Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[asalaw]

I still dont know what people were expecting from an 80 year-old in an action flick

Which begs the question, why make it?

 

[Solo4114]

The movie was supposed to evoke feelings of nostalgia among older collectors. It failed.

Ironically, this kind of failure may actually be a good time to buy a bunch of the figures for collecting purposes, because -- if no one else is buying them -- they may end up thrown away and ignored, and therefore become more valuable as collector's items.

This is also why I don't really bother with sweating collectible toys. Buy what you want, ignore the rest, and forget about the pokemon "gotta catch 'em all" attitude.

Whether one thoroughly enjoyed, tolerated, or disliked the film: Dial of Destiny has only made USD $172 million at the worldwide box office so far and receipts have been dropping. Considering that Disney/Lucasfilm was well over $400 million for production and advertising, they were needing $800 to $900 million to even HOPE to break even. This is going to be a huge financial loss for the company.

Disney has done "OK" box office wise with Guardians 3 this year, but is losing on Elemental.
Little Mermaid has over $527 million worldwide and that may be enough to make a little profit.
Ant Man 3, won't break even with a $426 million box office.
Avatar 2 was a ginormous success, but was never really a "Disney" film, that was ALL Cameron and good will from the pre-Disney days for the original film.

Is there anything to "learn" here? I'll toss out a few points
-Disney has got to get film production costs down.
-Disney needs to stop carpet-bombing theatrical releases that cannibalize each other.
-Disney needs to "slow down"
-Disney needs to SERIOUSLY RECONSIDER making any new SW films
-Franchise burn-out is a real thing

"Solo" was a big scare for the company at $393 million worldwide box office, and I believe is the only live action SW theatrical release to not make a profit at the box office.

I think they definitely need to figure out more effective release schedules. They also need to get hip to the new reality of moviegoing, which is...that people aren't going as much at a baseline. Some of this also ties into their digital platforms and digital releases.

People have 4K TVs and surround sound systems at home. They know that the movie will hit digital-to-buy within, like, 2-3 months of release. What Disney was doing was releasing on D+ around the same time, so...why bother buying the movie if you're subscribed to D+ anyway? Just wait a couple months and you can get an almost-as-good-if-not-better experience at home as you would in the theater.

With GOTG3, they've shifted strategy somewhat, and it'll be interesting to see how that affects digital sales. GOTG3 is now available to buy streaming, but it's probably not coming to D+ until August or September. This may prompt folks to buy sooner. But it may not. I mean, what the pandemic and home viewing and home theater technology may all be creating is a culture that is simply more patient for films to hit in a more affordable way.

And while box office business last summer was generally better, this summer I think it's hurting.

There's also the global box office impacts for Disney, like Russia simply disappearing as an available market, and China making life difficult for them as well. That eats into their profits and it may in turn prompt them to think about how to cut costs and save a buck.

I do think they need to revisit their all-tentpoles-all-the-time strategy, though.

But separate from that, I think there are both global factors that are affecting box office, and film-specific factors that are affecting it.

I think legacy sequels are much more risky than Hollywood realizes. Getting it right with a legacy sequel is hard. You can't just throw the IP out, trot out the old warhorse of a main character from days gone by, and simply print money. I mean, ******, Indiana Jones was losing cultural relevance in 2008, when it had been almost 30 years since he'd been on the big screen. And now it's been another 15 years since that movie came out. I think there's a misunderstanding of what has made legacy sequels work, and which properties retain cultural relevance.

It will go down as probably the worst failure in Disney history, if not one of the worst in all of cinema history.

I dunno, man. That seems kind of hyperbolic. The Walt Disney company has a long history. This may be the highest profile flop they've had in a long time, but given the sheer longevity of the company, I'd be cautious about saying "worst ever."

Now if Marcus Brody came with laser guided missile firing jet backpack, they’re have something.

Side note: I was telling my kid, while she was playing with a toy "Star Wars Mission Fleet" Millennium Falcon, that when I was a kid, not only did the weapons not actually shoot, but the box even said "Weapons do not shoot."

