No ‘Boycott Backfire’ for ‘Angels and Demons’
by S.T. KarnickOn the heels of a public-relations juggernaut with the inspiring (and arguably false) message that it’s “not as anti-Catholic as The Da Vinci Code!”,the cinematic conspiracy thriller Angels and Demons finished first at the U.S. box office during the past weekend, providing some useful evidence about the effects of church boycotts.
Based on a novel by Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, and featuring the same director-star team as the lucrative 2006 film adaptation of that novel (Ron Howard and Tom Hanks), Angels and Demons brought in approximately $48 million during its first weekend. While enough to edge out Star Trek’s second-weekend take of $43 million, it’s a good deal less than Da Vinci, which snagged a gaudy $77 million during its first three days.
Simple Hollywood film economics explains the matter quite well without reference to any hypothetical backfire effect from church boycotts.
It seems likely, first, that some of the difference between the two films’ initial performance is attributable to the greater popularity of the novel on which the first one was based, and the novelty value of its concept. The Da Vinci Code didn’t need any PR boost from the church–it was based on a huge international bestseller, and its concept was extremely well-known. Angels and Demons, while also a bestseller, was not nearly as big a phenomenon. Most people likely don’t know what it’s actually about.
Bad press from professional film critics is also a factor in audiences’ less enthusiastic response to Angels and Demons–but as an indicator, not a cause. The film adaptation of Angels and Demons received relatively poor reviews, but many big hit films get bad notices from the professional critics, and The Da Vinci Code actually got even worse reviews than the sequel has garnered. So that’s not a cause of the lower box office, but it identifies another factor probably holding down initial audience enthusiasm for Angels and Demons: in addition to the obvious fact that sequels tend not to do as well as the originals because the novelty value is greatly diminished, that effect is especially powerful for sequels to films that drew big audiences but weren’t as entertaining as audiences expected.
Also, while the premise of Angels and Demons is indeed less controversial than that of The Da Vinci Code, that very factor works against the new film by further diminishing the sense of originality behind it, and therefore audiences’ expectations of how interesting it will be, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the premise.
Thus the diminished novelty value and expected quality level of Angels and Demons vis a vis The Da Vinci Code are probably sufficient to explain the new film’s strong but unspectacular start.
While it’s true that the Catholic Church muted its complaints about Angels and Demons so as not to provide any more free publicity to the film than necessary–in contrast to its full-court press against the openly anti-Christian and anti-Catholic Da Vinci Code–to suggest that the Church’s less intense response accounts for the difference in audience size undoubtedly attributes too much influence to the church over the movie-going habits of an audience that is, after all, largely non-Catholic.
While The Da Vinci Code did better in post-Christian Europe and other non-U.S. countries than in the United States, which remains largely Christian in religious identification and attendance, the Da Vinci Code film and novel made heaps of money in the United States–$217.5 million domestically for the film version, plus DVDs, pay per view, etc.. Unless every atheist in the nation saw it several times, the film and book cannot have offended the U.S. laity nearly as much as they did the Church hierarchy.
Clearly, U.S. Christians were interested in seeing The Da Vinci Code and judging what it had to say. Having been there and done that, however, they seem disinclined to rush right out and repeat the experience. That’s simple common sense, and sufficiently explains the less-passionate initial audience response to Angels and Demons.
—S. T. Karnick, editor of The American Culture







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
22 Comments
I really liked the book Angels and Demons much better than The DaVinci code. My main reason for not going to see Angels and Demons is because I thought DaVinci was really bad. I'll probably rent it on DVD, eventually.
Uhhh, yeah. Anti-matter is "real and dangerous". Must be causing global warming. A&D actually lost to Star Trek's second weekend on Saturday and Sunday, and barely surpassed it by a few dollars on Monday. And Paramount's more honest with numbers upfront than Sony/Columbia is.
DaVinci Code was interesting only in that it ripped off the Merovingian/Priory ideas of previous books and false gospels. Now that Brown had to come up with his own ideas, you get a lame mad scientists story.
What next? We find out that a time-travelling Langdon must go back in time and be John the Baptist in "Baptists and Beheadings"? Blech.
I am a Catholic and while I like Hanks and I'm sure it is a well made movie I will wait till it hits the $2 movie house- just a small protest.
i am disappointed by Hanks recently, by his public statements and and his choice in roles. He is not on my personal boycott list. yet. And this is probably because I like the rest of the country had grown to believe he was likeable. He was the down to earth guy from down the street. He is quickly burning through his cached goodwill with me.
Why yes, I do boycott these films. Not only do I boycott them, but the people involved are on my list until they start making decent pictures again. Hanks and Howard? Won't watch them or any of their previous movies, some of which I liked a great deal.
I don't understand why people who can't stand these people continue to give them money: "Well, I won't give them a price of a movie ticket, but I'll rent it when it comes out." I don't continue to shop at stores and restaurant where the staff is rude, even if the product is good. There are just too many decent options out there where I can spend my $$$.
Why yes, I do boycott these films. Not only do I boycott them, but the people involved are on my list until they start making good, pictures again, you know, the kind where they're not actually spitting on my values.
Hanks and Howard? Won't watch them and will avoid re-watching some of their previous movies, some of which I liked a great deal.
