ROTTEN TOMATOES: Hanks to Get Biggest Payday Ever for "Da Vinci Code 2"?

Hanks to Get Biggest Payday Ever for "Da Vinci Code 2"?

by Scott Weinberg | April 11, 2007

Sony was already warming up the "Da Vinci Code" follow-up when the flick opened to huge box office numbers, but the questions we still need to know are A) Who's directing, and B) Is Tom Hanks coming back?

It's already been reported that screenwriter Akiva Goldsman hauled in a huge payday for adaptation duties on "Angels & Demons," the "prequel" novel that was written by "Code" author Dan Brown. A scooper at one source states that not only has Tom Hanks been signed to reprise his role as heroic nerd Robert Langdon, but that he'll earn "the highest salary EVER" for an actor.

Other tidbits offered:

1. "Angels" will begin production in July.

2. Model Gisele Bundchen is rumored for a villainous role. (Is it too late for an April Fool's joke?)

(Note: It was CinemaBlend who first broke this story, which then made its way over to IGN Movies, but when I back-tracked to CB, I couldn't find the original article anywhere. So take this report with a grain of salt until we get some additional comfirmation.)

Sources: CinemaBlend, IGN Movies

Related Items

Celeb:	Tom Hanks
	Akiva Goldsman
	Dan Brown
	Gisele Bundchen
Movie:	The Da Vinci Code

(1-20 of 49 posts) | Reply

TheAnswerMVP2001 writes:
on Apr 11 2007 01:59 AM

Gisele Bundchen as a villain... that should be enough right there to tell you this film will suck!

If this is true (which it probably isn't) Tom Hanks has officially sold out and will now do just about anything for money, to think he actually used to make good movies! I don't see a stellar box office return for this one after the first film disappointed pretty much everyone! Forest Gump 2 here we come, if the money is right Hanks will do it!

(Reply to this)

ebonflux writes:
on Apr 11 2007 02:52 AM

In reply to this comment (#860968)
My question, "Why are they making another one?" I now that they expect this movie to cash in, but why? I thought they had concluded everything in the first movie. Besides, IMO, the thrill is gone with the Da Vinci Code. This one has "bad sequel" written all over it. But I'm sure that someone will go see it

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Apr 11 2007 04:12 AM

[b]LATE.[/b]
After joining Dan Brown's Christians-hating wagon, and saying the most insulting thing about Jesus Christ--- implying that he wasn't devine--- was pure ugliness. Due to that, I don't think anything good will come out of Tom Hanks anymore.

Tom Hanks? If you have problems with Christianity, go join your friend Spielberg and become a Jew. You know that's what you really want.
Grow some balls and go do that, instead of insulting Christianity and Christ.

If idiot producers give Hanks more Millions for insulting Christianity--- It just re-affirms and proves, that they're probably more STUPID than ever considered before.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Apr 11 2007 05:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#860969)
because Dan Brown wrote two books with Robert Langdon as the main character, The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons (and is currently writing The Solomon Key or at least that was the title a few months ago). Either way, A&D has completely different symbolism (well, kind of) and according to myself and most people, is the better of the two books.

And it's not a sequel. A&D is a prequel to Da Vinci.

(Reply to this)

JustAnotherName writes:
on Apr 11 2007 05:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#860969)
Not that it really matters but it will be a "prequal" which is just as irritating. Sellout? Of course. They all have to sell out at some point because they all lose their edge, creativity, scruples. They have to keep up their lifestyle.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Apr 11 2007 05:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#860970)
[b]and to you...[/b]
you're the kind of person who fuels the controversy fire and makes the book that much bigger. It's a work of fiction. Even though at the beginning of the book dan brown has something about how all the sequences in the book are based on real fact doesn't mean that they are. It's a work of fiction - you can say whatever you want. I could write a book where Jesus was a crime fighting ninja and say that everything was based on real actual facts (that i made up myself). I would include massive fight scenes using a variety of weapons, both real and devine. Think of it, a ninja star that when thrown, only his the sinner (which is everyone).

So go start your picket line for this movie. I'm sure that'll do a lot of good. And by good, i mean for the movie company because you're giving them free advertisement.

Oh, and on a personal note, i find it great that all these people are so insulted for believing what the want. Don't you find it rather hypocritical to condem the movie people for suggesting something other than the norm? You're allowed to believe what you want, but they aren't? Excellent. I can feel the crusades starting again.

