN web carries a lot of catcalls and hisses:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/da.vinci/index.html
Wow, god forbid anyone questions the catholic church. "Oh my god, someone wrote a fictional story about the children's stories we were told in this house called a church, let's make fun of them and ban the movie!" People get so offended when someone questions the stories they grew up with. Get over it already!!! It's just as ridiculus as all those riots because someone drew a cartoon containing Mohammed. Oh, and fyi, anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's as to whether or not Jesus was married, yada yada yada, because noone has absolute proof one way or the other. So don't get into a hissy fit because someone decides to take the other stance on a completely debatable issue. Just my 2 cents.
Though many have quite possibly overreacted, at the end of the day the book, and to a lesser extent, the film, have put forward things about the church and church history which are demonstrably false. Any organisation has a right to point out when it is being lied about.

[edit] rotten tomatoes

i have a problem with that infomation. It is only seven votes, at a time where the movie is only being seen at a film festival where not many get to see it. Those votes could have been put there by religious fanatics who gave the film a bad vote just because it is controversial. dposse 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate, at least for now. The other articles coming out of Google News seem to confirm the general feeling[4][5], so the Rotten Tomatoes count is representative. I've been familiar with the Rotten Tomatoes system for years, and for any movie to have that many unanimous "splats", even at such an early stage, is notable. --Elonka 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
heh, alright. Do you mind if i move the paragraph to the "Pre-release reactions", since the movie is not released in theaters yet? It doesn't feel right for it to be in the intro paragraph. dposse 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that sounds like a reasonable way to handle it, and appropriate under Wikipedia's "Neutral POV" policy. --Elonka 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks, Elonka. dposse 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned In Various Countries

I was suprised that Thailand banned the movie. I also heard India did as well. Is this true? Why is this movie banned in Buddhist and Hindu countries???? What other countries have they banned this in? Zachorious 00:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thailand did not ban the film - they were going to allow its release with the last 10 minutes cut and a few changes to the Thai subtitles. However, 24 hours later, they reversed this decision. --Captain Idiot 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the part re. "da vinci code" being "confiscated" from cinema across beijing and shanghai and so on, after checking both CNN and reuters. Although the movie has been pulled, I am not aware of media being banned from even talking about the film nor is there any indication of "confiscation" going on. Feel free to change it back if a valid source can be provided. --mean 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I was in China when the movie premiered. I saw it in a fully operation, perfectly legal-seeming movie theater on May 24, 2006 in Beijing in Oriental Plaza on WangFuJing. I guess it could have been pulled after that. Anyway, thought someone might be interested. Also, I saw copies for sale on the street on May 18th, the day it premiered in Europe, I believe. Thought that was sad, but funny. -Joe 05:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] post release review.

Since we have a pre release review section, i think that it is only fair that we have a post release section. what do you think? dposse 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should probably rewrite the "reviews" section to provide a summary, and only separate out "pre-release" and "post-release" reviews if they are substantially different. A simple section entitled "Reception" is what's recommended at WP:FILM. --Elonka 19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation in Vatican section

The paragraph quoting Francis Cardinal Arinze ends in POV speculation:

"There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you,"

This is followed by the speculation:

The apparent reference to "other religions" is to the violent protests against the depiction of Prophet Muhammad in cartoons.[1]

While I'm not going out on a limb to defend the violent protests, is there a quotation or source which indicates that is who Arinze was referring to, given that he didn't name names? Until there is affirmative followup, I'm removing the last sentence. --plaus 09:17 20 May 06 GMT

I'd say it would be current affair context. If the muslem violence about the cartoons had been going on around the same time, it could easily be inferred that he was talking about the cartoon violence. --Lendorien 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Underwater

