|
|
Post by janntosh on Jul 2, 2023 17:47:26 GMT
One of the most famous franchises of all time ends with a whimper
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 2, 2023 18:36:44 GMT
$329 million? That's even more than what was rumored.
Kathleen Kennedy strikes again - another high budget and divisive installment of an iconic franchise, Bob Iger needs to put his foot down and soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 2, 2023 18:38:58 GMT
Maybe Disney overestimated putting so much into a franchise that really should have many years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Jul 2, 2023 19:27:44 GMT
$329 million? That's even more than what was rumored. Kathleen Kennedy strikes again - another high budget and divisive installment of an iconic franchise, Bob Iger needs to put his foot down and soon. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 2, 2023 23:28:46 GMT
$329 million? That's even more than what was rumored. Kathleen Kennedy strikes again - another high budget and divisive installment of an iconic franchise, Bob Iger needs to put his foot down and soon. It does have to do with her, actually. She is the President of Lucasfilm and a producer on the movie. $329 million is unnecessary for an exciting and satisfying Indiana Jones movie, and if you're looking to make all that money back the product you put out has to be widely seen as a crowd pleasure, not something divisive which this is. (Good for if you if you like it, but your opinion isn't very common) |
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Jul 3, 2023 2:48:19 GMT
Has nothing to do with her, or being "woke". I saw it last night and it's an excellent send-off, better than Crystal Skull and Temple of Doom, and not one damn thing about it was "woke". I think though that after CK being as big a disappointment as it was, combined with a lot of squawking I've seen about Harrison's age and the fact that it's opening on a holiday weekend when millions of people are traveling, all factored in. Also, there's the segment of the population that hates Disney and whines about everything being "woke" so they were not seeing this for their own little snowflake reasons. But yes, after Kennedy mishandled Star Wars that had to be on people's minds as well...though to think she had ANY say in the brainchild of Spielberg and Lucas is ridiculous. It does have to do with her, actually. She is the President of Lucasfilm and a producer on the movie. $329 million is unnecessary for an exciting and satisfying Indiana Jones movie, and if you're looking to make all that money back the product you put out has to be widely seen as a crowd pleasure, not something divisive which this is. (Good for if you if you like it, but your opinion isn't very common) |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 3, 2023 3:19:06 GMT
Maybe it would have been better to premiere Indiana Jones 5 at Comic Con instead of Cannes. 1. You reach more of the target audience. 2. Since the premiere audiences for a movie at Comic Con are full of excited, biased, subjective fans, you're basically guaranteed a great review.
With Cannes, you're dealing with objective, unbiased, professional critics even though critics are part of the target audience just like fans. Since critics are supposed to be objective and unbiased, their reviews won't likely be as highly-praised as Comic Con fans. Their reviews will more point out flaws of the movie that Comic Con fans will likely ignore.
For a blockbuster like this that cost so much, it would have been better to show it to the target audience who were paying money to see it as well as being more major fans of the franchise largely from nostalgia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 3, 2023 5:31:40 GMT
Maybe it would have been better to premiere Indiana Jones 5 at Comic Con instead of Cannes. 1. You reach more of the target audience. 2. Since the premiere audiences for a movie at Comic Con are full of excited, biased, subjective fans, you're basically guaranteed a great review. With Cannes, you're dealing with objective, unbiased, professional critics even though critics are part of the target audience just like fans. Since critics are supposed to be objective and unbiased, their reviews won't likely be as highly-praised as Comic Con fans. Their reviews will more point out flaws of the movie that Comic Con fans will likely ignore. For a blockbuster like this that cost so much, it would have been better to show it to the target audience who were paying money to see it as well as being more major fans of the franchise largely from nostalgia. Indy 4 also played at Cannes. |
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jul 4, 2023 4:52:18 GMT
when Mangold was announced to direct a Star Wars we knew this would happen
|
|
|
|
Post by thebayharborbutcher on Jul 5, 2023 7:09:07 GMT
I think this movie bombing proves a few things. One the franchise probably isn’t as beloved as many thought it was. That’s not to say it wasn’t a big deal back in the 80s. However, the fanbase today who have kept talking about it are likely made up more of cult film enthusiasts.
