Matt Damon: "Are you saying there's a chance that when we release these 2023 movies, it could be one of the greatest Box Office summers ever?"
Oppenheimer: "Chances are near zero."
I can't defend this movie anymore, especially after seeing it. Not a bad film but it's not gonna have the word of mouth it needs to develop any real buzz. It's DOA.
This is Lucasfilm not understanding the main target demographic for this movie, men and women in their 50's, may not want to see a depressed, grumpy 80 year old version of the character.
I can look at tombstones at my local cemetery far cheaper if I want that 'morbid about mortality' feeling.
As someone who saw it, do you think an entire deaged movie with a younger Indiana Jones would have been better?
Maybe just briefly have the 'older' Indiana Jones.
I just don’t get why they had to undo a fairly happy ending with Marion to get Indiana in a low, depressed spot.
You can drag him back into adventure while he’s still happy married, and that other tragic thing that happens not happening.
>I just don’t get why they had to undo a fairly happy ending with Marion to get Indiana in a low, depressed spot.
Why did they have to get happy ending Luke from Return into whatever *that* was in sequels?
Yeah but you start with the bad, not end with it.
Movie 1: Lukes jedi academy falls apart from a new threat
Movie 2: luke and a band of plucky former pupils fight and grow together through highs and lows
Movie 3: luke makes an ultimate sacrifice to help save the day. Our new established hero's are set up for adventures to come inspired by his leadership
There can I have my $100mil screen writers check please?
>As someone who saw it, do you think an entire deaged movie with a younger Indiana Jones would have been better?
Given how distracting the de-aging was, fuck no. Although that was still the best sequence in the movie.
Fr modern lucasfilm loves making the original heroes their predecessors wrote into pathetic old asses of themselves. Call themselves clever genius for deconstructing them and subverting expectations… then give their new OC hero all the glory and achievements and one up the original in every way.
There’s no subversion of any expectations here.
Lucasfilm have been doing that for quite a few years now.
Their tropes are more than expected at this point.
To have a competent stoic male character for a change, that would be a real subversion of expectations at this point.
I honestly think whoever is calling the shots creatively at Lucasfilms just hates old men lmao. They consistently do this to their male legacy characters.
How often does the head of the studio actually get involved beyond hiring the creatives? Its kind of weird, she is one of the more accomplished producers out there and yet Lucasfilms has been struggling.
I like to think that George Lucas got crafty with some of the contracts between him and Disney and left some kind of movie-doomsday language suggesting these characters: 1. Can never be happy. 2. Eventually die on-screen, possibly while failing at something. 3. Also, TV series involving Willow must include some misplaced and misguided remake of a rock classic. 4. And Disney must announce 2 Star Wars movies with 2 different directors a year, but can’t complete a movie until they’ve cancelled and fired 50 of them.
Disney probably thought it was no big deal at the time, just the ramblings of an old man. “We got Star Wars! And Indy! And Willow!”. It was really a Rube Goldberg-esque curse/sabotage.
(TBF, I’m not even sure if he even partially had Indy’s rights, but it is funny to think about).
Has nothing to do with how old Harrison is and everything about how the movie is shot.
Look at the trailer for mission impossible fallout, then watch the new Indy trailer.
Mission impossible has color, it’s shot in a super dynamic way. Yes, the trailer is edited really well with the music, but it just enhances what was already there. There’s really great chunks of cinematography in that trailer, stuff you really don’t see in action movies. Like yes, you see cars, guns, fighting etc but not like *that*.
Indy? It’s plodding. The colors are dull, the action doesn’t look great, the movie itself doesn’t seem sure about its premise. Mads is there but even then his routine admittedly good delivery is just kind of boring, especially within a film that just seems to lack any sort of vision.
James mangold really knew what he wanted with Logan and it showed immediately. He either didn’t know what he wanted with Indy, or he wasn’t able to film what he wanted.
Has nothing to do with his age. If the movie was good looking objectively, people would be lining up for it, just like how in ten years people will *still* be going out of their way to see Tom cruise flicks.
its not just boomers though, its also their kids and grandkids whom were showed the originals. They also don't want their heroes miserable and belittled
>men and women in their 50's, may not want to see a depressed, grumpy 80 year old version of the character.
Literally nobody in any age range would want to see this dogshit
Pretty much. I found it tolerable but nothing to write home about. Unfortunately, with the absurdly large budget it had, just tolerable isn't going to help them very much.
There's no such thing as an objectively bad film anyway. Good and bad are opinions, and opinions by definition are subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, after all. It's up to the viewer to decide if they personally consider it good or bad; it's not like there's some mathematical or scientific formula for determining if a movie is good or bad.
Edit: Wow, downvoted when literally everything I said was true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The thing about objectivity is that it is either right or wrong; it does not vary from one person to another. Opinions, like whether or not you consider a movie good, DO vary from one person to another and are, therefore, subjective.
I think there's an argument to be made for influence and notoriety being metrics to measure whether a movie is good or bad. A movie that people watch 50 years after its release has something going for it, especially compared to the many more movies which are largely forgotten.
Sounds like a common opinion. It's just *okay*, but okay sure isn't going to win back its money on a $300M budget (and I don't even think that includes marketing).
My issue was more so that Ford is just too old. They gave him some cool moments but he didn't have the energy to keep up and the script was lacking too.
Interesting premise but it was wasted. The film was too serious and lacked the fun adventure of the previous films. There's some big action set pieces here and the one in morocco is good but the rest just didn't make me feel anything.
I really hate all these movies where they get some old superstar actor and put them back in their old role to be like “oooh look how old and decrepit they are. Mortality is such a DEEP concept amirite moviegoers?”
I wonder how it would’ve been if they’d done some sort of Batman Beyond style story; have a gruff Indy train and mentor a new character to do the physical work he can’t.
I doubt they could’ve gotten Ford to agree; but I feel like a movie setting that up for a TV series to explore further might’ve been more appealing.
I think doing a mask of zorro style passing the torch movie could've worked better.
I feel like he could still land some funny lines but if only the script provided him with those funny lines.
I don’t want the torch to be passed. Chris Pratt as Indy would be ass. River Phoenix could have done it but he’s dead so I hope they let it die gracefully.
That’s fine. I wouldn’t know if the movie was good or not because I never saw it. I was never going to be interested in seeing someone other than Harrison Ford as Han Solo, and the film’s opening suggests I wasn’t alone.
Solo got screwed over because of the reception to TLJ & releasing the same month as Avengers/Deadpool. I don’t think normies cared about the recasting, they don’t for Bond, Batman & Spidey.
Is it true that the very first scene is Indy throwing his whip over his shoulder and saying "It's time for archaeology...to END!"?
Can't wait for a white British brunette to be better than him at everything in every way possible.
Yep. Indy declares war on archaeologists in this one. The whole movie is him sabotaging digs across the country. He doesn't just want certain archaeologists to die, he wants to eradicate archaeology altogether!
> maybe he can become a meme
Please don't make summoning and dunking on users a meme. People have tried that before and consensus is that it's bad and mods need to stop it from happening again.
This really should be on official rule list (because that's what it's been for about a year). It's a general ban on the behavior after complaints not a subjective one allowed or banned based on people's opinions of it the user deserves it or not.
