After a bit of a scandal, we have Angels & Demons. Ironic, isn't it? Anyway, this is the David Koepp revision of the script for the upcoming film. I haven't read the book, myself, but I did see The DaVinci Code, so obviously reading the book isn't a requirement, though if you have, you can probably offer some insight on the translation.

The script is not posted online that we know of, but send me a PM with your email address, and I'll send you a pdf. If you requested it previously, you should have it in your email box. If you don't have it, then let me know and I'll resend.

For the flow on this discussion, we'll still start with first impressions, and once it appears that everyone is sufficiently through it, we'll move from topic to topic, but not at any kind of breakneck pace. You are not restricted to one topic if another topic helps to bolster what you're saying about another.

For instance, if your first impression was directly affect by the pacing or structure, then you don't have to hold back. The discussion will simply be guided in the order below.

We're starting with the first impressions, so consider that while reading it through. First impressions are important so I would like to know what your first impression was after reading. Something simple like, Good, Great, Boring, Slow, Exciting, Scary or whatever.
If you feel  the need to say more, as I said, go right on.

The discussion will flow in this order as a matter of moderation:
First impression
Story/structure/plot
Characterization/arc/journey
Dialogue
Writing
Commercial appeal

As the movie isn't out yet, we probably won't discuss the script to screen comparison. If you have downloaded a torrent of the movie, please don't let anyone know. It's still illegal.

Enjoy the read at the very least, and we'll see how this one goes.

I liked it.

Some things have been changed from the book, but I think it worked.

It's difficult to ignore the book when judging this script but I'll try.

First impression: Good, a little on the long side but good.

Several things have changed from the book but all necessary stuff I think. The opening has been shortened severely and in the book, Langdon is on the helicopter when the Carmalengo flies away with the antimatter. I particular welcomed that change cos' that ruined the book for me - it almost turned Langdon into 007.

I read the book.  And having just finished the script my first impressions are:

They tried to cram too much into this screenplay - they cut out a large amount from the book and even though they chose pretty wisely what to include, I still I worry that it will be a jumble on the screen like the Da Vinci code was.  

I also thought the pacing was slightly off in a few spots.    

I haven't read the book, so I have nothing to compare it to.  I have not read much yet, but first impression is that it's going to be 'heavy'.

Heavy is a good word to use, I think. Obviously, it helps if you're into the whole riddle-solving thing otherwise it can get quite cloggy - at best.

Sure this one is a little meatier than some of the other fluffier or flatter scripts we've read here. I would be concerned if it wasn't.

And who knows how long this will be on film? It might be 2 hrs or more.


You people are just not going to convince me this one is bad!  

I think it's going to be around 2½ hours, 2h 20m maybe.

You could cram it into < 2hours but you would lose a lot I think.

EDIT: Just checked IMDB and they're posting 140 min (don't know if that will hold up in the end).

Over half of this thing is people running and jumping.  The 140 minutes surprised me.  I figured it would be less.

Koepp is good writer.  He knows how to write action to time.  He gives you a 133 pages and you're going to pretty much hit around 133 minutes.

Quoted from Lakewood Over half of this thing is people running and jumping.  The 140 minutes surprised me.  I figured it would be a lot less.

Did you time it using the Steve Austin method?

chuh-chuh-chuh-chuh

cha-cha-cha-cha

wa-wa-wa-wa-wa

If only, all I heard were Tubular Bells and Tom Hank's hips creaking under the strain.

Quoted from Lakewood If only, all I heard were Tubular Bells and Tom Hank's hips creaking under the strain.

Hips creaking?  Nonsense.

Hm, copyright 1994... Maybe his hips creak more now than they did then.

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

Other than that, it felt like it was done by the numbers (in a both a good and bad way).  Fairly standard Hollywood story.  Should make for an entertaining view, but nothing special.

That's all I've got for "first impression", I guess.

Never read the book.

Quoted from George Willson Hm, copyright 1994... Maybe his hips creak more now than they did then.

Tom Hanks is forever.

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.

Hey guys and gals, I wanted to jump in here and let you all know that I will not be able to take part in this SC.  I apologize, but I've got way too many things going on right now, and I don't see this as a script that I have any interest in, either.

