Procrastination II: More Adventures Before a Deadline

There's work to be done this week, and a lot of it. Wait, forgive me, that's how I began the last "Adventures Before a Deadline." Pardon me for a few moments while I consider the implications of plagiarizing oneself. Wait, forgive me, you're reading this all at once and won't notice the delay.

Forget I mentioned it.

Truth be told, this entire year's been a procrastination. No, seriously, practically all of 2010. Yeah, there was the occasional gig that required me to physically show up somewhere and work (which, this year, happened to typically be in Las Vegas, which isn't exactly conducive to working hard), but for the most part everything's been a work at home deal (which isn't exactly conducive to working hard).

Met a lot of cool people this year... both via the virtual world and via the real world (what a hazy line that's become, eh?). Some are people who were already writing when I met them, many of whom should pursue publishing (and some who should not). Some are people who I - cough, cough - "strong-armed" (as they'd put it, no doubt) into giving creative writing a shot (surprise, surprise - or not - they're actually good!). Other than that, though, everyone I've met has been a bastard.

Okay, not really, but I'm going for symmetry here. Because, well, looking for symmetry is keeping me from my work, which is what this is all about.

So how else has 2010 been a procrastination? Well, I'll tell you. I've been "trying" to get to my current location for a long time. I left a previous location in October of 2009... and got all of 80 or 90 miles to a friend's house. At which point two of my dogs ran away for five days and screwed up my entire schedule. And instead of getting immediately back on track, I stayed put until March of 2010 (which is when things got a bit... tenuous). From March until July of 2010 I let myself get a tad too comfortable in yet another location that was not my intended location.

Until, finally, I got here. Not that any of that will make sense to anyone (well, it will to a handful, but probably not to you).

I'd have been here earlier, mind you, but a dust-up with a landlord and a delay in work material screwed up my entire schedule. At least no runaway dogs were involved (although a runaway cat almost played a hand).

So here I am, once again rushing before a submission deadline for publication. I thoroughly enjoyed the research portion, but am now caught in the mire of actually producing what my contract dictates I produce. It's not helping that there are a couple of people I prefer wasting my time with (not that I consider them wastes of time... far to the contrary, in fact). Then again, I've given away all of my televisions, brought none of my video games with me, and have temporarily given up any semblance of a nightlife (to and including a substantial personal life).

One would think there'd be nothing to procrastinate with, eh? Ah, Hell no! There's Facebook!

Hang on... time for a status update. "JeffScape is a lazy bastard."

Yeah, that seems to fit at the moment.

Rating My Own "Write Anyways"

Yeah, so I caused a hub-bub. Been there, done that... probably going to do it again. Oh, but what hub-bub? Maybe you didn't ask that, but I'm going to assume that you did, despite my disdain for assumptions. Nyah.

Writing, that's what. In case you missed it, I wrote a piece concerning some philosophies I have toward the act of writing. Quick summary: 1) If you want to write, then write. 2) Writer's block doesn't exist. 3) Most of what you write will be crap. 4) Type even when you think of nothing. You can read the original rant here: On Writing: A Philosophy.

To punch those points home, I followed that one up with a list of 11 recent things I've written under the auspices of "type even when you think of nothing." That list is here: Write Anyways.

Naturally (well, in retrospect... I honestly felt that the topic would go away... wrong again!), several people emailed and/or called and asked which of those 11 pieces I felt were crap and which I felt were decent. When I said which were which, I got some strange reactions followed by more questions. So... I'm going to offer a cursory glance at my opinions of my own writing (which, believe it or not, I find rather odd to be doing):

First, the ones I like:

• Uriah and Uriel: A Dialogue - this one wrote itself, and since it marks the first time that's ever happened to me, I'm rather partial to it.
• Murder Mystery: An Exercise in Plot Creation - this one also wrote itself and reveals a sentiment that (I believe) all writers have.
• Judicial Contempt - I'm actually on the fence with this one, but it's a companion to "Uriah and Uriel: A Dialogue," so I put it in this list.
• Candy Girl - the twist came out of nowhere and was a lot better than where I thought the story was going.

