Suicide Squad' Trailer Teases Joker But Highlights Harley Quinn

If everything had gone to plan this would have been the first real look at David Ayer’s Suicide Squad. But the SDCC panel footage got leaked almost immediately and an official version of that sizzle reel was legally online just days after the convention. So while this is the first official “this will play in theaters to unassuming audiences” theatrical trailer for Suicide Squad, it’s basically the second major reveal for this most unusual of projects. Since that teaser was never supposed to see the light of day outside of Comic Con, it is understandable that some of the footage in this theatrical trailer repeats itself accordingly.

And first and foremost, the most impressive thing about the trailer is how little it relies on Jared Leto’s Joker. Oh sure, you get your fill towards the end of the trailer, but the vast majority of this trailer highlights the likes of Harley Quinn, Deadshot, Randall Flag, Captain Boomerang, Katana, and the like. Beyond that, this looks pretty good.

It’s dirty, it’s violent, it looks entirely unlike any other mainstream comic book superhero movie we’ve seen up to this point, and “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a darn good choice for musical accompaniment. Yeah sure, it’s not the first modern comic book movie to play this card (“Hooked On A Feeing” for the Guardians of the Galaxy trailers), but it works just the same.  As I’ve discussed before, the trump card here remains Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn.

Not only is she the most popular female comic book character on the planet, but if the film somewhat revolves around her than Suicide Squad will accidentally end up being the first female-centric superhero comic book movie in the modern (post-Iron Man) age. Ms. Quinn, who of course was created by Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Eric Radomski, and vocalist Arleen Sorkin for Batman: The Animated Series way back in 1992.

While I would argue that most of the people old enough to click on a Forbes article concerning a Suicide Squad trailer know her first from that source, she has been a part of the mainstream comic book continuity since 1999. But to this day she remains a major player, with her various comic books among DC’s biggest sellers and her Halloween costumes among the biggest moneymakers this past season. With all of the talk about a Scarlett Johansson-led Black Widow movie, a stand-alone Harley Quinn would be a massively profitable venture if audiences take to Margot Robbie’s (and writer David Ayer’s) version of the character.If everything had gone to plan this would have been the first real look at David Ayer’s Suicide Squad. But the SDCC panel footage got leaked almost immediately and an official version of that sizzle reel was legally online just days after the convention. So while this is the first official “this will play in theaters to unassuming audiences” theatrical trailer for Suicide Squad, it’s basically the second major reveal for this most unusual of projects. Since that teaser was never supposed to see the light of day outside of Comic Con, it is understandable that some of the footage in this theatrical trailer repeats itself accordingly.

And first and foremost, the most impressive thing about the trailer is how little it relies on Jared Leto’s Joker. Oh sure, you get your fill towards the end of the trailer, but the vast majority of this trailer highlights the likes of Harley Quinn, Deadshot, Randall Flag, Captain Boomerang, Katana, and the like. Beyond that, this looks pretty good.

It’s dirty, it’s violent, it looks entirely unlike any other mainstream comic book superhero movie we’ve seen up to this point, and “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a darn good choice for musical accompaniment. Yeah sure, it’s not the first modern comic book movie to play this card (“Hooked On A Feeing” for the Guardians of the Galaxy trailers), but it works just the same.  As I’ve discussed before, the trump card here remains Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn.

Not only is she the most popular female comic book character on the planet, but if the film somewhat revolves around her than Suicide Squad will accidentally end up being the first female-centric superhero comic book movie in the modern (post-Iron Man) age. Ms. Quinn, who of course was created by Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Eric Radomski, and vocalist Arleen Sorkin for Batman: The Animated Series way back in 1992.

While I would argue that most of the people old enough to click on a Forbes article concerning a Suicide Squad trailer know her first from that source, she has been a part of the mainstream comic book continuity since 1999. But to this day she remains a major player, with her various comic books among DC’s biggest sellers and her Halloween costumes among the biggest moneymakers this past season. With all of the talk about a Scarlett Johansson-led Black Widow movie, a stand-alone Harley Quinn would be a massively profitable venture if audiences take to Margot Robbie’s (and writer David Ayer’s) version of the character.If everything had gone to plan this would have been the first real look at David Ayer’s Suicide Squad. But the SDCC panel footage got leaked almost immediately and an official version of that sizzle reel was legally online just days after the convention. So while this is the first official “this will play in theaters to unassuming audiences” theatrical trailer for Suicide Squad, it’s basically the second major reveal for this most unusual of projects. Since that teaser was never supposed to see the light of day outside of Comic Con, it is understandable that some of the footage in this theatrical trailer repeats itself accordingly.

And first and foremost, the most impressive thing about the trailer is how little it relies on Jared Leto’s Joker. Oh sure, you get your fill towards the end of the trailer, but the vast majority of this trailer highlights the likes of Harley Quinn, Deadshot, Randall Flag, Captain Boomerang, Katana, and the like. Beyond that, this looks pretty good.

It’s dirty, it’s violent, it looks entirely unlike any other mainstream comic book superhero movie we’ve seen up to this point, and “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a darn good choice for musical accompaniment. Yeah sure, it’s not the first modern comic book movie to play this card (“Hooked On A Feeing” for the Guardians of the Galaxy trailers), but it works just the same.  As I’ve discussed before, the trump card here remains Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn.

Not only is she the most popular female comic book character on the planet, but if the film somewhat revolves around her than Suicide Squad will accidentally end up being the first female-centric superhero comic book movie in the modern (post-Iron Man) age. Ms. Quinn, who of course was created by Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Eric Radomski, and vocalist Arleen Sorkin for Batman: The Animated Series way back in 1992.