I saw Da Vinci Code at the theater, and was so far from impressed.  I read the first 10 pages of this script and was completely lost and bored out of my firckin' mind.  Like many, I don't understand the religious stuff going on, and frankly don't care to spend the time researching it.

You guys jumped right in and you're already deep into the discussion.

Sorry, but I bet my constant complaints and putdowns won't be missed here at all.

Enjoy and I hope to be a part of the next one.

Jeff,

sometimes you're weird.

I've seen your comments in the Fade thread and you complaining about how the poll thing went down. I guess I missed something because I'm lost there...

In regards to scripts that we read here, I don't think it has to be our favorites. The point is to study scripts. What works and what doesn't. Why something gets produced while others don't and so on. I don't think it was ever meant to be a "I want MY FAVE to be discussed now" kind of thing.

If you hated the first ten pages of A&D I guess you completely failed to appreciate the visual transitions between the scenes which I personally thought were great.

Anyway, maybe the next one will be more to your liking.... Although, I couldn't care less because I don't think favorites is what the SC is about.

Quoted from Grandma Bear to appreciate the visual transitions between the scenes which I personally thought were great.

Yes, you are so right.  The transitions between scenes are so smooth.  They really just flow together.

Look at how it moves between shapes and colors...

That's visual art. May not be exciting to read about, but looks great on film.

Pia, Pia, Pia...

I'm a bit taken back at what you just said.  I have taken part in pretty much every single SC that I can remember. And not only have I taken part, I've been a major contributor.  I've done everything in my power to keep the discussion going, whether or not I liked the script, or the subject matter.  I bet if you wanted to go back and check, you'd find that not only have I been a major contributor, but I've posted the most, both in terms of each SC, and all combined. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

I've got some MAJOR personal issues going on right now.  I am moving on 3/27, and at this point, I don't know where I'm going, or how I'm going to get there.  These are my own issues, and I don't blame anyone else.

I apologize, again.  If I could, I would.  I can't, and I don't see where my input is going to matter at this point.

You are right though...I am wierd. Very wierd, actually, and I guess it's catching up to me.

Sorry to all again.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Look at how it moves between shapes and colors... That's visual art. May not be exciting to read about, but looks great on film.

Yes, but if you're going to write screenplays, I believe you have to have the inner eye of an artist to make it play out.  Then you translate that art into words, and this script works very well that way.  Shapes and colors.  Exactly.

Don't be silly Jeff. I love your input. Even if "blunt"

I just didn't get the problem with the big fade script. I guess I missed something there. I do think though that we learn as much from good and bad scripts alike. What I like and what you like might be completely different however, but that's okay.

I hope you get things sorted out on your end. No hard feelings on my side...  

but, there's just no fucking way you're gonna tell me this thing is dull!!  

I'm just going to go on record as saying that I don't think it's necessary for anyone to post that they won't be participating.  If you can't do it, you can't. It's really not that big a deal.

In all fariness, he is a MAJOR contributor.

I didn't think the religious stuff was too hard to follow.  He seems to give you enough to know what you need to know.

My problem with the anti-matter is they seem to set it up as some huge catastrophe, "Vatican City will be consumed by light", but when it actually explodes, the guy who was in the helicaopter with it gets a few scrapes, and noo one else seems to get hurt.

I just have to ask, what is all the "religious stuff" that people are having (or think others should be having) a difficult time understanding?  I feel like if you have a basic understanding of what the Catholic Church is, and know that it's led by the Pope, then you should be good to go.

Led by the who now?

You may know him better as "old guy with funny hat".

Not to cause more problem here since it seems I'm good at that, but...

No one wants to discuss the script? This is the most quiet SC I think we've ever had. Surely there are somethings we could discuss...

Well, everybody got the script starting on Monday, so I suspect there are people reading through it. Not that a script takes that long, but I got another request for it today, so where previous SC's have had the script out there to peruse while we're discussing titles, this time, no one got it until the title was decided. Could be making a bit of a difference, but we do need to move things along a little so we can liven up the discussion a bit. If you haven't given your first impression, you can still jump in with it, but let's move on to the story/structure/plot side of things.

