Compare 'Da Vinci Code' with movie and novel

New writers have approached writing screenplays as they would writing novels but this adaptation highlights the differences. The First the Aristotelian dramatic principles have been brought into effect. By using few locations, removing minor characters, deleting repetitive plotting, and using time effectively, Goldsman makes Dan Brown’s story easier to digest. What Goldsman can’t change too much are the ingredients of the novel’s plot but he can try and make them more pleasant.

For example, a bad guy is captured and transported hundreds of miles for no reason whatsoever in the book - except to help the plot later. In the movie Goldsman gives a reason, ‘we might need him’. For what reason on could he possibly be needed for? There's no need for that but at least Goldsman tried.

The movie adaptation of the text is as similar as the text itself. The movie and book both start out exactly the same: Sohpie Neveu’s grandfather is murdered in The Louvre by the albino. Robert Langdon is abroad and is contacted by Interpol to look at the body. Sophie gives Robert her cell phone to listen to her voicemail message telling him to meet her in the bathroom. Sophie tells Robert about the tracker in his jacket pocket, and she attaches it to the soap and throws it out the window. The two sneak back into the museum to look at the body. They find the clues in black light writing, then the fleur-de-lis key. They are then chased out of the museum by security, and must run for safety. Simultaneously, the albino monk has killed the final living members of the primary guardians of the grail.

The safety deposit box scene at the bank was extremely similar as well. The scene at Lee’s house is almost verbatim from the book, which I thought was great.

I’m getting a little confused with the cryptex. I believe in the book there were two, one embedded within the other; and in the movie there was only one. (book and movie were starting to merge!) But both words to open the final clue were Apple.

The major difference between the book and the movie was Sophie. In the book, the story revolves around Sophie, her family, and her past. In the movie, the story is about how Robert helps solve the crime. I wish that the movie would have made Sophie more of the lead character she was in the book. But I understand how Hollywood works, and how Tom Hanks had to be the movie lead. However, I don’t think it would have made much of a difference if Sophie has the larger role she did in the book.

Another difference was the man at the church at the end of the movie. We are led to believe that he is just someone that works at the church, however in the book he is Sophie’s brother. Sophie was led to believe that her parents and brother were killed in a car crash, but it was a rouse to split up her family to help protect the bloodline.

The book was more detailed, which is always the case when a book is turned into a movie. Some of the background in the book was extremely interesting… however some of the content is very ‘textbook like.’ I had a flashback to a college art history class, and felt some of it was unnecessary and too much. But I understand and respect why it was included.

The ending of the book and movie were the same: Robert discovering that Mary’s body is being held in the Louvre. However, I feel the movie has more impact. Listening to the score build, and Robert following the Roseline is much more compelling than simply reading the words on paper.