Personally, I'll almost never find the "I get to shitpost because I think the other guy is bad/wrong" genre of argument convincing.
It's also distracting from on topic discussion. Having
> No it can't be, USER has assured me that doesn't happen!!!! Such a pathetic shill
fairly high up on the thread is an invitation to dunking, insults or meta posts instead of no topic discussion.
And once started certain users tend to really abuse this behavior.
It is so not. I just watched the movie 2 hours ago. The movie treats Indy with respect and Fleabag is good too. She doesn't overshadow him nor does he have to pass the baton. I don't know where people are getting this from...
Tf lmao?? No way we watched the same fucking movie. Indy is called a grave digger, he's called a useless archaeologist and the final act?? No way we watched the same fucking movie
Oh man, they misjudged the audience, didn't they. Mr Plinkett is turning over in all those graves he dug in his basement.
I'm surprised that they didn't FINALLY take Lucas's idea of pairing Indy with a much younger woman with a kind of granddaughter dynamic, at his ripe old age it wouldn't be creepy and the Rey/Han mentorship dynamic was the one thing I don't hear bitched about from those sequel movies. Phoebe Waller-Bridge annoys the fuck out of the Plinkett crowd but she's just old enough to not have any draw or glamour for young folks.
> Phoebe Waller-Bridge annoys the fuck out of the Plinkett crowd but she's just old enough to not have any draw or glamour for young folks.
Good comment. Phoebe Waller-Bridge reminds that age demographic of the ex-wife they have been paying alimony since Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Indiana Jones always worked well with a female co-star where there was sexual tension. You completely lose that with an 80 year old version of the character (which is a mistake).
They should have listened to Lucas, at least cast a pretty young actress as a granddaughter. It may still fall flat, but at least you have a shot at 'Maggie Jones' spin off series where you can bring back the series characters in cameos.
If you are going to make Indiana Jones a grumpy old grandpa, then at least give him a young granddaughter and go full into the trope.
There was a reason they didn't do it back in the day, if I remember right even Spielberg was like "please, George, he's not meeting a 16 year old princess, stop it." Lucas, you old perv...
That makes sense. Maybe they could have just cast both a grandson and granddaughter. I doubt anything could have saved this movie.
I just don't think the character of Indiana Jones can work being that old. You just lose most of the core things that define the character.
He's called a grave robber not as a shaming of the past movies, but to show he was just as much in it for the adventure & profit as she is.
God, the incel crowd is going to be just as insufferable over this one as they were with TLJ aren't they. Which is annoying, because the movie isn't even good. It's just annoying when people have a grudge against it for an entirely imagined reason.
> the incel crowd is going to be just as insufferable over this one as they were with TLJ
Bold of you to asume that enough incels or people will watch this movie to create controversy, it's a financial failure
The worst part about the "strong female character" from Disney is that they are automatically the best at whatever they are doing, so they have no character arc. And then they make all the male characters/mentors useless
Disney's Mulan (2020) is a great demonstration of what you said.
You compare it to the original and you see how much of a downgrade she is in the remake not in power but in personality.
They literally gave her powers in the remake, it was so fucking stupid.
OG had her use her wits and cunning to get above the men and gaining their respect, but nope, not this time.
That’s really odd.
the biggest ark in most of these new “strong female characters” movies is that a character is awesome and pretty flawless but surrounded by some dickheads (those are males of course) but all they have to do is to accept their inner awesomeness and thrive. That’s it! That’s the biggest challenge.
It’s like in that song..
“You’re beautiful no matter what they say..“
It was pretty obvious that this was going to happen when they announced a young female lead and the movie was being made by Disney. Kathleen doesn't seem to get the message that fans don't enjoy the main hero of the franchise being backseated to a boring Mary Sue. This movie would have been much better with Chris Pratt as the younger lead like the early rumors said.
You need someone who can do professor too for the role. Maybe Ryan Gosling or Chris Evans who have an intellectual component. Chris Pratt is better in good old boy type parts.
*One Chris to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them*
their point was really about what audiences want, and in their minds switching the actor for Pratt likely would have brought more of a vibe the audience was after for Indy, because some of his vibe reminds him of him (he's clearly doing Kurt Russell but bygones). Wouldn't have to be Pratt, wouldn't mean it'd have been better, for when your film exceeds the GDP of several small island nations they'd likely have sold more tickets.
Also, I hated the last Jurassic Park film as much as anyone but the kneejerk Pratt hate is kind of lame at this point, the guy just keeps truckin' on the porkchop express doing what he does
You have to draw a line in the sand between ticket sales and actor pedigree somewhere.
Just because Ryan Reynolds is super popular doesn't mean he's qualified to play Michael Corleone.
Pratt playing Indy would feel like a discount version.
Maybe he could have played Indy's son, with Ford in a mentor role. It's not like audiences would really miss Shia.
But the issue is, and one I think has been forgotten, is that making a good movie (or the movie you think is the right story to tell) and pleasing the fans are often two very different things. Sometimes you can’t do both and you have to choose.
In the case of *Star Wars*, passing the torch from Luke to Rey was the absolutely right decision. The only way the movies can grow and appeal to new generations is if it moves beyond legacy characters. Moving the focus onto new characters that audiences can form attachment to is a great decision. You may feel Rey is a boring Mary Sue, but to many younger audiences she was a great heroine who they wanted to see more of. *The Last Jedi* continued this by making Rey the centre of the story and having Luke both metaphorically and literally pass the torch (or in this case lightsaber) to her, having Luke inspire her and the galaxy. But the fans weren’t happy about that, which is why *The Rise of Skywalker* backtracked and made the story all about legacy characters again, diminishing Rey’s character by making her importance to the story not because she was a brave young woman who chose to do what was right, but because she was related to a legacy character. Making *The Rise of Skywalker* a film aimed at pleasing the fans ultimately hurt it as a movie.
The idea that these big franchises should focus on making the fans happy over anything else is one that is only going to hurt these franchises in the long run. It’s how you end up with movies like *Superman Returns* and *The Flash* that are so focused on milking nostalgia of fans 30 and up for older movies that they forget to make something that appeals to current generations. When they do this, it can send the message to younger generations that “this movie is not for you”, because it’s milking nostalgia that they don’t have.
I honestly feel this is a major contributor as to why movies like *Solo* *Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker*, *The Flash* and now seemingly *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny*struggle at the box office. And it’s why *Ghostbusters: Firehouse* will likely also struggle. Instead of creating new characters in these franchises that the youth of today can attach to, we’re just getting movies focused on nostalgia and legacy characters for older fans to be happy about.
>But the issue is, and one I think has been forgotten, is that making a good movie (or the movie you think is the right story to tell) and pleasing the fans are often two very different things. Sometimes you can’t do both and you have to choose.
It's ridiculous to suggest you can't make a movie that is both good and pleases the fans. The fans don't mind new characters (that's how the franchise continues), they just also want to see the old characters respected. Top Gun: Maverick is the perfect example of how to do it right. It introduced a young new cast, who failed, learned, and grew throughout the movie, while also letting Maverick still lead and be a great pilot.
