Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

A few observations re: these data points.

1. I think that it's not exactly "theater fatigue," although high prices for the theater experience (and said experience not being quite worth it) are a factor (but not the decisive one.)

2. I think it's much more likely that audience interest in these franchises is waning somewhat. All manner of franchises are getting long in the tooth, and yet the studios keep going back to the well for more of the same.

3. The MI franchise has done a far better job of remaining a relevant "brand" over the years than the Indy series has. The Indy films are, fundamentally, products of the late-70s/80s era of filmmaking. Crystal Skull and Dial are more like one-offs after the fact. The moviegoing public is peopled more with people who were (a) born after these films were released, and (b) uninterested in watching anything older than whatever was in the cultural zeitgeist when they were kids. End result: there's no connection with Indy.

4. The MI franchise has always been a big hit overseas, which is probably going to save the film's box office receipts. Indy's well regarded, but again, an extremely old brand with an extremely old lead and just isn't the draw today that it was in the old days.

I don't think it's got a ton to do with "It's a good movie" or "it's a bad movie," nor do I think it's "It's from a bad studio that does bad things that I think are bad." Most audience members probably aren't paying close attention to reviews pre-release, unless the universal sentiment is "This movie sucks and you shouldn't see it." They're far more influenced by marketing campaigns than critics.

Agreed about Indy. I think the reasons for the bombing were simple (and 100% foreseeable).

Harrison is 80yo = not an action star.

PWB? I don't see any kid/teen appeal there. She is younger than Harrison but she's still old enough to be a 13yo kid's mother. A strong screenwriting resume doesn't sell tickets. Her acting resume is filled with stuff that kids/teens probably haven't seen. She's not sexy enough to sell tickets on looks. What else does that leave?

Everyone 25-30yo and up, they all remember that Indy#4 was disappointing.

This covers most of the public.
 
Last edited:
I mean, some people do genuinely love Crystal Skull. Some folks love this film, too.

But I think it's more just that this is a franchise that didn't really have any legs left. It's got nothing to do with the actual quality of the movie itself. Hell, it could be fantastic. I don't know. Nobody I interact with has said it was, but it could be.

But, like, within the general public, was anyone sitting around saying "Man, you know what they ought to do another of? Indiana Jones. I know Harrison Ford is super old, but dammit, those movies never disappoint."

I dunno. Maybe this will lead to a reevaluation of legacy sequels as a way to print money or make less risky pictures. Maybe (shock! amazement!) legacy sequels are actually pretty goddamn hard to pull off, and you can't just look at the success of Top Gun: Maverick as a blueprint for your own cash machine. I've been kinda skeptical of them since Ghostbusters: Afterlife, myself.
 
I mean, some people do genuinely love Crystal Skull. Some folks love this film, too.

But I think it's more just that this is a franchise that didn't really have any legs left. It's got nothing to do with the actual quality of the movie itself. Hell, it could be fantastic. I don't know. Nobody I interact with has said it was, but it could be.

But, like, within the general public, was anyone sitting around saying "Man, you know what they ought to do another of? Indiana Jones. I know Harrison Ford is super old, but dammit, those movies never disappoint."

I dunno. Maybe this will lead to a reevaluation of legacy sequels as a way to print money or make less risky pictures. Maybe (shock! amazement!) legacy sequels are actually pretty goddamn hard to pull off, and you can't just look at the success of Top Gun: Maverick as a blueprint for your own cash machine. I've been kinda skeptical of them since Ghostbusters: Afterlife, myself.

I think the movie's quality is a partial factor.

Top Gun #2 worked because it was very good for what it was. Same with 'Fury Road' or 'Blade Runner 2049'. I think the sitaution with these legacy sequels is that the bar is just really, really high. People love it when a legacy sequel is amazing but they grade it very harshly if it's anything less.

I've always argued that 'Crystal Skull' was decent. (It's flawed, but it's a watchable flick for holiday-weekend cable TV. Whereas 'Temple of Doom' feels like Speilberg & Lucas had gone off their bipolar meds.) But in the top-franchise legacy sequel game, being only decent is tantamount to being terrible.

Tom Cruise also has his cosmetic surgeon (and maybe Lord Xenu) helping. If he had aged naturally like Harrison did then it would have been much harder to buy him flying F-18s in combat last year. 'Top Gun Maverick' was basically Tom Cruise's 'Crystal Skull' type of comeback movie except he didn't have to play his real age like Harrison did. TGM came out in 2022 but much of the script feels like a draft they wrote in the 2000s. Maverick is still a competitive flyer, his love interest has an early-teen daughter, etc.