Secondly, I think this movie bombing shows it’s finally time for Hollywood to start investing in new ideas. I’ve definitely not been one of these people who complains every time they see a reboot or sequel or whatever. However, I’ve long thought the popularity of such things are just a faze more than anything else. All fazes eventually come to an end. When you got stuff like The Little Mermaid and Indiana Jones flopping I think it’s finally time to admit that it’s time to add more new things into the mix.
And just to piggyback on that last thought. Hollywood can’t expect every film to be a billion dollar grosser. The thing they want to do is create films for 200 million dollar plus budgets in hopes of getting a billion dollars plus back. It somewhat worked for a while, but I think the current BO is starting to show that method is not sustainable. This is especially true if they want to start building new franchises. They gotta be willing to start small and then build big. Look at something like John Wick. The first film only grossed 86 million, but the most recent 4th film grossed 430 million. Studios have gotta be willing to let a franchise grow and spend reasonable amount when it comes to the budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jul 5, 2023 7:46:31 GMT
I was thoroughly uninterested in seeing it from the word go.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 5, 2023 9:04:58 GMT
I think this movie bombing proves a few things. One the franchise probably isn’t as beloved as many thought it was. That’s not to say it wasn’t a big deal back in the 80s. However, the fanbase today who have kept talking about it are likely made up more of cult film enthusiasts. Secondly, I think this movie bombing shows it’s finally time for Hollywood to start investing in new ideas. I’ve definitely not been one of these people who complains every time they see a reboot or sequel or whatever. However, I’ve long thought the popularity of such things are just a faze more than anything else. All fazes eventually come to an end. When you got stuff like The Little Mermaid and Indiana Jones flopping I think it’s finally time to admit that it’s time to add more new things into the mix. And just to piggyback on that last thought. Hollywood can’t expect every film to be a billion dollar grosser. The thing they want to do is create films for 200 million dollar plus budgets in hopes of getting a billion dollars plus back. It somewhat worked for a while, but I think the current BO is starting to show that method is not sustainable. This is especially true if they want to start building new franchises. They gotta be willing to start small and then build big. Look at something like John Wick. The first film only grossed 86 million, but the most recent 4th film grossed 430 million. Studios have gotta be willing to let a franchise grow and spend reasonable amount when it comes to the budget. 1. The franchise is still beloved, but some people just don't want to admit that its best years really are behind it. Some franchises are from a certain time (Indy for the 80's) and really should stop at a certain point even if things are going well (Last Crusade would have been a good place to stop). There's an old saying that "you can't go home again" and it seems to be applying to Indiana Jones in this case. Also, trying to update an old franchise to modern times with CGI and so forth just isn't an easy fit. Also, it's hard for some people, the youth especially, to accept an 80-year-old being an action star and using obvious de-aging technology and stunt doubles only amplifies the problem. Some franchise fans not liking Crystal Skull may also feel that Skull casted a bad shadow on Dial of Destiny. 2. Well Hollywood needing to invest in new ideas is certainly nothing new and a long-time issue. But having movies like Flash, Little Mermaid, Indiana Jones 5, etc. not doing well is probably now a wakeup call for Hollywood to work on original things. The best way for Hollywood to make a change is to impact its bank account. 3. Hollywood probably felt Indiana Jones 5 could be a billion grosser thanks to something like Top Gun: Maverick. But Top Gun: Maverick isn't Indiana Jones 5, Harrison Ford isn't Tom Cruise, and it probably costs less for a movie about fighter jets than a CGI-heavy movie about an archaeologist going to different locations around the world on a large adventure. The budget Indiana Jones 5 was so large in part because of Ford's paycheck, the visual effects, putting a lot of money into marketing. I believe Cruise took a pay cut for Top Gun 2 (but got a backend deal), the movie used minimal CGI, and it didn't have as huge of a marketing budget. |
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jul 5, 2023 11:12:22 GMT