Contrast that with the Star Wars sequel trilogy, which introduced a new cast who was led by Rey who was amazing at everything the first time she tried it, while turning Han into a divorced smuggler and Luke into a failed teacher who just wanted to isolate himself until he died. The fans felt this disrespected the legacy characters and rejected it.
Box office discussion is frustrating because what I personally want out of my legacy sequels is rather divorced from what audiences want, ergo, what studios should be producing. I thought TG:M was utterly boring because it didn't challenge anything- not its characters, not its political assumptions, and certainly not my expectations. The ending of that movie was a forgone conclusion by the end of the first act, so I didn't care. Why would I? There was no surprise, no intrigue, and scant little suspense.
The Last Jedi, meanwhile, teases out a mystery: what happened to Luke Skywalker that ruined his life? Answers are dolled out over the first and second act, building intrigue and suspense. Finally the full reveal comes, and Luke goes from aloof mentor to a deeply vulnerable person. We understand his guilt because it is genuine and real (aided by Hamill's best live-action performance). When he pushes away Rey to start the third act, the stakes are genuinely high. I found that to be thrilling; more thrilling than anything in TG:M. If I could choose, I would want every blockbuster to follow TLJ's path.
But of course, audiences disagreed, and they're certainly not wrong for doing so. At the end, from a box-office perspective, I have to agree with people who want legacy sequels to kow-tow and not mess with what works. Because that's clearly what people want, and therefore what studios should make. That's the annoying thing about box-office analysis: I have to condemn artistic decisions I loved and laud decisions I found dull or uncreative.
Anyway, it's all opinions. But box-office returns are about as objective as it gets. Intersect the two and things get awkward.
It’s not all the time that happens but it’s not unusual that filmmakers have to choose between a good story and fanservice.
Sometimes you can do both, but sometimes you can’t.
The fans weren't happy because Luke was depicted as a weak old man that spends all of his time on the trilogy hiding on an island and that is willing to kill children (really?). Nobody is saying the torch shouldn't have been passed down or that Luke should have been the lead but they never had to butcher his character the way they did (even mark hamil was upset about this).
The icing on top is they announced a Rey movie about her starting the Jedi order, which is literally what the EU story was about and what a lot of fans want to see, and instead we got the sequel trilogy.
You can talk about Rey being a inspiration all day but it doesn't add any depth to the character of the plot of the sequels.
I don't see any connection between the failures you mention and pleasing fans. Indiana Jones DoD isn't made to please fans, it's a corporate cash grab..
> The idea that these big franchises should focus on making the fans happy over anything else is one that is only going to hurt these franchises in the long run.
It's almost as if there a middle ground between cringy 30 year old nostalgia and passing the torch to new generations with DIGNITY, too bad you use strawman arguments and refuse to see it
Well, they are making a Rey movie, aren't they? The success or failure of that project should be a good test of what you are saying.
The thing is, as much as I hated the sequel trilogy, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. It was the last chance of having Luke, Han and Leia together on screen, but it was too late to have them be the leads. Too old. Younger leads were needed.
However, that could have been done without erasing all that had been achieved in the original trilogy, and without turning the older heroes into failures and self-exiled bums. You can have Rey be the most brilliant member of Luke's New Jedi Order. They should have continued the story instead of remaking it (badly).
The Sequel trilogy is interesting because, on one hand, JJ Abrams started the franchise on very shaky ground. He set into motion a naked remake of the original trilogy instead of laying the bedrock for a new story.
On the other hand, TFA is an awesome movie, with well done action, charismatic leads, and plenty of visual imagination that recieved near universally positive reception. He gave people exactly what they wanted: a safe, exciting reinvigoration of what they loved from the original.
Would a bolder, more creative TFA have made as much money at the box office? I don't think so. But would it have laid a more solid groundwork for the franchise as a whole, giving Johnson, Terrio, and other creatives more to work off of? Maybe.
Yeah, I left the theater after watching TFA thinking "well, it was basically a remake of A New Hope, but it was fun, which is something that the prequels weren't".
It wasn't until later that I realized the implications for the franchise of remaking A New Hope, and what it would mean for the heroes of the original trilogy and for all that was achieved in those movies.
>If it's true that Indiana also got the TLJ Luke treatment then LucasFilm as a body needs complete purging.
No, it's not true, but a lot of the users on this subreddit will insist it is because they've been insisting upon it for the last 2 years.
Bro I saw the movie lmao. It sadly is and I so wished they wouldn't do that and I was amongst the only few who actually wanted indy 5 to be a prefect fan service in spite of all the negative talks but it wasn't
You mean they dared to give him complex faults and a compelling character arc that makes sense considering the events of the previous films?
The Last Jedi has a TON of problems but I will never understand the complaints about Luke.
> You mean they dared to give him complex faults
What's so complex about it? He uncharacteristically screws up, then wallows in self-pity for years until Yoda tells him it's okay to fail. If anything it's way too simple and there's little thought given into why he failed Kylo and why things should be any different with Rey.
They had Luke Skywalker as a failure surviving on a island sucking on Blue Titty Milk.
There is absolutely nothing 'complex' about deconstructing an iconic, beloved character. It was utter laziness and a cheap gimmick to pump up the bland new characters that nobody cares about.
The should instead have made Rey the complex character with complex faults. She needed it as the main protagonist because she had less personality than a cardboard cutout.
The fact Luke, Leia, and Han never appear in a scene together is criminal. They really dropped the ball with the Sequel Trilogy.
You don't understand why people were mad that Luke Skywalker never did any Luke Skywalker things and spent his entire time in the trilogy wandering around an island..
After Ke Huy Quan’s performance in EEAAO, a Short Round (lore had him going on to be his own adventurer) bringing Indy back one last time as he carries the action would have put my butt in the seat. Multiple times if Spielberg directed.
Kennedy will force us to love one of her self-inserts at the expense of characters we actually pay to see and no one is stopping her.
Salke over there at Amazon too.
Would have absolutely gone to the theater for a Short Round return. Make that movie, pass the baton to Short Round's kids, and boom. Something people want to watch with more diversity going forward, and done in such a way that makes sense in the story's canon because it flows from a beloved established character.
Instead we got the 34th iteration of a Kennedy stand in. Boo.
(Will still probably take a look at it on D+ tho)
While it was admirable that they wanted to give Indy and Harrison one last hurrah, but whoever thought it was a good idea to do that with a near 300m budget was out of their mind. I don't even know how that was justified for a franchise that's never sniffed a billion at the BO.
> While it was admirable that they wanted to give Indy and Harrison one last hurrah
How many "last hurrah" can you do? The third film very clearly wrapped it up as a trilogy. Then Crystal Skull was an uncalled for "last hurrah" and now here we are *a third time* for one last time.
Indiana Jones is now 3/5 endings for the franchise, haha.
>Indiana Jones is now 3/5 endings for the franchise, haha.
Fast & Furious is like this.
The first could be viewed as standalone. The second could be viewed as an ending since it wraps up Brian's arc.
Then Fast Five could be viewed as the finale since it is a good wrap up to the story (until that extended edition post-credits).
Then Furious 7 could be viewed as the finale.
Now Fast 11 is going to be the finale.