I think if Iger and Kennedy have proven anything, it's that they're allergic to making money. I also think that, The Flash aside, you probably have to go back to Heaven's Gate to find a bigger disaster. That one bankrupted United Artists and ended Michael Cimino's directing career.

And yet Kathleen Kennedy still has a job. She's an absolute barnacle.

I think Kennedy's track record is mixed. It's not all bad. The ST made money. Whatever you want to say about the quality of the films and lack of planning and all the rest, it still made money. The other films, though, didn't. And Kennedy is just LFL's head. I don't see people calling Kevin Feige into question, even though Ant-Man 3 didn't do so hot, and every entertainment writer has probably already written a generic "Is this the end of the MCU?" article because it's the new hot speculation. Granted, Marvel has a longer, much more successful track record than LFL, but even so, the knives are out for the MCU and comic book movies writ large.

I don't know that it's franchise burnout. I think it's more theater burnout. I've said before, they kill their own theater returns by moving it to streaming so damn fast. I mean, for crying out loud, it's speculated Flash will hit Max in mid/late August based on what they did with Shazam as an example. TWO FREAKING MONTHS. If you were on the fence, which most people with due to the actor's actions if nothing else, why pay to see it in a theater if you can get it in two months at home for no additional cost? We're down to TWO MONTHS. Guardians was a big hit, it's hitting DVD and streaming etc August first based on the commercial i saw last night. That's a hair short of THREE MONTHS.

It's available for streaming purchase now. It'll be available on other platforms in August, yeah.

But otherwise, yeah I totally agree with you. The rise and spread of streaming platforms is absolutely eating into box office revenues. Why go to a theater with sticky floors and noisy kids when I can just wait another month or two and it'll hit digital? I've got a nice 54" 2012 Panasonic plasma. It's not top-of-the-line anymore (though it's the last of the really great plasmas), but it gives me a great show at home when I want it. I've got surround sound if I want it, too. And you know what I also have? A remote so I can pause when I need to take a leak or want to go get food I already paid a reasonable price for instead of inflated concession-stand candy or popcorn or whatever.

And your calculus re: The Flash is exactly why I'm waiting for streaming. I'm genuinely curious about the film. It may be terrific. But I was NOT going to contribute to box office receipts for it, especially considering Ezra Miller's behavior. Screw that.

The last movie I wanted to see in a theatre that i missed was Top Gun Maverick. Long story short, crap load of stuff going on at the time and I didn't have the time to see it til i was out of IMAX which, to me, was the whole point since it was shot that way. By the time I had time, even though it was out of IMAX, it was still nearly two months later. Today, it'd be nearly available at home.

I think the last film I saw in a theater was The Rise of Skywalker. I haven't been back since. I haven't really felt any strong desire to go, either. The "big screen experience" just isn't really worth it to me for the films that are coming out...because I know it'll be on streaming and I'm happy to just be patient.

The modern Disney era has killed toy sales entirely. Absolutely none of their franchise movies have been successful in the toy aisle.

I suspect it's far more "correlation" than "causation." The modern Disney era did not actively kill toy sales. Shifts in how kids play and what they play with killed toy sales. When kids are much more excited about playing Minecraft, it's gonna be hard to convince them to get action figures. And Disney's Marvel division has done perfectly well with toy sales.

There's also the fact that culture simply moves too damn quickly and kids' tastes shift really, really quickly these days in relation to that. I think there's just an intensity and speed of cultural consumption that just leads kids to get super into stuff, and then burn out on it and move on to the next thing. You don't have the long-term enjoyment of a specific franchise, because there's always something else coming down the pike to distract you. The things that my kid has most connected with are pretending with her stuffed animals, and pretending with various dress-up clothes. She hasn't been super into Barbie toys, she didn't get super into Star Wars stuff that I got her, she burned out on Peppa Pig when she was younger, she didn't get super into Bluey. She's just not really figure driven in how she plays.