I think the lesson of Indy#5 (and to some extent, GB Afterlife) is that there is such a thing as too late. The actors get too old, the public zeigiest has moved on, the raw amount of years on the calendar since it was in its prime, etc. It's not any one of those factors so much as the cumulative pile-up.

Music gives more extreme sharp examples of this stuff. Does anybody wanna watch 60-something Madonna writhe around on the stage seductively today? How about 70-something Mick Jagger? No amount of CGI fixing will make that appealing in the 2020s. Face-swap them into younger performers and it still won't appeal. At some point the IDEA OF IT just doesn't appeal anymore. You know it's fake at the lizard-brain level and you cannot un-learn that.
 
Last edited:
The main character of the movie is named & famed for her white skin. Her co-stars are an assortment of human little people. The wicked witch hates her for being more physically beautiful than her. She gets saved when a rando prince comes along and necro-kisses her body.

That movie is not remake-able for Disney in 2023. They would need to change too much of it for PC reasons. They should have accepted the obvious and saved themselves half a billion dollars.


But then again, what's the difference? Take away all those PC issues and Disney would still probably find a way to screw up this remake. (The Star Wars sequels were almost a total blank slate when they bought LFL.) They just don't seem capable of doing a movie well these days, period.
Yeah, while I understand the criticism for Ariel being black was pretty unfounded (although the mermaid was described as “fair” iirc and often depicted as white in the original fairy tale); that argument has no weight in Snow White whose key feature is having “skin as white as snow” which is what makes the queen jealous.

Honestly, if there is any Disney fairy tale where a race swap would be appropriate, I feel it would be Cinderella. Cinderella gets her name because she sleeps next to the fireplace and the cinders because of her evil stepmom and sisters. Change the dad and Cindy to be black, he remarries a white woman with two daughters and dies. Cinderella gets treated “like a servant” which can be a callback to slavery and her treatment. She meets a fairy godmother who cleans her up and gets her a dress and she meets the prince and loses her shoe.

When searching, the servant tasked in the search could overlook her because of her skin color but the prince can tell (obviously) and they eventually meet, fall in love, end of story. Might anger some but at least the retelling is plausible and can be faithful to the original tale (including feet cutting).
 
Yeah, while I understand the criticism for Ariel being black was pretty unfounded (although the mermaid was described as “fair” iirc and often depicted as white in the original fairy tale); that argument has no weight in Snow White whose key feature is having “skin as white as snow” which is what makes the queen jealous.

Honestly, if there is any Disney fairy tale where a race swap would be appropriate, I feel it would be Cinderella. Cinderella gets her name because she sleeps next to the fireplace and the cinders because of her evil stepmom and sisters. Change the dad and Cindy to be black, he remarries a white woman with two daughters and dies. Cinderella gets treated “like a servant” which can be a callback to slavery and her treatment. She meets a fairy godmother who cleans her up and gets her a dress and she meets the prince and loses her shoe.

When searching, the servant tasked in the search could overlook her because of her skin color but the prince can tell (obviously) and they eventually meet, fall in love, end of story. Might anger some but at least the retelling is plausible and can be faithful to the original tale (including feet cutting).
Why don't they make-up their own stories/legends? I'm sure they have them as much as the European ones:rolleyes:
The problem with any race-washing of a known story is that it works in only one direction. If you'd make a movie about Rosa Parks and portrayed her with any other actor of any other race, the noise would be deafening!!! That's my main problem.
 
I think the real reason Disney is remaking the various fairy tales is that (1) they want to make them appeal to new generations and they basically got rid of "The Vault" when they implemented D+ and can't feasibly go back, and (2) international markets that weren't really as exposed to this stuff before apparently eat this stuff up.

But I think maybe we're starting to see some issues with the "international markets" angle, given that China is subject to the whims of the government, and Russia is...well...unavailable for the foreseeable future. (Putting it mildly.)

I do think there's something larger going on, though, and it either has to do with the balance point between the price and the quality of the experience for going to theatrical showings (as compared to just staying home), and maybe fatigue with formulae. It's not even strictly "franchise fatigue" although I suspect that's part of it. It's formulae. It's movies where the experience is the same old experience you had before.

Then someone will do something different, it'll make a bunch of money, and the studios all shuffle over to that as "the new formula" because the people in charge aren't creative and are primarily reactive rather than proactive, and followers rather than leaders.

Like, the new Barbie movie is poised to make a ton of money. It's not going to be something that will easily boil down to formula, and it's not going to be something that I think will set it up for franchise/sequel treatment especially well (not that that will stop anyone from trying). I think Barbie is going to work because it's something pretty different from what people are used to seeing, and it's something that'll be fresh.