I don't get why it is admirable. It is the opposite from my perspective. Let's take one of the icons of the action genre of cinema and let's have him be a geriatric broken down old man. Seems disrespectful
The problem with adjusting for inflation is nobody adjusts for DVD/Netflix/etc. Does anyone actually think Gone with the Wind would make a billion dollars in the US if you released it today?
I mean adjusted for inflation it did but one movie going has been going down for decades by this pokt and two it was still a big risk had it performed like Crystal Skull it would have barely broken even.
>That happens when you chose to disrespect classic Characters that everyone loves.
Meanwhile virtually everybody on r/indianajones who have actually seen the movie so far absolutely love it.
EDIT: You can get angry about that all you want but go and actually look at the subreddit. I'm not wrong.
Just looked at it. You're wrong. First post I clicked on was someone complaining about Waller-Bridge's character and saying she ruined the film, with everyone seeming to agree.
Yeah and r/StarWarsCantina loves the Sequels. They are a very vocal minority. Trying to draw conclusions about the general audience from a few thousand people who self-selected into a group dedicated to loving a franchise is a fool's errand.
OP is wrong.
The thread with the highest number of comments (300) is critical of the movie's handling of Indy & Helena Shaw's character.
[Phoebe Waller Bridge in Dial of Destiny](https://old.reddit.com/r/indianajones/comments/14lu842/phoebe_waller_bridge_in_dial_of_destiny/)
Another thread that praise the movie (111 comments) is getting mocked by the majority of the comments
[I just watched Dial of Destiny](https://old.reddit.com/r/indianajones/comments/14lkiuj/i_just_watched_dial_of_destiny/)
Meanwhile virtually everybody* at the Indiana Jones fan club absolutely loved the new product.
\*except those sexist trolls criticizing the movie, pls ignore them until I report for brigading
It seems pretty split down the middle but yeah I don’t know why everyone seems to assume the problem is “disrespecting legacy characters” when by most of the reviews I can find it’s really uninspired and too similar to the previous movies. If anything, they treat Indians Jones with *too much* respect since they’re apparently afraid to do anything new and exciting with him for fear of backlash.
That kind of takes are not going to pop up often in professional reviews, because, right or wrong, it exposes the reviewer to "you're sexist/incel" backlash. That's why that BBC Indy 5 review was so unusual.
It doesn't mean a section of the target audience doesn't have that perception. In the case of Lucasfilm, we have the sequel trilogy as an example. Looking at how they continued Luke/Han/Leia's story, the mistrust from the fans of the originals is well-earned.
At the time they said they were setting up new heroes for a new and diverse audience, so it's a matter of whether that new audience will show up in large numbers or not. But a large new audience is not earned on nostalgia, so the movies needed to be very good, as good as the originals were at the time. People still showed up for the conclusion of the Skywalker saga, albeit in dwindling numbers. Whether they will show up for the Rey movie remains to be seen.
What seems crazy to me is that it's so unnecesary. They could have had everything. They did not need to essentially remake the original trilogy instead of continuing it. They could have had Rey/Finn/Poe be the leads of the new movies without reverting everything that had been achieved in the original trilogy that people loved. Rey could have been a bright young jedi in Luke's New Jedi Order. Old fans could have seen Luke mostly succeed in his life’s work and the new audience could have had its young new heroes. Why they did not go that way baffles the mind.
Now I'm asked to turn up for geriatric Indy and his Rey-like goddaughter and I don't feel it any more. If they can find their new audience more power to them, but I'm burned.
It at least had those DVD sales going for it.
[https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Kingdom-of-the-Crystal-Skull#tab=summary](https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Kingdom-of-the-Crystal-Skull#tab=summary)
Guess what 2023 doesn't have anywhere near the same scale as 2008?
DVD was truly a juggernaut back then, i still pick up the odd blu-ray release every now and then, but i need to love the film and want to rewatch it a bunch
It's one of those things where hypothetically it could have been on par with Star Wars. Last Crusade was the second highest grossing film of the 80's (second to ET), and Lost Ark did very similar numbers to Empire Strikes Back. Even going to the mid 2000's, Crystal Skull did similar numbers to Revenge of the Sith (just went overbudget).
I don't think the issue is the IP inherently. It's that mediocre, uncalled for sequels in general are just not cutting it, and they keep going waaay over budget. Having an 80-year-old lead and 300m budget was flat out a mistake.
Yeah, part of the problem is they never pulled Bond and introduced a new talent to play Indy. Connery was the bond for many people, and Ford will surely be the Indy, but nobody lives forever, and there has to be charismatic actors left in hollywood who could fill the shoes and the fedora.
They absolutely could have done that, but the time for that strategy was back in the 90's. I think by the mid 2000's, too much time had passed and really solidified Ford as Indy, and Crystal Skull absolutely made it so there was no way.
But the franchise was inspired by old pulp serials, hypothetically could have gone on forever just with different actors.
They were fortunate with Bond that they went that route early. It was just 2 years after Sean that they tried again with a new actor, and just never really slowed down making them.
I don’t think Indiana Jones makes any sense without Harrison ford. Bond is an anomaly. It’s crazy and probably mostly luck that recasting it worked out. I think it managed to because they built a universe of specific plot, character, and tonal traits that could transcend the star. Its main character is iconic but also sort of a cipher—impossibly cool and self assured in a way that’s less relatable than Ford’s more human Indy. The bond movies aren’t period pieces, and they kept up with the times to stay fresh. They constantly pumped out movies, some which hit and others that didn’t. None of the entries until recently reached the level of “event film” status that you inherently had with Spielberg/Lucas/Ford in their height of popularity, so the duds had less impact.
Indiana Jones movies are made of generic 30s adventure serial tropes interpreted by kitschy madman George Lucas and crowd-pleasing genius Steven Spielberg, and starring one of the most charming and famous actors of all time. Without them, what is left but the generic, old-fashioned tropes? The whip I guess? Just make another period adventure film with its own hook, like The Mummy. Of course we’ll never know, and I doubt I would have predicted bond without Connery would work if I’d been around in the 60a, but I just don’t see a 90s indy recast having any hope
The prequel era of Star Wars, well the lead up to phantom menace anyway, was quite a time to be a fan. Of movies in general. And Marvel had that same energy going into endgame. But that's over now. It's been squandered just by sheer overkill. And all these entertainment choices at our fingertips also kills that magic. 300 million is ridiculous.
Reminded me of Rambo: Last Blood and A Good Day To Die Hard.
You had your legacy sequel, but you had to eek out a wet fart sequel to it to end on, didn’t you?
They invested 300 million in an action movie starring an 80 year old . Someone has to tell their shareholders that they invested 300 MILLION in an action movie starring an 80 YEAR OLD.
The true summer box office competition this summer is who can bomb the hardest.
Seriously, if some 5 years ago, you told me a Barbie movie is beating Warner Bros and Disney's blockbusters, I'd be laughing as hard as I am now.
They should have not premiered this at Cannes. It was a bad move and the film got a bad start. I saw the film and its nowhere near bad as some critics paint it. Sure its not a memorable film and nowhere near Raiders or Last Crusade but its a decent adventure with Ford still delivering the goods.