While I would argue that most of the people old enough to click on a Forbes article concerning a Suicide Squad trailer know her first from that source, she has been a part of the mainstream comic book continuity since 1999. But to this day she remains a major player, with her various comic books among DC’s biggest sellers and her Halloween costumes among the biggest moneymakers this past season. With all of the talk about a Scarlett Johansson-led Black Widow movie, a stand-alone Harley Quinn would be a massively profitable venture if audiences take to Margot Robbie’s (and writer David Ayer’s) version of the character.For what it’s worth, even though Quinn seems to spend most of the movie in a “realistic” costume, even a single sequence of her decked out in the traditional head-to-toe jester outfit from the majority of her comic/animated career would be something of a “Yoda’s got a lightsaber!” moment for audiences old enough to care about stuff like this. Maybe the film does contain said sequence, but for the moment I don’t want to know.

What’s interesting is that this is indeed the year that we’re going to find out if so-called “superhero fatigue” is a real thing or not. We’re getting Deadpool in February, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in March, Captain America: Civil War and X-Men: Apocalypse in May, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows in June, Suicide Squad in August, Gambit in October, and Doctor Strange in November. That’s eight high-profile (and mostly big budget) superhero/supervillain action spectaculars in a ten month period. That’s representation from Walt Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount, and 20th Century Fox.

Truth be told, all of this comic book superhero mania is really a feud between Disney and Warner Bros., with the other studios (mostly Fox) taking shots on the sidelines. The good news is that they are pretty different in terms of visuals, styles, tone, and genre. The bad news is that they may still register as “another superhero comic book movie” to general moviegoers and especially to bloggers, writers, and pundits. I’m not predicting gloom and doom, if for no other reason that the majority of these films are pretty spaced out over the course of the year.

I do worry a bit about the triple punch of Civil War, X-Men, and TMNT 2 in a four-week stretch, but that’s more of a domestic box office concern than a worldwide one. But to the extent that these films threaten to blur together, that’s where something like Suicide Squad has an advantage. It’s not an origin story, it involves characters we’ve never seen onscreen before, and it is more of a grimy crime caper as opposed to a more conventional superhero adventure. 2016 is going to be a fascinating year at the box office for a handful of reasons, but I would argue, and I may expand on this later, that 2016 is when we find out whether comic book movies can truly thrive against each other by explicitly designating themselves as genre pictures that happen to have comic book origins.

Suicide Squad, written and directed by David Ayer, stars Will Smith, Margot Robbie, Jai Courtney, Cara Delevigne, Viola Davis, Joel Kinnaman, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Jay Hernandez, and Adam Beach among others. It opens from Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc. on August 6th, 2016. As always, we’ll see.

The companies referenced in this article include Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS), Warner Bros. (NYSE: TWX), Paramount/Viacom (NASDAQ: VIAB), And 20th Century Fox (NASDAQ: FOX),

If you like what you're reading, follow @ScottMendelson on Twitter, and "like" The Ticket Booth on Facebook. Also, check out my archives for older work HEREIf I were going for a less SEO-friendly headline, the above would probably read something to the effect of “Why Star Wars: The Force Awakens Cannot Be The New Measuring Stick For Blockbusters.” But we are getting a new behind-the-scenes special tonight for the DC Comics Expanded Universe movies, with bits and pieces from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Wonder Woman, and the first “official” trailer for Suicide Squad as a cherry on top. And yes, I’ve seen any number of people arguing that theBen Affleck/Henry Cavill team-up movie is going to magically challenge the various records that The Force Awakens has set and/or the mountains it has climbed. I’ve had any number of people ask me, in good faith, if Dawn of Justice has a chance at topping that $247.8 million opening weekend. First of all, in this case, the answer is a very likely “No.” Warner Bros./Time Warner TWX +0.00% Inc. would be thrilled with 60% of that opening. Second of all, the eye-popping domestic and international success ofWalt Disney's DIS +0.00% Star Wars: The Force Awakens cannot be allowed to become the new normal for this kind of thing.

One of the reasons I was so reluctant to out-and-out predict that the latest Star Wars film was going to topple a bunch of short term and long term box office records right up until the week before release was because of how infrequently this kind of thing happens. Back in 1997,James Cameron’s Titanic shocked the world by earning $600 million in America (sans 3D or IMAX or PLF bumps) and a whopping $1.8 billion worldwide, basically doubling the next closest competitor (Jurassic Park). And over the last eighteen years, with inflation, 3D, the proliferation of IMAX and PLF screens, with would-be blockbuster saturation, the only film that topped that number was James Cameron’s Avatar twelve years later.

The Star Wars prequels couldn’t do it. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II couldn’t do it.  The Avengers couldn’t do it. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II couldn’t do it.  Jurassic World couldn’t do it. Sam Raimi’s game-changing Spider-Man made “just” $821m back in 2002, or about $1 billion short of Titanic‘s original theatrical release. The list goes on because none of the trend-setting, game-changing, zeitgeist-capturing blockbusters over the last two decades could approach the initial 1997/1998 un-adjusted original worldwide total for James Cameron’s doomed romance.

Even if you acknowledge that much of the initial sprint forStar Wars: The Force Awakens was somewhat driven by top-tier marketing, fan-driven hype, and nostalgic anticipation which would have made a monster hit out of a patently mediocre movie, at the end of the day it did what nothing else over the last twenty years has been able to do, which is displace James Cameron atop the domestic grossers list and top the “mere” $1.8 billion worldwide total that Titanic racked up back in that fabled four month box office massacre. Point being, the performance for Star Wars: The Force Awakens is not the new normal. It is a perfect storm combination of property, concept, content, hype, marketing, release date, reviews, and a friendly media. We should not and cannot expect other would-be blockbusters coming down the pike to perform at these levels.

