It's a script with lots of "rich" descriptions and I believe the writer tries to set the tone that the book had. IMO, this may not be as speedy of a read as a 90 page comedy involving just a few characters in few locations. I personally had no problem with this being "meaty". I thought it added to it's depth and interest.

Finished it last night.  So if you haven't finished yet. . .DON'T READ MY POST, as it has SPOILERS OUT THE YING-YANG!

Now, my first impression was that this script was going to be heavy, but in the end it was anything but.  Paralleling CERN and the intricacies involving in the passing of a Pope, and then throwing in a threat from the Illuminati!  At first it just SCREAMED heavy.  Then. . .the script just picked me up and carried me right through it.

1) The Story/Structure/Plot was just the way I like it.  I am a firm believer that the Illuminati exists, so that part didn't hurt for me, and the deeply flawed intricacies of the working of the Catholic Church are very intriguing, followed by the plot that drove and drove and drove right to the end worked perfectly for me. . .until. . .the heat-affecting-the-timer device at the end.  I just groaned when she popped up with that.  However, in my opinion, it recovered with what happened next.  I was totally fooled, as were most I believe, into thinking that whacky Camerlengo was going to sacrifice himself to save them all, then I really loved the way the truth played out via the video footage.  That was sweet!

2) Characterization/arc/journey - The characterization worked really well for me, except for it not really having any depth behind why Langdon and Vittoria connected that way at the end.  Except for the fact that that always happens in the movies, nothing happened to make it make sense.  The journey worked because it helped Langdon fulfill one of his lifelong desires about the Illuminati, and uncovered some of the inner workings of the church.  As I said, the Illuminati are very real to me, and this helped uncover them even a little beyond my own studies of them.

3) Dialogue - I didn't find anything to gripe about with the dialogue.  I could hear it all in my mind and I felt it sounded genuine.  I could hear them all saying it, and the voices were unique to each character.  my own favorite line was on page 75 when Olivetti says "Please.  Make an effort."  That was hilarious!!

4) Writing - Engrossing.  Totally.  Imagery, flow.  Totally.

5) Commercial appeal - Duh.  I'll be in line. . .

It looks like the discussion has trickled a bit, and though we've sort of touched on this already, the next topic is characterization/arc/journey. This film runs kind of like a Bond film in its characterization in that the main character has less of an arc than everyone around him. In Bond movies, the Bond girl is usually the one with the lion's share of character development while Bond remains Bond.

This one seems to follow that general idea where Langdon is just who he is while everyone around him is who we learn about character-wise. We get some idea of him through his knowledge (which reflects your past), his Mickey Mouse watch, his swimming regimen, but really, he doesn't develop. Vittoria is given minimal time, so she remains fairly thin (but what the hell, she knows her battery, right?).

The characterization really goes to the Camerlengo, but unfortunately, his development is primarily aimed towards building a false idea of who he is, so the twist is more shocking. However, we get a very solid idea of where he stands so when his whole motivation is revealed, it may not be ideal, but it's at least acceptable from a plot standpoint.

What it boils down to in my opinion is that this is not a character piece at all. The tension is not created through our care of the characters but through the plot and our curiosity as to where it will go next. The interesting part is that this is not unusual in Hollywood films to forego any extensive character in favor of a cool plot with death and destruction. I would predict that this film as a result will get a lot of initial attention (especially because of the whole scandal surrounding its shooting), but then disappear since we won't really wonder about our heroes because we developed no emotional attachment to them.

People starting out as writers always get the line about rich and developed characters.  In almost all mainstream summer movies the characters serve the plot.  You have to get enough on the page to make your audience like the character but you can't stop the story to do it.

I get Vittoria and I don't find her character to be all that thin.  From her initial introduction you know she's impatient, doesn't suffer fools and she's smart enough to be involved in an experiment that might blow up Switzerland.  

You run into a scientist in a screenplay and it's pretty much even money they're going to be giving the exposition.  And she does.  She's also the one who draws information out of Langdon.

George references James Bond and I would argue that Vittoria is Bond and Langdon a Bond Girl.  She acquires a gun in Vatican City.  She's an expert with that gun.  She defaces the Galileo book because it's the practical save the world thing to do.  She keeps Langdon and the plot moving.

I'm curious to see how the actress plays the scenes where she gets her dead boss' journals.  Scientific research or protecting the information inside from being shoved into some dark room in the archive?

The thing with character development is not just establishing who someone "is", but going beyond that to convince us that this person exists in the real world before and after the story. We get a lot about the people in the story as they are, but very little  to say that once the movie ends that they'll go on. That's why I say the Camerlengo is the most developed because we actually get some history on the guy. We can feel for where he came from and how he got to where he is. No one else has that. Establishing someone's personality is very easy. Throw a couple props and a good actor, and boom, the character has a personality. History and goals, though, are something for the writer's creativity to take care of. An actor can't do that.

It doesn't take a lot of time to be "rich and developed." I've not advocating Godfather or Lord of the Rings level development here. Who has the time for that? Reference the Terminator. It's an action movie and yet we know a ton about Reese, Sarah, and the Terminator himself. We get where they all came from, what their purpose is, and where they hope to be if they survive...well, everyone except the Terminator anyway for that last bit.

Quoted from George Willson Reference the Terminator. It's an action movie and yet we know a ton about Reese, Sarah, and the Terminator himself. We get where they all came from, what their purpose is, and where they hope to be if they survive...well, everyone except the Terminator anyway for that last bit.