The franchise she's been most into has been Harry Potter, but now that she's finished all the books and watched all the movies, and her best friend from school this year is going to be in a different class next year, well, who knows if she'll stay interested. Put simply, she -- and other kids I've seen around her -- just consumes culture differently and it affects how she plays. As a result, we buy far fewer toys, and much more "pretend" stuff, which has always been more her thing anyway.

All these years later and I still can't believe 'The 13th Warrior' did so badly. Yeah it had problems, but I liked it when it came out and I like it now.

"They think they are bears..."

 

[Solo4114]

Which begs the question, why make it?

I think it was always folly to try to make this film. But I also think that Ford's (far less physical) performance in the Star Wars sequels may have convinced people he could do it. The thing is (1) that was 7 years ago, and (2) the Indiana Jones role is such a more physically intense performance with waaaaay more stunts and such.

One thing I'll be really curious to see is what the narrative will be that develops around this film and the "lessons learned" that will come from it. What will the takeaway be, and what won't it be? The takeaway from Solo, for example, was "Make fewer Star Wars movies because audiences are saturated." I think that was a net positive, because I've thoroughly enjoyed Star Wars on TV and I think it's a better format for the franchise as a whole anyway, which actually gets it back to its roots in Republic serials. But what wasn't the takeaway was "Pick better directors," or "Pay closer attention to production while it's happening" or "Nobody was really asking for the story of Han Solo as a kid" or "Maybe it's time to move beyond TPM through ROTJ as your timeline."

What will the lessons learned be here? What will the narrative be? It'll be interesting to see.

 

[JPH]

Which begs the question, why make it?

Because people enjoyed it.

Even some of those who were initially reluctant.

If *NOTHING* was going to make you like this movie, then you are proving the point that some people just want to complain.

If you are hoping it will fail to invoke a change at Disney, atleast you have a a goal in sight.

But we are systemtically watching every gripe get dismantled.

 

[kevin926]

Well, people don't want KK's new Rey-driven Star Wars saga.i don't blame anyone for that.

...but it seems like every objective metric used to determine if a movie is "good" is getting debunked.

"Poisoning the well" before a film is released also seems effective.

I still dont know what people were expecting from an 80 year-old in an action flick

This is the image that always comes to mind when reading threads like this one.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Which begs the question, why make it?

Well, from what I understand, modern movie studios—especially Disney—do it simply for the art of film and great storytelling.

If a movie makes a little money back, so be it, but that really is a secondary consideration for the studios—who really are altruistic entities, after all—and isn’t how they measure success.

The critical question that modern studios always demand be answered, before they ever green-light a project, is “but is it a GREAT story that MUST be told?”

 

[joberg]

I have such a problem with John Carter being a huge flop…I love that movie. It was a victim of very poorly executed marketing on the part of…well, Disney.

Amazing how many of those flops have been produced since 2015.

Well, it seems that the marketing dept at Disney doesn't know how to take the fan's temperature. Very bad marketing for "The Rocketeer" : no behind the scene footage or interview with Joe Johnston or cast/crew.

 

[Schlegel]

Ironically, this kind of failure may actually be a good time to buy a bunch of the figures for collecting purposes, because -- if no one else is buying them -- they may end up thrown away and ignored, and therefore become more valuable as collector's items.

That long box of Dazzler #1s, though...

 

[JPH]

Well, it seems that the marketing dept at Disney doesn't know how to take the fan's temperature. Very bad marketing for "The Rocketeer" : no behind the scene footage or interview with Joe Johnston or cast/crew.

Well, to we all know that with The Rocketeer, it wasn't because they lied...

...it was acting.

 

[JPH]

That long box of Dazzler #1s, though...

If a Dane Cook is a unit of comedy...

...can we make The Rose Tyco a unit of lost revenue?

"We're going to win this war not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love"

 

[blewis17]

...or getting a bonus if it does poorly?

At least for the actors: In addition to their salary for working on the film, A-list actors often have their contracts negotiated to include a percent of the overall gross revenue ticket sales. It made Alec Guinness a tidy sum in his later years. He describes the story below, starts at 1:26...