The article states: "Pinewood's state-of-the-art Underwater Stage was used to film underwater sequences. The stage opened in 2005 after four years of planning and development. The water in the tank is filtrated using an ultra violet system which creates crystal clear water and a comfortable environment to work in for both cast and crew. The tank is permanently filled and the water is maintained at 22 ℃ (72 ˚F)." I've just come back from watching the film and I don't recall any underwater sequences... Is my memory that bad? Or should this be removed? – drw25 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I remember "witches" being drowned and those parts with the well... Illythr 17:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Case closed. – drw25 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions to the Film

I added a "Reactions to the Film" section to cover any public reaction to the film. I included information on protesters, learned from both a local news report, and also what I saw out front of the Muvico Pompano when I went to see the film. Information that can also go into this section includes box office information, rankings, and overall public reaction to the film. Feel free to add information, rename the section, etc. I just figured that since this is a controversial film, we needed a section to cover public reaction to it. Possibly we could also merge this with the Pre-Release reactions section.

Note to Batman2005 and others: this thing on the news was just a quick little "ooh, the film's opened. Look, protesters! The film's about this" and not available online. I have also seen the protesters at the showing I went to this afternoon, and am willing to scan a copy of my ticket stub to prove that I was there. I can also see if any of the friends I went with have any cellphone camera pics, as they usually take pictures of that stuff.

Danielkitchener1 08:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

See also: This Site Danielkitchener1 09:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that saying that "reactions were mixed" is a fair statement. dposse 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ""Da Vinci Code" unlocks $224 mln in world sales"

US and Canada: US$77 million, Overseas: $147 million

unsigned edit by 166.87.255.131 --Túrelio 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Number in relation to what, book, film oder both together? Any source for that? --Túrelio 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well being as this article is about The Da Vinci Code film, then it obviously refers to just the earnings of the film. Or it should do anywayTammiMagee 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-release reviews

Removed the first paragraph (below), because it is mostly POV and contains unsourced quotes and misquotes:

During the May 16th grand preview for movie critics at the Cannes Film Festival, the main climax of the film, when Hanks' character discloses to Tatou's character that she is "without a doubt" the descendant of Jesus Christ, was met with thunderous laughter. As reported by many newscasters, one scene during the film, meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter from the audience, and when the credits rolled, there was no applause, as usually the case, but only a few catcalls and hisses."[6]

The "thunderous laughter" is unsourced. The "As reported by many newscasters" is unsourced (not in the CNN article); the "meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter" comes from the CNN article, so it's only that author's observations at his/her viewing, not the broader context indicated in the removed POV paragraph.

[edit] FICTITIOUS

The fictitious storyline proposes that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and conceived a child, resulting in the bloodline being carried on to the present day I removed the word fictitious since the controversy IS over whether or not it truly is fictitious or not...any suggestion?Jmlk17 08:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What, you're expecting to settle 'fact' vs. 'fiction' in the context of Christianity and the Bible? Next, we conquer hunger, world peace, and create clean, cheap fusion power for all! ;-) -anon

No, the controversy is that a book was written on a topic that christians believe to be blasphemy. The story itself, both as a book and movie, is fictional. I think "fictitious" might be the wrong word. "Fictional" might be a better word to use in that sentence. dposse 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the word "fictitious" can be legitimately added, as not only christian, but non-christian historians at large, find such claims rather ridiculous. the books on which da vinci code derives its ideas from, namingly The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and such, have made dubious claims that has been heavily criticized. If anyone but take a good look at Dan Brown's website, you'd realize he did not claim all that much. "Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and conceived a child', for example, was not claimed to be truth. -mean 14:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between book and film

I removed this section "In the movie, there are a sequence of dots that appear for only a few frames. These dots are similar to the laser etchings on the key that Langdon and Sophie discover behind the painting". Those are anti-piracy marks, coded dots that identify the indivudual print, not part of the film. Brian Schlosser42 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

anti-piracy dots? or is he mentioning, when in theaters, the Reel Change signal at the top right corner? it flashes on two frames everytime a reel is changed 68.44.178.192 21:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler

It seems to me that the introduction to the article constitutes a spoiler after the point where it mentions the Catholic Church's criticism of the film. Can we move it? At least into the spoiler protected region. It's not really fair to those who've neither read the novel nor seen the film. The article on the book does a much better job of avoiding spoilers. Cheers, --Plumbago 18:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gross box office revenues

"But for the gross box office revenues at the opening weekend it reached only rank 13."