The story is, of course, based on the book, so we can't much complain to high heaven about that, however much we may think that the concept of an antimatter bomb is a little far-fetched. Add to that the idea that it would only affect a small bit of space. Sure everyone was knocked off their feet on the ground, but for a bomb made of antimatter (a substance that science fiction tells us is dangerous stuff), it was fairly insignificant.

I did find more than a few conveniences within everything, such as them reaching each church in the nick of time; or rather, just in time to see another cardinal bite the dust. I thought the research and conclusions weren't too bad, but when they got stumped by something, they were able to still conveniently find the answer. By conveniently, I mean they were at the Raphael church, and Langdon was able to ask the docent where to go. They saved the last cardinal who was able to tell them where to go.

Then the cops decided Langdon and his little miss weren't worth their time in that pentagonal, and they all left just before Langdon figured out the gap in the wall. But as for that gap, how the heck did our Mr. Grey get the cardinals OUT of that chamber through these gaps? The script didn't indicate they were very big. I could see him taking the secret passage in with them, but that passage is one way, so he wasn't leaving that way.

And the lights going out in the archives. Sure, we got an explanation, but I found it way too convenient to create a stall for time with him trapped down there.

I did think the twist was well done, though. Didn't see it coming. The script as a whole was also good. I enjoyed reading it, and I'm sure I'll enjoy the movie too.

But the storyline took  more than a few liberties with reality to make it 100% plausible. You just have to suspend your disbelief and go with it.

Quoted from escapist 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.

Shelton told me not to say anything (but listening to Shelton falls on the same list as becoming a vegan or going to Portugal this summer).  WE SEE is a technical direction that means there's going to be a steadicam.  If you don't know what it is and you want to write it out then you shouldn't use it but otherwise WE SEE is fine.

You also mentioned characters and you're absolutely right in that they're flat.  But it isn't a character piece and writer knows who he is writing for before he puts a word on paper.  It's not an ideal script to read in a writing class if you're looking for character building.  Koepp was handed a book and a list of already attached actors.  It's easier.  You don't have to build a character because you know who it is.  You write for their voice and their strengths and weaknesses as an actor.  It's like writing a really expensive episode of a tv show.

Tom Hanks gets his wisecracks, he gets to bumble and he gets to save the day.  That's all they want him to do.  Ayelet Zurer is the sexy lady scientist who basically has to deliver exposition and run well in high heels.  That's all they need her to do.  

Is their romance convincing? I can see the dynamic at least between them.  If you look at his career Tom Hanks is generally already married in past films.  Pitching woo to a girl isn't something he does a lot and maybe the writer factors that in as he goes.

Quoted from Lakewood Shelton told me not to say anything (but listening to Shelton falls on the same list as becoming a vegan or going to Portugal this summer).

Lies!  Stop drinking the Kool-Aid!  I didn't say that!  I like shouting!

That was all very informative, Lakewood, but I can't help but feel that it runs a little contradictory to what you told me earlier.

All of that sounds like differences between writing a commissioned script and writing a spec script.  Am I wrong?

Quoted from George Willson I did think the twist was well done, though. Didn't see it coming.

Agreed.  I didn't see it until the confrontation between Rocher and Camerlengo, which is pretty near the reveal.  Before that, I was suspecting Mortati.

In addition to the belief stretchers that have already been pointed out, I want to add a few from this scene.  I can't really see the Swiss Guards being so quick to shoot their commanding officer.  These are guys that have, in all likelihood, never fired on a person before.  And I'd assume that there would be some sort of protocol geared towards apprehension of a suspect.  Chartrand firing on Fr. Simeon was even more of a stretch since he wasn't even armed.  Of course, Fr. Simeon even making the aggressive rush for him seemed completely unrealistic.

Then there's the whole motivation issue...ugh.  Suffice to say, I would've stomached it more easily if Camerlengo had actually been with the Illuminati.

I could go on, but these are all book issues, not script issues.  Sorry, but I had to get that little rant out of me.  

Started reading it, and my first impression is this...

"While they confer, Langdon notices a woman to his left. We recognize Vittoria Vetra, the physicist we saw at CERN."

Anybody think that things like that could be a little more concise?

No, not really.  He's still writing the way he always writes. His "--" and his technical direction. That's what I was saying earlier.  His writing is going to be the same.  