 

[jts1031]

I wonder if Harrison Ford's contract was for a percentage. Does that mean he has to give money back now? I've not seen the movie yet. Most likely going to wait until it streams as I'd rather see MI7 and Oppenheimer. But I really started to lose interest in the idea of an Indiana Jones movie when Spielberg bailed, or was escorted out, whichever way it went down. If Spielberg isn't directing an Indy movie, from an idea of George Lucas', it's akin to seeing a cover band.

 

[JPH]

At least for the actors: In addition to their salary for working on the film, A-list actors often have their contracts negotiated to include a percent of the overall gross revenue ticket sales. It made Alec Guinness a tidy sum in his later years. He describes the story below, starts at 1:26...

Same for musicians, negotiate "points."

A la SharkTank.

But sometimes the exposure alone is worth it.

EDIT: and didn't Lucas negotiate less salary for Star Wars to keep rights to his creation?

 

[Solo4114]

I wonder if Harrison Ford's contract was for a percentage. Does that mean he has to give money back now? I've not seen the movie yet. Most likely going to wait until it streams as I'd rather see MI7 and Oppenheimer. But I really started to lose interest in the idea of an Indiana Jones movie when Spielberg bailed, or was escorted out, whichever way it went down. If Spielberg isn't directing an Indy movie, from an idea of George Lucas', it's akin to seeing a cover band.

Depends on what the % is for.

Revenue, profits, box office receipts, digital sales, other home media, merchandising?

But generally speaking, you probably wouldn't have to give something back because X% of 0 is always 0%. Ford likely got paid a fixed amount AND a percentage, instead of JUST a percentage. The fixed amount doesn't have to be given back, because he did what he was contracted to do (act in the film). The fixed amount may affect the percentage inasmuch as it's maybe part of the overall number threshold that has to be crossed before he gets his percentage money...but again, that depends on "percentage of what?"

 

[obrienizer]

That long box of Dazzler #1s, though...

Pocahontas action figures never increased in value. Bottom line - buy an action figure because you like it, not for an investment,

 

[asalaw]

Depends on what the % is for.

Revenue, profits, box office receipts, digital sales, other home media, merchandising?

But generally speaking, you probably wouldn't have to give something back because X% of 0 is always 0%. Ford likely got paid a fixed amount AND a percentage, instead of JUST a percentage. The fixed amount doesn't have to be given back, because he did what he was contracted to do (act in the film). The fixed amount may affect the percentage inasmuch as it's maybe part of the overall number threshold that has to be crossed before he gets his percentage money...but again, that depends on "percentage of what?"

Stars of Ford's stature are sometimes made first-dollar gross participants, which means, as Jojo Krako said, "Skimmed--right off the top!" So the picture doesn't have to turn a profit for the actor to get paid from receipts. In fact, this is one of the things that gets deducted from the box office gross to arrive at the net numbers the studio ultimately receives.

Edit--I should point out that theaters take their cut first, so first dollar gross is really from the post-theater gross.

 

[kalkamel]

 

[AJTaliesen]

it was OK.

Not great, not horrible. The diving scene made my wife cringe, she's a diver and was bothered by the fact that they'd all die from that.

I thought they could cut about 2 or 3 hours out of the car chase scenes without hurting the movie.

 

[blewis17]

View attachment 1717919

And, Indy is "surprised" to awaken back home, which means he was unconscious the entire time? Or had a concussion and doesn't remember all of the above?

 

[Captain Dunsel]

And, Indy is "surprised" to awaken back home, which means he was unconscious the entire time? Or had a concussion and doesn't remember all of the above?

Um….he would have significant brain damage from a concussion that could knock him out for that long of a period. It would be akin to the brian damage suffered in a stroke…or more likely result in death.

Look out Mike Tyson. There is a new fist in town that can deliver more severe knockouts than you could ever imagine: Helena “Lights Out” Shaw!