Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Tommy replaced Richard Jordan who was originally cast, but had to bow out due to him being diagnosed with cancer.
Would have been neat seeing Richards take on the character, his characterization of Frances-7 was relentless
I believe that Richard Jordan was originally cast as Dr. Charles Nichols (the villain) and not as the Tommy Lee Jones’ character.
He was replaced by Jeroen Krabbé.
Last edited:
Indy#5 is not gonna break even or make a profit. I think that's pretty clear. They overspent so badly that it would struggle to make money even if the critic & internet buzz about it was good.
Rogue One, Solo, Rise of Skywalker, Indy#5 . . . same problem, same pattern. Kennedy keeps trying to shoot movies first and write them second. A high school film teacher would give a 14yo kid a failing grade for doing it that way.
You must have faith in the audience that the film is targeting…it will make money, despite any failings in quality.
CopperRevan
Master Member
Except the articles are saying the reason it's going to bomb is because the people who say they are going are an "Older" audience...Not sure if that's going to be the scapegoat when it fails but i'm sure the audience will be blamed nonetheless...like always.
CopperRevan
Master Member
Can you break down exactly where the rest of the money is coming from country by country please? lol, jk I'm not saying you're wrong but what is the net profit?
It’s a hodgepodge.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
And RD Jr is some kind of Brando. LoL
We have reached a point where a renaisssance in entertainment would be lost on the current audience. No matter how badly it turns out, I doubt it will flop in the current market. - possibly in the theatrical release exclusively.
Indiana Jones should be no harder to write than a Star Trek story. Pick anything and you have a title! Indiana Jones and the Army of Creepy Clay Chidren. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Remote. Indiana Jones and the Treasure of the Seat Cushions.
How can they manage to mangle this simple task?!
Sigh.
Last edited:
Indy#5 is going to make some money. I'm not saying nobody is gonna watch it.
But I can't see it making enough to offset the stupid cost. For $300m they probably could have re-made 'Raiders' AND 'Temple of Doom'. Now Harrison is 80yo and the last Indy movie left people disappointed.
Cephus
Master Member
"Making money" requires it makes more than its production budget and marketing and ancilliary costs combined. It's not going to get anywhere close, especially given the fact that, at a dead minimum, it has to make 2.5-3x those costs at the box office, since Disney doesn't get a lot of that money back, it goes to theaters and distributors and the like.
We know there were reshoots too and we have no clue what that cost. Just because some people go see it, that isn't "making money", it's "lessening the hemorrhage."
That's what I'm getting at. Indy#5's production budget is rumored to be north of $300m now.
IMO that figure sounds totally plausible given what we know about it. IIRC the original budget was $200+. And the Kathleen Kennedy filmmaking method (where they frantically re-shoot half the movie in the last few months before the release) is atrociously expensive. It's not only the extra cost of filming again. It also means they are paying overtime to rush all the post-production work too.
Will Indy#5 sell some tickets? Yes.
Will be enough to turn a profit? I really doubt it.
IMO that figure sounds totally plausible given what we know about it. IIRC the original budget was $200+. And the Kathleen Kennedy filmmaking method (where they frantically re-shoot half the movie in the last few months before the release) is atrociously expensive. It's not only the extra cost of filming again. It also means they are paying overtime to rush all the post-production work too.
Will Indy#5 sell some tickets? Yes.
Will be enough to turn a profit? I really doubt it.
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
Officially, it's at $294 million, but that doesn't count reshoots (which were reportedly extensive) and marketing (which is probably north of $150 million).
It's going to be a disaster. They had no clue who their audience would be and they certainly didn't make a movie their audience would want to pay for.
Believe me…there is a very large audience for franchise films in which “quality” need not be a qualifier…
And then, of course, there’s these guys…
Last edited:
HMSwolfe
Master Member
Believe me…there is a very large audience for franchise films in which “quality” need not be a qualifier…
View attachment 1709628
View attachment 1709629
And then, of course, there’s these guys…
View attachment 1709631
So, what you're saying is much like The Little Mermaid, this movie doesn't have any legs to stand on.
...
Goodnight everybody!
drusselmeyer
Master Member
Oh sure, next you will be making fun of Hunchback of Notre Dame 2.
Similar threads