Only reason it would potentially bomb is the over the top budget. However I thought it was a much better film than Skulls. I despise Disney (mainly due to to their treatment of their back catalog that has expanded with acquiring 20th Century Fox) but love Indiana Jones so I saw it anyways. I didn’t really see much that “woke” in this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 5, 2023 11:58:20 GMT
$329 million? That's even more than what was rumored. Kathleen Kennedy strikes again - another high budget and divisive installment of an iconic franchise, Bob Iger needs to put his foot down and soon. The thing is, there's nothing divisive about it. Certain sections of the fanbase expected it to be and ripped it apart before it even came out, scaring people away from seeing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 5, 2023 12:13:17 GMT
I think this movie bombing proves a few things. One the franchise probably isn’t as beloved as many thought it was. That’s not to say it wasn’t a big deal back in the 80s. However, the fanbase today who have kept talking about it are likely made up more of cult film enthusiasts. Secondly, I think this movie bombing shows it’s finally time for Hollywood to start investing in new ideas. I’ve definitely not been one of these people who complains every time they see a reboot or sequel or whatever. However, I’ve long thought the popularity of such things are just a faze more than anything else. All fazes eventually come to an end. When you got stuff like The Little Mermaid and Indiana Jones flopping I think it’s finally time to admit that it’s time to add more new things into the mix. And just to piggyback on that last thought. Hollywood can’t expect every film to be a billion dollar grosser. The thing they want to do is create films for 200 million dollar plus budgets in hopes of getting a billion dollars plus back. It somewhat worked for a while, but I think the current BO is starting to show that method is not sustainable. This is especially true if they want to start building new franchises. They gotta be willing to start small and then build big. Look at something like John Wick. The first film only grossed 86 million, but the most recent 4th film grossed 430 million. Studios have gotta be willing to let a franchise grow and spend reasonable amount when it comes to the budget. Completely agree with the final paragraph, but hard disagree with the first one. Maybe we didn't need another Indiana Jones movie, but the originals are hardly 'cult films.' It's one of the most popular film franchises of all time. But yes, this showing suggests that the public wasn't particularly interested in a new entry at this point, its moment has clearly passed. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 16, 2023 22:04:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Aug 18, 2023 14:57:20 GMT
I think this movie bombing proves a few things. One the franchise probably isn’t as beloved as many thought it was. That’s not to say it wasn’t a big deal back in the 80s. However, the fanbase today who have kept talking about it are likely made up more of cult film enthusiasts. Secondly, I think this movie bombing shows it’s finally time for Hollywood to start investing in new ideas. I’ve definitely not been one of these people who complains every time they see a reboot or sequel or whatever. However, I’ve long thought the popularity of such things are just a faze more than anything else. All fazes eventually come to an end. When you got stuff like The Little Mermaid and Indiana Jones flopping I think it’s finally time to admit that it’s time to add more new things into the mix. And just to piggyback on that last thought. Hollywood can’t expect every film to be a billion dollar grosser. The thing they want to do is create films for 200 million dollar plus budgets in hopes of getting a billion dollars plus back. It somewhat worked for a while, but I think the current BO is starting to show that method is not sustainable. This is especially true if they want to start building new franchises. They gotta be willing to start small and then build big. Look at something like John Wick. The first film only grossed 86 million, but the most recent 4th film grossed 430 million. Studios have gotta be willing to let a franchise grow and spend reasonable amount when it comes to the budget. 1. The franchise is still beloved, but some people just don't want to admit that its best years really are behind it. Some franchises are from a certain time (Indy for the 80's) and really should stop at a certain point even if things are going well (Last Crusade would have been a good place to stop). There's an old saying that "you can't go home again" and it seems to be applying to Indiana Jones in this case. Also, trying to update an old franchise to modern times with CGI and so forth just isn't an easy fit. Also, it's hard for some people, the youth especially, to accept an 80-year-old being an action star and using obvious de-aging technology and stunt doubles only amplifies the problem. Some franchise fans not liking Crystal Skull may also feel that Skull casted a bad shadow on Dial of Destiny. 