And in the end I will go see Angels and Demon's in the theater, most likely the midnight showing cause i'm that guy.

(Reply to this)

Thundaar writes:
on Apr 11 2007 05:52 AM

In reply to this comment (#860973)
I get your point - but can't you see how incendiary and insulting it is making a movie that pretends the most important religious beliefs of Christians are based on a silly misunderstanding?

(Reply to this)

digitalsoul68 writes:
on Apr 11 2007 05:52 AM

In reply to this comment (#860973)
Jesus as a crime fighting ninja...I think you've struck HOLLYWOOD GOLD, arpeggio! Lovely. Great points, btw. LOL

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Apr 11 2007 06:34 AM

if fanatical Christians think the Da Vinci Code is insulting... go watch a South Park episode and then tell me what you think.

David Blaine is our true master.

(Reply to this)

timov writes:
on Apr 11 2007 06:44 AM

i finally saw the da vinci code and was just unimpressed. yeah, i liked the codes and secrets and trying to figure the crap out, but when tom hanks told audrey tatou in his most serious tone, that she was the last living decendan of jesus christ, it was over for me. it came across as totally lame. just retarded. but i didnt mind his hair, like most people.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Apr 11 2007 07:31 AM

Da Vinci Code was one of those rare movies for me where I liked the actors in it and their performances, but didn't really like the movie as a whole. It's a very technically good movie, all the pieces are there. It just didn't come together. I've noticed that with a lot of Ron Howard movies that don't have Russell Crowe in them.

(Reply to this)

nav123 writes:
on Apr 11 2007 07:32 AM

[b]You guys are missing the bigger story[/b]
Chris Tucker aint gonna be the highest paid actor!!!! :)

(Reply to this)

skasforfags writes:
on Apr 11 2007 07:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#860974)
It's a MOVIE.

(Reply to this)

ChinaRises writes:
on Apr 11 2007 08:10 AM

I have to admit I am looking foward to this. I was not a fan of "The Da Vinci Code", book or movie. But "Angels and Demons", was a very well writen, well thought-out book, with a very stable plot that can translate well onto screen.

Also, theres in no point in debating faithful believers on religion, thats something I learned being in a minority religion surrounded by a majority. The truth is, debate is only for beliefs which are based on tangable facts and theories, its impossible to debate beliefs based on faith or because its something you just want to believe.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Apr 11 2007 08:25 AM

Angels and Demons was a better book, will make a better movie. Dan Brown's next book should be about how, contrary to what all of us thought, Langdon actually is in an odd twist of fate his own father! And of course the Catholic Church will be invovled, somehow.

(Reply to this)

lafinass writes:
on Apr 11 2007 08:28 AM

In reply to this comment (#860982)
Aye, Angels and Demons was a MUCH better book.

I was worried by the article title that they were somehow making a second Divinci Code >.<

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Apr 11 2007 08:39 AM

First of all, who did get the most money for a movie ever? i remember that jack nicholson got 60 mil for batman, but that included a slice of the merchandising, which was HUGE....

second of all, i have no problem with A&D, since its more movie worthy than Da vinci code (i.e. people dont just sit around and talk), if you dont like it, dont see it

third, as Esqueleto said in Nacho Libre.... i believe in sciiiiiiiiiiiiiience

(Reply to this)

Yeah Write writes:
on Apr 11 2007 09:39 AM

In reply to this comment (#860969)
This is not Da Vinci Code 2, but Angels and Demons, the prequel. IMO Angels and Demons was a far better book with a quicker pace and more interesting twists. It didn't do as well as Code because it didn't make any outrageous claims about Jesus (though it does make a few about the pope if that bothers you). Angels and Demons should translate to film better than Code did. It has more suspense and better pacing, although if you didn't like Code, you probably won't like this, as many people think that Dan Brown plagiarized himself when he wrote Code (there are a ton of similarities between the two, some call it plagiarism, I call it a series...just like Bond...but for nerds).

(Reply to this)

brownitus writes:
on Apr 11 2007 09:41 AM

The pay really only counts upfront commission. Will Smith, Julia Roberts and a few others have gotten $20 million per picture, but then that turd Chris Tucker got that too (or was he first?), and now for Rush Hour 2 he's getting $25 million, so that's the highest upfront so far.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Apr 11 2007 09:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#860974)
see previous post

(Reply to this)