Now, the ones I don't like:

• Shadow and Sign - chaotic and unclear... definitely not into this one.
• Overthought and Underdead - there's something to this one, but it's not quite right... something went unsaid, if that makes sense.
• Go Tell It On the Molehill - to be honest, I find this one a bit charming, even though it's a bit false in sentiment.
• Gaia's Lust - I'm guessing I was on a Greek Mythology kick. Oh, wait... I'm always on a Greek Mythology kick.
• F-ing Up - basically transcribed (and fictionalized) a real conversation... more an exercise and less an actual attempt at writing.
• His Wings Were Not Armor - had high hopes for this one, but my aim was low.

And one I didn't like, but after thinking about where the story will go, I now like:

• The Window Blinks When the Mirror Sees - of course, this doesn't mean the rest of the story will be any good... still, it proves a point I try to make: what's written can be worked on; what's not written has no chance.

There's also been a new "Write Anyway" since I posted the list (The Scheherazadi, Part I), and I kinda like it.

What does this all mean? Not a damn thing, really. I'm just one opinion among, what? 7 billion? But I was asked, so there's my answer.

Commentaries

I write. I am not a writer, but I write. And while I enjoy the virtual vanity of accumulating comments on this blog, I essentially follow Caffeinated Joe's philosophy and write for myself. I think it's great that other people read my crap, and I wouldn't change that for the world.

That stated, I (and many of my blogging companions) have noticed that many, many, many commenters seem, well, disingenuous.  Over the past few months we've identified many laughable habits and have even come up with terms describing these particular blog "readers." And I figured I'd share them with you.

• Alpha-Omegas - these are the people who, usually when dealing with admittedly lengthy blog entries, only read the first and last paragraphs of that entry, and leave comments in the hopes that you won't notice. These "readers" fancy themselves as extremely clever, though often their comments provide glaring evidence leading to the conclusion that they have no idea what your piece is about.
• Charlie Tunas - simply put, these are people who leave "canned comments." Often painfully obvious (as many tend to be members of writing groups or memes), one can safely surmise that they actually cut and paste certain comments, changing a word here or there in order to tailor it to your entry.
• Fanboys - not necessarily non-readers, but their commenting practices reveal a certain... lack of discerning ability? Have you ever come across a blog that is clearly full of talentless or otherwise bad "writing," but somehow has hundreds of followers? And those followers ALWAYS "love" the work and never have anything constructive or specific to say.  Yeah... those people.
• Follower Fishers - people who only comment in the hopes of attracting followers to their own blogs. They come in many forms, utilizing the non-reading technique of others in vain (as in vanity) attempts to get us to read their crap.
• Moles - not bad in and of themselves, but they do tend to be a tad condescending by linking their own blog or blog entry in a comment they leave for you. Sure, it can be a thoughtful thing to do when the link leads to something the commenter feels might be related to what you wrote, but more often a mole is simply follower-fishing. If not, they're doing a pretty good job of implying that you're too stupid to follow their profile back to their blog. Which, you know, is what most of us do when we're curious enough to see who left a comment.
• Missionaries - these make me want to puke most of the time. You know who they are. Someone who came across your blog, read something they didn't like or disagreed with, and offered to show you their own work in order to "correct your opinion" or "belief set" so you can be saved. I don't know about you, but I write fiction a lot, and I don't need to be saved. My characters might, but I don't. And even if I did, I don't want to be. And even if I wanted to be, I doubt I'd let a blogger or a viral marketer try to do it.
• Skimmers - though these "readers" don't feel they are as clever as Alpha-Omegas, they are actually far better at not reading your blog than most other pretend-readers. They'll scroll through, looking for keywords that repeat or otherwise stand out, then leave a cautiously formulated comment reflecting the fact that they noticed those words or phrases. Harder to catch, these ones, but their comments also hint at not knowing what your piece is actually about.

There are more, but I'll let you come up with funny monikers for those people.

At any rate, I'm just asking for commenters to provide the courtesy of actually having read what they have commented on. Is that fair? Or am I just being anal?

While I may leave a short, confusing, or otherwise sarcastically brief and/or bereft comment, I can assure you that if a comment was left by me, it means that I read your post... from the first word to the last word. Anything less would be hypocritical.

Can't we all just get along?

Oh, wait... never mind. Getting along would make my life boring.

Procrastination: Adventures Before a Deadline

There's work to be done this week, and a lot of it. Two critical analyses are due for publication. So, for the first time in recent history, I'm in bed at a good time. Sure, there are a few out there who probably think that 1 AM is not a good time, but they're all pansies who don't watch Craig Ferguson's monologue. Seriously, he's hilarious and worth the sleep deprivation, even if he is Scottish.

