Quoted from seamus19382 It might be interesting to take a look at the Goldman draft that they tossed out and started over.  Compare what didn't work, with what did.

I'd be interested in that, except I'd get left behind just like I did initially with this one. I read slow

One thing I wanted to know from everyone: anyone else disappointed at the lack of theme? The theme was Science vs Faith, Illuminati vs Vatican. There were only a few things, other than the main story, that came up and I would've liked to see more. Langdon and faith, his wearing the preist's vestments. Antimatter targeting the Necropolis. Re-creating the moment of creationism using science. The next pope being named Luke, after the doctor.

Langdon being converted would've been better if explored deeper, and using the Illuminati as a red herring proves the theme dropped dead in the water. Anyone else agree?

-kjb.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Btw, I think this is the most positively received script we've had in the SC so far. Maybe that's why it's somewhat quiet here? Maybe there just isn't a whole lot to complain about? Would be interesting to pick up the discussion again if only for a day or two after we've had a chance to watch the film and hear our thoughts on how it turned out compared to the script.

I think the fact that a fair amount of us has read the book also plays a factor because it's really hard (it is for me) to disassociate the script from the book. I still know all the details to the things that were left out of the script (antimatter etc) so I never felt I missed something in the script.

But what it comes down to is that this is a really good script. The only thing that wasn't great were the characters but I didn't feel that that was Koepp's fault. Dan Brown's characters are equally wooden (Langdon is refered to as Harrison Ford in a tweed jacket - and that sums it up fairly accurate imo). But, as mentioned by others, this isn't a character piece per se. First and foremost it's about thrills, action and entertainment.

It'll be interesting to see what the movie will be like, if it's as slow-paced as The DaVinci Code.

[quote=me]
I'm also wondering, if this was not based on a best selling novel and not written on assignment by Koepp, would a studio reader have read past the first 10 pages?

quote]

So I went back and re-read the first ten pages.  I obviously have no idea what someone at a studio would do, since I'm over thirty and tend to watch movies that are over three years old, but I would say overall, my reaction is positive.  

I like the Pope stuff at the begining.  A little glimpse into a world we don't usually get to see.  

I like the back and forth between the Vatican and the lab, although I think the lab stuff falls short.  There's the diaoluge betwenn Vittoria and Phillipe about grids and spectrons and 36kv's that I have no idea what it means.  Whatsoever.  Instead of going jargony, they should have been talking about the potential bad results.

Then you have the long bit of exposition with Langdon. which while long, is interesting.  

Quoted from Lakewood USC 15-30-45-60-90, etc. and variants on it.

As one who studies forms rather religiously, I want to know hat this means. I've never heard of it.

Quoted from theMADhatter One thing I wanted to know from everyone: anyone else disappointed at the lack of theme?

Actually, the theme was pretty clear, and you stated it pretty soldily in your post. It's about science and faith. The discussion about the Illuminati and the church highlights this. The church bringing in Langdon is the attempt to show that science and faith can co-exist. This co-existence is brought to a head at the end with the new Pope declaring it bluntly and taking the name of Luke.

What derailed the total existence of this theme is how the anti-matter was defeated. There was no science/faith collision in that plot. In fact, given that the Camerlengo was behind the plot as a whole really makes me question the use of a bomb at St. Peter's tomb. If he didn't want to blow up the tomb, why take the chance that the bomb would not be found? He risked his own life to get rid of it. Why? Why did he have it put there to begin with? It seems like far too risky a plan for someone who was doing all this for his faith. Especially with there being no Illuminati in the end.

Kinda weird the more I think about it. I'm going to see so many holes in this movie when I finally watch it. The first time through the script, it was awesome. I wonder how I'll feel when we're done discussing it...

Quoted from George Willson As one who studies forms rather religiously, I want to know hat this means. I've never heard of it.

Screenplay beats? Typical USC formula. Incident on or around page 15, page 30, page 45, etc.

Let's go back to character for a moment.  You keep talking about what's not there instead of what is there on the page.

Let's do a breakdown of Vittoria.

What do we know about her?

She works at Cern.  Her initial description is "intense woman in her mid-thirties with the long stride of an impatient person". Phillipe, the first person she has a conversation with, is a little afraid of her.  

With the murder of her boss who has cracked the anti-matter code she is one of the few people on the planet who knows what to do now that it has been stolen.  Which is what brings her into the story.

And once she's there she's not lovable.  She's difficult and blunt and has few social graces.  Her bluntness and impatience drive a lot of key points in the script.  She blurts out about a Papal autopsy which leads to the later scene with the Carmelengo that, yes, the Pope was murdered.  She shreds the Galileo book and sends them on the longest chase in the movie.  She storms into Rocher's office demanding the return of her boss's journals and this scene leads to the discovery of the video.

