SPOILERS!!
So I read the book like 5 years ago and just watched the movie, and I can't seem to remember exactly. I thought the Carmelgno in the book ended up actually becoming the new Pope? The movie made him the bad guy but I seem to remember him being the good guy, mind refreshing my memory??
"...obviously you're not a golfer."
No, in the book he was evil as well. I just read it this past summer and am having a hard time remembering exactly what happens at the end of the book, but I think it was one aspect that the movie got mostly right.
~H
Or we have some shepard's pie peppered with actual shepard on top.
In the book all the cardinals died, Langdon and the hassassin dont fight in the fountain in the film so Langdon has time to save the last cardinal who becomes Pope, not the lead cardinal in the conclave as in the book. The carmelengo in the film isnt revieled as the Popes real son which he is in the book (and a major factor in him killing the Pope)
More to the point, the director of CERN is missing altogether from the film which takes away Vittorias back story (making the films Vittoria somewhat surplus to requirements)
I saw the car bomb coming a mile off (again different to the book)
One good thing was the change to the ending so we didnt have to suffer langdon falling out of the 'copter from 5 miles up and landing in a stream unharmed, which was a part of the book that I hated when I read it and still makes me shake my head in disbelief that Dan Brown even gave the idea a second thought let alone wrote it down!
It was God's miracle.
Strange things happen....
http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com
Amen, that was soooooo pathetic and easily the worst part of another wise ok book.
shareSPOILERS!!
What I really missed in the movie, was the fact that the Pope is the Carmerlengo's biological father. In the book it was one of the most important things, and it would have been easy to include it in the movie. It was one of the reasons the Carmerlengo killed the Pope, because he thought he was a sinner, having a child.
Don't take everything so seriously ...
Yes, they could have found a way to work that in, I thought...
Faith can move mountains, but dynamite works better.
If you want to get technical, the film is nothing like the book.
Good film, nonetheless, but disappointing since the book was so good.
Agree with most points here.
Good changes in the movie:
1. As someone else said, eliminating Langdon's unfeasable survival from a jump from thousands of feet in the air using only a window-shield tarp as a parachute.
2. Not including the reporter and his camera woman from the book - even in the book they felt like interruptions to the action and didn't enhance the plot all that much.
Bad changes in the movie:
1. Deleting Kohler (one of my favorite characters from the book). Because of this they had to add new characters to the story's final revelation which made it more complicated. They also split and/or amalgamated the characters of Olivetti & Rocher (Richter) in the movie.
2. Deleting Vittoria's father, Leonardo from the plot (their history & relationship added much to the story).
3. Not having the building romance between Langdon & Vittoria (I know it's cliched, but it made for some good moments).
4. Reducing Vittoria's role in the movie (she was practically the hero of the book & remained at Langdon's side almost the hole time - she was constantly filling in the blanks whenever Langdon hit a roadblock. In the film they're not even together after the 1st "alter of science" during the discovery of the "path").
5. Ending changes: In the book:
No one sees the Camerlengo parachute down - he just lands on the church and appears to the crowd - giving way to the whole "miracle" aspect; His supposed hearing God's revelation of the location of the cannister; His true relation to the former Pope & his true origin as a test tube baby; And the fact that he lit himself on fire atop the church, in front of the crowd which made it appear to the public that he was raptured.
P.S. What was the point of changing the Italian Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca into an Irishman named Patrick McKenna?
P.S. What was the point of changing the Italian Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca into an Irishman named Patrick McKenna
He couldn't do an Italian accent? (He IS an actor). And they dyed his hair black in Moulin Rouge, so why couldn't he play an Italian?
shareJust because he's an actor, doesn't mean he can get a believable accent. And even if they dyed his hair, IMO he still wouldn't look Italian.
Don't take everything so seriously ...
Why not use an Italian actor to play an Italian? Raoul Bova or Luca Argentero?
shareWhy not indeed? Plus, to respond to other posts: not all Italians necessarily look Italian - I know lot of Italians with blond hair and you'd probably guess French or English before Italian. I had a friend who came here from Cuba as a child who looked like an average, light-skinned white guy with light brown hair, his first name was "Dan" (which might make you think he was Irish) and except for his last name, you'd never guess he was from Cuba.