To wit, The Force Awakens made $325 million in its first five days. That would by itself be a solid domestic total forBatman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Captain America: Civil War, X-Men: Apocalypse, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, and pretty much every other would-be mega-blockbuster coming out in the near future. Oh sure, there are others that are probably hoping to gross more, like Finding Dory, Independence Day: Resurgence, Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and part 2,Avatar 2, and Star Wars: Episode VIII. They might merely be hoping to go super-nova and earn a domestic total equal to The Force Awakens‘s first six days ($363m), first seven days ($391m), or maybe if everything goes right the first eight days ($440m). Star Wars: The Force Awakens topped the domestic totals of all but the top five movies ever by the end of its ninth day.The latest James Bond movie and the latest Mission: Impossible movie are both huge domestic hits with a total of just under $200 million domestic, or just above the $189m that The Force Awakens had by the end of its second day of domestic play. You basically look at any movie on the calendar in the near future and you can sum up their best case scenario domestic box office in terms of how few days it took The Force Awakens to hit that mark. Leonardo DiCaprio’s The Revenant would be thrilled to hit the $189m total that The Force Awakens hit on its second day. Chris Nolan would be thrilled to have another non-Dark Knight movie that earned anywhere near Inception‘s $292m domestic gross, or just over the $288m four-day total of The Force Awakens. If you want to play “adjusted for inflation,” then give Inception a $316m total and give The Force Awakens an extra day of domestic play to top it.

I could play this game all day. It out-grossed the biggestHarry Potter movie in seven days and the biggest Hunger Games movie in just over eight days. Heck, here is a list of a handful of high-profile movies that J.J. Abrams’s sci-fi sequel just barely topped in the first $119 million-grossing full day of release:  The Good Dinosaur, Unbroken, The Wolf of Wall Street, Magic Mike, Green Lantern, District 9, and Tropic Thunder. The sheer magnitude of the domestic and international success of the latest Star Wars movie puts it on such a wholly separate plane with its relative competition that, like the two James Cameron movies it displaced in America and threatens overseas, it can’t really be used for comparison.

With a guestimated final domestic total of $925-$950 million by the time it’s done, it will have doubled the respective grosses of The Dark Knight Rises and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc.’s two-part Justice League movie would be thrilled to have grossed anywhere near that much combined when they drop said Zack Snyder opuses in 2017 and 2019. We may yet see films that challenge the domestic and worldwide numbers put up by Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Maybe it’ll be Star Wars Episode XIor maybe it’ll be Avengers: Infinity War part 2. Or maybe we won’t, because in this day-and-age so many franchises peak at the start of their run rather than at the end of it, but that’s a conversation for another day.

Point being, using The Force Awakens as a measuring stick for every would-be blockbuster dropping over the next few years is only setting yourself up for disappointment and/or setting the bar at a nigh-unrealistic level. It cannot be used as a realistic measuring stick forDawn of Justice, Civil War, Rogue One, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Avatar 2, or even the upcoming Star Wars “episodes.” We spent eighteen years waiting for something to top just the $1.8 billion 1997/1998 worldwide total of Titanic. We may have to wait another eighteen years for something else to top wherever Star Wars: The Force Awakens ends up.Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice presumably isn’t the next Star Wars: The Force Awakens anymore than anything else on its scale is. Unless it is, in which case we should remember what Syndrome told us about everyone being specialIf you like what you're reading, follow @ScottMendelson on Twitter, and "like" The Ticket Booth on Facebook. Also, check out my archives for older work HERE..

If I were going for a less SEO-friendly headline, the above would probably read something to the effect of “Why Star Wars: The Force Awakens Cannot Be The New Measuring Stick For Blockbusters.” But we are getting a new behind-the-scenes special tonight for the DC Comics Expanded Universe movies, with bits and pieces from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Wonder Woman, and the first “official” trailer for Suicide Squad as a cherry on top. And yes, I’ve seen any number of people arguing that theBen Affleck/Henry Cavill team-up movie is going to magically challenge the various records that The Force Awakens has set and/or the mountains it has climbed. I’ve had any number of people ask me, in good faith, if Dawn of Justice has a chance at topping that $247.8 million opening weekend. First of all, in this case, the answer is a very likely “No.” Warner Bros./Time Warner TWX +0.00% Inc. would be thrilled with 60% of that opening. Second of all, the eye-popping domestic and international success ofWalt Disney's DIS +0.00% Star Wars: The Force Awakens cannot be allowed to become the new normal for this kind of thing.

One of the reasons I was so reluctant to out-and-out predict that the latest Star Wars film was going to topple a bunch of short term and long term box office records right up until the week before release was because of how infrequently this kind of thing happens. Back in 1997,James Cameron’s Titanic shocked the world by earning $600 million in America (sans 3D or IMAX or PLF bumps) and a whopping $1.8 billion worldwide, basically doubling the next closest competitor (Jurassic Park). And over the last eighteen years, with inflation, 3D, the proliferation of IMAX and PLF screens, with would-be blockbuster saturation, the only film that topped that number was James Cameron’s Avatar twelve years later.

The Star Wars prequels couldn’t do it. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II couldn’t do it.  The Avengers couldn’t do it. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II couldn’t do it.  Jurassic World couldn’t do it. Sam Raimi’s game-changing Spider-Man made “just” $821m back in 2002, or about $1 billion short of Titanic‘s original theatrical release. The list goes on because none of the trend-setting, game-changing, zeitgeist-capturing blockbusters over the last two decades could approach the initial 1997/1998 un-adjusted original worldwide total for James Cameron’s doomed romance.

Even if you acknowledge that much of the initial sprint forStar Wars: The Force Awakens was somewhat driven by top-tier marketing, fan-driven hype, and nostalgic anticipation which would have made a monster hit out of a patently mediocre movie, at the end of the day it did what nothing else over the last twenty years has been able to do, which is displace James Cameron atop the domestic grossers list and top the “mere” $1.8 billion worldwide total that Titanic racked up back in that fabled four month box office massacre. Point being, the performance for Star Wars: The Force Awakens is not the new normal. It is a perfect storm combination of property, concept, content, hype, marketing, release date, reviews, and a friendly media. We should not and cannot expect other would-be blockbusters coming down the pike to perform at these levels.

