Last week somebody sent me the soundtrack for The Da Vinci Code, the Ron Howard movie starring Tom Hanks based on the mega-selling book, due out May 19th. The score is by Hans Zimmer, who I last heard collaborating with James Newton Howard on the Batman Begins soundtrack (and is next due to score The Simpsons Movie, believe it or not). Zimmer's score is beautiful, no doubt about it, no matter what the movie might be like. Guess that's where the idea of my reviewing the book first started. And I'll try to be as professional about this as is fitting my history degree.
The Da Vinci Code is Holy Blood, Holy Grail as conceived by William Shatner back when he was writing TekWar!
Which I might be seriously injuring myself for admitting to have actually read TekWar (I was seventeen years old, cut me some slack willya?). Yes, that was the book that The Da Vinci Code's plot most reminded me of. And The Da Vinci Code is such a rip-off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail that it is beyond my understanding how this novel made it into print without first being flagged for plagiarism a hundred times over.
I cannot reiterate that nearly enough, folks: The Da Vinci Code is practically every single major point "brought up" by Holy Blood, Holy Grail poured into the mold of a fictional (in every way possible) novel. The parallels between the two are so not funny. I can't understand in the slightest how the recent lawsuit against Dan Brown in London failed, unless it is to suggest that either the writers of Holy Blood, Holy Grail had sloppy legal counsel or the presiding judge just didn't give a hoot one way or the other.
I want to say this from the bottom of my heart though: The Da Vinci Code as a novel isn't half-bad. It isn't half-good either.
This is an "almost" book for me. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't, on some level of guilty pleasure, enjoy reading this book. It was far from perfect enjoyment though. Historical problems aside, it just didn't seem to be that well-paced and plotted a book for my tastes. It's the idea of the story that I got a kick out of, even though I severely disagree with the basic premise.
This is the only book by Dan Brown that I've read so far, so I don't know about whatever else he's done. People I trust a great deal on the matter have told me that Brown is capable of writing a good story though, that some of his other books have been pretty decent. But The Da Vinci Code just didn't seem to be that level of runaway bestseller to me. It was like a mediocre attempt at what could have been – if handled considerately – a ripping-good tale. As it is though, it certainly doesn't seem good enough for a filmmaker like Ron Howard to invest the time and money toward making a movie out of it.
(One thing that I thought could have been handled better was the identity of "the Teacher": I saw that one coming a long way off. But maybe that's just me.)
Okay, well, what I can't get over are all the historical errors in this book. Which I won't begin to go into ALL of them, but I'll tear into the ones that were my biggest beef. And this could all too easily turn into a refuting of Holy Blood, Holy Grail instead of being about The Da Vinci Code, and I don't want to do that. There are massive problems with that book that the past twenty years have revealed and you can find all about those elsewhere. Heck, one of its own writers even now admits that it's not a serious historical book at all but a good "potboiler".
I will bring this point up though: Bérenger Saunière never discovered any "secret documents" about the Merovingians, and the reason he became so wealthy is that he was selling indulgences and favoritism regarding the Catholic mass... something that he got into a lot of trouble about with church authorities later on. He didn't get rich because of some terrible secret that he was able to blackmail the powers-that-be with. The whole story about Saunière supposedly finding the documents in a hollowed-out Gothic column (which was never hollow to begin with) inside his church is where the entire plot of the Priory/Christ-children seems to always start with. Incidentally, it is a character named Saunière (who is a museum curator) whose murder is what starts off the plot of The Da Vinci Code.
Problem #1: The "Priory of Sion"
FACT:Already, this book is in heap big trouble.The Priory of Sion – a European secret society founded in 1099 – is a real organization.
This bold proclamation of a supposed element of nonfiction is found before the actual story even kicks off. And unfortunately it destroys any possibility that this book could be a serious yarn on a level with, say, The Hunt for Red October or The Bourne Identity.