Can someone please fix that sentence so it makes sense? I can't do it. dposse 22:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot ???

A complete and well-written plot summary is needed for this article as well as for the one about the book! There's so much talking here about every single aspect of this film, but we only have TWO lines about the story! This is really ridiculous, because it represents the character of the whole Da Vinci Code debate; everyone knows the summary from the evening news, some have read the book, some have seen the film, but most people don't know a thing. Like when this nun in europe cursed Brown and the film crew over this book, but did not know ANYTHING about the plot. Pro Knowledge! -- Imladros 02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's now 3 lines long. Why hasn't anyone given a synopsis of the film? I would but havent seen it

Also, is there any reason that the plot summary ends at about halfway during the film?--Seventy-one 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


He's right. A complete synopsis of the plot is necessary and should be addressed immediately. It ends after about 1/3 of the way through the movie. I saw it, but I don't really remember the details. -TheChancellor Jan. 14 2007

[edit] funniest line

"We've got to get to a library!" Was this line in the book as well? --Halcatalyst 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

why don't you read the book and find out for yourself? dposse 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth would I want to do that?!? --Halcatalyst 15:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
So you can feel knowingly superior and can talk at great lengths about the various plot holes?Me lkjhgfdsa 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So you don't sound like an idiot when talking about the da vinci code. dposse 02:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, "We've got to get to a library!" is not in the book. Georgeslegloupier 08:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, i believe he said something similar to it in the book, as it's mentioned in the "differences" section. However, i have no idea what the hell this guy is talking about. I just saw the movie ten minutes ago and i didn't find the line funny. dposse 20:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links from main article

I've moved these links from the linkfarm on the main article to this talk page. If they can be used, use them, if not, just leave them here, noting that we can't use them for whatever reason. I don't think the first one is notable, and the second one is already linked from IMDB. —Viriditas | Talk 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences

Does it really need to be about three pages? And if so, would it not be better placed in it's own article with a "For more information see" at the top? --Falcorian (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the differences section a little bit. I personally don't feel that it is necessary for it to have it's own section. dposse 20:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle East.

"Middle East

The film is banned in Lebanon"


I deleted the section because it has been up for weeks with no citation or additions to it. If someone can find any infomation on it, then please add it to the article. dposse 20:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would tend to support the deletion of the category of "Christian film" to this film

The Da Vinci Code is not a Christian film. This category should remain deleted. It is clearly anti-Christian, although, one has to be NPOV. This is my POV. A "Christian film" would set forth Christianity, not give the viewer the impression that Christianity is a lie. The whole point of this film is that Christianity is a lie and a fraud.--Drboisclair 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree: "Christian film" signifies to me a film targeted towards Christians, which this definitely is not. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I do think that we might want to consider a category like because The Da Vinci Code is definitely about religion.--Drboisclair 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am changing the category to reflect the new category that satisfies the major religious subject matter of this film.--Drboisclair 01:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da Vincis template.

v • d • e
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
Characters
Fictional organizations
Media
Other

Can someone please fix this template so it doesn't look so ugly on the article? dposse 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "ugly"?--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's length is too big and it streachs the page out too much. dposse 00:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Templates are helpful for readers to navigate through related pages. If you don't like the length, a hide/show bar can always be added.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added back the template, now with a hide bar. If you think its too long, click the "hide" button on the template to reduce it's size.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
How can i edit the template so it doesn't mess up the article? dposse 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
How does it mess up the article? If anyone finds it too long, they can always click the hide bar to reduce its size.--TBCTaLk?!? 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 7, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Passed, but there is an excessive use of bullet points, in my opinion. Prose would be prefered in many cases.
2. Factually accurate?: Does not contain enough references, for such a long article. Whole sections even are not cited, such as the differences between the film and movie section.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, but too detailed. Far too much trivia, and many of the sections could be cut down in length or (possibly) even put into a seperate article, such as the pre-release reactions.
4. Neutral point of view?: Passed.
5. Article stability? Passed.
6. Images?: Failed. None of the images have fair use rationale.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 18:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How would one cite differences between film and book? Robotempire 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angels and Demons teaser trailer!

