I wasn't really thinking about the director changing shots, although I would expect it, but I was thinking they might 'throw in' some shots of the tube to create more tension.

The director is the one who ultimately plans out how the movie will look with all the shots. He does this regardless of how intriciately the script seems to plan out shots. He either wrote out what he wanted, or more commonly, he storyboards the entire movie to show what it will look like to assist with getting the flow of the picture before shooting a frame of it.

Will we get more shots of the death tube in question? It depends on whether the flow of the movie requires it. I am sure the tube has lots of footage to its name, and if need be, they can probably plug a shot or two here and there, and since it's a prop, they can probably shoot it on call if they need to. Ideally, however, that sort of thing is in the screenplay since it's the writer's job to tell the story visually, and the director's job to plan how that story will look on screen. It's like the writer calls the scenes, but the director alls the shots.

The cinematographer will take the shots the director wants to get and make them look good on film. Unless the director wants "something special," he normally wouldn't deal with how to frame or light a shot. He just says "do this," and the cinematographer turns around and does it. That's his job. The director no more tells the cinematographer how to frame a shot than a writer tells a director how to shoot it.

That being way beyond the scope of this club, however, we may be ready to move the next topic which is the dialogue. Not sure how long this discussion will go, since dialogue is my weakest area. I can plot the hell out of a movie, but my dialogue is notoriously wooden. I would be very interested to hear about your opinions regarding the dialogue specificaly, especially since this film required a ton of exposition for it to even hope to make sense. I was fine with the dialogue myself, but what did you think?

Speaking of exposition, I skipped the sections with the reporters.  I get why Koepp did it -- he has tons of information to get across but the whole Greek Chorus thing bored me.  He gets points for trying to liven things up by switching languages to make the scenes less static.

Quoted from Lakewood ...the whole Greek Chorus thing bored me.

I hear ya.  Once you've seen Cat Ballou, there's no going back.

I found myself skipping some of the random action points, honestly.  Just got to be kind of "whatever" for me.

As far as the dialogue, I didn't find anything wrong or wooden about it.  It served its purpose, and did a good job of keeping me in the story.

I thought the dialogue was fine. However it didn't stick out as great, but it did in my opinion have some of the English spoken by some of the non native English speaking people talk in a way that I could easily imagine them doing. A foreign accent often means more than just pronounciation. Some sentence structures and words used or missed... or possibly it was all perfect English and it just didn't sound 100% right to this non native.  

I thought the dialogue was pretty typical of films that have a lot of exposition that needs to be conveyed.  As far as getting that information out to us, I think he did a good job but it kind of goes against the trend of trying to convey everything visually.  If this movie had no sound, you wouldn't have any idea of what was going on.

Quoted from Lakewood He gets points for trying to liven things up by switching languages to make the scenes less static.

I agree this made it much easier to read. I couldn't imagine having to read the one big block of dialogue from one news reporter just to fill us in. I would have probably skipped it if they did.

As for the action, the bit with Langdon falling down in the church while Mr Gray tries to shoot him from above bored me. We know he's not going to get killed but it would have been so much better if he took a bullet in the arm or something. Afterall, he's no James Bond.

I think that the dialogue serviced the story. The exposition was necessary at some points and although it might stick out like a sore thumb on paper, good actors do it in such a way that people don't notice.

Here I'll sneak off the topic of real dialogue to speak about the V.O. in the beginning.

This is what I wrote in my notes:

"The Reporter" is starting to annoy me. They've slunk out of

The Papal Apartment - Day

In The Hallway Just Outside The Apartment - Day

Int. St. Peter's Basilica Day

And into a new day outside St. Peter's Basilica

Ext. St. Peter's Basilica Day

*Note that my annoyance is only from a story reading perspective. From a technical script writing perspective (story aside for a moment) I think this was cleverly done to move us forward in the set-up. In the film, the voice over will be probably be very subtle in so much as we are carried by the pictures and the reporter's voice just flows naturally.

I think that the writing is clearly very strong in that it works the transitions extremely well.

I just don't have a lot of negative things to say about this script. Yes, some people have made the point about skimming through the reporter's dialogue because you hear it once and that's really all you need. Again however, it will transmit completely different on the screen.

Sandra

The penultimate topic is the writing. Obviously, we're dealing with a professional screenwriter, and his writing is very easy to read and follow (at least for me). The script literally reads like he was sitting there watching the film and just writing down what he saw. We know that a lot of script are written like this, and obviously, if the script reads well enough, no one will care about some of the things people have already touched on (the dreaded "we see's" being the largest complaint I've seen).

However, fast forward through the script to well into the story and you'll find these "we see" moments all but disappear. Was he trying to get into and once he did, he got into a good writing groove? It actually looks that way. Check out page 100:

INT TUNNEL NIGHT

Police flashlights switch on and their beams bounce crazily off
the walls of the tunnel.