Anyway... so, there I was, listlessly sleeping the night away right up until I had a dream that I died in a car accident. I'm not kidding, either. The impact was slow motion and it hurt like Hell. I even woke up in pain. Not that any of this has anything to do with procrastination.

Hang on... a buddy just logged into IM.

Okay, where was I? Oh, yeah, bad dream. Maybe it does have something to do with procrastination, since I'm not well-rested. I did wind up going right back to sleep after waking up at 7:30 this morning. Because, you know, 577 pages need to be read and 4000 words need to be written by Friday. Or is it Thursday? My procrastinating, it seems, has even bled over to reading the fucking contract. Oh, shit... I forgot to watch True Blood and Entourage last night. Be right back.

So... wait, I'm thirsty.

Luckily, I'm a fast reader. There are plenty faster than I am, but I did manage to read an 1100-page trilogy in a day once upon a time, and knocked out Black Hawk Down on a plane ride from SFO to Incheon airport in South Korea. Or maybe it was Gimpo airport, I can't remember. Let me Google it.

Google? Or Bing? I hate the word "bing." It's lame. "Google" isn't much better, but whatever.

Oh, yeah... not sure what airport it was. Who was in Black Hawk Down? The movie, I mean. Josh Hartnett, right? Somebody once said I looked like him. I think somebody's full of it.

These books are sitting here on my desk, just waiting to be cracked open. I read one of them a long time ago... 9th grade, I think. English class. Yeesh... I'm getting old. I've also seen both of the movies made from the two books, but I'm not sure that's going to help much. 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Last Picture Show. In Arthur C. Clarke's book, the ship winds up near Saturn, if I recall, but Stanley Kubrick was getting bored, so he cut it down to Jupiter for the movie version.

I should really get back to work. Need food, though. Off to the store!

Toilet paper? Check. Lean cuisine? Check. Dog food, cat food? Check. Ah, crap... forgot nicotine gum.

So, one of these books is from 1966 and the other is from 1968. At least Larry McMurtry is my favorite author, and it's probably my oversight that I haven't read The Last Picture Show already. Probably? Um, yeah... definitely.

Damn. I'm all out of excuses. Guess I should clean the kitchen.

Incomprehensible

It's occurred to me that not only are most people bad writers, most people are also bad readers. Or maybe most people are just readers reading bad writing, like you who are reading this... I don't know. But it's very apparent that comprehension skills are falling by the wayside.

Maybe it's the school system's fault. Actually, yeah, it's probably the school system's fault. The modern propensity to deemphasize rules and structure in favor of individual interpretations and subjective rhetoric is definitely at fault, if there even is such a modern propensity. I think I might have just made that up, but the scary thing is that you probably know what I'm talking about.

Take the dying skill of argumentative debate. Thanks to such "advances" in communications such as text messaging, IMs, and Twitter, debates now only require 10% of the time to devolve into unproductive name-calling as they did 30 years ago. YouTube videos, vague and undocumented Wikipedia entries, and politically-oriented blogs written by people who've never actually left their houses are thrown around as "evidence" to support controversies and subjective perceptions of the Constitution. Never mind that the "science" you're quoting only holds up in the vacuum of a laboratory, and never mind that your "source" carefully omits a rather important part of physics... just go ahead and whine like a mule, call me a colorful adjective, and sign out of whatever service you're using to "engage in communication" with me. But don't forget to post another piece of "evidence" that actually clearly and blatantly destroys your own thesis before you go.

My favorite, though, is when someone perceives something written as a personal attack, when it was no such thing, and then attempts to defend against the imaginary affront. Needless to say, these defenses come across as embarrassingly foolish, revealing a person who has no idea of what had actually been written, and even less of an idea of how it should've been interpreted. And they usually aren't helped by their lack of coherent thought... never mind their irrelevance.

Which brings us to the vanity of it all. I don't know what it is about being able to see one's own grammatically-foul and chronically misspelled rants all over cyberspace that makes one feel as though they're the center of the universe, but it happens. It's probably going to happen when some of you read this very piece. I assure you, I am most certainly not talking about you. And, despite that disclaimer, some yahoos are still going to think what's written above is all about them.

Otherwise known as the inability to comprehend.

Writer's Mood Block

Writer's block doesn't exist. I've said this before; I'm saying it again. I might just be saying it again in order to convince myself of that, but I'm saying it again regardless. Writer's block doesn't exist.

