I'm wondering if the story is hard to follow for those who have not read the book?

Another question too, if this was written by one of us, would anyone complain about exposition in the dialogue? Just curious...

Quoted from Grandma Bear I'm wondering if the story is hard to follow for those who have not read the book?

Should it be?  I felt it was pretty much a standard action movie plot.  As I said before, by the numbers.  The motivation was a little fuzzy at the end, but that's a different issue I'd say.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Another question too, if this was written by one of us, would anyone complain about exposition in the dialogue? Just curious...

Yeah, there might be a complain here and there but considering the ton of info the characters (especially Langdon) have to get across, I really don't see any way around it.

Sure, you could probably throw in some flashbacks to explain the whole Illuminati vs The Church feud but I think you'd get in trouble budget wise (not to mention the runtime, which would be fairly longer that way).

I read the book, and even after reading the screenplay, can't remember a single thing about it.  I think this was well crafted.  Moves quickly, hits it's marks.  Makes you think just enough to make you feel like you're thinking with out really requiring you to think.  

And yes, i do think there would be complaints about the amount of exposition in the dialogue.  It seemed like there were a lot of pages of just two characters talking to each other.  Although I'm not sure how you could have gotten away with either cutting it, or dramatizing it.

I found the love angle with Langdon and Vittorria as completely unbuyable.  She gves paper thin a bad name, and exists just as an explanation of the antimatter, then to kiss his hand at the end.

Quoted from escapist I was really struck by how different this was from a spec script.

I don't know what that means?  It's a David Koepp script.  He always writes like David Koepp regardless of if he's been paid upfront or on the backend.

Ah, finished. First, I am totally engrossed by this type of storyline -- that being the type that uses existing stuff both modern and historical to paint an entirely new or revisited and interesting picture of the way we perceive the world. I loved National Treasure as well, and this is that kind of tale.

So given that I've researched various parts of religion and that sort of thing, I enjoyed it a lot. I thought the factual side of it worked well. Of course, that's more a credit to Dan Brown than David Koepp.

From a movie perspective, it was fun. You've got your chases and near hits that give this story the momentum it needs to survive. You've got a plethora of facts and exposition that really can't be done much of any other way and that we need for it all to make sense. In a book, this would be delivered as our main character "considers" the situation in his head. In a movie, it must be stated through dialogue or visually, and dialogue is simply the quickest way to do it. As long as it remains interesting, it works, and I found it interesting.

The weakest part I got out of it was the characters. The Camerlengo was the strongest one through the course of the story, but that's kind of to be expected in a story like this. To top that off, this is a movie sequel, so it assumes you know about  The DaVinci Code to establish Langdon's character.

But there's my wordy first impression.


To address the last comment about it not being like a spec script well, it's true. This one has a lot of very directed points, but at the same time, they weren't always distracting. There were quite a few "we's" that were completely unnecessary, and it could have been written better, but I figure we'll touch on those point when we hit the writing topic. Yeah, I'm holding back.

Quoted from George Willson To top that off, this is a movie sequel, so it assumes you know about  The DaVinci Code to establish Langdon's character.

Though - book wise - A&D is actually a prequel to The DaVinci Code.

I've only read up to page 50 and I must admit, I struggled early on. I felt it took a while to get started but fortunately it has picked up the pace from the Archives scene onwards.

I'm not familiar with the book although I have seen the DaVinci Code movie but can't remember much about it. I haven't seen the trailer or read any news on Angels or Demons so I had no idea what it was going to be about before I started reading so maybe that's why it took a bit to get going for me.

I'm not really familiar with all the religious terms and the procedure for selecting a new pope so some of it has been a bit confusing. My first impression has changed from "boring" in the first 20 pages to "enjoying it" up to page 50, due to the whole race against time factor.

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.  

Yeah, despite the fact that the anti-matter is the story's big McGuffin, it's given a very minimal backstory. That prologue is about the extent of it, and yeah, I didn't understand that at all. I can only imagine that the book goes into it more thoroughly since it sounds like the sort of thing that an entire chapter would be devoted to.

Perhaps my familiarity with the religious terms helped me follow the story better early on.

Quoted from George Willson That prologue is about the extent of it, and yeah, I didn't understand that at all.

This is where it gets a little complicated, having read the book or not, I mean. Having read the book I already know pretty much what there is to know about the antimatter, as basically the whole opening of the book is used to describe it. But I can definitely see the script's shortcomings in that department now.

That's kind of what I meant when I asked if those who had not read the book understood it all. I thought it was perfectly explained in the book.

Quoted from Lakewood I don't know what that means?  It's a David Koepp script.  He always writes like David Koepp regardless of if he's been paid upfront or on the backend.

I'll take your word on that.  This is the first Koepp script I've read.  What I mean is that it felt sloppy, like time was more important than having a polished piece.  There is an abundancy of "we sees", most of which could easily be rewritten to convey the same meaning.  There's one place where action was written in the dialogue.  The Archives originally have a revolving door, which becomes an electric door after the power outage.  Mr. Gray picks up his briefcase twice at Sant' Angelo.

I agree that the characters felt a little flat.  Langdon and Vittoria, as main characters, were extremely underdeveloped.  We never really see a personal side of Langdon, aside from his slight antagonism towards the Church.  Vittoria was a generic female professional.  This was my biggest complaint about the script, aside from some believability issues.  Those are admittedly Dan Brown's to answer for, however.

I think I need to add that I believe this is a re-typed script rather than a scanned one so there may be a couple errors not made by Koepp.

I am not very far in yet, but I can tell I'm going to be engrossed in this.  I am up to Langdon's introduction.  

I have to address something Mr. Willson said about the "we's" in the script.  I have heard people say that the use of "we" in a script 'throws them out' of the experience.  I myself find it to have just the opposite effect.  It draws me in and makes me feel as though I'm right there with the screenwriter as we 'live' the story.  

Just my two cents on that matter, but the script is getting very cool for me.  I'll post more related thoughts as I progress.