Footsteps CRUNCH as they all press in, Langdon and Vittoria
content to let men with guns lead the way.

It gets darker as they descend, and then, by the echo of their
footfalls, they can tell they've entered --

A LARGE CHAMBER.

More lights are switched on, illuminating the space, which
terminates in three stone walls.

LANGDON
It's a dead end.

But the Police attention is focused on the black van parked in the
center of the room.

Roman Police snap into action, flashlight beams bounce everywhere,
guns point in every possible window of the van, SHOUTS for
whoever's inside to get the hell out now, now, now.

The doors are flung open.

The van is empty.

Except for the two dead policemen from the Piazza Navona.

The police frenzy reaches an even higher level, URGENT MESSAGES
passed along on radios, half the Cops turning and heading back out
of the tunnel.

LANGDON (cont'd)
Where are they going?

Vittoria listens to the orders being given in Italian.

VITTORIA
Back to search the outer castle.

-----

There are no we see's on the page, and yet, there are many instances where there could have been. The whole thing reads very quick, very action-esque, and very easily. So Koepp passes from almost amateurish to very pro as the script progresses. Maybe it was just easier to convey those earlier images the way he did: by focusing the reader's attention on what "we see."

Yes, those sections could have been written differently, but perhaps he's also worked with Ron Howard before, and maybe they talked through those sections, and he just took those notes and dropped them verbatim into the script.

This is obviously not the place to quibble over the mythical "rules," but what we should get out of such an observation is that we should always consider the most succinct way to write anything. Did Koepp always do that? No, but does anyone always do that? No.

On the whole, I found the writing to be very good with only a few exceptions there at the beginning where I thought it was a tad lazy.

As I said earlier, maybe this SC had less heated discussions because most of us actually thought it was pretty good. There really wasn't that much to complain about. I liked that myself, but maybe for the SC's sake we need to pick something we can really rip apart. Which one do you think we have learned most from? I read produced scripts quite a bit. I love them. Usually more than the films themselves. Sure, they're all far from good and I don't finish them if they don't capture my attention.  I read features by unproduced writers too. I can't really explain why, but they do read differently. Even if I didn't know I can usually tell by the first few pages if it is by a pro or not and if the story will be good or not. I guess for me, the SC's I've learned most from have been something written by SS members or the less than good pro scripts we've had. A&D was a good read and I enjoyed it. What did I learn from it... maybe shorts is what I should stick to.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear Even if I didn't know I can usually tell by the first few pages if it is by a pro or not and if the story will be good or not

You should be a producer.

Choosing A&D as a script had problems in that some read the book, some didn't (myself in the latter category). An original screenplay would cause more of a discussion IMO. Those who didn't read the novel had a tough time following the background story with the antimatter bomb, while those who read the book knew the backstory already and maybe didn't realize it wasn't explained thoroughly... (as an example)

I agree with Pia, an unproduced script would most likely be beneficial to the next SC.

Hey guys, I'm afraid I still haven't finished this, but I just wanted to say something about why I think it might not be perfect SC materia, because the question of why it got picked up has a very simple answer: it's based on a best-selling book by the author of the insanely popular (and not very good) Da Vinci Code, and the first film (while also not being very good) was a financial success. Add in the fact that Tom Hanks is willing to play the lead again and this was going to be made even if it was a stinking pile of poo. Which, from what I've read, it isn't, but that's besides the point.

I personally think there's more to be learned by an original script by a not-very-well-known writer, or an unproduced script from SS. But since I voted, said I'd participate and then haven't, I understand if my opinion in SC has been dented somewhat.

My 2 cents (why is it 2?)

Jon

Quoted from George Willson However, fast forward through the script to well into the story and you'll find these "we see" moments all but disappear. Was he trying to get into and once he did, he got into a good writing groove?

Koepp is pretty consistent on his use of WE throughout the script.  There's quite a few in the last 25 pages.

He mostly inserts with We.  In the scene you quoted he doesn't ask for an insert.  Sometimes he moves the camera with WE but mostly it's a stop and look technique.  As a writer he likes "We".  It works for him.  It doesn't disappear when he's in a good writing groove.  He uses it when he needs it.  

Quoted from theMADhatter You should be a producer.

Oddly enough, I have become one, but something for TV rather than film.

I voted for A&D because I love this type of stories. Mystery, a little history, some science and so on. I also loved the book and am looking forward to the film. I might be the odd one out here, but I actually liked the film DaVinci Code too. It wasn't great, but a lot better than some other crud out there.

You're not alone, Pia. I liked The DaVinci Code as well. I also enjoyed both National Treasures, as they're kind of in the same vein, though I still hold the first National Treasure as the most interesting of all of these.