He has what someone with a spec doesn't have though in that he knows exactly what voices he has to write for on the page.  It's not like the technique is going to be different and his style is going to change.

This is a mystery movie, so even though characters are important it's not really their journeys that drive this piece. I don't think.

As far as believability... sure, there are a few things, but seriously, how many movies are really accurate as far as reality and belivability goes?

Quoted Text Anybody think that things like that could be a little more concise?

Yes.  Stuff like that bugs me.

Quoted Text His writing is going to be the same.

I think I probably just need to start reading more produced scripts and get a better feel for individual writing styles.  Might help learn a little bit more about the differences between what's sloppy or bad writing and what's just a stylistic difference.

Quoted Text how many movies are really accurate as far as reality and belivability goes?

I see reality and believability as two entirely different things.  Movies like Star Wars and Princess Bride aren't real, but they are mostly believable within the context of the story.  Believability is what's important to me.

I'm willing to overlook some things for the sake of a story.  Always showing up at the church on the tail of the killer is one such example.  Other things really bug me.  Particularly things that I feel could've been done in a believable way.

That's just my personal taste, though, and I could just be a stick in the mud.  It may even be bad in that it stifles my creativity when I'm writing my own stuff.

Okay, just got the script. I'll try and read it quickly and be ready to comment ASAP. Just finishing a review on Fade to White at the mo...but then the SC will have my attention.

Quoted from escapist That's just my personal taste, though, and I could just be a stick in the mud.  It may even be bad in that it stifles my creativity when I'm writing my own stuff.

That doesn't make you a stick in the mud or stifle your creativity. If anything, it stimulates it. Consider that some of the things we're touching on are believability issues used because the author needed to think of some way to make such-and-such happen. We tend to be slaves to our plots, and sometimes we'll bend the rules of believability to satisfy that plot.

What if you take a minute, step back, and say "now, how would this really happen?" That's stimulating creativity. That's coming up with a better solution for, say, the horror movie victim to be in the killer's house besides just walking in and saying "hello? anyone home?" and then proceeding to rifle through the killer's belongings. Seriously who does this?

And what you're talking about is plausible versus possible. You create some boundaries of a world, and then you operate within those boundaries. We suspend our disbelief to allow these impossible plausibilities to carry us away. What kills us is when the story takes a step outside its boundaries and pulls something we feel it shouldn't. We don't always know, but it's that moment where we say "wait a minute..."

For me, arriving at the church in the nick of time is plot device that the author could have found a better way to deliver. Sure, the first time it was "we don't know the answers yet," but when that's every time, it gets old.

Quoted from JonnyBoy Okay, just got the script. I'll try and read it quickly and be ready to comment ASAP. Just finishing a review on Fade to White at the mo...but then the SC will have my attention.

Shouldn't take you long, Jonny. Despite the 134 page length, it's a pretty fast read, which is a good thing.

Quoted from Shelton Started reading it, and my first impression is this... "While they confer, Langdon notices a woman to his left. We recognize Vittoria Vetra, the physicist we saw at CERN." Anybody think that things like that could be a little more concise?

Actually, I think this is a very good description. This reads like a movie. Like what you see on screen. A reader can easily see exactly what the writer is trying to get across, just like what you would see at the theater. It’s good professional writing in my opinion.


Breanne

Quoted from Shelton Started reading it, and my first impression is this... "While they confer, Langdon notices a woman to his left. We recognize Vittoria Vetra, the physicist we saw at CERN."

He could have just wrote it:  Vittoria Vetra, the only woman in this entire movie.

"While they confer, Langdon notices a woman to his left. Vittoria Vetra."

"While they confer, Langdon notices Vittoria Vetra to his left."

I don't see what's wrong with either one of those.  I get the impression that Koepp thinks readers are stupid.  I like him for that.

Quoted from Shelton "While they confer, Langdon notices a woman to his left. Vittoria Vetra." "While they confer, Langdon notices Vittoria Vetra to his left." I don't see what's wrong with either one of those.  I get the impression that Koepp thinks readers are stupid.  I like him for that.

I think you achieved different effects with your descriptions than the author did with his.


Breanne

I don't see how.  He looks to his left, spots Vittoria.  All in all it's the same result.