Meanwhile, studios will start grabbing up toy properties and making films about them because what they'll figure out is "Movies about toys sell, provided you're a bit cheeky in the film. Period." They won't have any real understanding of why Barbie ends up resonating with audiences, and they won't really care except insofar as they can disassemble it, study it, and repeat it until it's a withered husk of what it was and they can move on to the next thing.
 
I think the real reason Disney is remaking the various fairy tales is that (1) they want to make them appeal to new generations and they basically got rid of "The Vault" when they implemented D+ and can't feasibly go back, and (2) international markets that weren't really as exposed to this stuff before apparently eat this stuff up.

But I think maybe we're starting to see some issues with the "international markets" angle, given that China is subject to the whims of the government, and Russia is...well...unavailable for the foreseeable future. (Putting it mildly.)

I do think there's something larger going on, though, and it either has to do with the balance point between the price and the quality of the experience for going to theatrical showings (as compared to just staying home), and maybe fatigue with formulae. It's not even strictly "franchise fatigue" although I suspect that's part of it. It's formulae. It's movies where the experience is the same old experience you had before.

Then someone will do something different, it'll make a bunch of money, and the studios all shuffle over to that as "the new formula" because the people in charge aren't creative and are primarily reactive rather than proactive, and followers rather than leaders.

Like, the new Barbie movie is poised to make a ton of money. It's not going to be something that will easily boil down to formula, and it's not going to be something that I think will set it up for franchise/sequel treatment especially well (not that that will stop anyone from trying). I think Barbie is going to work because it's something pretty different from what people are used to seeing, and it's something that'll be fresh.

Meanwhile, studios will start grabbing up toy properties and making films about them because what they'll figure out is "Movies about toys sell, provided you're a bit cheeky in the film. Period." They won't have any real understanding of why Barbie ends up resonating with audiences, and they won't really care except insofar as they can disassemble it, study it, and repeat it until it's a withered husk of what it was and they can move on to the next thing.
They're killing 2 birds with 1 stone: they remake these classic to renew their IP (for another 70 years) and they stoke the DEI to the hilt when casting...simple as that.:(:rolleyes:
 
its cost/benefit, because extending copyright also prevents Disney from using works that would otherwise be free to adapt. And of course, Disney built the company adapting public domain stories.
 
If someone thinks, for a second, that the Mouse Corp is going to make their many IPs public domain is, probably, dreaming in Technicolor:lol::rolleyes:
Legally speaking, they don't get a say in it. Kinda.

From a copyright law perspective, you get (under American law) life of the author plus 70 years (this gets a little complicated for works that were copyrighted before 1976, as I recall, but that's a separate discussion). Once the author has been dead for 70 years, that's it. The original work is in the public domain, and you can do whatever the hell you want with that work. That includes making "derivative works", aka sequels, spinoffs, etc. It's not a question of "releasing" it to the public domain; you don't have any control over that work in the first place.

What you do have control over are other derivative works, as well as trademark if you can apply it.

So, in the case of, say, Steamboat Willie, come January 1, 2024, you'll be able to show that whenever you want without paying Disney a dime. You can reproduce it and distribute it all you want, too. And in theory, you could make a spin-off, like Steamboat Murder, where Mickey runs around on the boat, whistling while he slices other cartoon characters in two.

That last one could be complicated, though, because Disney has incredibly strong trademarks and aggressively protects them. Basically, without diving too deeply into trademark law (Which is its own minefield), Disney could argue that your new stuff doesn't violate copyright, but rather infringes upon their trademarks and that's the rubric under which they're stopping you.

This, however, is only an issue because of how woven into Disney's branding Mickey Mouse is. If we were talking about, say, Sherlock Holmes. ALL of Holmes' original stories are now in the public domain, meaning anyone can do an adaptation of any of the original stories. Anyone can tell any Sherlock Holmes story they want with the character, because the character itself isn't subject to copyright protection anymore. And the new story that you tell, or the specific re-telling of an old one that you do? That version is protectible under copyright law.

But you could do Sherlock Holmes vs. Godzilla, or Sherlock Holmes meets Jules Verne, or a Sherlock Holmes/Jazz Singer mashup where Holmes sings "Yes Sir, That's My Baby" because all three works (Holmes, Jazz singer, and the song) are in the public domain.
 
It's 2023. Huge corporations don't obey laws, they write laws.

If studios like Disney want to maintain legal control over their century-old IP, they will get it. The original pre-industrial source books are out of reach but they will keep control of their 20th-century films/comics/etc.