I just watched the dvd of The Da Vinci Code which is released here in Australia and before the film is played, a small teaser trailer is shown describing production which begins soon. That is so cool! Empty2005 11:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extended DVD version

Ive seen the 25 minutes extended DVD mentioned in the article:

It adds the following major scenes not present in the cinema release :

  • an extended scene wherein Sophie threatens to destroy "Madonna of the Rocks" during the encounter with the guard
  • A scene that describes Silas's back story as a flashback
  • the scene in the Saint Sulpice has been extended to show that Silas has remorse over killing the nun
  • a flashback scene showing the death of the senechaux
  • a scene in which Collet has found has found the surveillance equipment
  • also confirms Remy's name as Remy Languedec instead of Remy Jean
  • makes mention of Remy's allergic reaction to pinda's
  • Fache making an apology to Langdon and Neveu

i can also confirm that this edition has been released in the Netherlands (im dutch and ordered he box 3 days ago)

if someone else can account for all these scenes present in the extended edition we can add them to the article without any disputes

BS Guus 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary incomplete?

In the article as it stands currently, the plot summary ends abruptly about halfway through. Is it just unfinished, or did it get vandalized or otherwise removed from the article? Before I go looking through the last 100 revisions, I thought I'd ask if anyone had seen it, or if it's just not completed yet. --MCB 04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible error in DIFFERENCES

It states "There is no verbal reference to PHI and the Divine Proportion".

Actually there is a really very small reference. Right after the Lecture, at the begiing of the signing-book session,people are chatting and you can hear something like "his take on phi are a little far fetched, but the use of the dive proportion..." etc

This is my first edition. What should I do?

Somebody says that there are no citations in the difference section. How can it be fixed? How can you citate a movie? --Alvaro Ledesma 12:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This section is pretty huge. Would is be a good idea to someone divide and categorize it? Maybe, "Characters", "Documents", "Claims", "Actions", etc? It's just that it kinda sucks to see something insightful like the comments about the Witch Hunts and the changes in Robert's attitude sitting alongside rather more basic comments like the difference in the colour of Sophie's hair. 81.159.210.37 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Oli Lea, 16:46 GMT, 16th April 2007

[edit] Answering the demand for WP:V

The section that lists the differences between the novel and the film are arrived at by looking at the book and watching the film. Why would there need to be verification?--Drboisclair 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical errors

I'm not sure if there's a reason this hasn't been mentioned but there is an appalling gaff in the movie concerning Rosslyn Chapel. Being that for a start, it's been CGI'd as the real Chapel has a permanent scaffold built around it to protect it from the elements.

Presumably this was done to make it look more ancient and historical, but it also makes it even more amusing in the shot afterwards where Hanks looks across the valley at the Chapel from the old Rosslyn House. Where he is looking at an effect as the real chapel is in the opposite direction.

It's quite amusing if you live in the area (as I do) 212.1.144.159 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temple church trivia

Some of the filming was done at Temple Church - I sang in the choir there for 7 years and therefore recognise why the Doves were seen to fly from the round part of the church - this appears to be a clear reference to Ernest Lough, one of Temple's most famous boy singers whose most famous song was "Oh for the wings of a dove" sung at Temple Church. Should I put this in the main article and if so where? 172.215.102.171 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Silas DaVinci.jpg

Image:Silas DaVinci.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Silas DaVinci.jpg

Image:Silas DaVinci.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dvcode giftset box.jpg

Image:Dvcode giftset box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Picsony2006-15.jpg

Image:Picsony2006-15.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)