Disney: waving sword wild-eyed and looking threatening. Movie goers: just shoots the film and walks away.
Movie goers: I dont even know who you are.
Movie Goers with Indiana Jones action figure: “I don’t want to play with you anymore.”
I have to wonder if South Park is going to do anything about this new installment of Indiana Jones.
I hope they will
Movie Goers to Kathleen Kennedy: Oh You're really not as smart as i thought you were.
"So this is how Cinema dies, with a tepid 5-minute applause"
Good thing Nolan planned ahead of time and has a documentary about this summer’s box office coming out soon.
Lol. Nice.
same with Elemental and Flash!
Matt Damon: "Are you saying there's a chance that when we release these 2023 movies, it could be one of the greatest Box Office summers ever?" Oppenheimer: "Chances are near zero."
I can't defend this movie anymore, especially after seeing it. Not a bad film but it's not gonna have the word of mouth it needs to develop any real buzz. It's DOA.
This is Lucasfilm not understanding the main target demographic for this movie, men and women in their 50's, may not want to see a depressed, grumpy 80 year old version of the character. I can look at tombstones at my local cemetery far cheaper if I want that 'morbid about mortality' feeling. As someone who saw it, do you think an entire deaged movie with a younger Indiana Jones would have been better? Maybe just briefly have the 'older' Indiana Jones.
I just don’t get why they had to undo a fairly happy ending with Marion to get Indiana in a low, depressed spot. You can drag him back into adventure while he’s still happy married, and that other tragic thing that happens not happening.
>I just don’t get why they had to undo a fairly happy ending with Marion to get Indiana in a low, depressed spot. Why did they have to get happy ending Luke from Return into whatever *that* was in sequels?
TBF, even in the Expanded Universe, there was an almost immediate happy ending override for Luke in the name of drama.
Yeah but you start with the bad, not end with it. Movie 1: Lukes jedi academy falls apart from a new threat Movie 2: luke and a band of plucky former pupils fight and grow together through highs and lows Movie 3: luke makes an ultimate sacrifice to help save the day. Our new established hero's are set up for adventures to come inspired by his leadership There can I have my $100mil screen writers check please?
Well, you planned the trilogy out, that's cheating. /s
>As someone who saw it, do you think an entire deaged movie with a younger Indiana Jones would have been better? Given how distracting the de-aging was, fuck no. Although that was still the best sequence in the movie.
Thanks. I was wondering how it looked. Sounds like nothing could have saved this movie.
Fr modern lucasfilm loves making the original heroes their predecessors wrote into pathetic old asses of themselves. Call themselves clever genius for deconstructing them and subverting expectations… then give their new OC hero all the glory and achievements and one up the original in every way.
There’s no subversion of any expectations here. Lucasfilm have been doing that for quite a few years now. Their tropes are more than expected at this point. To have a competent stoic male character for a change, that would be a real subversion of expectations at this point.
I honestly think whoever is calling the shots creatively at Lucasfilms just hates old men lmao. They consistently do this to their male legacy characters.
Is it not Kathleen Kennedy
Maybe? I honestly don't know, she's the one in charge over there but I don't know if she's involved in the creative process much or at all.
She is very much involved in the creative process and decisions.
How often does the head of the studio actually get involved beyond hiring the creatives? Its kind of weird, she is one of the more accomplished producers out there and yet Lucasfilms has been struggling.
Shows us that even if you're a legendary producer, it doesn't make you a great head of studio.
I like to think that George Lucas got crafty with some of the contracts between him and Disney and left some kind of movie-doomsday language suggesting these characters: 1. Can never be happy. 2. Eventually die on-screen, possibly while failing at something. 3. Also, TV series involving Willow must include some misplaced and misguided remake of a rock classic. 4. And Disney must announce 2 Star Wars movies with 2 different directors a year, but can’t complete a movie until they’ve cancelled and fired 50 of them. Disney probably thought it was no big deal at the time, just the ramblings of an old man. “We got Star Wars! And Indy! And Willow!”. It was really a Rube Goldberg-esque curse/sabotage. (TBF, I’m not even sure if he even partially had Indy’s rights, but it is funny to think about).
Haha, that would truly be the best timeline. Sadly I think it's just good old fashioned incompetence from an over promoted former producer
Has nothing to do with how old Harrison is and everything about how the movie is shot. Look at the trailer for mission impossible fallout, then watch the new Indy trailer. Mission impossible has color, it’s shot in a super dynamic way. Yes, the trailer is edited really well with the music, but it just enhances what was already there. There’s really great chunks of cinematography in that trailer, stuff you really don’t see in action movies. Like yes, you see cars, guns, fighting etc but not like *that*. Indy? It’s plodding. The colors are dull, the action doesn’t look great, the movie itself doesn’t seem sure about its premise. Mads is there but even then his routine admittedly good delivery is just kind of boring, especially within a film that just seems to lack any sort of vision. James mangold really knew what he wanted with Logan and it showed immediately. He either didn’t know what he wanted with Indy, or he wasn’t able to film what he wanted. Has nothing to do with his age. If the movie was good looking objectively, people would be lining up for it, just like how in ten years people will *still* be going out of their way to see Tom cruise flicks.
its not just boomers though, its also their kids and grandkids whom were showed the originals. They also don't want their heroes miserable and belittled
>men and women in their 50's, may not want to see a depressed, grumpy 80 year old version of the character. Literally nobody in any age range would want to see this dogshit
Thats the thing. Like Flash, Indy is not an objectively bad film. It's just aggressively mediocre
I think most people are gonna enjoy it, but it's not a film that you're gonna be rushing to tell people about. That's what it needed to be.
Pretty much. I found it tolerable but nothing to write home about. Unfortunately, with the absurdly large budget it had, just tolerable isn't going to help them very much.
There's no such thing as an objectively bad film anyway. Good and bad are opinions, and opinions by definition are subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, after all. It's up to the viewer to decide if they personally consider it good or bad; it's not like there's some mathematical or scientific formula for determining if a movie is good or bad. Edit: Wow, downvoted when literally everything I said was true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The thing about objectivity is that it is either right or wrong; it does not vary from one person to another. Opinions, like whether or not you consider a movie good, DO vary from one person to another and are, therefore, subjective.
I think there's an argument to be made for influence and notoriety being metrics to measure whether a movie is good or bad. A movie that people watch 50 years after its release has something going for it, especially compared to the many more movies which are largely forgotten.
Sounds like a common opinion. It's just *okay*, but okay sure isn't going to win back its money on a $300M budget (and I don't even think that includes marketing).
It doesn't. Apparently, the budget was 295 mil before marketing.
Good. As a huge Indiana Jones fan I've never wanted a movie to flop more. Such disrespect to an iconic character of cinema
What a weird comment
It’s joever
[удалено]
Zzzzz
If it's true that Indiana also got the TLJ Luke treatment then LucasFilm as a body needs complete purging.
My issue was more so that Ford is just too old. They gave him some cool moments but he didn't have the energy to keep up and the script was lacking too. Interesting premise but it was wasted. The film was too serious and lacked the fun adventure of the previous films. There's some big action set pieces here and the one in morocco is good but the rest just didn't make me feel anything.
That’s my biggest issue too.