2. Well Hollywood needing to invest in new ideas is certainly nothing new and a long-time issue. But having movies like Flash, Little Mermaid, Indiana Jones 5, etc. not doing well is probably now a wakeup call for Hollywood to work on original things. The best way for Hollywood to make a change is to impact its bank account. 3. Hollywood probably felt Indiana Jones 5 could be a billion grosser thanks to something like Top Gun: Maverick. But Top Gun: Maverick isn't Indiana Jones 5, Harrison Ford isn't Tom Cruise, and it probably costs less for a movie about fighter jets than a CGI-heavy movie about an archaeologist going to different locations around the world on a large adventure. The budget Indiana Jones 5 was so large in part because of Ford's paycheck, the visual effects, putting a lot of money into marketing. I believe Cruise took a pay cut for Top Gun 2 (but got a backend deal), the movie used minimal CGI, and it didn't have as huge of a marketing budget.
ALL franchises' best years are behind it. No movie made today in any franchise will even begin to touch how awesome the originals were 30, 40, 50 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Aug 18, 2023 21:01:22 GMT
I still don't understand why they couldn't have recast Indy. Yes, Ford was iconic in the role, but then so was Sean Connery as Bond. They should've gone with a younger actor and a smaller budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 19, 2023 2:15:28 GMT
Kennedy does what she is told to do by Iger.
They can't recast Indiana Jones because they are not interested in doing adventure stories with a traditional male hero.
That is their red line. The hero has to be old or a nerdish woman etc. Look at who they picked for the new Superman.
It's about male failure for them. Their concept of the ideal male is Joe Biden (that's not a joke-they consider Biden the ideal male--elderly, mentally feeble, easy to be led around).
I think this is partly a Bud Light side effect too. People are getting fed up with wokeness and Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones are so recycled--younger people aren't interested and older ones are tired of it too. It's become not cool.
There's not a lot of consistency in the studio thinking either because they used to say they made superhero movies because the young male was the most reliable demographic--yet they go out of their way to make the male hero useless or laughable. It contradicts their claim of making content to please the 18-24 male.
Indiana Jones is 70-something. Ethan Hunt is 60-something.
Another proof that they are not really seeking to grab the 18-24 male demographic is that the women are less attractive. They aren't trying to use sex to sell either.
Spielberg said that you would see a few superhero tentpole films fail and that's happened because the Flash didn't do as well as expected and that also used the idea of an older male hero. 70-year-old Batman.
And people usually expect some escapism in movies but they are more preachy now. Even the Dracula movie had some preaching and they didn't do so well.
They aren't trying to groom new stars either.
Hollywood has a bridge burning mentality. As if they want to close up shop and burn it down.
Never seen a business with an attitude that they wanted to have less customers over time.
Except for Bud Light that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Apr 3, 2024 21:33:54 GMT
Report: Disney Lost Over $100 Million on Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destinywww.yahoo.com/entertainment/report-disney-lost-over-100-192008233.html"Despite the overall love of the Indiana Jones franchise, a recent report suggests that the latest film was a major letdown for Disney. According to financial statements released on Friday (via Forbes), Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny spent $134.2 million more on making the movie than it it is reported to have earned back. This makes the film a significant failure in terms profitable returns. Some of the filings for the film also reveal what went into making the project, including a whopping $79 million that was spent on post-production work, including digitally de-aging Ford. By April 2023, the film’s budget had ballooned to $387.2 million, which unfortunately was just about the same as to what the film earned at the box office globally ($384 million)." 
|
|