Basically, if your hands haven't been cut off, or your voice box and/or tongue ripped out, you can write. It might not be good, but it's writing nonetheless. Which is why writer's block doesn't exist.

What does exist, however, is writer's mood. A writer has to be in the mood to write. Sure, he or she can type random dreck, hoping for the infinite monkey syndrome to get lucky and produce the next great American novel, but for the most part, a writer wants to know where he or she is going with whatever it is he or she is writing.

Side note: Why isn't "they" an acceptable substitution for "he or she?" I think it's completely ridiculous that grammarians don't recognize the utility of having such an option. And I really, really hate that "s/he" crap those liberal writers tend to use. Fucking Hell. If you're still reading this, I'm just going to use "he" to represent "he or she" from here on out, so don't be offended if I leave your gender out of a sentence.

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah... writer's mood. So here I am, getting ready to rewrite a script that has been languishing for about 20 months. The new outline is ready, the characters have been improved and streamlined, the plot is more linear and less predictable, and I'm sitting in front of computer ready to rock and roll. Only I don't feel like writing anything.

It's not that I can't write anything, or that I don't know what I'm going to write, because I do. The new version of the story is in my head. It's there. The modified characterizations are there. So is the dialogue. I just have to kick-start my lazy ass and put it on paper, so to speak. But I don't want to. Why? Fuck, I don't know, but I know I'm not in a writer's mood.

You name it, and I'm letting myself be distracted by it.

I'm following the NFL draft preparations, wondering what San Diego Chargers GM A.J. Smith is going to do. Is he going to trade Michael Turner to move up? Or is he going to pull another rabbit out of another hat? I'm keeping an eye on the fledgling baseball season, happy that the Padres are off to a decent start, but upset that they're not dominating. Jake Peavy and Chris Young be damned, sign me a fucking slugger.

I'm watching more television now than I have at any point in the previous six years. On my schedules are House, Lost, 24, Prison Break, Battlestar Galactica, Bullrun, Planet Earth, Heroes, and The Black Donnellys. House because its namesake is the best character on television. Lost because it's the best mystery on television. 24 because it's the best action. Prison Break because it's the best plot. Battlestar Galactica, best science fiction. Bullrun, I worked on it. Planet Earth, I'm a nature freak and it's just a limited series. Heroes, I'm a comic book freak, even though I think the show is overrated. The Black Donnellys, the best show on television, and it's cancelled.

I'm reading books. Lots of books. Screenwriting books (Linda Seger rocks). Filmmaking books. Military books. Art books (got a Gil Elvgren coffee table book that kicks ass). Fiction. Non-fiction. Comic books. You name it.

Oh, and "her." Yeah, I had "her" under wraps for a while, but now I'm definitely letting her distract me again. Willfully, blissfully, and (unfortunately) futilely. What can I say? Despite my best intentions and judgment, I can't help but let her do it for me. Argh.

The point. You probably want the point. THIS IS THE POINT. I'm doing everything BUT writing my damned script. And why? Because right now, I don't really fucking want to.

That's a horrible attitude for an aspiring writer, I know, but I can't fucking help it. I don't have writer's block (it doesn't exist anyway), but I'm just not in the writer's mood. It's like when your girlfriend is lying in the nude next to you, but claims she has a headache. She can, but won't. Well, that's where I'm at: I can, but won't.

Anybody have any suggestions?

Evolution of a Story

I just wrapped up another draft of my latest story, Clandestine's Daughter. It's a great feeling to finish something, wonderful, actually. And here I am, yet again, scanning through the pages, looking for things to change, things to leave alone, things to clean up, things to dirty, things to get rid of, and things to add. Why? Well, obviously, I want a script that's good enough to sell, but mostly... just for the fun of it.

Looking at the early incarnation of what is now Clandestine's Daughter, it's a little humorous to note that there is virtually no resemblance to the current incarnation.

Let me back up, though, as I need to specify something. What is now Clandestine's Daughter actually started out as two stories, one called The Ghosts and another called Tradecraft. Both were spy stories, with the former about a group of deep cover spies who wanted "out." The latter? Well, the latter didn't have a story, just a title (I do that sometimes).

Eventually, the group of deep cover spies became Tradecraft, while The Ghosts became The Ghost and His Daughter, which was about a little girl whose father was a spy. Which, as those that have read it already know, became Clandestine's Daughter about halfway through writing the first draft. A little weird how all those changes came about, but they did.