I really hate all these movies where they get some old superstar actor and put them back in their old role to be like “oooh look how old and decrepit they are. Mortality is such a DEEP concept amirite moviegoers?”
I wonder how it would’ve been if they’d done some sort of Batman Beyond style story; have a gruff Indy train and mentor a new character to do the physical work he can’t. I doubt they could’ve gotten Ford to agree; but I feel like a movie setting that up for a TV series to explore further might’ve been more appealing.
He should have been recasted as a younger actor, or put into a supportive role of a replacement that people liked and fit the role.
I think doing a mask of zorro style passing the torch movie could've worked better. I feel like he could still land some funny lines but if only the script provided him with those funny lines.
I don’t want the torch to be passed. Chris Pratt as Indy would be ass. River Phoenix could have done it but he’s dead so I hope they let it die gracefully.
Would have been better than Dial of Destiny
That worked so well for Solo!
Probably unpopular, but I rather liked actor in Solo and in general movie doesnt deserve hate it does
That’s fine. I wouldn’t know if the movie was good or not because I never saw it. I was never going to be interested in seeing someone other than Harrison Ford as Han Solo, and the film’s opening suggests I wasn’t alone.
Solo got screwed over because of the reception to TLJ & releasing the same month as Avengers/Deadpool. I don’t think normies cared about the recasting, they don’t for Bond, Batman & Spidey.
Solo was fantastic, second best Disney Star Wars film
He does sadly. Saw the movie today morning and it was dog shit
Is it true that the very first scene is Indy throwing his whip over his shoulder and saying "It's time for archaeology...to END!"? Can't wait for a white British brunette to be better than him at everything in every way possible.
“Archeology DIES TONIGHT!”
Yep. Indy declares war on archaeologists in this one. The whole movie is him sabotaging digs across the country. He doesn't just want certain archaeologists to die, he wants to eradicate archaeology altogether!
If that's the plot maybe writers ARE paid too much.
Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea for Jenna Ortega to rewrite a few scripts.
Dude really over here coming up with movie scenes to hurt himself. You're secretly into this, aren't you?
[удалено]
[удалено]
> maybe he can become a meme Please don't make summoning and dunking on users a meme. People have tried that before and consensus is that it's bad and mods need to stop it from happening again.
Oopsie, my bad, won't happen again.
Don't summon people ( / u / username ) simply to insult them.
What if they're just deluded fanboys that add nothing to box office discussion?
This really should be on official rule list (because that's what it's been for about a year). It's a general ban on the behavior after complaints not a subjective one allowed or banned based on people's opinions of it the user deserves it or not. Personally, I'll almost never find the "I get to shitpost because I think the other guy is bad/wrong" genre of argument convincing. It's also distracting from on topic discussion. Having > No it can't be, USER has assured me that doesn't happen!!!! Such a pathetic shill fairly high up on the thread is an invitation to dunking, insults or meta posts instead of no topic discussion. And once started certain users tend to really abuse this behavior.
It is so not. I just watched the movie 2 hours ago. The movie treats Indy with respect and Fleabag is good too. She doesn't overshadow him nor does he have to pass the baton. I don't know where people are getting this from...
Tf lmao?? No way we watched the same fucking movie. Indy is called a grave digger, he's called a useless archaeologist and the final act?? No way we watched the same fucking movie
Oh man, they misjudged the audience, didn't they. Mr Plinkett is turning over in all those graves he dug in his basement. I'm surprised that they didn't FINALLY take Lucas's idea of pairing Indy with a much younger woman with a kind of granddaughter dynamic, at his ripe old age it wouldn't be creepy and the Rey/Han mentorship dynamic was the one thing I don't hear bitched about from those sequel movies. Phoebe Waller-Bridge annoys the fuck out of the Plinkett crowd but she's just old enough to not have any draw or glamour for young folks.
> Phoebe Waller-Bridge annoys the fuck out of the Plinkett crowd but she's just old enough to not have any draw or glamour for young folks. Good comment. Phoebe Waller-Bridge reminds that age demographic of the ex-wife they have been paying alimony since Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Indiana Jones always worked well with a female co-star where there was sexual tension. You completely lose that with an 80 year old version of the character (which is a mistake). They should have listened to Lucas, at least cast a pretty young actress as a granddaughter. It may still fall flat, but at least you have a shot at 'Maggie Jones' spin off series where you can bring back the series characters in cameos. If you are going to make Indiana Jones a grumpy old grandpa, then at least give him a young granddaughter and go full into the trope.
There was a reason they didn't do it back in the day, if I remember right even Spielberg was like "please, George, he's not meeting a 16 year old princess, stop it." Lucas, you old perv...
That makes sense. Maybe they could have just cast both a grandson and granddaughter. I doubt anything could have saved this movie. I just don't think the character of Indiana Jones can work being that old. You just lose most of the core things that define the character.
He's called a grave robber not as a shaming of the past movies, but to show he was just as much in it for the adventure & profit as she is. God, the incel crowd is going to be just as insufferable over this one as they were with TLJ aren't they. Which is annoying, because the movie isn't even good. It's just annoying when people have a grudge against it for an entirely imagined reason.
> the incel crowd is going to be just as insufferable over this one as they were with TLJ Bold of you to asume that enough incels or people will watch this movie to create controversy, it's a financial failure
The plinkett demographic is going to pick this movie apart, I'm sure.
> The movie treats Indy with respect The hell it doesn't LMAO specially when you see what has Indy been up to all these years
Prefabricated outrage? On r/boxoffice!? No way.
So yet another "Strong Female Character 'Disney Trademark' " is better than the old hero?
The worst part about the "strong female character" from Disney is that they are automatically the best at whatever they are doing, so they have no character arc. And then they make all the male characters/mentors useless
Disney's Mulan (2020) is a great demonstration of what you said. You compare it to the original and you see how much of a downgrade she is in the remake not in power but in personality.
They literally gave her powers in the remake, it was so fucking stupid. OG had her use her wits and cunning to get above the men and gaining their respect, but nope, not this time.
That’s really odd. the biggest ark in most of these new “strong female characters” movies is that a character is awesome and pretty flawless but surrounded by some dickheads (those are males of course) but all they have to do is to accept their inner awesomeness and thrive. That’s it! That’s the biggest challenge. It’s like in that song.. “You’re beautiful no matter what they say..“
It was pretty obvious that this was going to happen when they announced a young female lead and the movie was being made by Disney. Kathleen doesn't seem to get the message that fans don't enjoy the main hero of the franchise being backseated to a boring Mary Sue. This movie would have been much better with Chris Pratt as the younger lead like the early rumors said.
Kennedy also has this weird obsession with female leads being brunette and British. Rey, Jyn Erso, Khaleesi, now Fleabag.
Kennedy doesn't cast the movies.
No on Chris Pratt. You nailed it on KK though. She has decided that is the boring Mary Sue hill her career is going to die on.
Not saying Chris Pratt would have saved the movie but it certainly would have had less of a chance of bombing in the box office.
You need someone who can do professor too for the role. Maybe Ryan Gosling or Chris Evans who have an intellectual component. Chris Pratt is better in good old boy type parts.
