But he did start his small art house film production company, just as described.
The first film was released a few years ago.
Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
But he did start his small art house film production company, just as described.
The first film was released a few years ago.
“The latest Mission: Impossible installment cost north of $300M to make.
… As you know, it takes roughly double the budget for a movie to break even, on average. For Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part I this effectively means that unless the worldwide box office revenue reached at least $600M, it lost money instead of earning, and currently, this is exactly what’s happening.
…While the movie is yet to reach $400 Million mark globally, its vanishing from over 1000 screens in its home ground will only put more pressure on Tom Cruise’s much anticipated project.”
Where are the usual Disney haters who swore this movie would squash Indians Jones? LMAO. Let’s hear how you will somehow blame this film’s lackluster performance on the Mouse House.
… As you know, it takes roughly double the budget for a movie to break even, on average. For Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part I this effectively means that unless the worldwide box office revenue reached at least $600M, it lost money instead of earning, and currently, this is exactly what’s happening.
…While the movie is yet to reach $400 Million mark globally, its vanishing from over 1000 screens in its home ground will only put more pressure on Tom Cruise’s much anticipated project.”
Where are the usual Disney haters who swore this movie would squash Indians Jones? LMAO. Let’s hear how you will somehow blame this film’s lackluster performance on the Mouse House.
It is indeed kind of a surprise. M:I-7 isn't a bomb but it has underperformed. And it's not crazy to assume 'Top Gun Maverick' should have given it a bit of an extra kick this time.
IMO it's probably franchise fatigue. Tom Cruise has cranked out too many M:I movies lately. They are consistently good but there is only so much the market can take. A rapid-fire series of James Bond movies would probably start hitting the same wall.
'Fast & Furious' also under-performed in May. Similar situation. The new movie's quality is no worse than usual, and it didn't bomb or anything, but the demand for the show is waning.
It bears noting that all these shows (including Indy#5) cost extra to make because they were filmed during Covid restrictions.
IMO it's probably franchise fatigue. Tom Cruise has cranked out too many M:I movies lately. They are consistently good but there is only so much the market can take. A rapid-fire series of James Bond movies would probably start hitting the same wall.
'Fast & Furious' also under-performed in May. Similar situation. The new movie's quality is no worse than usual, and it didn't bomb or anything, but the demand for the show is waning.
It bears noting that all these shows (including Indy#5) cost extra to make because they were filmed during Covid restrictions.
All true, but earlier in this thread, so many anti-Disney people were all onboard that IJ5 was a bomb because of Disney’s “woke agenda” and this was an example of “go woke, go broke”. I think seeing other good films bomb is just a sign of the times. But you know how some people are, Disney is just the devil and they look for any reason to slam them and cast them as pure evil. Lol
jusdrewit
Sr Member
It's interesting that:
- Antman underperformed
- Spidey did very well
- Fast And Furious underperformed
- Little Mermaid underperformed and did not meet the lofty expectations
- Flash severely flopped and bombed
- DoD severely underperformed and flopped
- Rise of Beasts underperformed
- Elemental underperformed for Pixar again but is showing some legs
- Sound of Freedom doing amazing for being an indie film (is still beating Indy, Flash and MI7 at the daily box office)
- MI7 underperforming for being a Cruise flick
- Barbie is blowing up everywhere and will probably cross a billion
- Oppenheimer doing good with the Barbenheimer buzz
So it seems the possible correlation is that established franchises are under performing and struggling, while new series or new movies with a new IP are doing good or great. Mario still might have the crown for this year once the dust settles with Barbie being #2 (or vise versa), both essentially new movie IP's. I really think superhero fatigue or lazy remakes fatigue is real with the latest animated Spider-Man being the sole exception lately.
- Antman underperformed
- Spidey did very well
- Fast And Furious underperformed
- Little Mermaid underperformed and did not meet the lofty expectations
- Flash severely flopped and bombed
- DoD severely underperformed and flopped
- Rise of Beasts underperformed
- Elemental underperformed for Pixar again but is showing some legs
- Sound of Freedom doing amazing for being an indie film (is still beating Indy, Flash and MI7 at the daily box office)
- MI7 underperforming for being a Cruise flick
- Barbie is blowing up everywhere and will probably cross a billion
- Oppenheimer doing good with the Barbenheimer buzz
So it seems the possible correlation is that established franchises are under performing and struggling, while new series or new movies with a new IP are doing good or great. Mario still might have the crown for this year once the dust settles with Barbie being #2 (or vise versa), both essentially new movie IP's. I really think superhero fatigue or lazy remakes fatigue is real with the latest animated Spider-Man being the sole exception lately.
Yeah, I'm surprised by MI:7 not doing so well. MI:6 was successful both critically and financially (not a billion dollars but still did well). I would've thought the popularity of Maverick would've propelled it as well but apparently that wasn't the case. With Indiana Jones, the negative factors seemed obvious:
80 year old action star
Bad early reviews (although I'm not sure that matters to general audiences)
Lucasfilm's lackluster track record under Disney
Yes, franchise fatigue would have been a factor also but I guess it was a bigger factor than we thought.
80 year old action star
Bad early reviews (although I'm not sure that matters to general audiences)
Lucasfilm's lackluster track record under Disney
Yes, franchise fatigue would have been a factor also but I guess it was a bigger factor than we thought.
I wouldn't think that would be the case. MI:6 came out in 2018. 5 years is a lot of time for a sequel (for this day in age at least). Unless the other franchise movies had a kind of bleed off effect into it contributing to the overall fatigue?
Paul Andrew
Master Member
I don't think any of that really made the difference.
