What are your honest thoughts on these Dan Brown movies starring Tom Hanks?
You guys never talk about them.
I don't know Dan Brown. Does Hanks do a good job playing him?
>>71905637
Prolefeed.
>>71905637
I honestly didn't know they adapted the other two
>>71905637
I see they got rid of the stupid hair.
I am just not a big fan of Dan Brown's books they already read like a movie script, so I don't really care to see any of them on the big screen. He's a very corny writer and he does really shitty research for his books. He wants to be Crichton but he doesn't have the analytical mind for it.
>>71905682
retard
>>71905742
Crichton never had an analytical mind.
I think you mean Clancy.
>>71905891
yeah i used the wrong word, i didn't mean analytical. I'm half asleep so can't think of the right word. I was talking about Crichton's way of being able to research the subject matter for his books and truly understand it. Like how Crichton really loves to give scientific explanations or describe complex systems.
I remember reading Digital Fortress and Dan Brown's description of email was retarded as was his entire concept of information security. It read like a script for CSI Cyber or Scorpion.
>>71905998
Except his science is all wrong. Jurassic Park and State of Fear were both works of science fiction that bordered on fantasy. It was Hollywood science used to accommodate threadbare plots.
>>71906208
It's been a long time since I've read state of fear, but JP did have a lot of fantastical science, it did base it off of real research being done at the time. There was also the very well described computer systems and psuedo code that were narrated in the book. So yes, he stretched a lot of the science to meet the world he wanted to convey in science fiction but it was all based off of plausible and functional science theories.
>>71905682
Pls be bait