To wit, The Force Awakens made $325 million in its first five days. That would by itself be a solid domestic total forBatman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Captain America: Civil War, X-Men: Apocalypse, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, and pretty much every other would-be mega-blockbuster coming out in the near future. Oh sure, there are others that are probably hoping to gross more, like Finding Dory, Independence Day: Resurgence, Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and part 2,Avatar 2, and Star Wars: Episode VIII. They might merely be hoping to go super-nova and earn a domestic total equal to The Force Awakens‘s first six days ($363m), first seven days ($391m), or maybe if everything goes right the first eight days ($440m). Star Wars: The Force Awakens topped the domestic totals of all but the top five movies ever by the end of its ninth day.The latest James Bond movie and the latest Mission: Impossible movie are both huge domestic hits with a total of just under $200 million domestic, or just above the $189m that The Force Awakens had by the end of its second day of domestic play. You basically look at any movie on the calendar in the near future and you can sum up their best case scenario domestic box office in terms of how few days it took The Force Awakens to hit that mark. Leonardo DiCaprio’s The Revenant would be thrilled to hit the $189m total that The Force Awakens hit on its second day. Chris Nolan would be thrilled to have another non-Dark Knight movie that earned anywhere near Inception‘s $292m domestic gross, or just over the $288m four-day total of The Force Awakens. If you want to play “adjusted for inflation,” then give Inception a $316m total and give The Force Awakens an extra day of domestic play to top it.

I could play this game all day. It out-grossed the biggestHarry Potter movie in seven days and the biggest Hunger Games movie in just over eight days. Heck, here is a list of a handful of high-profile movies that J.J. Abrams’s sci-fi sequel just barely topped in the first $119 million-grossing full day of release:  The Good Dinosaur, Unbroken, The Wolf of Wall Street, Magic Mike, Green Lantern, District 9, and Tropic Thunder. The sheer magnitude of the domestic and international success of the latest Star Wars movie puts it on such a wholly separate plane with its relative competition that, like the two James Cameron movies it displaced in America and threatens overseas, it can’t really be used for comparison.

With a guestimated final domestic total of $925-$950 million by the time it’s done, it will have doubled the respective grosses of The Dark Knight Rises and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc.’s two-part Justice League movie would be thrilled to have grossed anywhere near that much combined when they drop said Zack Snyder opuses in 2017 and 2019. We may yet see films that challenge the domestic and worldwide numbers put up by Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Maybe it’ll be Star Wars Episode XIor maybe it’ll be Avengers: Infinity War part 2. Or maybe we won’t, because in this day-and-age so many franchises peak at the start of their run rather than at the end of it, but that’s a conversation for another day.

Point being, using The Force Awakens as a measuring stick for every would-be blockbuster dropping over the next few years is only setting yourself up for disappointment and/or setting the bar at a nigh-unrealistic level. It cannot be used as a realistic measuring stick forDawn of Justice, Civil War, Rogue One, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Avatar 2, or even the upcoming Star Wars “episodes.” We spent eighteen years waiting for something to top just the $1.8 billion 1997/1998 worldwide total of Titanic. We may have to wait another eighteen years for something else to top wherever Star Wars: The Force Awakens ends up.Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice presumably isn’t the next Star Wars: The Force Awakens anymore than anything else on its scale is. Unless it is, in which case we should remember what Syndrome told us about everyone being special.If you like what you're reading, follow @ScottMendelson on Twitter, and "like" The Ticket Booth on Facebook. Also, check out my archives for older work HERE.If you have even a glancing familiarity with the comics of the 1960s and 70s that gave rise to today’s cross-media franchises, you’ve probably encountered the work of artist Jack Kirby, even if you have never heard his name.

Kirby, who died in 1994 at age 76, virtually invented the visual language of American superhero comics: the dramatic poses, the exaggerated anatomy, the visceral sense of action that pulls the reader into the story, no matter how outlandish the plot and premise. He also has a strong claim to co-creating just about every major hero in the Marvel Comics pantheon: Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk, The X-Men, The Black Panther, The Inhumans and down the line. Captain America? Kirby co-created him back in 1941 with then-partner Joe Simon.

For decades, the story of how everyone made a fortune off the work of this visionary creator except for Kirby himself – who until his final days toiled to eke out financial security for his family – stood as one of the most egregious injustices in an industry distinguished by its ill-treatment of creative talent. Now, as we approach his centenary in 2017, the man that Stan Lee nicknamed “King of the Comics” is finally starting to get his due in the wider world of art, culture and commerce.

A Creator, Not Just an Artist. Kirby worked closely with Marvel writer and editor Stan Lee throughout the 1960s, drawing full stories based on Lee’s skeletal plot outlines. Kirby often took the stories in his own direction, inventing new characters that Lee explained and characterized when he added dialogue to Kirby’s pages. Kirby did this work as a freelancer, under an arrangement that Marvel insisted was work-for-hire and thus negated any claims to ownership.

Throughout the 1960s, Stan Lee built the Marvel brand through the force of his flamboyant, media-friendly personality while Kirby toiled in the shadows, growing increasingly resentful that Lee was seen as the “creator” while he was merely the “illustrator.” In 1969, he left the company to work for rival DC. Despite some interesting efforts, it didn’t work out; nor did his subsequent return to Marvel.

Recommended by ForbesKirby spent his final decade doing work where he could, in animation and independent comics, and appearing every year as an honored guest at San Diego Comic-Con, holding out for the credit and money he felt he was due. Less than a decade after his death, Marvel and its movie partners were turning his creations into billion dollar properties.

A Prophet Without Honor.  While comics fans know and love Jack Kirby, the wider world has not been as sympathetic. Courts consistently rejected the claims of Kirby and his estate, upholding Marvel’s ownership of the intellectual property. Kirby’s artwork was considered kitsch and Americana, collectable by enthusiasts, perhaps, but not museum-quality.

And while the sunlight of celebrity shines on Stan Lee, the avuncular elder statesman of comics with his cameo appearances in every Marvel film and six-figure appearance fee at comic conventions worldwide, Kirby’s titanic contributions to our modern-day mythology remain largely in the shadows.

