Talk:Angels & Demons (film)

Criticism

In my opinion, the film deserves better critisicm, so I altered the numbers in the criticism section a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.69.135 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Tatiana Siegel (2007-04-12). "Hanks, Howard circle prequel to 'Da Vinci'". The Hollywood Reporter. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Feel free to include this. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dan Brown Tourists: Next Stop, Rome?

More about production difficulty in Rome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Kohler

Someone keeps removing the text that states that Stellan Skarsgård plays Maximilian Kohler, which has been revealed in a recent personal interview that he plays him. lmao ban dat vadaliser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.170.176 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Support statements with citations please. What interview? Alientraveller (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In the header: This Angels and Demons contains information about one or more upcoming films. - What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody is missing Kohler in the film, because the decision to shorten the book is a suspense thriller one.The inner and outer conflicts of the figures are more reasonable in the script. Dan Brown write on a surprise paradigma and announced in

this way the birth of a virgine for a religous and a scientific reason.He wetten borders by such suggestions and the figures profiles loose. The book media and the film media are build upon different systems!--Danaide (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

It is the sequel to The Da Vinci Code (2006) shouldnt it say prequel ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsecur (talk • contribs)

Read the article. Alientraveller (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Already read it. It's a contradiction. A sequel doesn't take place before the original. I'm changing it --Surten (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Surten

Already backed out. Sorry.--Surten (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Surten

Can we settle the prequel/sequel question? I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth in the changes on this page on that point. I believe that the best description of the movie is "sequel". The book Angels & Demons came out first, and in the second Robert Langdon novel, there were references to what occurred in the first book. However, "DaVinci" code came out first as a film, and all references to what happened in Angels & Demons was removed; the film was made as if it were the first Robert Langdon story. In the film, "Angels & Demons", there are many references to Langdon's previous involvement with the Catholic Church, something the church didn't like. This can be presumed simply from viewing the two movies to be a reference to DaVinci Code, but interviews have indicated this was explicitly done because of the new order. Since "Angels & Demons" takes place AFTER "DaVinci Code", it is properly called a sequel. Only in novel form is it a prequel (though that is debatable as it came out first, thus not meeting the strict prequel definition). I won't make further changes until I feel we can agree on a position on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.54.138 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What is there left to be agreed on? The film is a sequel and the article notes this. Alientraveller (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Mr Gray and Cardinal Strauss are not in the book. Shouldn´t the article mention this? 88.114.219.58 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions Howard felt more free to change the story and wanted to make it more realistic. Based on how the Camerlengo's character was changed to suit McGregor, the reader can also assume similar reasons were made for other characters (many have already speculated cultural sensitivities is why the assassin is no longer an Arab). Alientraveller (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree! (user: xxxx22:59, 10 April 2009 (Christian calender) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.170.176 (talk)

Your point? That readers can't add two and two? Alientraveller (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you! (]]user: xxxx]]22:04 April 25 2009 (Christian calender). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.170.176 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• May be the artikel should mention the main difference out of the book and the film, otherwise the discussion leads in a mixing melting pott!--Danaide (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kohler

Stellan Skarsgard does not play Maximilian Kohler! The vandal is at it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.170.176 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you undo it like I did? The fact of the matter is, Kohler is not in the film and anyone arguing with the official site over who Skaarsgard plays is foolish. Alientraveller (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Difference from the book.

In my opinion there should be a section regarding the difference between the film and the book—I may write something later, but not now since I do not have the citations to back it up nor the time as of yet to find them.--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 13:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't read much on the adaptation process, obviously a lot of changes were done to condense the story, or as noted in the article in Howard's Empire interview, more realistic. Still hoping for an interview where the director admits he cut the stereotypical assassin because, well, it's stereotypical. Alientraveller (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually placed a section for differences from the novel, but it was editted out for I don't know what reason, no notes were placed on the deleted part.--Maverx (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM#Adaptations. Again, don't write up such information without sources and in the wrong place (goes in Development/writing, not plot). Alientraveller (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As a user of wikipedia, I was hoping to find a section on how the film was different from the book. IMHO, the film and book are the source, people could check the difference there. I support a new section for the writing up the difference between two. To:Maverx, could you write down the edition on which you wrote the differences. --219.77.64.143 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

- I agree, this is exactly what I came here to find, but it hasn't been written yet - I'm very surprised! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.118.176 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Those sources exists within wikipedia, please check the novel (Angels and Demons), the book (ISBN 1-59315-140-3) is easily the best reference to the differences section. --Maverx (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then read the book's plot summary. Alientraveller (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Differences from the Book