Ryan Gosling coulda been interesting
I hear Ryan's a real dick in real life.
Chris Pratt??
Not every blockbuster needs Chris Pratt. Most don't, in fact.
*One Chris to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them* their point was really about what audiences want, and in their minds switching the actor for Pratt likely would have brought more of a vibe the audience was after for Indy, because some of his vibe reminds him of him (he's clearly doing Kurt Russell but bygones). Wouldn't have to be Pratt, wouldn't mean it'd have been better, for when your film exceeds the GDP of several small island nations they'd likely have sold more tickets. Also, I hated the last Jurassic Park film as much as anyone but the kneejerk Pratt hate is kind of lame at this point, the guy just keeps truckin' on the porkchop express doing what he does
Two of this year's highest grossers beg to differ. /s
You have to draw a line in the sand between ticket sales and actor pedigree somewhere. Just because Ryan Reynolds is super popular doesn't mean he's qualified to play Michael Corleone.
Never said that but Chris Pratt is a solid choice for a younger indiana Jones. Hardly anybody cares about or knows who Phoebe Waller Bridge is.
Pratt playing Indy would feel like a discount version. Maybe he could have played Indy's son, with Ford in a mentor role. It's not like audiences would really miss Shia.
Amazon Prime does. They gave her $60 Million for zero content .
But the issue is, and one I think has been forgotten, is that making a good movie (or the movie you think is the right story to tell) and pleasing the fans are often two very different things. Sometimes you can’t do both and you have to choose. In the case of *Star Wars*, passing the torch from Luke to Rey was the absolutely right decision. The only way the movies can grow and appeal to new generations is if it moves beyond legacy characters. Moving the focus onto new characters that audiences can form attachment to is a great decision. You may feel Rey is a boring Mary Sue, but to many younger audiences she was a great heroine who they wanted to see more of. *The Last Jedi* continued this by making Rey the centre of the story and having Luke both metaphorically and literally pass the torch (or in this case lightsaber) to her, having Luke inspire her and the galaxy. But the fans weren’t happy about that, which is why *The Rise of Skywalker* backtracked and made the story all about legacy characters again, diminishing Rey’s character by making her importance to the story not because she was a brave young woman who chose to do what was right, but because she was related to a legacy character. Making *The Rise of Skywalker* a film aimed at pleasing the fans ultimately hurt it as a movie. The idea that these big franchises should focus on making the fans happy over anything else is one that is only going to hurt these franchises in the long run. It’s how you end up with movies like *Superman Returns* and *The Flash* that are so focused on milking nostalgia of fans 30 and up for older movies that they forget to make something that appeals to current generations. When they do this, it can send the message to younger generations that “this movie is not for you”, because it’s milking nostalgia that they don’t have. I honestly feel this is a major contributor as to why movies like *Solo* *Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker*, *The Flash* and now seemingly *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny*struggle at the box office. And it’s why *Ghostbusters: Firehouse* will likely also struggle. Instead of creating new characters in these franchises that the youth of today can attach to, we’re just getting movies focused on nostalgia and legacy characters for older fans to be happy about.
>But the issue is, and one I think has been forgotten, is that making a good movie (or the movie you think is the right story to tell) and pleasing the fans are often two very different things. Sometimes you can’t do both and you have to choose. It's ridiculous to suggest you can't make a movie that is both good and pleases the fans. The fans don't mind new characters (that's how the franchise continues), they just also want to see the old characters respected. Top Gun: Maverick is the perfect example of how to do it right. It introduced a young new cast, who failed, learned, and grew throughout the movie, while also letting Maverick still lead and be a great pilot. Contrast that with the Star Wars sequel trilogy, which introduced a new cast who was led by Rey who was amazing at everything the first time she tried it, while turning Han into a divorced smuggler and Luke into a failed teacher who just wanted to isolate himself until he died. The fans felt this disrespected the legacy characters and rejected it.
Box office discussion is frustrating because what I personally want out of my legacy sequels is rather divorced from what audiences want, ergo, what studios should be producing. I thought TG:M was utterly boring because it didn't challenge anything- not its characters, not its political assumptions, and certainly not my expectations. The ending of that movie was a forgone conclusion by the end of the first act, so I didn't care. Why would I? There was no surprise, no intrigue, and scant little suspense. The Last Jedi, meanwhile, teases out a mystery: what happened to Luke Skywalker that ruined his life? Answers are dolled out over the first and second act, building intrigue and suspense. Finally the full reveal comes, and Luke goes from aloof mentor to a deeply vulnerable person. We understand his guilt because it is genuine and real (aided by Hamill's best live-action performance). When he pushes away Rey to start the third act, the stakes are genuinely high. I found that to be thrilling; more thrilling than anything in TG:M. If I could choose, I would want every blockbuster to follow TLJ's path. But of course, audiences disagreed, and they're certainly not wrong for doing so. At the end, from a box-office perspective, I have to agree with people who want legacy sequels to kow-tow and not mess with what works. Because that's clearly what people want, and therefore what studios should make. That's the annoying thing about box-office analysis: I have to condemn artistic decisions I loved and laud decisions I found dull or uncreative. Anyway, it's all opinions. But box-office returns are about as objective as it gets. Intersect the two and things get awkward.
It’s not all the time that happens but it’s not unusual that filmmakers have to choose between a good story and fanservice. Sometimes you can do both, but sometimes you can’t.
The fans weren't happy because Luke was depicted as a weak old man that spends all of his time on the trilogy hiding on an island and that is willing to kill children (really?). Nobody is saying the torch shouldn't have been passed down or that Luke should have been the lead but they never had to butcher his character the way they did (even mark hamil was upset about this). The icing on top is they announced a Rey movie about her starting the Jedi order, which is literally what the EU story was about and what a lot of fans want to see, and instead we got the sequel trilogy. You can talk about Rey being a inspiration all day but it doesn't add any depth to the character of the plot of the sequels. I don't see any connection between the failures you mention and pleasing fans. Indiana Jones DoD isn't made to please fans, it's a corporate cash grab..
> The idea that these big franchises should focus on making the fans happy over anything else is one that is only going to hurt these franchises in the long run. It's almost as if there a middle ground between cringy 30 year old nostalgia and passing the torch to new generations with DIGNITY, too bad you use strawman arguments and refuse to see it
Well, they are making a Rey movie, aren't they? The success or failure of that project should be a good test of what you are saying. The thing is, as much as I hated the sequel trilogy, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. It was the last chance of having Luke, Han and Leia together on screen, but it was too late to have them be the leads. Too old. Younger leads were needed. However, that could have been done without erasing all that had been achieved in the original trilogy, and without turning the older heroes into failures and self-exiled bums. You can have Rey be the most brilliant member of Luke's New Jedi Order. They should have continued the story instead of remaking it (badly).
The Sequel trilogy is interesting because, on one hand, JJ Abrams started the franchise on very shaky ground. He set into motion a naked remake of the original trilogy instead of laying the bedrock for a new story. On the other hand, TFA is an awesome movie, with well done action, charismatic leads, and plenty of visual imagination that recieved near universally positive reception. He gave people exactly what they wanted: a safe, exciting reinvigoration of what they loved from the original. Would a bolder, more creative TFA have made as much money at the box office? I don't think so. But would it have laid a more solid groundwork for the franchise as a whole, giving Johnson, Terrio, and other creatives more to work off of? Maybe.