It is hard to grasp the enormity of the tax increases Bernie Sanders is proposing, how far out-of-step he is with recent economic history in the U.S., and what a stunning contrast he presents with Republican presidential hopefuls. Where Sanders backs tax increases of more than $1 trillion a year aimed mostly at high income households, GOP candidates are proposing massive tax cuts that would largely benefit those same taxpayers.

Compare Sanders with Donald Trump, and the revenue swing is more than $2 trillion annually, or in excess of 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product.

With just a few exceptions, tax cuts have been a pillar of U.S. fiscal policy for a half century. When lawmakers did not cut taxes, such as in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, their revisions raised roughly the same amount of money as the tax code they were amending.  Even in 2013, when Congress and President Obama allowed tax rates to return to 2000 levels, the move was carefully described as merely restoring the status quo ante rather than increasing taxes (an argument that will never be resolved in the land of dueling baselines).Not Sanders. No ambiguity for the Denmark-loving, Vermont social democrat. He is proposing enormous, massive, unapologetic tax increases. He’s got an ambitious social agenda, including free health care and free college education. And to help pay for it, he wants to raise taxes on nearly everyone, but especially on high-income households.He estimates his “Medicare for all” health plan alone would cost nearly $1.4 trillion annually.  To help finance it, he’s proposing a 6.2 percent employer tax, which he calls an “income-based health care premium” (and which would likely be passed on to workers). And a 2.2 percent income-based tax on most households. And income tax rate hikes on income in excess of $250,000, with a top rate of 52 percent, a level the US has not seen since 1981. And big rate hikes on most investment income, which would be taxed at the same rate as wages. And he’d expand the estate tax and cap the value of deductions at 28 percent for those making $250,000 or more.

While Sanders describes his top rate as 52 percent, top-bracket taxpayers would be paying up to 58 percent rate (the 52 percent base rate, plus the 2.2 percent health premium, plus the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, which Sanders would keep).

Sanders estimates the employer tax would raise $630 billion annually, the individual income tax hike would bring in about $210 billion, the rate hikes on ordinary income would raise $110 billion, and the tax hikes on capital gains and other investment income would bring in $92 billion. That’s a $1 trillion-a-year tax hike.

How big is that? Well, the federal government expects to collect an average of about $4 trillion a year in revenues over the next decade. A $1 trillion tax hike on a $4 trillion base is really big.

Those estimates may be high, and the Sanders tax increases may not be quite as big as he claims. For instance, a rough back-of-the envelope calculation shows the 6.2 percent employer tax is more likely to raise about $500 billion than $630 billion. The Tax Policy Center plans on modeling the Sanders plan soon, as it has with Trump and Jeb Bush and will for other candidates as well.

Sanders also backs a financial transactions tax. His “Robin Hood” tax—which would fund his proposal for free college tuition– would impose a 50 cent per $100 tax on stock transactions (with lower rates on trades involving bonds and other securities). There is no formal revenue estimate for Sanders’ proposal, but my Tax Policy Center colleaguesestimate a similar plan could raise up to $50 billion-a-year.

Sanders also says he backs a carbon tax. Again, he has not made a formal proposal, and there are many variations of such a levy, but TPC figures a representative carbon levy could raise taxes by $50 billion to $90 billion annually, after a rebate to soften the blow on low-income households.

All this is in stunning contrast to the GOP presidential hopefuls, all of whom are proposing tax cuts similar in size to the tax increases Sanders is proposing.  Trump, for example, has proposed a tax cut that TPC estimates would reduce federal revenues by nearly $1 trillion annually. Jeb Bush is proposing tax cuts averaging nearly $700 billion-a-year. And while Sanders aims his tax hikes on the wealthy, Trump, Bush, and other Republican presidential hopefuls would lavish tax cuts on those same high-income   households.

You can safely say this: If Sanders gets the Democratic nomination for President, the contrast would give voters their starkest choice since 1964. At least when it comes to tax policy, voters would have, as Barry Goldwater said that year, “a choice, not an echo.”As more and more studies are showing, the old saying “you are what you eat” may need an addendum: “you sleep how you eat.” A small new study from Columbia University Medical Center finds that over just a few nights, diet can make a difference in sleep quality: People who ate higher-fat, lower fiber diets were more likely to sleep poorly that night than when they ate a healthier diet. They were in a sleep lab, of course, and not in their natural habitats. But if the results are applicable to us at home, too – and it’s likely that they are – then a new tenet of sleep hygiene might be not to have a lot of fatty food before we go to sleep.The team had 26 participants spend five nights in a sleep lab. For the first three days, they ate nutritionist-designed meals, which were high in fiber and low in saturated fat. On the fifth day, they got to eat what they wanted – these meals tended to be higher in saturated fat, lower in fiber, and higher in sugar. The participants’ sleep was tracked by polysomnography after eating the healthier meals for three days, and the night of the self-selected meal.

It took the participants an average of 17 minutes to fall asleep after eating the scientist-designed meals. But it took them 29 minutes to fall asleep after eating what they wanted. And when they did sleep, eating the less healthy meals was linked to lighter and more disrupted sleep.

If diet could influence sleep so dramatically in a five-day study, it may be be doing the same thing, or worse, over the long term, the authors say. And given the known connections between sleep problems, food, and chronic disease like heart disease, the results are even more exciting.

“The finding that diet can influence sleep has tremendous health implications, given the increasing recognition of the role of sleep in the development of chronic disorders such as hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” said study author Marie-Pierre St-Onge.What’s equally interesting (or disturbing) is that the opposite connection also exists: When we sleep less during the night, we tend to eat more the next day – considerably more. In fact, a study a couple of years ago found that when people were deprived of just 1.5 hours of sleep one night, they were more likely to consume some 500 caloriesmore than controls the next day. Which suggests there may be a vicious cycle of eating poorly, sleeping less, eating more poorly, and so on.

There are probably several mechanisms involved in the connection between poor diet and poor sleep, but one is likely hormonal, so that sleep deprivation and/or eating an unhealthy diet triggers disruptions in the body’s natural hunger-and-satiety system. Some may also be psychological – for instance, when we feel run-down and lousy from sleep loss, we’re more likely to eat to try to feel better or energize.