General audiences don't care about the reviews, as you said, and they also don't keep a running tab of how they feel about Lucasfilm output under "new" corporate management. And I don't think Ford's age has much to do with it either.
Just spitballing, but even as popular as Indy is with a certain demographic, I don't think most people under 20 know the character or care about a last ride into the sunset for him. My kids know who IJ is, but they don't CARE about the character.
The biggest Indy fans, probably folks over 30 and leaning at least a little male, are all over the place with how much they wanted this movie or were willing to give it a chance after KotCS. Folks are prickly, and with a franchise that has laid dormant and out of the general movie going consciousness for so long it make total sense to me that it wouldn't draw the world's biggest numbers.
Oh I don't think you're spitballing at all. I think that might be the biggest reason for its poor showing. I meant to mention it in my post and it just escaped me. But you're absolutely right. It pains me to say it but I don't think anybody even under 30 cares about Indy. Same thing with the Flash. I thought Keaton's Batman would've brought in the crowds himself but the sad reality is probably that most people didn't care. I mean there were a load of other factors with that movie bombing too.
I hope so. One of my long shot wishes was for this movie to do well so that maybe we could have Keaton and Burton reunite to complete Batman '89 as a proper trilogy. I know, I'm dreaming. Hey, if Beetlejuice 2 could have a sequel so long after the original, why not Batman? By the way, I'm really hoping they can capture the same magic in Beetlejuice 2. If Burton wasn't involved, I wouldn't be interested. He's key to it the way I believe Spielberg is key to Indy. That's not to say it will automatically work (KOTCS) but it has the best chance.
Another factor I forgot to mention in my previous post was streaming and how much that must surely affect ticket sales. I don't know the numbers obviously but it seems to me the traditional release method made more sense. Release a movie in theaters. Wait 4-6 months and release on DVD and pay-per-view. Then wait another 3-4 months to broadcast and stream. How many times have you heard someone you know or even yourself say, "Meh, I'll just wait for it to hit Netflix/Disney/Max/Paramount Plus."? Maybe they're making tons more with streaming and that's why they're fighting so hard to hide the numbers but on the surface, it looks like they've shot themselves in the foot.
Middle-aged adults like us tend to lose sight of how young the target movie audience is.
13yo kids. Born in about 2010.
'Raiders'? 'Temple'? 'Crusade'? Are you kidding? 'Crystal Skull' was re-running on cable TV before they were born.
They are aware that Indy was cool in the same way that we're aware of 'The Lone Ranger' or 'Bonanza'.
Show 'Raiders' to an average class of bored middle-school kids. Introduce it as a Speilberg movie from 1981 starring Harrison Ford, etc. When you quiz/question them on the movie a week later, I bet some of them wouldn't even remember that the movie was made decades apart from when the story took place. 1936, 1981 . . . whatever, it's all ancient history to a kid who barely remembers Barack Obama being president.
I know we're diverging from the topic, but there used to be a series of videos on YouTube where they showed two groups of teenagers the same 'classic' film. One group was allowed to have their phones & one group didn't. In the post movie interview, the teens with their phones gave scathing reviews of the film, calling it boring, old-fashioned, or just plain bad. The other group almost ALWAYS rated the movie like it was made of gold.
The one that stuck out to me was the original HALLOWEEN. The phone kids laughed through it, & the non-phone kids called it the scariest thing they'd ever seen.
I'm not an old man blaming everything on these youngsters, but it's a fact that most modern people just don't watch things like the public used to.
The one that stuck out to me was the original HALLOWEEN. The phone kids laughed through it, & the non-phone kids called it the scariest thing they'd ever seen.
I'm not an old man blaming everything on these youngsters, but it's a fact that most modern people just don't watch things like the public used to.
There’s a strong possibility that there will be fallout again. Beetlejuice 2 is really only going to be a hit with a certain age group who have a nostalgic love of the original film. Not too many kids know or appreciate, the original film. That is why they added Jenna Ortega. Younger demographics like her, and the studio is probably hoping attaching her to the project will appeal to a younger generation.
Well they already said the budget is estimated at $200 Million.
cboath
Master Member
I agree with that, but since everyone and their dog has to have their own streaming service, they're rushing it on to their streaming services as fast as they possibly can.
When the pandemic hit, it was surprising to people - mainly directors and actors with back end deals - that they moved things to streaming so fast, literally like 45 days after release. It was the best move possible with people not willing to go to theaters at that time. Now? It's not basically the norm. 6-8 weeks from release to streaming. GOTG3 is like an exception and it took all of 3 months.
Yep, that sounds like an incoming bomb. Or at least an "underperform".
Have they offered any kind of rationalization for the $200m?
cboath
Master Member
I wonder, what is the average price to make a movie these days? Especially something like Beetlejuice which requires a fair amount of FX (whether that's practical or cg - i doubt the cost difference is huge).
Flashback to the mid 90's. Prequels were announced to be happening. George sold licensing rights for 1B prior to having the first script done. Budgets were like 140 and people thought, that's it? it's 20+ years later - everything costs more. So, what 'should' a Beetlejuice 2 cost to make?
I know people are critical on IJ5's cost, but a large percentage of that i'm sure went to Ford's bank account.
Cephus
Master Member
Except those aren't the modern theater-going audience. Modern kids don't get excited for theatrical movies. They will go if their parents take them, but that's it. My kids haven't seen the inside of a theater in more than a decade and have zero interest. They have lots of other forms of entertainment to turn to. Therefore, if Hollywood wants to make a movie for kids, they'd better not do anything to piss their parents off, otherwise nobody will see it. The theater-going experience is dying and the only people who are going to do it are the people who are currently middle-aged or older.
Hollywood needs to realize that.
Similar threads