Let's start with two names: Plantard and Saint-Clair. The Da Vinci Code states in a few places that the only surnames that can trace ancestry back to Jesus Christ are Saint Claire and Plantard. The reality of it is, it was a man named Pierre Plantard – a French schemer and plotter of wild stories – who "founded" the Priory in the mid-1950s. Plantard had a crazy notion that France should once again have a monarch, and believed that he should be that monarch. To establish a claim of legitimacy, Plantard added "Saint-Clair" to his last name – as a means of tying him to old European royalty – and in various places planted documents purporting that the Priory was an ancient organization dedicated to preserving knowledge of Christ's offspring. The story, so it went, was that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, had a child, and that child went on to have descendants that became the Merovingian line of French kings. This was supposed to be something that eventually threatened the Catholic Church's hold on power in medieval Europe, so the Church conspired to wipe out the bloodline and all knowledge of it. All of this is what Holy Blood, Holy Grail is centered around.
Anyway, Plantard claimed that he was a direct descendant of the Merovingian kings, and basically the whole Priory thing was something he cooked up to make himself look like a serious contender to a throne that he wanted restored. And that's it: despite what The Da Vinci Code claims, the Saint-Clair and Plantard families are not descendants of Christ, and there never was a real historical Priory of Sion.
Now, peppered throughout this pseudo-history are some real events that did happen, like the crusade against the Cathars in southern France and the pope deciding to wipe out the Knights Templar in 1307. But nowhere, until it appeared in 1956, was there ever found an organization called the Prieure de Sion: the "Priory of Sion".
Problem #2: The "Hieros Gamos" sex ritual and Sir Isaac Newton
When she was 22, the character Sophie unwittingly witnessed her grandfather – who unbeknownst to her was the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion – engage in the "Hieros Gamos": a mass "orgy" ritual done by members of the Priory as a way of honoring the concept of the sacred feminine that has been attacked throughout the centuries by the Catholic Church. It is meant to symbolize the uniting of male and female in the blessed sensuality of the orgasm through which the mystery of God can be known.
Elsewhere in the book (again, copying Holy Blood, Holy Grail almost by rote) it notes that Sir Isaac Newton was at one time the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.
What exactly did Isaac Newton do during the Hiermos Gamos sex ritual since he was a life-long virgin?
Problem #3: The Gospels... all eighty of them?
Leigh Teabing tells Sophie that there were originally about eighty gospels, and that the ones that went into the New Testament were only included at the behest of the Emperor Constantine at the Council at Nicea. All the others are the so-called "Gnostic gospels", like the recently published "Gospel of Judas". The New Testament gospels, Teabing goes on to say, were products of church invention in the first few centuries following Christ.
Here's the problem: this statement of "historical fact" is now almost forty years out of date. Over the past few decades there have been enough manuscripts found that it can safely be said that the synoptic gospels – those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke – were all written and in relatively wide publication by 60 A.D., before the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed a few years later by General Titus's boys. Based on current evidence, the gospel attributed to John was written no later than 70 A.D. and very well likely several years before that, even. With the exception of a few passages missing from some, the vast majority of these manuscripts concur with each other with a tremendous degree of transmitted accuracy. Additionally, there is a mountain of evidence supporting the belief that all of Paul's letters were written and made available throughout the churches of the Roman world by 80 A.D., and again possibly much earlier than that.
As for the other documents considered by some to be "gospels", such as those found at Nag Hammadi several years ago, it is believed by many serious scholars of the era that these were products of fusionist schools that sought to reconcile the then-nascent beliefs of Christianity with what was then the also growing-in-popularity Gnostic worldview. As it is, none of these "Gnostic gospels" have been found to have a legitimate basis in scholarship that we currently know of. That is not to make a blanket statement that none absolutely exist... but if they do, we just don't know about them yet, or at least as much as we do about the traditional gospels as have been transmitted to us to the current day.
Problem #4: "I want to major in Symbology!"
Robert Langdon, the main character of the story, is a "symbologist". Ummmmm I must have missed studying Symbology when I was in college. But I was pretty busy sub-minoring in Psycho-History too so maybe my advisor just forgot to mention it :-P
And there were quite a few other problems, some big and some small, that I happened to catch while reading this book (which took me 15 hours of nonstop straight reading through the night to do). But these were my biggest nit-picks about The Da Vinci Code (well, these and the aforementioned over-reliance on Holy Blood, Holy Grail).