But what’s key in this current study is the uber short-term nature of the effect. In just a day, people’s sleep was disrupted considerably, and in multiple ways. And that in itself has a lot of implications, since health effects, good and bad, tend to accrue over time.

“Our main finding was that diet quality influenced sleep quality,” said St-Onge. “It was most surprising that a single day of greater fat intake and lower fiber could influence sleep parameters.”

If this is true, image what a lifetime of poor food choices could do to our sleep. And what a lifetime of poor sleep choices could do to our food intake.

Follow me on Twitter or find me on Facebook.Caroline Walerud wants you to forget your shoe size. Or, at least, to forget that number you’ve been reeling off to salespeople for years, like a U.S. 9, or a European 40. It’s likely that it isn’t quite right anyway, given the complex anatomical structure of our feet and the inconsistent sizing used by footwear brands.

“Half of women regularly buy shoes that don’t fit,” says the 25-year-old, who is a member of the first ever Forbes 30 Under 30 Europe list.

Walerud’s company, Stockholm-based Volumental, aims to solve this problem. Since 2012, the Cambridge University neuroscience graduate has been working alongside her three cofounders — computer vision experts — to build technology that uses 3D scanning to ensure a perfect fit.

Volumental’s hardware includes a platform that looks not unlike a high-tech scale (see below). All a shoe shopper has to do is stand on it, and depth cameras take a 3D, volumetric scan of each foot. The company’s software, which includes Intel INTC +0.00% and Microsoft MSFT +0.00%technology, captures data points including arch length and ball width that a shoe retailer would find it tough to measure accurately using traditional tools.The 3D scan is instantly displayed on a tablet, allowing a shoe salesperson to make recommendations for each customer. He or she will be able to tell a shopper which shoes in its existing inventory will fit. Volumental’s first big U.S. partnership, with high-end chain Nordstrom JWN +1.50%, was announced on Monday.

The company already has scanners on the ground in Japan, where they’re being used to develop a consumer app for shoe recommendations. Volumental’s technology is also being used to make bespoke shoes, with Swedish brand Falchenberg and German outfit Scarosso both creating customized Italian leather shoes based on 3D imaging.

Walerud has raised some $5 million to date, including backing from venture capital firms and the Swedish government.

As it rolls its technology out in the U.S., Volumental is simultaneously growing its second business: face scanning for opticians and eyewear brands. The company’s scanners provide an accurate, 3D topography of the face, aiming to ensure glasses fit perfectly. The optician is able to make micro-adjustments based on measurements of, say, temple length or nasal bridge, showing a customer the resulting look on one of Volumental’s tablets in real-time.

Volumental has partnered with German manufacturer Mykita, which sells its fashionable optical glasses and sunglasses in over 80 countries.Walerud has won all manner of awards since cofounding the company. She was named ‘#1 Super Talent of the Year’ by Swedish business weekly Veckans Affärer in 2013, at age 23. Previous winners have included billionaire Spotify founder Daniel Ek.

Before Volumental, Walerud worked briefly with a satellite image analysis startup. But she was an entrepreneur long before that. During summers as a teenager, she baked and sold homemade bread in the Swedish resort area ofKungshamn. “This taught me the fundamentals of business: pricing strategy, customer targeting and cash flow management,” she notes on her LinkedIn LNKD -1.55%page, adding: “Immediate profitability with over 80% margin.”Walerud has won all manner of awards since cofounding the company. She was named ‘#1 Super Talent of the Year’ by Swedish business weekly Veckans Affärer in 2013, at age 23. Previous winners have included billionaire Spotify founder Daniel Ek.

Before Volumental, Walerud worked briefly with a satellite image analysis startup. But she was an entrepreneur long before that. During summers as a teenager, she baked and sold homemade bread in the Swedish resort area ofKungshamn. “This taught me the fundamentals of business: pricing strategy, customer targeting and cash flow management,” she notes on her LinkedIn LNKD -1.55%page, adding: “Immediate profitability with over 80% margin.”

The one given in this industry is that the analyst community is consistently wrong about where the price of oil is going in the near to mid-term. Just as $100 oil was a sentiment driven price that baked in the risk of every potential negative impact on the supply chain, $28, $30 or $40 dollars is equally sentimental, assuming that any and all incremental barrels are and will be available AND demand will slow or stop.

So let’s just step away from the current noise and focus on a non-controversial outcome… that oil will be much more valuable in the future than it is today. What, exactly, will that future look like?