It's been quite some time since I've seen the original, but didn't Reese have moments where he was just "Mr. Exposition"?

Terminator?  Really?  That's 1984. That's ancient.  Never go older than 3 years if you want to know how people are writing today.

If you want to talk Terminator I will say that everything we know about those characters serves the plot.  You only give backstory if it serves and builds the current story.

I don't need to know that Rocher grows orchids unless he poisons someone with them.

Reese was Mr. Exposition, but he delivered the exposition in the midst of a chase where the Terminator was hot on their tails.

And Lakewood, there is no such thing as ancient in the world where you can watch almost any movie whenever you want. We learn from the successes and failures of the past, and when something goes right, there's no shame in referencing it. I mentioned the Terminator because it was the first movie that popped into my head that was high action and delivered some decent characters in a short time frame. I watch a ton of movies and I don't pick and choose eras most of the time. If it's supposed to be good, I'll watch it. I would reference a silent film, if I thought it would help...actually.

And if everything they said serviced the plot, then that was one well-crafted story since it also built their characters. Any scene in any film should do one of three things: forward the plot, build character, or get a laugh. The preference is for a scene to do all of those (or at least the plot and character parts). Character is not held in very high esteem in movies since the purely character scenes are the first ones to go. They only serve to make you know the person better, but aren't necessary to push the plot. This is why character scenes should happen in the midst of the plot, so who they are is brought forward within the context of the story.

You see, I'm not advocating turning an action movie into a drama. I'm just saying that a writer can take one extra step to make their characters say or do something within context that tells us just a little more bit more about who they are. It's not all that complex if you know your people. It's getting to know them that takes work.

To head back to a silent film, why not? Metropolis is incredible. Decent plot and really decently crafted characters for a silent movie that used a minimal number of intertitles.

Quoted from Lakewood I get Vittoria and I don't find her character to be all that thin.  From her initial introduction you know she's impatient, doesn't suffer fools and she's smart enough to be involved in an experiment that might blow up Switzerland.

Or involved in an experiment that might cause a really bright light and knock people over!

I get your point about not really needing depth of character here, but I found I didn't really feel anything about her one way or another.  I  just got nothing.  

I mean, if she had been killed, would you have really cared?

I do think that the characters do not come across as very deep interesting people when reading this script. However, we know Langdon a little bit from DaVinci Code, but still... Anyone who's not seen or read that one should still be able to feel something for him here in this one. I agree with Sniper that he does come across as "stiff" in the script and I hope Hanks makes him a little more interesting on screen because he does come across as dull and uninteresting in this script. Do I even dare say that he scores low on the masculinity scale? Well, at least for me he does.

Vittoria (I'm having a hard time with her name. I still remember a few Finnish words...) was much more interesting and dynamic character in the book as was Camerlengo, but at least they let him reveal somethings about himself here.

Maybe there just isn't enough room in a 2hr film to make all the characters interesting, but I do think they need to fix Langdon's character a little if they ever make a third film.

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?

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.  

George has e-mailed me this script so i'll have a look over the weekend.  But getting backto the Terminator references. On the deluxe edition dvd, James Cameron mentions he deliberately gave Reese all the exposition lines during the chase scenes so it wasn't boring. And it works very well in what is a classic film.

Quoted from Lakewood Terminator?  Really?  That's 1984. That's ancient.  Never go older than 3 years if you want to know how people are writing today.

I think Terminator is a very good example of an action movie that delivers a lot of explanatory exposition as it moves along.

You think any movie made more than three years ago is irrelevant for studying how to write today? I’m sorry but that just doesn’t make sense to me.


Breanne

If you're an academic or reading for pleasure then there isn't anything that's ancient.  If you want to be a working screenwriter and are reading for story structure and technique don't go back more than three years.  

Quoted from Lakewood If you're an academic or reading for pleasure then there isn't anything that's ancient.  If you want to be a working screenwriter and are reading for story structure and technique don't go back more than three years.

I do work as a screenwriter and I just don’t get what you say at all. I get offered assignments that are influenced by movies more than three years old.

I can understand when you say technique…to a degree. I, like every screenwriter should, try to keep up with screenwriting trends and new or currently used techniques. But are you suggesting that basic story structure was different in the eighties than it is now?

The top three films at theaters right now (Race to Witch Mountain, Watchmen, and The Last House on the Left) are either remakes or based on previous material from more than twenty years ago. The basic structure of all three is the same as it was in those days.

In fact, the basic structure of stories has changed very little in all of history. Are you suggesting some new way of structuring stories has occurred in the last three years?

I think any writer, whether academic or working screenwriter, can learn from the films of the past.


Breanne

Quoted from Grandma Bear I hope Hanks makes him a little more interesting on screen because he does come across as dull and uninteresting in this script.

I watched the trailer last night, and one of the two things that bothered me was Tom Hanks.  I couldn't help wondering to myself when he stopped being a good actor.  The other thing that bothered me was the casting of Ewan McGregor as Camerlengo.  

As for the characters, I think they're fine for what this movie is.  As has been pointed out already, this is not a character piece.  I think the real problem with Vittoria is that she simply isn't given enough screen time.  Several minor characters seemed like they had nearly as much as she gets (Olivetti, Chartrand, Rocher).