The Lost Symbol Series Review: TV vs Book Breakdown

The Lost Symbol Series Review: Robert Langdon’s TV Turn (Without Tom Hanks)

When The Lost Symbol debuted as a Peacock original series, I was both curious and skeptical. As a fan of the Robert Langdon series—and someone who’s written extensively about Dan Brown’s novels—I was ready to see how the slower, serialized TV format might dig deeper into Brown’s puzzles, secrets, and symbology.

The result? It’s… complicated.

This 10-episode prequel reimagines The Lost Symbol book (third in the series) with a younger Robert Langdon (no Tom Hanks here), a different timeline, and a storyline that sometimes honors the book—and sometimes wanders far from it. With changes to key character relationships, pacing, and even core themes, it’s less a direct adaptation and more a remix of familiar ideas.

Let’s break down what works, what doesn’t, and how The Lost Symbol series fits into the larger Langdon universe.

Plot Summary: Familiar Setup, Different Execution

The basic premise remains: Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned to Washington, D.C. by his mentor, Peter Solomon—who then goes missing. Langdon must solve clues, navigate brotherhoods like the Freemasons, and stay one step ahead of danger.

But the show takes significant liberties:

• In the book, Peter is missing throughout. In the series, he’s found fairly early and plays an active role.
  
• Katherine Solomon is changed from Peter’s sister to his daughter, shifting their dynamic and backstory.
  
• New characters and subplots are introduced to stretch the plot across ten episodes.
  
• The CIA’s involvement, led by Inoue Sato, is tweaked for narrative pacing.

Basically, the series follows the novel’s premise, but remixes timelines, expands characters (and adds quite a few new ones), and amps up various parts of the storyline for TV pacing. These changes aren’t inherently bad, but they create a disconnect for readers expecting the same emotional or thematic beats from the novel.

Cast & Characters: A Younger Langdon, A Mixed Bag

Replacing Tom Hanks is no easy feat, but Ashley Zukerman brings a different take to Robert Langdon: less seasoned professor, more eager academic.

Other key casting notes:

• Ashley Zukerman – earnest, likable, but lacks Langdon’s authority
• Valorie Curry (Katherine Solomon) – proactive and sharp, a solid presence
• Eddie Izzard (Peter Solomon) – younger than expected, but adds emotional depth, warmth, and weight
• Beau Knapp (Mal’akh) – hit-or-miss for me; the flashback scenes work better than his present-day arc
• Sumalee Montano (Inoue Sato) – strong performance, but so different from the book version that it’s jarring for purists

Overall, the show’s casting leans younger and more action-oriented. Some changes work. Others feel like missed opportunities to deepen character complexity.

Setting & Atmosphere: Not Quite D.C.

If you were excited to see iconic Washington, D.C. locations brought to life—prepare to be a little disappointed. Despite the story being set in the U.S. capital, the series was mostly filmed in Canada, and it shows.

• Sense of Place: Lacking. The show offers brief glimpses of recognizable monuments but fails to capture the mood or depth of D.C.
• Symbolic Locations: There’s less emphasis on real-world history and architectural Easter eggs, which were a huge part of the book’s appeal.
• Compared to the Book: The novel treats D.C. like a character. The show treats it like a backdrop.

For readers (like me) who have lived in D.C. or explored the actual settings from the book, the visual disconnect is a real letdown.

Book vs. Series: Two Different Stories?

This might be one of the hardest sections for me to write because they’re really just so different…it’s almost hard to call this a true adaptation—it’s more like an alternate-universe version of the same basic concept.

But, when comparing the mainstay focuses of the Robert Langdon series, I’d say:

• Sense of Place: I had expected more from the TV series—while there are a few clear shots of Washington, D.C., I wanted more of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and even just scenes from the National Mall.
• Puzzles: The puzzles are there in the TV series, but much more discussion-based than actual codes to solve.
• Urgency: With 10 episodes, momentum is lacking and there just seems to be a lot more of a time lapse in the show. The book is fast and puzzle-driven, while the series is more slow and episodic.
• Characters: Some characters are changed and some are added, but the core characters are still there…they just may not be what you pictured.
• Themes: The book is based on secrets, science, and belief whereas the TV series is more about family, trauma, and trust.

With so many changes between the book and The Lost Symbol TV series, it may not be fair to even try to compare…maybe we should just enjoy each for what they bring to the table.

(To find out more about what I thought about the book, check out The Lost Symbol book review.)

Final Thoughts: Watch or Skip?

The Lost Symbol series isn’t a disaster—but it also isn’t what book fans likely hoped for. It expands on the source material but doesn’t always enrich it. There’s intrigue, sure, but less urgency and less intellectual depth than the book offered.

Still, if you’re a Robert Langdon completist (guilty!) or want something bingeable with secret societies and shadowy plots, it’s a decent watch. Just temper your expectations—and maybe re-read the book after to revisit what made the story so compelling in the first place.