I don't understand why folks who can't stand the insulting garbage these guys churn out continue to give them money: "Well, I won't give them the price of a movie ticket, but I'll rent it." Why give them a dollar? Starve the beast!
I don't continue to shop at stores and restaurant where the staff is rude, even if the product is good. There are just too many decent options out there where I can spend my $$$.
I used to be a huge fan of tom hanks… that is until he went on a crusade against true Christians.
I won't see it in the theatres. (if I see it , it will be on DVD) I have come to dislike the movie going experience except for certain genres (Action like T4 or Startrek, Fantasy like Harry potter or LOTR).
I like you have certain people I will not watch (Cameron Diaz, Ben Afleck, George Clooney, Julia Roberts…) and certain generes i can't stand (Modern Horror, Comedy, slapstick …).
That said, i am reluctant to give up on certain people. If Hanks hadn't built up a level of good will with me, I might have given up on him some time ago. I have some percieved investment in him. Is it rational, no. but I don't want to throw out all entertainment just because it has a person in it i disagree with. If I did i'd get pretty bored.
For me Hanks (not Opie) have not crossed the threashhold yet. He might. but for now he is still paletable.
And here the new ads for the film were proclaiming it a blockbuster success that reviewers found far better than the Da Vinci Code! I would be shocked, shocked I say, to find out that Hollywood studio hype has deliberately mislead me!
The Protestant mega churches that I'm familiar with presented speakers on The DaVinci Code novel and movie or discussed it in church. The idea was that everyone would be talking about it, and we should be informed and able to intelligently discuss the errors in it. I think that many Christians went to see the movie for that reason. The same thing didn't happen with Angels & Demons, so I'm not surprised that fewer people went to the movie last weekend.
My list of follywood actors to boycott is growing ever long. Sadly Tom and Ron Howard have been on it for about a year or so now.
Hanks is an overacting buffoon. Howard is wayyyyyy overrated.
I understand boycotts but retroactive boycotts? You can end up missing out on good (and right-leaning) material like Saving Private Ryan, Apollo 13, From the Earth to the Moon, John Adams, etc.
As for stores with bad service, you never know until you go back again. If I skipped out on every store that gave me bad service (even once), I'd be buying everything online (and even that's no guarantee).
Well now we know where Baghdad Bob went off to, to Hollywood to write PR statements for movies.
It's very hard for me to dislike the man who played Forrest Gump, but Hanks is working overtime lately to make that happen.
Howard? I view his recent shenanigans as publicity stunts. He now has an aura of huckster about him he didn't have before.
and the same Michel Medved that loathed the "Da Vinci Code" for its so-called "blatant anti-Christian themes" (I say that because my impression upon seeing it was that it was nothing more than a big-screen glitzy version of those Saturday afternoon syndicated movies of the week.)Yeah, the same Medved that's linked on the sidebar to the right. He said the Catholic Church is painted in a more sympathetic portrait than the previous film, and that the history that is accurately depicted is very riveting, such as the process of choosing a new pope. I don't think he's naive about it since he's one of the foremost history buffs on all things American and Christian.
and the same Michel Medved that loathed the "Da Vinci Code" for its so-called "blatant anti-Christian themes" (I say that because my impression upon seeing it was that it was nothing more than a big-screen glitzy version of those Saturday afternoon syndicated movies of the week.)Yeah, the same Medved that's linked on the sidebar to the right. He said the Catholic Church is painted in a more sympathetic portrait than the previous film, and that the history that is accurately depicted is very riveting, such as the process of choosing a new pope. I don't think he's naive about it since he's one of the foremost history buffs on all things American and Christian.
Correction to the previous comment:
What's interesting is that one of the few good reviews "Angels & Demons" received was from, of all people, Michael Medved. Yes, the same Michael Medved that wrote the book "Hollywood vs. America" and the same Michel Medved that loathed the "Da Vinci Code" for its so-called "blatant anti-Christian themes" (I say that because my impression upon seeing it was that it was nothing more than a big-screen glitzy version of those Saturday afternoon syndicated movies of the week.)Yeah, the same Medved that's linked on the sidebar to the right. He said the Catholic Church is painted in a more sympathetic portrait than the previous film, and that the history that is accurately depicted is very riveting, such as the process of choosing a new pope. I don't think he's naive about it since he's one of the foremost history buffs on all things American and Christian.
I hope this movie tanks in a big way…….
but thats just me ….a hateful, un-american,veteran, conservative Mormon
That was interesting to me, since I was listening to Medved on the radio when he reviewed it, and his was the first review of "A&D" that I'd heard. As you said, while he admitted that it wasn't anything cerebral that was going to enrich your thought life or anything, he said he found it entertaining, especially Ewan MacGregor's performance.
Thus, I was rather surprised to hear the negative reviews later (such as the one here on Big Hollywood) that charged it with being anti-Catholic. I have to wonder why Medved didn't pick up on the slights against the Church in this movie.
I myself am not just Catholic, but ultra-orthodox Catholic. I'm not going to watch this movie because I know I won't be able to "suspend my disbelief" and enjoy the show. I'll guffaw an mutter under my breath through the whole movie, so I'll spare the movie-going audience the pain and stay home. If folks want to go watch this I won't begrudge them their fun.
But now I think I may want to see these on DVD. Maybe. If someone can tell me it's a guaranteed laugh.
Websites we think you should visit…
[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.