There are multiple differences in the storyline from the original book. Some of them are: The Camerlengo in the movie is Irish, not Italian. The first murder does not take place in the man's apartment in the movie. Robert Langdon saves the life of the 4th Cardinal in the movie. The story of the parentage of the Camerlengo does not come out in the movie. Many of the scenes in the movie have many police around, but in the book Robert and Victoria are alone. In the book a BBC reporter and videographer play a major role. They are not in the movie. The head of CERN plays no role in the movie. Victoria doesn't wear shorts in the movie. The assassin is a largely different character and does not kidnap Vittoria in the movie. Robert is not nearly drowned by the assassin, nor is he trapped under a marble casket in the movie. Robert does not go up into the helicopter with the Camerlengo in the movie and does not subsequently jump out of the helicopter. The names of many characters differ from the book. In the book the new pope doesn´t change his name to "Luke".

I have removed the difference section from the article. Per the manual of style, a mere list of difference between adaptations and source material is extremely discouraged. If someone wants to work these into the article so that they aren't so trivial, be my guest. BOVINEBOY2008 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you look for a good example look at the german page. Somebody did his work and very well. The main differences are added,

and I mean really the main, which depend on story lines and decisions for narration. An aczent isn't so important and a shorty neither, for the whole film. The novell by Dan Brown follows another media principle: it#s a mixture of suspense and surprise system, and the film is build upon suspense in a straight and tensefull way.--Danaide (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of the extreme popularity of the book as well as the popularity of the movie, I think that a section on differences would be helpful and imformative to those who see the movie. I think that Bovineboy2008 was premature in removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.16.45 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM#ADAPTATIONS. The issue is over. There is nothing worth noting beyond what Howard has stated in that they tried making the plot more realistic. Alientraveller (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot

This needs a rewrite. It's incorrect (soil as opposed to earth) and rather unclear (man is imperfect so religion is also imperfect?)(Aurumpotestasest (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

locations and differences

Since the artistic puzzles and historic sites are considered important in the story line, the summary should mention them, instead of just referring to "a fountain" and "a church" and "a castle" -- Bernini's fountain, the St. Teresa statue and the Castel Sant'Angelo are world famous.

I know that somebody will do a differences section, so here's some stuff to start with: (1) Langdon in the book was first brought in by CERN and met Vittoria there. In the movie they are both recruited by the Vatican and meet in the papal offices. (2) The adoptive relationship between Vittoria and the Jesuit scientist was not mentioned in the movie, as far as I could tell. Instead the adoption story is shifted to the pope and camerlengo, replacing the bit about artificial insemination. (3) The running joke that Vittoria started off in skimpy clothing and has no time to change has been dropped. (4) In the book all four candidates are killed. In the movie the last is rescued by Langdon and becomes the new pope. (5) In the book Langdon received one of the Illuminati brands as a reward. In the movie he receives a Renassaince text that he had been seeking for research (a big improvement in my opinion) (6) In the book Langdon goes up in the helicopter with the camerlengo and is saved by a complicated series of events. The movie simplified matters by leaving him on the ground. (7) The book ends with Langdon and Vittoria in bed together. The movie downplays any sexual attachment between the two. (8) Although the book was written before DA VINCI CODE, the movie makes a couple of references about the DA VINCI CODE events being in the past. (9) In order to get to the bomb in time, the camerlengo fakes a vision (book version). In the movie Langdon figures out the bomb's location ( a flaw, because it implies the camerlengo was EXPECTING Langdon to figure out everything before it went off.) There are others, but those are the ones I noticed right off. CharlesTheBold (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time, please add to the discussion above rather than create a new topic for your opinion. Alientraveller (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Box Office

The article says "The worldwide opening was the largest since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull's the previous year." This is incorrect, The Dark Knight opened July 18th, almost 2 months after Indiana Jones. Going to fix it...137.244.215.51 (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, complain to Reuters then. Alientraveller (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Camerlengo

Isn't the camerlengo obliged to be a cardinal? If I'm wrong, correct me, but the Camerlengo in the movie wasn't a cardinal. Which was odd. 205.211.221.52 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is that odd? You obviously know nothing about computers, they're separate, Boson15 (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what that above person means by "You obviously know nothing about computers" but I will offer that the world of Angels and Demons is a fictionalized version of our own. They are able to create large amount of anti-matter so maybe you also don't need to be a Cardinal to be the Camerlengo (my point being there are many difference from reality in movies, try not to fixate on them). As for the real world, yes both tradition and vatican law dictate that the Camerlengo be a Cardinal given the fact that it is a very high office within the Church.Aml830 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• For becoming a pope you must be a cardinal: first rule.But if all other cardinal[ 164] claim your name in a vision it#s a so called election by acclamation;second rule. Camerlengo was a simple priest the real son of the murdered pope and eager to become the new leader of the catholic church.[ in the book] --Danaide (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a general information: you need not be a cardinal to be elected pope. --79.45.212.47 (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT WP:FORUM WP:SPAM. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