Again, I don't think this is a bad book. I don't think it's an overwhelmingly good one either. Is The Da Vinci Code an evil book then?
C.S. Lewis said that one of the dangers of demons – apart from not believing in them – was that you could believe in them TOO much, to the point where they are given power over you. I think that's what has happened with the hysteria over The Da Vinci Code: too many, and they may be well-meaning, but a lot of Christians are seeing an evil threat when there really isn't any. The Da Vinci Code isn't some diabolical plot aimed at the heart of the Christian faith. It is simply a mildly entertaining book with a lot of problems in it. And what does that say of the strength of our faith when we cry out that a book like The Da Vinci Code is a threat to it, anyway? I mean, this kind of rancor aimed at The Da Vinci Code really makes us Christians look silly at best, and spiritually vacuous at worst.
I read The Da Vinci Code, and my faith in Christ came out none the worse for wear. Just as I was able to read Holy Blood, Holy Grail years ago and didn't feel my beliefs suffer for it in the least way. And so long as my fellow brother or sister in the Lord bears in mind that this book has some pretty glaring flaws to it, I've no problem with them reading it either, or probably seeing the movie for that matter, if as Paul writes in 1st Corinthians, if their own consciences have no problem with doing so.
But as for myself: I've gone through The Da Vinci Code once already. I highly doubt that I'll subject myself to it again, either in book or movie form.
It's got a kick-butt soundtrack by Hans Zimmer though.
Optimus Prime, obviously. The commander of the Autobots (those are the "good guys" if you're new to Transformers lore) was the first Transformer that many of us ever beheld. Of all the "noble leaders" that came out of the toy sagas of the Nineteen-Eighties, no avatar was so beloved and respected as mighty Optimus. I know of guys (no I wasn't one of 'em) who cried tears when he died in 1986's Transformers: The Movie (which I always thought was a punk's death anyway). It's like this: if there be no Optimus, it be no real Transformers movie.
Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons (the "bad guys"). Not even four million years were enough to dillute his lust for power. The guy that Spider-Man (in the highly controversial issue The Transformers #3) called "Bazooka Joe" 'cuz of the big-a$$ fusion cannon he carries on his right arm. The Megster will definitely make the cut for the live-action Transformers movie. Far less clear is what he'll be transforming into. I say he must metamorph into a Walther P-38 pistol, just like the original toy, before all those "do-gooder" sissy-pants said that toy guns created too much violence and forced Hasbro to turn him into a puny tank.
Bumblebee: the smallest of the Autobots (the vehicle ones anyway) but by far the one with the biggest heart. After Optimus, no other Autobot (or any Transformer for that matter) was so loved. In just about every incarnation of Transformers story that I know of, it was Bumblebee who was the first to make contact with humans. There's a reason for that: Bumblebee was just a real nice guy. I never liked his later "upgrade" into Goldbug: it was like the comics writers wanted to give Bumblebee a more hard-edged Eighties attitude or something. That seems to be mostly forgotten about lately though, in favor of the classic Bumblebee.
The second Decepticon to get mentioned here had better be Starscream, or else I'm going to get jumped-flunky all over by his rabid fanbase (who are even scarier than Grimlock's fanbase, parse that as you will). In no matter what version/generation/edition of Transformers storyline, two things are certain: Starscream wants to be the top 'Con, and he'll never stop bitching about that. Starscream was always cool, and it doesn't even matter that he was basically just one different color scheme among three Decepticons that shared the exact same body/molding. This guy holds a special place in my heart because he was one of the first two (along with Brawn) Transformers that I ever owned. If he makes the cut, and if the writers are respectful of his character, expect plenty of in-fighting to erupt in the live-action movie between Megatron and Starscream.