I read a lot of scripts and stories, as well, and one of the problems I notice with young writers (including myself) is that we usually don't know how to "react" to our own characters. We get so caught up in writing the plot, we overlook the possibilities that our own characters may or may not act the way we need them to. Case in point, I recently read a treatment concerning a Depression Era criminal. Great plot, good story (as it's based in fact), but the character provided seemed like he would do anything in the world except for following the plot points needed to tell the story.

The solution? Change the story or change the character.

I only mention this because I did quite a bit of both in writing Clandestine's Daughter. I admit it, I'm one of those "excellent at plot, poor at character" writers, and I've been trying like Hell to change that these past few years. My recent Theorem is such an example. Tightly-woven plot, cardboard "Hey-George-Lucas-Wrote-These" types of characters. Somehow, I determined that my problem with character in Theorem derived from the fact that the relationships between the characters, and not the characters themselves, were what was weak (whether that's true or not, I have no clue). But, I took that "revelation" and I approached Clandestine's Daughter intent on avoiding the same mistake.

Which brings me to the first casualty of Clandestine's Daughter. In early drafts, there were these two characters: Stephanie Bullock and Jason Cooper. As written, they were merely a way to help push the plot of the main protagonist, and had little or no story themselves. They were simply there so I could have two more characters involved in the final, glorious shootout. Cannon fodder, as it were. As you can tell, they weren't "related" to the protagonist very well, if at all.

It was about this time that I noticed the proliferation of female characters in the script. It was unintentional, I'm embarrassed to say, as I'm usually a "male-centric" writer (which I'm addressing), but the importance of women in Clandestine's Daughter was clearly paramount. A woman's murder begins the story, a little girl's journey is the story, and another woman saves the story.

Well, I figured I was onto something there.

So, I took Mr. Jason Cooper, and turned him into Ms. Erika Martin. I found a "Female Analyst" character that appeared early and also turned her into Ms. Erika Martin. The kicker? Erika Martin was to be the protagonist's fiancée. Now, if that doesn't seem random, I don't know what does.

But, it works. Instead of Jason, a complete stranger to the protagonist, chasing the protagonist, a lover is chasing him. Inherent relationship. Already it's more interesting. Now factor in that she's chasing him, while he's rescuing a little girl that may or may not be his daughter? Well, that's story.

Anyway, there's an entire gamut of things that have changed in Clandestine's Daughter, but I just wanted to point out that one. My original character didn't fit the story well, and didn't react well, so I changed him. Now, the character not only fit the story well, she was an integral part of its push, instead of just "fodder." And the new ending the addition of her character led to packs an emotional punch that existed not at all in the original draft.

Crazy how that works.

Script Reading

This is a bit of shameless self-promotion...

Are any of you out there screenwriters? Or hoping to be? Well, if you are, you're going to need readers to critique your screenplays and provide you with coverage that will help make your script as good as you can make it. And I, my friends, am just such a qualified reader.

I've written coverage for dozens and dozens of scripts, some of which are currently in preproduction and beyond.

I hold two degrees in English, am well-qualified to critique and edit the readability of your masterpiece, and have studied under Frank Capra, Jr. and Dorothy Rankin as a script reader. I'm also a screenwriter myself, and know what you need to be motivated, as well as what you need to be improved.

And I'm cheap... and bored... so I won't hurt your wallet or your clock. In other words, I'm a low risk venture to see if your script has real potential. In fact, if you're happy with my coverage, I can even help you locate other readers that are "closer to the action" (albeit MUCH more expensive). Those that know screenplays know that screenwriting is long and terrifying journey, and I'm as good a first step to take as any.

Send me scripts. Call or email for pricing. If you'd like to see some of my coverage before hiring me on, let me know and that can be arranged.

I'm so ashamed...

A Wild and Crazy Idea

I want to make movies; this is no secret. I want to make movies now. This is also no secret. I'm trying to make a movie now. Until just then, that was a secret.

I have a script floating around a bunch of readers and other screenwriters, getting marked up with red pens and the subject of late night phone calls concerning "character development" and "story structure." It's a good script, and with the help of one, two, or more writers, it's going to be a great script.

Now, one of my readers mentioned that this script isn't "commercial" material. I know this, I knew this, and this script was never intended to be pitched to a major studio... from it's inception (and it was borne of real life, I assure you), it was intended to be a so-called independent film.