I was half expecting him to say "This is Robert Langdon.  You remember him from the first movie."  I'm being facetious of course.

It's really all a matter of style here, but one thing that I take from these scripts clubs and reading produced scripts in general is that big blocks of text aren't really as big an issue as they're made out to be.  Not that the passage we've been discussing was a big block, but they are quite prevalent in the script.

My initial impression, having only read the first 5 pages, is how different this is to a spec script. 'We's everywhere, I spotted a 5-line paragraph at one point...and imagine if one of us posted a script that included the line "...packed with THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND MOURNERS"! We'd be laughed at.

None of those are really criticisms, just an observation that once you've made it you no longer have to play by the rules.

Quoted from Shelton It's really all a matter of style here, but one thing that I take from these scripts clubs and reading produced scripts in general is that big blocks of text aren't really as big an issue as they're made out to be.  Not that the passage we've been discussing was a big block, but they are quite prevalent in the script.

You and your big blocks of text envy.

Text blocks are all about timing your action.  There are a lot of static scenes in this scripts but there are a lot of characters and a lot of things going on in them.

"— the papal office, where the Camerlengo, Rocher, Olivetti, and Vittoria are gathered again, as are HALF A DOZEN other security officers. It's crowded, busy, little knots of jurisdictional arguments and competing theories around the room."

It's written as a single establishing shot.  You use more lines but you occupy less space on the page than if you individually break and place individuals in the scene.  It's more consistent with how much time it occupies on screen.

Compare the blockier text scenes any of the action scenes.  One liners, single words to a line.  It's all about timing.

Quoted from Lakewood You and your big blocks of text envy. Text blocks are all about timing your action.  There are a lot of static scenes in this scripts but there are a lot of characters and a lot of things going on in them. "— the papal office, where the Camerlengo, Rocher, Olivetti, and Vittoria are gathered again, as are HALF A DOZEN other security officers. It's crowded, busy, little knots of jurisdictional arguments and competing theories around the room." It's written as a single establishing shot.  You use more lines but you occupy less space on the page than if you individually break and place individuals in the scene.  It's more consistent with how much time it occupies on screen. Compare the blockier text scenes any of the action scenes.  One liners, single words to a line.  It's all about timing.

Are you saying size doesn't matter?

Seriously, I've gotten about 2/3 of the way through this, and I know exactly what you're saying.  I really like the way some of the action is written, particularly the scene with Langdon and Chartrand in the vault.  It's crisp, it's clear, it's short.

What you said about the establishing shot, I agree with.  When I write something, I usually break each description up as if it were its own shot, but it ends up pretty bare a lot of the time.  I get the point acroass and move on.  

Probably why my subsequent drafts almost always increase the page count.

Finally finished up the whole script, and since this is my first exposure to anything having to do with the series, I'd say I enjoyed it.

The comical side of me kept thinking their search was going to have them eventually hunting for a big W, but that's just ho wmy mind works.

I got a good feel for the sense of urgency and their race against the clock, but I have to admit that I found it a little odd that this devastating bomb of anti matter was powered by a simple battery.  Surely, technology this advanced could come up with a more reliable power source, no?  Or did I just miss something?  I had to read this in spurts between free time at work, so that may very well be the case.

The whole thing about the antimatter and the battery included was explained much better in the book, but I guess there's just so much info you can cram into a 2hr movie.

Mike - you know my "tell don't show" gripe about this script being that Vittoria tells you that her boss' eyes were ripped out, his eyes were used to open a door with a retinal scanner and then someone swiped the bomb.  

The bomb with it's battery and whatnot is a character in the script and it never gets an intro.

I suspected that it had to do with shortening the story to an acceptable film length.  I just found it funny.

Yes, Lakewood, I know you're gripe quite well.  So much so, that I was thinking about it as I read that section.

I recall seeing some mention of a love aspect.  I didn't catch it myself.  Another thing that's more prominent in the book?

I didn't even notice the we's in this script - that's how much they didn't bother me.  Sometimes they do.

George,
The timings on the murders is almost spot on to the book.  In the book it didn't seem as convenient but then again Brown does have a tendency to come up with some convenient plot points that seem passable in context.