Prowl, who I have to include here because #1 he was second-in-command of the Autobots after Optimus Prime, and #2 because he was one of the favorite Transformers 
...and also made him the Autobot counterpoint to Shockwave, who was sort of the Decepticons's version of the "evil" Mr. Spock from the "Mirror, Mirror" episode of Star Trek. Heck, Shockwave even had big pointy ears like Spock! How could he not be Spock... that is, if Spock were thirty feet tall. And had one eye. And had a honking big gun for a left arm. Shockwave had an even bigger jones about wanting to be the top 'Con than Starscream, if you can believe that. That only really came out in the comic book though, and it almost came to serious blows between Megatron and Shockwave. Shocky would say that logic dictated that he be commander of the Decepticons after whatever loss Megatron had led them to... only to later admit his own defeat and then proclaim that logically, for good of the Decepticon cause, that Megatron should be leader. The flip-flopping got so bad between these two that eventually I came to believe that Rat-Bat and Bludgeon were far better 'Con leaders... and Rat-Bat was one of the cassettes and Bludgeon a Pretender! Feh, shows you how bad these internecine struggles got, doesn't it? Still, Shockwave rates high on my all-time favorite Transformers list.
Hound must must MUST be in the live-action movie somewhere. Along with Bumblebee, he's going to be the one who most "scopes out" the alien terrain that is Earth for the Autobots. And he's got all those cool holographic tricks that he can pull off. Since he transforms into an Army jeep he's going to be quite handy for slipping undetected into military bases and checking things out when the "fleshlings" decide to take the matter of giant robots into their own hands. I think Sam Elliott needs to be in the Transformers movie and play an Army general, just so he can wind up sitting in Hound while Hound drives around and tells Elliott what this whole thing is all about. Then Elliott can go tell the President that the U.S. doesn't need to be shooting at the Autobots, just the 'Cons. Anyway, I also like Hound 'cuz he was one of the first Transformers that I ever owned (and I still do).
Soundwave is probably going to be some folks's second choice of 'Con after Megatron, and I can respect that. Even though in the real world Soundwave wouldn't do much else but stand there and broadcast radio or TV signals out to the humans telling them to surrender. Seriously, I never understood the magnitude of admiration some people had for Soundwave. His best "gimmick" was that he transforms into a cassette player and his chest opens so you can insert one of the "cassette"-transforming Decepticons. He also sports some pretty cool guns. But other than that... why all this love for him? Was it his voice in the cartoon, that sing/songy way he had of talking? How was that supposed to be threatening? I didn't know why he had the love then and I don't know why now, but from a logistical standpoint it'd be foolish not to include him in the Decepticons's Earth-based operations in a live-action movie.
Soundwave's Autobot counterpart was Blaster. Who transformed into a boom-box. And Hasbro would have been in a lot of trouble if they had lengthened his name to "Ghetto-Blaster", wouldn't they? Blaster isn't supposed to do much else than Soundwave: stand there and hold Autobot "tapes" in his chest. On the TV cartoon he's made out to be a big-beat buffoon, practically. In the Marvel comic he's much more angst-ridden and bitter: the shell-shocked Vietnam war veteran of the giant robot set, which considering that this was coming ten years or so after that war ended... well, part of me's always wondered how much of the comics from the mid-Eighties (especially what they did with Snake-Eyes in the G.I. Joe comics) was subliminal "coming down" from that experience. I know that's something weird to be talking about in a Transformers live-action movie post, but look into those comics from about twenty years ago if you ever get the chance, and see for yourself. Anyway, Blaster's always been sorta popular, so I can see him in a live movie easily.
Jetfire (yes, I know he's stolen goods from Robotech and no, I'm not calling him by his cartoon name Skyfire) because the Autobots are mostly land-based and they're going to need some air support. And just 'cuz it'd be really neat to see if Spielberg and Bay can get away with ripping off the Macross saga without getting hit with a lawsuit.
Ravage would be sweet to see in a live-action movie, but only if he was allowed to speak like any other Transformer. And he DID talk quite a lot in the comic book. Heck, he was the VERY FIRST Decepticon to speak at all in the comics (which sorta means that Ravage was the first Transformer we got to "hear" real words come out of at all). It's sorta fascinated me how the Transformers managed to "evolve" members that resemble Earth wildlife. I don't know how that is. Frankly, I don't need to know. Ravage just looks and acts too cool to care about things like that. Not only is Ravage one of the "cassette" Transformers (which always seemed to impress people for some reason) but he has the ability to hide/cloak himself in subdued light. He's like the ultimate spy. I can see lots of possible opportunities for using him to come about in a life-action flick.