On Rotton Tomatos, it dosen't have 79%. I was just on there and it had 38% rotton. Someone needs to fix this.--Snowman Guy (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) It has a 79%, stop trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boson15 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Go on the Rotton Tomatoes page for the movie.--Snowman Guy (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Visual effects

• Angels & Demons: Vatican VFX on Steroids —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fiona Morrow (May 20, 2009). "When Vatican says no, this Vancouver studio says yes". The Globe and Mail. CTVglobemedia. —effects by CIS Vancouver. Steve ^{T • C} 07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

• Just a warning to other editors. Some folks think it's hilarious to change all the scores in the critical reception section, but this vandalism often goes unnoticed. If you notice any changes made to this section, check that they're valid. Thanks! (Pdb781 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

Plot needs a serious rewrite

Has anyone else noticed that the plot summary seems to slowly make less and less sense. Not from a story standpoint but towards the end of the section, it sounds like it was written by a 5 year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.184.130 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• EDIT: Seems one user added a whole lot of poorly written plot to the section. I undid what this user wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.184.130 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• The plot takes place in Rom and not in whole italy. I agree that the story should be rewritten like the films tells it.

It's easy for thriller specialists!--Danaide (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews Confusion

The articles states on May 24: "The film has received mainly positive reviews from critics and fans alike, the reviews were far more positive than for The Da Vinci Code. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 86% of critics gave the film positive reviews based on 214 reviews, with a weighted average score of 8.1 out of 10.[25] Among Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics" demographic, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television, and radio programs, the film holds an overall positive-leaning approval rating of 87% based on 12 reviews"

I just went to Rotten Tomatoes and this is not the case. Under the Top Critics section, it shows a 34 %, with 21 considered "rotten" out of 32. Under the "T-Meter" critics, it shows a bit higher with a 37 % with 136 out of 216 reviews as rotten.

I have not yet seen this movie--in fact, I came to Wikipedia to see what the consensus was, and when I saw such high numbers, I felt I had to check as I was "expecting" negative backlash. The numbers in the Wikipedia are just out and out false. --24.183.198.127 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mention a couple of sections above this one, some users like to vandalise this page by changing the figures. If you notice they are incorrect, just change them back through the "undo" feature on the history page. Pdb781 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Boson15 (talk) may have been changing the section. I began a similar section earlier on this page, and he replied with a harassing comment.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

mixed reviews?

Just looking at the 37% approval off of RT, I don't think I would call that mixed reviews. I've seen plenty of other articles with percentages even in the 40s where it was categorized as having negative reviews. There should be some sort of guideline for this, because there's a huge amount of inconsistency with this sort of thing.Hypershadow647 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

differences from the novel - again

Has there been any valid conclusion about the justification of this section?
I am following the article for about 2 days by now, and more and more additions are made, most of which seem to be quite worthless to me. I just removed an about 5000 byte long addition by a single user of today, who added some 20 items alone - most of which were duplicates of already existing entries anyway
br, Gruen (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, somebodies literally copy-pasted the section on the novel. I'm gonna revert it. Wootcannon (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

List of factual mistakes, anyone?

Dan Brown is known for his liberties with factual accuracy. Does anyone know of any list of factual inaccuracies in the film? It would be interesting to hear what physicists say about the creation of anti-matter, for example. And I assume the setting in the shots from the "Vatican archive" are pure fiction. Would they really have hermetically locked off glass cages for the books?

If the article already contained such a list, which was deleted by one of Wikipedia's ardent deletionists with some obscure motivation, does anyone know anywhere outside Wikipedia, where one could get this kind of information. Mlewan (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it earlier this evening. One thing that struck me was the way the helicopter took off and kept going vertically, presumably to take the anti-matter as far away from people and buildings as fast as possible. But helicopters actually develop more lift for the same power (presumably maximum, here) if they have a certain amount of forward speed, so the pilot should have been climbing out at an angle once he was clear of the ground and surrounding buildings (both because they present obstacles and because they affect the lift and horizontal forces). That's also recommended to get clear of the dead man's curve, although that might not be the main concern in an emergency. PMLawrence (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to list "factual mistakes" for a work of fiction? Don't Be Evil (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt that a real physicist would not be staring up at a 5KT nuclear explosion. Nothing like a set of burned retinas and thermal skin burns to wreck your day. I would have dived for cover. Even my 13 year old thought that part was insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.138.161 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic?

