“Da Vinci Code’s” sequels: So dark, the con of Cannes

We admit it. We’ve been putting off weighing in on “The Da Vinci Code” grosses. You know what they are, because every TV and radio and supermarket checkstand tells you it’s the second highest opening gross of all time. Far more than was initially expected, even. _41390599_davincicode203.jpg

And yes, the Times of London broke the story that Sony has the rights to the Robert Langdon character and will develop several more films based on him.

Here’s the Amazon.com description of “Angels and Demons”: “Brilliant physicist Leonardo Vetra has been murdered, his eyes plucked out, and the society’s ancient symbol branded upon his chest…Langdon and Vittoria, Vetra’s daughter and colleague, embark on a frantic hunt through the streets, churches, and catacombs of Rome, following a 400-year-old trail to the lair of the Illuminati, to prevent the incineration of civilization.”

Sound vaguely familiar? Well, nevertheless, we’ll leave aside any aethethic criticism – clearly, there’s no shortage of opinions about how Dan Brown‘s prose is either too pedantic or the perfect pot-boiler – and focus instead on the folly of following up “Da Vinci” with more Langdon sequels.

Why?

Because “Angels and Demons” – the first Robert Langdon book – sold fewer than 10,000 copies in its first printings. True, it’s sold millions of copies since. But it’s essentially the plot of “The Da Vinci Code” – with none of the awareness or want-to-see of “Da Vinci Code.” In short, the reason why Sony shouldn’t make a sequel to “Code” is the very same reason why headline’s aren’t blaring puns that rhyme with ‘Langdon.’

But given Sony’s modus operandi (feast while “Spider-man” is in theaters; famine as the sequels are prepped, etc.), we fully expect them to go full-bore, anyway.

And yes, we meant “Bore.”