I guess I'm questioning why change a major character's name just to make him Irish because he's played by an actor with an English accent. McGregor still could've played the Camerlengo, his name could've still been Carlos like in the book and they didn't really have to mention his ethnic heritage at all.
Your number 4 was a problem with The Da Vinci Code adaptation as well. In the book, as I remember, Sophie makes a lot of the deductions and helps Langdon along. In the movie, she just hangs on his arm while he figures everything out.
I guess the point was the make Hanks the star and superman of the movie, but it makes the other characters a lot less interesting.
In my opinion...
This is true.
It also makes Langdon a much more cliched action-hero in the movies than in the books. The books at least make him a little more believable and much more average (i.e. human) by not making him a complete know-it-all.
The books describe him (at parts) as being very reluctant to be involved, unsure, undecided, having self-doubt, and even scared. While in the movies he seems like Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones and Batman all roled into one!
4. Reducing Vittoria's role. That seems to be pretty standard in Ron Howard's treatments of Dan Brown's books. If you recall in Davinci Code, Sophie was as important in solving the mystery as Langdon by the time it reached theaters, she was dumbed down to barely competent.
shareI agree with everyone who said it was a good cut to take out Langdon falling from the sky. That drove me crazy when I was reading the book. I didn't miss the reporter and camera woman, either.
I liked that they made the victim of the terrorist bombing Irish and not Italian, because I think considering the time line the story is set in, an Irish bombing makes more sense. Ewan was great.
I'm kind of glad the romance was removed, because I don't think Tom Hanks had any chemistry with that actress at all.
Agreed with the falling from the sky part.
I wouldnt have mind seeing McGregor just appearing on top of the building without his chute. But it was pulled quite nicely.
As for the girl.. Actually in both the Dan Brown movies the girl are mostly a tag-along. Its a bit anoying.
The movie ending is better than the book one in some points. I thought it was quite funny how the book ends. With her asking Langdon if he's ever been with a woman who was yoga master hehe..
And in the book he only gets the last illuminati seal. (Which isnt the crossed keys as in the movie) Giving him that book was alot better. Except that, both the movie and book was awsome. I suggest everyone who've seen the movie to also read the book. You wont regret it.
I agree giving Robert the book was better. It tied in to the fact that they made a point that he'd been asking to use it for years. If they had used the last brand in the film, they would have had to throw in all of those diamond references, and I don't think it was needed. Plus by having it be St. Peter's cross, they didn't have to have the poor burned guy running outside to "talk" to God. The brand was the clue to the location of the antimatter. He was awfully spry for someone who had a massive third degree burn as it was.
shareRobert Langdon in the book is a bit of a ladies man...he has a relationship with Vittoria and Sophia (is it sophia aha from the da vinci code?) and theres hints of one in the lost symbol. But I prefer that in the movies he doesnt sleep with every woman he meets.
shareThe sex in the books, thank goodness is not detailed and graphic, and the films have chosen to leave it out entirely. But yes, he does get the girl in every book. I liked his relationship with Sophie in the Da Vinci Code's book best, but Tom Hanks had no chemistry in my opinion with movie Sophie.
shareLangdon in the book is a "reluctant hero" which is actually a proven formula, yet the movie makers jetissoned this idea and made him a forceful hero, in this film he is even arrogant. I thought in DVC he was more like the shy, reluctant hero, with the longer hair to boot.
I don't buy the excuse about Ewan not being convincing as an Italian because his accent was definitely not Irish. Maybe he just intended to have a mid-Atlantic accent because that is how he comes across in my view.
The biggest difference between the book and the movie is the lack of detail given to the deduction of the symbology. I guess you just don't have the time for it in the movies, I find the two completely different mainly due to this.
http://www.socialfreegifts.com
In Angels and Demons, the Carmelgno's death is handled differently, and I think for once it was better in the movie. That whole thing about him disappearing ina wall of flame and ascending to heaven on top of the Vatican just seemed stupid to me.
share