Look, I'M a Catholic, and I can safely say that, despite these Ron Howard films' run-ins with religion, there is no reason to believe that this film is actually anti-Catholic. I believe that everyone and their mother are right to think that this movie doesn't present the Catholic church in the most flattering manner, but it does not achieve a bona fide attack on the principles of Catholicism.

I loved it (kinda), and hey, so did the Vatican. --GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sequel?

Why the hell is Angels and Demons written as a "sequel" to Da Vinci Code. As far as I can remember its a prequel isn't it?59.182.135.166 (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The novel is a prequel but the movie script was written to become a sequel. --Lennier1 (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

-the movie isnt really bad ..but for those who have read the book might be a lil disappointed =)

"Purga" of four Illuminati: Fictitious or historical?

Dan Brown is noted for "artistic license" with the facts. One plot device in the film was a "purga" in which four supposed Illuminati were branded and executed by the Roman Catholic Church, and the Illuminati are now ostensibly seeking revenge through parallel actions against four Catholic cardinals.
I haven't seen any info anywhere on this "purga" and I've been assuming that Brown (or screenwriter Akiva Goldsman) invented it. Does anyone have any definite source on this one way or the other? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

According to these Yahoo! Answers entries http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090206184227AAOopWs http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090517152322AAB54lx it did not happen.--134.130.4.242 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Overseas

Where is this mysterious country, 'Overseas'? And where can we find its box office performance information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joy.discovery.invention (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Score Track "The God Particle"

The article stated that the track "The God Particle" was named after the antimatter manufactured at CERN. This is quite simply not true; the "God Particle" is the media name for the Higgs Boson, an underpinning of the Standard Model. I've corrected this. RadicalTwo (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The MacGuffin

I edited the "plot" section to reflect the actual MacGuffin in the film being antimatter, rather than the inaccurate "miniature event horizons/black holes" description that existed previously. 66.143.53.129 (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of Late Pope

The article lists Pius XVI as the name of the deceased pope. Having seen the film last night (on DVD), I thought the name Celestine VI was visible but not spoken. 65.186.203.2 (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article currently says that the recently deceased pope was John Paul II! I'm pretty sure that the old pope (who figures prominently in Father McKenna's backstory) in the film is a fictitious one. WHPratt (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that it currently says "Pius XVI." A scan of the film's subtitle file shows "Pius" only twice, and both times referring to Pius IX, so it's likely that "Pius XVI" isn't mentioned in dialogue. If indeed XVI is correct, it would mean that the name was selected four times (XIII, XIV, XV and XVI) since the film's 2009 date and the time of the story. This would, logically either (1) have the film set in the far future, which doesn't seem, to be the case; or (2) imply a rapid turnover of popes recently. Now (2) would imply some massive scandals or assassinations or other turmoil that is never referred to in the plot (which depicts the papacy as solemn, stodgy, and staid). We might have to invoke (3), just give up and say that this is an alternate universe.

For these reasons, I would suggest that "Pius XVI" is probably incorrect. WHPratt (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Set in One Day?

As with the Da Vinci Code film, I'm wondering if this film qualifies for Category:Films which are set within one day. Should this one be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.182 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

== "flees to a remote recess"

That's not some arbitrary remote recess, it's above St. Peter's tomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.166.40 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Angels & Demons (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521083940/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3ibd965fb07c29611127bbd20be2ac1226? to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ibd965fb07c29611127bbd20be2ac1226

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angels & Demons (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219112942/http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200904/2557247.htm?desktop to http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200904/2557247.htm?desktop

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Angels & Demons (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006075352/http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/09/65273/ to http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/09/65273/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216204925/http://angelsanddemons.com/site/entry.php to http://angelsanddemons.com/site/entry.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216204925/http://angelsanddemons.com/site/entry.php to http://angelsanddemons.com/site/entry.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angels & Demons (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324014710/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i3a47175c45afb2f2b755c4f38e41860c?imw=Y to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i3a47175c45afb2f2b755c4f38e41860c?imw=Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jewish center in the See Also section...

What is the connection? Is it some kind of devious vandalism, or am I missing something? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I just removed the link since its only relevance to the film is that the billboard was once displayed on the side of its synagogue building. Aithus (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Effects

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maeddia (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Srpasq (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)