The antimatter is much more plausible in the book. In the book there is a first murder that is skipped in this script (but I think they make mention of it) and it explains how the antimatter and Vittoria, for that matter, end up at the Vatican.  Your average person isn't going to care how plausible the antimatter is though.

I think the focus of the script was wisely chosen to be the murders of the cardinals.  That is by far the most exciting part of the book and it transfers well to the screen in terms of action and tension.   I only wish it was set up a bit better because I think some of the context that added to the books tension was glossed over, like the conclave and the antimatter.  

There may well be only so much you can cram into a movie, but how much explanation could this bomb battery possibly need? One character asks an obvious question. Another character answers it as briefly as possible. Boom. Done.

Actually the whole bomb battery thing was kind of like those rented shoes in The Strangers, except in the dialogue. Every so often the woman says, "if we get there in time, I can still change the battery." "We can still get there in time to change the battery." "Did I mention I can change the battery if we get there in time?"

I rolled my eyes the last time she said it. I'm thinking, "We got it. Let it go." Maybe that plays into Mike's comment that Koepp assumes the audience is an idiot.

And then, to really make it more amusing, she gets the thing in her hand with enough time to spare, and then stops everything to comment, "wow, it sure is hot in here, doesn't that decrease battery life?" Are you serious? You're telling me that the timer you've been dependent on throughout this entire story is faulty? It would have been stronger if she pulled out the bomb and it said 3:00, and they say "oh crap, now what?" As it is, the Camerlengo freaks out and runs out with the thing. Weak.

EDIT: And the timings I figured were right on to the book. I'm sure the adaptation is fairly faithful on several of our complaint points making it Dan Brown's fault, not Koepp's. And yeah, the murder of Vittoria's boss/companion was mentioned if that's the one you're thinking on. Dude with his eyes torn out? And FWIW, the majority of the we's weren't distracting at all. There were a few that stood out, so I'm not making any kind of blanket statement on that.

Quoted from mcornetto I didn't even notice the we's in this script - that's how much they didn't bother me.  Sometimes they do.

I noticed them, not that they bothered me or anything but I'm just surprised that he actually used them. The script is fairly well written in my opinion and Koepp could have easily written around them.

Quoted from Shelton I I recall seeing some mention of a love aspect.  I didn't catch it myself.  Another thing that's more prominent in the book?

Langdon and Vetra's relationship grows quite strong in the book. I suppose it doesn't have to mean much, but they do end up in bed together.

In this script there was basically no "heat" at all between them. Come to think of it, like someone mentioned earlier maybe Tom Hanks just doesn't really work well as a romantic lead... Langdon didn't get anything together with the woman in Davinci Code either.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Langdon and Vetra's relationship grows quite strong in the book. I suppose it doesn't have to mean much, but they do end up in bed together.

Wow, how do you spell underplayed? No "heat" is an understatement. She might as well be an old man for all the heat that runs between them.

I didn't think it was a bad choice to not include the relationship.  They didn't have enough time together to develop one in the script and I always thought it was a bit unbelievable in the book as well.  I felt it was thrown into the book as part of a formula.

I'm okay with that. It's actually quite refreshing that the story doesn't involve one of those token love stories. It's not what the movie's about anyway.

And let's not forget that Langdon, as a character, is pretty much a stiff.

I finally finished and thought this got better the longer it went on. I commented on the race against time factor and said it was the best part in the first 50 pages but it had it's problems too. After the second cardinal was killed then they went looking for the third church, it started to feel repetitive. It did pick up when looking for the anti matter though.

I never saw the twist coming so I was pleased with that along with the intercutting of the scenes with Langdon/Vittoria and Rocher/Camerlengo leading up to it.

I also picked up on the writer treating the reader like an idiot. One that stood out was...

In the crowd, Rocher MUTTERS into his radio and to undercover SWISS GUARD scattered throughout. The crowd is unaware of them.

I would hope the crowd would be unaware or they're not doing the undercover part very well, are they?

I haven't read the whole script yet, but my first impressions is it's hard to read. It's way too descriptive... it seems the writer is going to be the custume designer, the cinematographer, director and set designer all in one.

I haven't gotten into the meat (lol I said "meat") of the story yet, so I can't comment fully.

Also, I have not read the book, so that won't affect my review.

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).