Of course, until a few days ago, I had no intention of filming this script myself.

Well, technically, I still have no intention of filming this script myself, but as of now I'll be more involved than I original had planned.

To make a getting-longer story stay shorter, a few friends, a few acquantainces, and a few strangers have been talking about fixing this little movie up, raising between $4 and $5 million, becoming guild/union signatory, and filming it for a possible run at Sundance and similar film festivals.

I say, "why not?" Life has a funny way of throwing people and ideas around, and this seems as good a throw as any other.

Let me know if you want in or can help in any way.

Who Reads This Crap?

Apparently, according to a few emails and MySpace messages, my recent blogs have been quite bad. While these complaints don't really bother me, it reinforced my curiosity.

Who reads this crap?

Yes, I blog for all the typical reasons...
A) Bored
B) Feel like a rant
C) Vanity
D) Can't write anything else
E) I like annoying people
F) Why the Hell not?
G) All of the above

But... I'm admittedly irreverent and implicitly irrelevant, so I can only wonder... who really reads this crap? I have a few subscribers, so those zombies are obvious, but who the Hell are the rest of you?

So, I've decided to try to take a survey. I know this is futile as 99% of you won't bother, but screw it, I'm "G) All of the above," remember?

Answer these in a blog comment, if you would...

1) Who the Hell are you?
2) Why do you read this blog?
3) Do you read a lot of blogs?
4) Do you like the word "blog?" (I absolutely hate it)
5) How did you find this blog?
6) Blog, blog, blog, blog, bleh...

Oh, and if you're one of my regular "commenters," don't bother... I know your stupid answers already.

Dan Brown and The Da Vinci Code

Last night I finally broke down and went to see The Da Vinci Code, Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's novel. I had wanted to see it earlier, but I was hesitant. Generally no-so-good reviews, usually pointing out a horrendously boring ending, and a semi-quiet word-of-mouth just somehow didn't do much to encourage me to go.

But, I went... and, almost surprisingly, I enjoyed it. Is this a positive review? No, not really, but it's not a negative one, either. To be honest, I absolutely hated the film until the appearance of Ian McKellen, at which point, the film became thoroughly enjoyable... if completely predictable.

And this predictability is what I'm going to be complaining about today. You see, I have not read the novel by Dan Brown, but I have read his first book, Angels & Demons and I know one thing for sure... this guy is NOT a good writer. Don't get me wrong... as far as plot, premise, and general research, the man is an enigma. Fantastically interesting. But when it comes to character, dialogue, and just general suspense... well, let me just YAWN a few times and save a paragraph explaining it. His overall writing is so elementary (scratch that, it's downright juvenile), that from just watching the movie one can tell that that Dan Brown wrote the book it's based on. What's ironic is that the dude used to be an English professor, so you'd think he'd be a little, I don't know, "better." So how did this guy get so fucking popular?

I know what you're thinking right now... that I'm some sort of literary "snob." Let me assure you that I am not. I enjoy my Clancy and Crichton, my King and Koontz, and I read a ton of comic books. Despite the fact that I enjoy the occassional classic, a snob, I am not.

My main criticism of Mr. Brown is his blatant overuse of "cliffhanger/reveal." In damn near every chapter of Angels & Demons, someone notices something or something happens that is "cause for alarm" (i.e. a jaw drops, someone gasps, a strange object is found, blah blah blah). But instead of just explaining it, Mr. Brown decides to "cliffhang" now and, two or three chapters later, "reveal" in some bogus manner. Seriously, that works once or twice, but not every three pages. An accomplished writer would find a way to create suspense AND reveal on the same page. The aforementioned Stephen King was once a master of such a technique. Unfortunately, Dan Brown's cheap literary parlor trick is so predomninant in his books, it broke through in Ron Howard's film, resulting in a film frustratingly predictable.

As far as the long, horrendous ending? I actually thought that it felt rather natural in the film, even though I do agree that it was a bit long. The film might have been helped by a shorter ending and a more-developed introduction. However, anyone who's ever read Dan Brown knows that bad endings have little to do with the filmmakers and almost everthing to do with the author. The man simply doesn't know how to finish a story (which may not altogether be a bad thing... like I said, his plots are amazing).

Well, I guess I answered my own question. Dan Brown's popularity must stem from his plots... because his writing sure isn't good enough to attract fans that are old enough to drink.

All that being said, I'll still go see an Angels & Demons film should one ever get made.