After Bumblebee, Jazz seemed to be the Autobots's pre-eminent ambassador to the people of Earth. He was fun in the comics and with Scatman Crothers doing his voice, he was awesome in the animated series. Crothers brought real personality to Jazz and... oh geez, it's just gonna be hard to see and hear him without that voice from now on. Maybe this is the role that Michael Clarke Duncan is supposed to be doing. Don't quote me on that though...
Rumble would be probably the one Decepticon small enough for regular, unaugmented humans to gang up on and win. Or color him blue/purple and call him Frenzy if that suits you better. Or was it that Frenzy was red and Rumble was blue? Or was that... wait a sec, which one was Laserbeak and which was Buzzsaw? Darnnit, I hate how they mixed up the colors like that!!
Brawn was supposed to be the second-strongest of the Autobots (well the ones on Earth anyway) after Optimus Prime. Which if you ever owned the Brawn toy you had to wonder about that 'cuz Hasbro made him to be one of the smaller "mini"-sized vehicles (as opposed to the full-sized ones like Prowl and Hound). Had one of the more gusto-ish personalities in both the comics and the animated television series. Well, I always loved this guy anyway 'cuz he was the very first Autobot that I ever owned, so maybe I'm just partial to him because of that, is why I'm including him in this list.
There's not many of the "second wave" of Transformers (the ones from 1985 or so) that I'm thinking would be good for a first live-action movie (that doesn't rule out sequels though) but Astrotrain would be a fine addition, methinks. Just what a crazy movie about metamorphing robots needs: a robot that turns into not one, but two vehicles! Having a space shuttle suddenly transform into a steam locomotive oughtta throw a hella lotta good confusion into the mix.
And when those Autobots come crawling out of battle, they're gonna need someone to take care of their wounds/busted radiators/whatever. And for that, good doctor Ratchet should be on call. Which I again may be partial toward including him here out of personal interest, because I thought Ratchet's character was handled beautifully in issues #5-8 or so of the U.S. comic (the first issues of it being a regular series). If done correctly, Ratchet is a real opportunity for some multi-dimensioned characterization among what might otherwise be an all-too linear story about "I robot, kill you robot".
It might be waaaaay too early in the first live-action edition to bring him out, but if I didn't put Grimlock on this list, I'd no doubt get a nasty e-mail from an irate reader, or hundred or so. Grimlock is the leader of the Dinobots: Autobots that transform into giant mechanical dinosaurs (how such a thing comes about depends on whether you prefer the comics or the television series. Personally I like the Marvel comics's explanation). This being a movie produced by Steven Spielberg, I'd wager two energon cubes that we'll be seeing Grimlock in the first movie, and probably a sly in-joke reference to Jurassic Park thrown in for good measure.
But while we Americans are getting last year's vintage now, our Brittish brethren have been enjoying season 2 (or 28) on the BBC with David Tennant as the Doctor. Which some of them have kindly been providing torrent downloads of the new episodes for those of us on this side of the pond. For which we are especially thankful for being able to watch last week's "School Reunion", which heralded the return - after three decades - of Sarah Jane Smith (portrayed once again by Elisabeth Sladen), widely considered to be one of the most beloved - if not THE most beloved - of the Doctor's companions. The reuniting of Sarah Jane and the Doctor - now six regenerations past the last time she saw him when Tom Baker had the role - was handled beautifully. But that wasn't the only return of a Who favorite: stowed away in the trunk of Sarah Jane's car was K-9 the robot dog, who gets repaired by the Doctor and once again has John Leeson's voice. Throw in a weird plot at the local high school involving super-smart students and evil aliens led by Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Anthony Stewart Head, plus a healthy mix of humor and geek-boy references to the original run of the show and it all made for one of the most potent (and poignant) Doctor Who episodes in recent memory. And it must be said: after all these years, Elisabeth Sladen is still a beauty to behold. Well worth tracking down with bit torrent and taking in now, instead of waiting for Sci-Fi Channel to run it next spring.