Today’s pricing sentiment is driven by a global economic “Pick 6” today…

1. US production rates,
2. Saudi Arabia’s ability to grow production,
3. Iran’s latent ability to produce more oil,
4. Chinese economic slowdown and its impact on consumption,
5. Russia’s ability to add global production, and
6. Image Source: Drillinginfo Production Report for Unconventional US Onshore Plays (Combined MBOE 20:1) over last six years. Note the lag in production reporting means Q42015 and even some Q32015 reports are not finalized.
   First, let’s look at the US, the simplest and most transparent of the “Pick 6” issues bandied about as a price driver. Certainly the unconventional revolution has been a huge factor in global production increases over the last 6 years. The item NOT generally recognized is that production typically lags drilling by some 5 months, thus the drilling in December 2014 is discernible in production records in April 2015. That analysts were alarmed at increasing production and supply during the 1st half of the year suggested that they DIDN’T understand this dynamic, nor did the business press. We predicted in April that monthly production would peak in May and then jump around between -100k bopd and -350k bopd for the rest of the year. When looking at additional production month over month, it is important to remember that it is building on a sloping foundation of natural decline. For instance, in 2014, as the US added some million barrels of daily production, it had to produce 2.2 million NEW barrels of production to do so. The slope of that foundation required 1.2 million NEW barrels to just flatten it out. First year production in the US has had a blended annual decline that has increased from 41% in for 2010 era wells to 47% for 2013 era wells. Therefore, 2014 era wells were likely to have declined 49% and 2015 by 51% in their first year. Second year declines show less of a pattern, ranging from 10-20% decline from the end of the prior year. In other words, we will see REAL production declines in 2016 as the full impact of 2015 drilling reductions are cycled through. Depending on the variability of the second year declines, this could range from -400k BOPD to well over -1MM BOPD. So, the US isn’t going to be the bringer of oil glut news going forward. In fact, the US oilpatch has severely damaged its capacity to rebound from an Oil Field Services point of view, with companies foregoing normal maintenance to just survive. This deferred maintenance will have permanent consequences. SCORE: NOT a Driver.
   Saudi Arabia’s Ability to Grow Production
   Whereas Saudi’s rig count is up, so is it’s production. They are producing record amounts and most analysts believe that there is little if any behind valve production. SCORE: NOT a Driver
   Iran’s Latent Ability To Produce More Oil
   When sanctions hit Iran, they immediately dropped 600k BOPD from their official production levels. That they report the same production to the barrel since cause their official number to be quite suspect. Iran has not been investing in their infrastructure and they require outside dollars to reinvest in existing production, ranging from $30 billion to $500 billion over the next 5 years, depending on the source to maintain what they have. $30 oil is not an environment amenable to outside tender offers. Some claim that there will be no NET new production in the near term, that Iran will merely start to recognize the production of oil it has sold in the black market. In any case, 500k NEW BOPD are baked in as of last week. SCORE: NOT a Driver
   Chinese Economic Slowdown and its Impact on Consumption
   As the year has progressed, the Chinese economy exhibits signs of extreme duress, suggesting that demand growth could weaken materially. Imports of metals and building materials are down substantively. Oil is not. China continues to import crude oil at increasing rates, most likely taking advantage of the low price environment to strengthen strategic reserves. China’s growing “guns vs butter” investment shift isn’t likely a bearish sign for crude oil, either. The IEA and EIA’s production growth estimates both suggest that the market isn’t going to elastically respond to lower crude prices, in essence saying that lower price will not drive higher consumption for the first time ever AND despite the surprise increase in consumption in 2015   SCORE: NOT a Driver.Something is different on the Mountain this year. The tone of the Davos dialogue has shifted markedly in the nearly two decades I’ve trekked to the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum. The buzz has morphed from global exuberance in the roaring 90s, to post 9/11 shock, to recession obsession, to this year’s focus on fundamental, radical global shifts in process. But where are we headed?
   As Davos regular and global economic soothsayer Nouriel Roubini writes, the world economy “will continue to be characterized by a new abnormal.”
   The 2016 session title vocabulary hints at this global tectonic shift underway: “revolution … transformation…shock.”  Clearly, the world is no longer operating by yesterday’s rules. This year leaders are peering over the horizon, terra incognita, and trying to discern and adjust to new—potentially “radically” so—realities.
   How leaders manage this system shift in years to come will determine the course the world takes, either towards growth, stability, and integration, or towards fracture and contraction in an increasingly protectionist and isolated environment. The Global Business Policy Council at A.T. Kearney (of which I am Chairman), examined these monumental shifts underway in the international system over the last quarter century in a research report to be released in Davos this week, entitled, “From Globalization to Islandization.”The data are clear: globalization as we knew it for the better part of two decades has stalled out. Key indicators, including global trade in goods and international investment flows, remain well below their pre-financial crisis peaks. Today, the world system is in hiatus—a period between global economic orders (or disorders). And we believe that transition to a new reality is coming.
7. Economist Herbert Stein famously observed, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” So too, this current interregnum between global “orders” must transition to something new. We posit four prospects:
   • Globalization 3.0—Return to the high economic growth and trade of the early 2000s, characterized by increased prosperity, improvements in information and communication technologies (ICT), and low commodity prices
   • Polarization—Regression to the historical mean of moderate economic growth and inequality, characterized by rising geopolitical tensions and economic rivalries which divide the world into competing blocs of countries
   • Islandization—The rise of nationalism in key economies (due to today’s low growth environment) means continued low growth and reduced economic flows as countries retreat inward and raise barriers to trade
   • Commonization—A new “global commons” brought about by new technologies (like additive manufacturing) and the sharing economy leads to a fall in consumer capitalism—which means lower growth, a focus on local, and the proliferation of continuously connected people and things. Perhaps the most far-fetched, a future where capitalism no longer reigns supreme may not be so far-off.
   Due to the incredibly complex nature of the transformations and shifts underway in today’s global economy—of which there is much debate in Davos this week—it is impossible to forecast with any certainty which of these alternative futures will come to pass. However, I think everyone in Davos would agree that Globalization 3.0 is the most favorable of these scenarios. It will take effective leadership to get there, though. As the conversation in Davos seems to imply, this question of the leadership skills necessary for a better future is top-of-mind for many.
   In our analysis, a few key themes emerged around how the world’s business and government leaders can be successful in creating a Globalization 3.0 future. First, leaders will need to clearly articulate vision. In a world that will continue to be characterized by the democratization of information, leaders must know how to bring everyone along behind a value-enhancing message that resonates universally. The internet makes news headline-worthy across the globe and makes it easy for naysayers to track any deviations from the plan, making clarity of vision an imperative for future leaders. As Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, said, “In the end, it all comes down to people and values. We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them.”
   Second, leaders must show commitment to the ideals they espouse, and consistently demonstrate success in the implementation of their plans if we are to achieve Globalization 3.0. This means a lot of effort on the part of the international community to persevere until consensus is reached on today’s most pressing issues. The Paris Climate Change Conference is a good example of the level of commitment necessary to alter the course of history for the better—though leaders must now make good on those commitments through consistent implementation. For Globalization 3.0, this type of renewed vigor, manifest in an agreement on trade barriers and international regulations through the World Trade Organization, would be a breakthrough. Leaders will have to find ways to carry out these plans on the ground. This means that a strong commitment to rule of law and strengthening IP security would be paramount. These are tall orders, but the upside of the proliferation of information technology is that it can increase accountability and transparency. Real-time tracking and social media can help enhance support for the right policy mechanisms.
   Perhaps most importantly, leaders will need to break down silos between sectors and forge linkages across diverse cultures in order to foster a Globalization 3.0 future. The fusion of technology, economics, the environment and social causes to create sustainable solutions that drive growth will mean that leaders need the foresight and adaptability to call many actors to the table and reach consensus. Cross-pollination of ideas will facilitate cooperation, which often happens in multilateral institutions and events like this year’s World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos. The leaders gathered here on the Mountain this week have a tremendous opportunity, and a deep responsibility, to restore, renew, and rebuild those linkages central to securing future prosperity for everyone in the world.A pair of Los Angeles developers are putting a 29,600-square-foot Contemporary-style mansion on the market in Bel Air with a price tag of $100 million. They’re touting walls of glass for spectacular city and ocean views, a 16-seat home theater, an infinity pool, tennis court, and a wellness center with a massage table that features a pulsating hydro-massage system. The only wrinkle is, it hasn’t been built yet. Ground won’t be broken on the project until spring, and it won’t be completed until some time in 2018.
   The mansion at 911 Tione Road is one of a handful of high-end properties to hit the Los Angeles market recently before ground has been broken–in fact, before the final permit has even been stamped. In a reversal of the traditional ultra-luxury market practice in which speculative builders near completion before they sell, developers Michael Palumbo and Jay Belson are offering buyers an alternative: a lot with fully-engineered plans for $32 million.
   Conventional wisdom dictates that builders get the best prices for speculative or “spec” homes (those built without a committed buyer) in the last months of construction, so marketing before then has traditionally been considered unwise. “In the earlier decades it was very unusual for a developer to sell a lot right away,” said agent Joyce Rey, who shares the listing agent with Christopher Damon, both of Coldwell Banker Previews International. “We’d always say in selling you have to have a furnished finished product.”
   But with foreign money flooding into L.A.’s ultra-luxury market and prices climbing north of $100 million, some ambitious developers are ignoring the old rules. The model at 911 Tione Road is a kind of hybrid of a full custom-build, in which a buyer buys a lot, deals with the city, and secures the architect, interior designer and construction team, and a turn-key product, where the home is delivered–as the cliche goes–with everything from the furniture to the toothbrushes. This model might appeal to buyers who want some control over their home-building process, but without the headache and uncertainty of the city permitting process and the hassle of hiring all their subcontractors. ”Most of these guys buy from Neiman Marcus and they buy the best of the best,” said Palumbo. “They don’t want to be involved in the daily details.”
   For a potential buyer, the upside is the opportunity to customize, and possibly a lower cost if the land purchase plus build-out and developer fee doesn’t quite hit that $100 million mark. The model also reduces risk for Palumbo and Belson, who get their property marketed early and potentially secure a committed buyer sooner in the game. With prime lots a hot commodity in Los Angeles, early marketing allows the developers to compete with finished high-end homes that are already on the market. “Maybe it also helps builders for other projects that they’re doing,” said Jeff Hyland, president of luxury brokerage firm Hilton & Hyland. “Most of these aren’t doing one at a time, they’ve got several.”Indeed, Palumbo and Belson have followed the same model with two other properties. Their Beverly Hills spec home hit the market with a price tag of $45 million in December for the lot and the plans. They paid $8.05 million in May 2015 for that property, at 1426 Harridge Drive in Beverly Hills, according to public records. They also sold a property at 11005 Bellagio Way for $14.5 million in January 2015.
   Nearby, the three-home Park Bel Air development being built by Domvs London has a similar business model. Domvs and its financing partner Junius, a division of JP Morgan, purchased land that was previously owned by real estate heir Steve Bing, who strung together a series of lots and tore down eight houses. Domvs turned the 11-acre property into the three lots; the first, at 788 Tortuoso Way, will be ready for construction by early March and is being offered with fully-engineered home plans for $45 million. For $115 million, Domvs will build those plans, which call for a 42,500-square-foot, six-bedroom main home plus a 15,000-square-foot, five-bedroom guest home.
   
