I made the mistake of reading the novel shortly before I saw the film and spent the entire time suppressing outbursts of shocked 'fanboyism', was anyone else irritated by some of the plot points that they changed even though there was no real need? (I would put some examples but I have no idea how to use the spoiler function)
This usually happens in books turned movies. Lots of things, like what characters are thinking and certain feelings don't translate very well from paper to film so sometimes things are re-written to be better portrayed on screen.
this was a considerably less bad offender than many other books turned movies. I mean look at the Bourne Identity. There is barely any resemblance from the book to movie (mind you, that was to serve a specific purpose, but the point is still valid). This movie hit all the major points of the book, mind you, I haven't read Angels & Demons since well before the Da Vinci Code movie hit.
The whole point of the book was sorely missed. However, I always felt that Angels and Demons would make a better movie than Da Vinci Code because of the chase for the priests. There's also more action in it than The Da Vinci Code.
There are just two things I can't forgive about the movie: the omission of Maximillian Kohler (effectively cutting the Science side of the Science vs. Religion debate which is, for most of the book, was its major theme), and Langdon's trip to CERN. and the inaccurate ending.
Robert Langdon was supposed to be in the helicopter.
The whole point of the book was sorely missed. However, I always felt that Angels and Demons would make a better movie than Da Vinci Code because of the chase for the priests. There's also more action in it than The Da Vinci Code.
There are just two things I can't forgive about the movie: the omission of Maximillian Kohler (effectively cutting the Science side of the Science vs. Religion debate which is, for most of the book, was its major theme), and Langdon's trip to CERN. and the inaccurate ending.
Robert Langdon was supposed to be in the helicopter.
I've read the book, it was ok, the pacing was good but there seemed so many whatever moment. I wont be watching the film as I hate Tom Hanks. As a rule you shouldn't watch films of books you like. You spend your time wondering why this or that has been changed. Plus you know the ending.
Oh come on, that one was very accurate to the book. The main character was named Johnny, and there was a character named 'Dizzy' Gilespi and a war with a race called bugs and...and...yeah very accurate.
I've read the book, it was ok, the pacing was good but there seemed so many whatever moment. I wont be watching the film as I hate Tom Hanks. As a rule you shouldn't watch films of books you like. You spend your time wondering why this or that has been changed. Plus you know the ending.
This is what happens with ALL book movies. Look at Harry Potter. Biggest screwup of a movie ever, and the only reason they vomit up more is because people love the books.
This is what happens with ALL book movies. Look at Harry Potter. Biggest screwup of a movie ever, and the only reason they vomit up more is because people love the books.
Honestly I find those movies to be better than the books. I for one am a big critic of her writing quality, it's great for children's books, but she can't really portray complex relationships or emotions very well and from a more mature perspective its full of plot holes and abrupt almost out of character changes and actions.
The movies in my opinion tended to tone it down, well water it down like movies tend to do, and in this case I found it a good thing.
Well since the book was based on conspiracy theories know to be false (Entertaining conspiracy theories mind you), that isn't exactly a bad thing. I liked the novel but its easy to see how some things wouldn't work/couldn't fit.
But as a rule I think movies should remain true to the novel whenever possable, unless the author likes the change, The Mist for example. I suppose its a matter of: "Do it right, or not at all".
I've read the book, it was ok, the pacing was good but there seemed so many whatever moment. I wont be watching the film as I hate Tom Hanks. As a rule you shouldn't watch films of books you like. You spend your time wondering why this or that has been changed. Plus you know the ending.
Well since the book was based on conspiracy theories know to be false (Entertaining conspiracy theories mind you), that isn't exactly a bad thing. I liked the novel but its easy to see how some things wouldn't work/couldn't fit.
But as a rule I think movies should remain true to the novel whenever possable, unless the author likes the change, The Mist for example. I suppose its a matter of: "Do it right, or not at all".
I think that it's almost never possible to remain true. Books are just a much better medium to convey exactly what you want to convey whereas Movies rely upon the audiences observational skills, the visual effects level, the directors ability to convey the story, the actors' skills and the budget.
I think that all cuts that were made are pretty reasonable because the movie would have otherwise just gotten far to long, I mean, it's already ca. 2.5 hours.
The only cut that I thought was unacceptable was the one with CERNs boss (no description for spoiler reason)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
