Angels & Demons teaser goes online... (a victim of the 'Tomb Raider rule'?)

The only thing about this trailer that makes me interested is the brief appearance of Stellan Skarsgard. Anyway, I wonder if this sequel will be the latest victim of what I like to call the 'Tomb Raider principle'. In that I mean, if your first film makes a lot of money despite being a film that no one liked, then you just can't win. Even if you make a better film than the original, people will still remember that they didn't like the previous entry and they won't even sample the next chapter.

Tomb Raider: Cradle Of Life was a far superior film to the original Tomb Raider, a real flesh and blood, stunts and dirt adventure film. Yet it did just half the domestic business ($66 million vs. $132 million). Prince Caspian was a markedly better film than The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, yet it did just 48% what the first film did in the US ($142 million vs. $292 million). Yes, The Da Vinci Code opened to a mammoth $77 million and ended up with $217 million, but the film went over like un-buttered toast to most audiences. Alas, my prediction did not come true and 'so dark the con of man' did not become the catchphrase of the summer ("Dude, that new CD is so dark the con of man!"). This time there will be no controversy, no countless hours of free publicity on prime time news shows, no worldwide debate about Tom Hanks's hair cut (a cut so nice, Nic Cage had to copy it twice). Hell, even the teaser above looks boring, and that takes work when you're not showing much footage. Now we just have the sequel to a movie that people didn't particularly like in the first place. If I had to peg one 'surprise flop' for the summer, my vote goes for Angels & Demons.

And, trust me Warner Bros, it doesn't matter how much you fix Superman, no matter how much you 'Wrath Of Khan' it, audiences are going to be incredibly skeptical about any sequel. And, if I were Sony, I'd be very concerned about the complete collapse of Quantum Of Solace (domestically, anyway). It opened at nearly double the opening weekend of Casino Royale and now will barely surpass the $167 million that the Martin Campbell reboot grossed in America. I'd be concerned about the reception of the next film in this series. In both cases above, I'd at least make sure to keep the budget below $150 million, just in case. Actually Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan actually did drastically reduce the budget between pictures (from $40 million to $14 million, with much recycling from the previous production), and it still grossed about $3 million less in the US despite its eventual status as a genre classic.

Scott Mendelson

Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson

Comments

[Sarto]

I agree with your assessment of Angels and Demons. The trailer is completely boring and I don't know a single person that cares it's coming out. It will likely be a huge flop.

However, I disagree on your assessment of the Superman franchise. If WB can get their heads out of their basksides on what the right direction for the franchise is, they could easily make a film that was not only a critical success but that also could win over jaded audiences burnt by the last few outings. What they need to do is stop trying to continue on with the Christopher Reeve Superman story-line and acknowledge that they either need to do something completely different or they need to reboot the series from the beginning. For proof that it's possible to win back a cynical audience, look at the modern Batman franchise.

Also, I'd blame the drop-off on Quantum of Solace on socio-economic reasons than artistic ones. Most people I know that have seen it found it entertaining if not quite as good as the last one. But since when has Bond been a stranger to bouncing back after mediocre or even down-right terrible sequels? I'd just be nervous if they decided to take Bond into darker waters than they already have. I think this is about as homicidal as you can make Bond while still having him retain some semblance of likeability and the charm that will eventually ooze out of every pore.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree with you more or less. The Batman series took a seven year vacation and was greeted with a muted response. The opening weekend of Batman Begins made just $48 million over, easily the few number of tickets sold for a Batman film ever (when adjusted for inflation). The film held on and grew into a solid hit because it was surprisingly good, but studios can never count of legs when it comes to tent poles, it's just too unpredictable. That $48 million 3-day/$73 million five-day opening could have easily played like the similar opening of Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines, which bottomed out at $150 million (not bad, but it cost $170 million and had to be saved by international business).

What Bond needs is to regain that balance between real-world grit and audience-pleasing thrills that worked for Casino Royale (cough-rehire Martin Campbell-cough). I'm sure the series will be fine in the long run, but no one I've talked to loved Quantum Of Solace ('pretty good', 'good enough', or 'not as bad as I had heard/read').

As much as I dislike his movies since The Rock (although the first third of The Island was good), I think Michael Bay might be able to make a most crowd-pleasing Superman adventure. If they find quality screenwriters to tell the tale, and let Bay do his technical wizardy and patriotic huzzah, we could have something special with this most American icon.