Is being impatient and a pain in the ass make a rich and fully developed character?  No, but that's who she needs to be to drive the story.  I'm wondering if people on the board would have liked her more if she wept for her boss, if she was more "womanly", softer?

The courtship scene between her and Langdon in the Pantheon is one of the few glimpses we have of another Vittoria.  I liked their conversation where neither of them give anything away.  No, nothing about me can be condensed to a short story.  If you want to know you're going to have to do the research.

Quoted from George Willson Actually, the theme was pretty clear, and you stated it pretty soldily in your post.

I can see the theme clearly, as well. I just thought that I'd see it more than just the backstory (I originally typed 'plot' but the plot was saving the Cardinals from a killer, essentially). Sideplots, little speed bumps, etc. What I mean is, they should've used technology to help their aid for the church (or vice versa). Like, the writing from the book was faded so they scanned it and digitally re-created the writing, etc.

Lakewood, Vittoria was there to drive the story, that's true, but to me it seems that's all she's there for.

-kjb.

Well it looks like I've missed the start on this one, but I'm going to save any reading of the comments until after this post.

My first impression of the script was I wouldn't select it for people learning to write scripts and I would select it for people learning to write scripts.

I wouldn't select it because it's very thick and driven purely by a lot of action and very little character. It's a completely plot driven script that rides on the coat tales of the book and a very successful author.

I would select it because it proves that just because something doesn't read really well, it doesn't mean that it's not a good script in terms of being functional for transmutation into screen format.

This script is functional IMHO. It's just not a fun read. Watching a plot and action film is a lot more fun than reading it whereas reading character driven scripts with interesting dialogue is more fun from a reading standpoint.

Another reason I wouldn't select it is because it consistently "breaks the rules" which, for a beginner, they can't always discern when it's appropriate and when it's not.

For instance, I noticed quite a few camera directions and personally, unless I was a director or was working directly with a director (tee-hee) I wouldn't put them in and I wouldn't advise a beginner to put them in either.

I guess the reason I wouldn't select it for study is actually the reason I would select it- and that's to point out that these things don't belong in script necessarily. But necessarily is very ambiguous I know.

My first impression is that it was a very laborious read, but I felt that the plot structure was well done.

I believe that this script has to be a draft because it certainly isn't polished.

Sandra

Quoted from mcornetto It's funny you should bring up the race against time factor because that is one thing that disappointed me.  They zoomed into the antimatter storyline without much explanation and then concentrated on the murders and almost let the antimatter drop for much of the script.

Michael, you just articulated what I had felt, but it didn't rise enough in my consciousness to put it in my notes. I guess I was putting it down to me missing something.

Yes, I agree. In the set up a whole big production was made with the mercury like substance having the potential to drop and connect with matter thereby making a big boom. At that point I was thinking: Excellent, they've got the race-against-time thing going on, but they never used that to a premium in the script.

I did admire the set up for "why" the power went out inside the hermetic chamber and thus put Landon and company's lives in danger.

Sandra

Quoted from seamus19382 That's a Willie Aames movie pal.  Get it right!

It starred Scott Baio AND Willie Aames : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084945/

At first, I mistook it for Kazaam, starring Shaq Oneal : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116756/

But that'll happen.  Lots of people mistake Scott Baio for Shaq.

Quoted from Lakewood Screenplay beats? Typical USC formula. Incident on or around page 15, page 30, page 45, etc.

Oh, those are page numbers. Got it.

I know the page count was high compared to some of the other scripts we've done, but I personally did not feel this one was a tough read at all. I was really interested and therefore the pages flew by.

I agree with Sniper though. If there was a couple of times where the script was not clear, my brain did fill in the blanks with the prior knowledge from the book. Hopefully in the final film it will not be confusing at all.

And Sandra, in regards to some typos and stuff making it seem unpolished... I believe this is a re-typed version rather than a scanned copy of the original. I have no idea who did it but I appreciate the time taken and I for one will let he/she who did it slide on those minor errors.

This isn't the shooting script.  I am assuming the director will work in some shots here and there of the anti-matter containment tube to build some suspense.  We can find out for sure on the 15th of May.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the writer ever decides how the different shots should be made. The director (I think) and the cinematographer decides that. The writer's job is to tell the story in a visual way, but not to direct it or decide what looks best on film.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I could be wrong, but I don't think the writer ever decides how the different shots should be made. The director (I think) and the cinematographer decides that.

Exactly!  So, we could see more of our little 'tube of doom' throughout the flick.  I'm looking forward to seeing this one!

Quoted from Grandma Bear I could be wrong, but I don't think the writer ever decides how the different shots should be made. The director (I think) and the cinematographer decides that. The writer's job is to tell the story in a visual way, but not to direct it or decide what looks best on film.

http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2007/11/write-shots.html