The thing thats getting everything pissed is that most of the stuff thats in the book, the locations, artifacts, and historical aspects are all accurate, or atleast people seem to think so.

 

I read the book in like 2 days. I couldn't put it down. But once again, it's fiction. Anyone who feels the need to "disprove" what he wrote doesn't understand the definitions of fiction and non-fiction.

I think he's a pretty good author. Plus, any hype, is GOOD hype. He's captivated his readers, and has gotten paid doing it. I love it when small minds get pissed off and complain about things that just ARE.

 

I thought the book was good...I am gonna see the movie. I wish that asshat Tom Hanks wasnt playing the title character though. I like him as an actor, but he is not the right choice for the role. He was obviously chosen for his name.

 

didn't read the book, didnt buy into the hype. i might watch the movie tho because Tom Hanks is cool.

 

I thought the same thing. I Pictured someone a few years younger, and a few inches taller. Who do you think they should have picked?

 

its still fictional h: But yes you are correct :run:

 

I was actually really hoping for a no name to make his debut on this film. It has the natural draw already with all the people that read the book, so I think a no name would have been awesome. The character described in the book is nowhere near "Tom Hanks".

 

I am always irked because I don't think there was any flak about Stigmata when that came out and that movie told about a real scroll that was apparently saying that you shouldn't build buildings or icons about jesus or anything like that. Basically every church would have to be broken down even the vatican.

I am going tomorrow to see it.

 

Pierce Brosnan (sp?) would have played a great Robert Langdon imo.

 

whoever designed that is pretty damn genius.