The original Little Mermaid had very sad ending. The original Cinderella's step sisters were cutting their toes off trying to fit the slipper. The orignial Pinnocchio was a brat. Disney isn't worried about people using that stuff. They want their versions to stay theirs.

I cannot predict the details of how it will happen but I can tell you the outcome. Maybe they will let Joe Youtuber release parodies & sequels from his basement but they will go to war against other large corps for doing the same. Maybe they will buy enough judges to get the laws changed. Etc. I don't know the story of how this issue gets battled-out during the next few decades but I know the ending.
 
Last edited:
I think the movie's quality is a partial factor.

Top Gun #2 worked because it was very good for what it was. Same with 'Fury Road' or 'Blade Runner 2049'. I think the sitaution with these legacy sequels is that the bar is just really, really high. People love it when a legacy sequel is amazing but they grade it very harshly if it's anything less.

I think that last part there is the key. Especially when we are talking about old franchises.

Let's be honest here, the original sequels to Raiders came out during a perfect storm of Hollywood filmmaking: The "home theater" market was just in its infancy with VHS rentals offering an exciting chance to see films missed in theaters (but with low enough quality to not replace going to the movies), Hollywood at maybe it's peak willingness to take chances and finance new ideas, a newfound boom in special effects technologies fueled creativity.

Audiences were just excited to go to the movies, even if it was to watch sequels.

While the original Indy trilogy is fondly viewed now, the fact is that ToD and Last Crusade do become progressively flawed and likely would not fair well under the microscope of today's hypercritical audiences, who would be quick to nitpick the darkness of ToD or how derivative Last Crusade's basic plot is of Raiders.

Top Gun Maverick pulled off the nearly impossible task of being not only exceptionally well made, but also by figuring out how to walk that thin nostalgia tightrope just right. If anything, it's the outlier here. But the other factor here is that by almost every metric, Maverick is a better crafted film than the original, which I also think is a critical ingredient when trying to revive an old franchise.

Fury Road took the route of basically being a soft reboot that was also exceptionally well made. It's advantage was that it didn't feel like audiences had to have seen any prior Mad Max film to enjoy it, which was true...they didn't. Blade Runner 2049 was well made and well received, but it also wasn't exactly a box office smash, pulling in "only" not much over $100,000,000 above its budget (which by current Hollywood standards is very disappointing). So while it may not have gotten dragged by hypercritical fans (and it could successfully argued that Blade Runner is way more niche than Indiana Jones), it also was just passed on by quite a large number of people during its theatrical release.

The point being, like you said, the bar for a lot of these films is really high, almost impossibly high.



I've always argued that 'Crystal Skull' was decent. (It's flawed, but it's a watchable flick for holiday-weekend cable TV. Whereas 'Temple of Doom' feels like Speilberg & Lucas had gone off their bipolar meds.) But in the top-franchise legacy sequel game, being only decent is tantamount to being terrible.

And yet weirdly, both of those films are also still considered box office successes.

The one other factor that I think contributes to the bar currently being almost impossibly high is places like this. While social media was certainly around when Crystal Skull came out, its influence over things like box office performance wasn't nearly as pervasive as it is today. I don't feel like the Internet had the cumulative effect that things like Facebook, YouTube, podcasts, fan forums, etc., have today at inching that bar ever higher.
 
From a copyright law perspective, you get (under American law) life of the author plus 70 years (this gets a little complicated for works that were copyrighted before 1976, as I recall, but that's a separate discussion). Once the author has been dead for 70 years, that's it. The original work is in the public domain, and you can do whatever the hell you want with that work. That includes making "derivative works", aka sequels, spinoffs, etc. It's not a question of "releasing" it to the public domain; you don't have any control over that work in the first place.

It was 70 years for sole authorship; the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" makes it so that corporate authorship lasts 90-120 years from the date of publication or creation.

I had to look into this recently when seeing about using a song for my movie, believing it was in public domain now. However, the song's lyrics are in public domain, and the version I want to use isn't for another 20 years, so that has to be cleared with the current corporate license holder. There are also a number of different licenses for different uses within a publication/distribution sphere as well. Festival or "broad," 1-2 years, 3-5; 20-100. There's so many hoops to jump through, and it ultimately benefits no one except those at the top. I've been waiting near 3 months, spoken to three different people, regurgitating the same details across the board, just to get a quote! That's what a pain in the ass it is just to use an old, nearly-forgotten blues song whose singer is long dead, and so are most of his descendants (who get nothing).

This system has got to go, man. It protects and benefits no one, especially the artists, and breeds nothing but petty, money-grubbing middle men. If you want to use something, just steal it do it. Better to ask forgiveness than ask permission. They can't stop us all. :lol:
 
Back
Top