   As with Tione Road, a buyer who comes in early will have the option to customize. “The interior walls you can revise any way you want,” said Stephen Shapiro, co-founder of high-end firm Westside Estate Agency, who shares the listing with his co-founder Kurt Rappaport. “They’ll have a lot of flexibility.”
   Developer Scott Gillen has been following a similar plan for quite some time. A former filmmaker, he now has a second career as a builder and has built 18 homes, most of which he has put on the market when they are just dirt. “The brokers usually argue with me about listing before it’s built. They say we need to wait until it’s done,” Gillen said. “We do it anyway and they sell.” In October, Gillen announced the $60 million price tag for a 10,300-square-foot mansion in Malibu that will feature an airplane fuselage as a chandelier. Then he broke ground.
   The most ambitious example of this early and high pricing trend is Nile Niami’s 100,000-square-foot Bel Air mega-mansion, reported to have an eventual list price of $500 million. That project won’t be complete until 2017 but has already enlisted Hilton & Hyland to begin marketing. Luxury developer Mohamed Hadid’s 30,000-square-foot Bel Air project is currently stalled due to city approval issues, yet it still has a reported price tag $200 million.
   Despite the prices north of $100 million, the City of Angels has yet to break the $100 million sale mark. To date, the highest-priced L.A. trade remains the 2000 sale of billionaire David Murdock’s Bel Air mansion to Gary Winnick for $94 million. The next-highest sale was the 2014 trade of Fleur de Lys, the 45,000-square-foot mansion belonging to Suzanne Saperstein, ex-wife of Metro Networks founder David Saperstein. That home had an asking price of $125 million and was widely reported to sell for $102 million, but multiple sources confirmed toForbes that the actual sale price was $88.3 million. Sources say that the $102 million may have also included furniture.
   The mega-mansion built by billionaire Jeff Greene that hit the market in November 2014 with a price tag of $195 million was price-reduced to $149 million ten months later. It has not yet sold.