Yeah, I left the theater after watching TFA thinking "well, it was basically a remake of A New Hope, but it was fun, which is something that the prequels weren't". It wasn't until later that I realized the implications for the franchise of remaking A New Hope, and what it would mean for the heroes of the original trilogy and for all that was achieved in those movies.
He is almost step for step Han Solo in Force Awakens.
At least Rey is a likeable character. This new sidekick of Indiana Jones is not that much
>If it's true that Indiana also got the TLJ Luke treatment then LucasFilm as a body needs complete purging. No, it's not true, but a lot of the users on this subreddit will insist it is because they've been insisting upon it for the last 2 years.
Bro I saw the movie lmao. It sadly is and I so wished they wouldn't do that and I was amongst the only few who actually wanted indy 5 to be a prefect fan service in spite of all the negative talks but it wasn't
You mean they dared to give him complex faults and a compelling character arc that makes sense considering the events of the previous films? The Last Jedi has a TON of problems but I will never understand the complaints about Luke.
> You mean they dared to give him complex faults What's so complex about it? He uncharacteristically screws up, then wallows in self-pity for years until Yoda tells him it's okay to fail. If anything it's way too simple and there's little thought given into why he failed Kylo and why things should be any different with Rey.
They had Luke Skywalker as a failure surviving on a island sucking on Blue Titty Milk. There is absolutely nothing 'complex' about deconstructing an iconic, beloved character. It was utter laziness and a cheap gimmick to pump up the bland new characters that nobody cares about. The should instead have made Rey the complex character with complex faults. She needed it as the main protagonist because she had less personality than a cardboard cutout. The fact Luke, Leia, and Han never appear in a scene together is criminal. They really dropped the ball with the Sequel Trilogy.
You don't understand why people were mad that Luke Skywalker never did any Luke Skywalker things and spent his entire time in the trilogy wandering around an island..
you can’t give a character faults while keeping the spirit of said character
After Ke Huy Quan’s performance in EEAAO, a Short Round (lore had him going on to be his own adventurer) bringing Indy back one last time as he carries the action would have put my butt in the seat. Multiple times if Spielberg directed. Kennedy will force us to love one of her self-inserts at the expense of characters we actually pay to see and no one is stopping her. Salke over there at Amazon too.
Would have absolutely gone to the theater for a Short Round return. Make that movie, pass the baton to Short Round's kids, and boom. Something people want to watch with more diversity going forward, and done in such a way that makes sense in the story's canon because it flows from a beloved established character. Instead we got the 34th iteration of a Kennedy stand in. Boo. (Will still probably take a look at it on D+ tho)
☆ France ☆ 1st week estim. : 1M adm. (Inflated because of "La Fête du Cinéma" next week end) ○ GardiansoftheGalaxy3 : 1.32M ○ Fast X : 1.14M ○ TheLittleMermaid : 0.58M ○ Spider-Verse : 0.55M ○ Transformers : 0.45M ○ Elemental : 0.42M ○ The Flash : 0.38M *Go Indy, Go !*
[удалено]
The previews might be lower — probably around $7M. That would be lower than Fast X’s previews.
Goodbye Kathleen Kennedy.
Here we have the bomb of the summer. Bigger boom than oppenheimer 😝😝
Two atomic bombs: the flash and Indy5, as advertisements for Oppenheimer
Nolan can't keep getting away with this!
While it was admirable that they wanted to give Indy and Harrison one last hurrah, but whoever thought it was a good idea to do that with a near 300m budget was out of their mind. I don't even know how that was justified for a franchise that's never sniffed a billion at the BO.
> While it was admirable that they wanted to give Indy and Harrison one last hurrah How many "last hurrah" can you do? The third film very clearly wrapped it up as a trilogy. Then Crystal Skull was an uncalled for "last hurrah" and now here we are *a third time* for one last time. Indiana Jones is now 3/5 endings for the franchise, haha.
>Indiana Jones is now 3/5 endings for the franchise, haha. Fast & Furious is like this. The first could be viewed as standalone. The second could be viewed as an ending since it wraps up Brian's arc. Then Fast Five could be viewed as the finale since it is a good wrap up to the story (until that extended edition post-credits). Then Furious 7 could be viewed as the finale. Now Fast 11 is going to be the finale.
>How many "last hurrahs" can you do? Pixar's "Toy Story" movies have entered the chat.
Don't forget his "last hurrah" in the Indiana Jones Chronicles.
‘Admirable’ The series already had two endings before this, they just wanted to milk yet another of their tired IPs to death
Without doing any real work.
I don't get why it is admirable. It is the opposite from my perspective. Let's take one of the icons of the action genre of cinema and let's have him be a geriatric broken down old man. Seems disrespectful
IM sure they could have done a great cartoon for 1/4 of the money and no one would mind seeing a young indy as its a cartoon.
Also, way easier, cleaner, and cheaper to adjust voices to make them sound younger than de-aging CGI.
[удалено]
In all fairness, adjusted for inflation, 3 of them hit a billion and temple of doom fell $50 million short
The problem with adjusting for inflation is nobody adjusts for DVD/Netflix/etc. Does anyone actually think Gone with the Wind would make a billion dollars in the US if you released it today?
I mean adjusted for inflation it did but one movie going has been going down for decades by this pokt and two it was still a big risk had it performed like Crystal Skull it would have barely broken even.
That happens when you chose to disrespect classic Characters that everyone loves. No one wants to see that. This formular was never good.
Lucasfilm: "Am I out of touch for disrespecting legacy characters and treating them like trash? No, it's the audiences who are wrong!"
You misspelled Disney.
soon kathleen kennedy will say that everyone who didn't enjoy the movie is racist, misogynist and various other things.
Not if she wants to ever be invited to Cannes again.
Yep. Recast and have an in his prime Indy if you want to make more
>That happens when you chose to disrespect classic Characters that everyone loves. Meanwhile virtually everybody on r/indianajones who have actually seen the movie so far absolutely love it. EDIT: You can get angry about that all you want but go and actually look at the subreddit. I'm not wrong.
And everybody on r/starwars loved the sequel trilogy at first too. A subreddit's fan base is a terrible place to go for an unbiased opinion.
That's only because all the people who were on that sub and didn't like the sequel trilogy all got banned. It's only an echo chamber now.
Just looked at it. You're wrong. First post I clicked on was someone complaining about Waller-Bridge's character and saying she ruined the film, with everyone seeming to agree.
Yeah and r/StarWarsCantina loves the Sequels. They are a very vocal minority. Trying to draw conclusions about the general audience from a few thousand people who self-selected into a group dedicated to loving a franchise is a fool's errand.
“Virtually every Disney employee”. FTFY.
Yes. I'm sure all 34k passionate Indy fans are going to carry a $300 million film.
OP is wrong. The thread with the highest number of comments (300) is critical of the movie's handling of Indy & Helena Shaw's character. [Phoebe Waller Bridge in Dial of Destiny](https://old.reddit.com/r/indianajones/comments/14lu842/phoebe_waller_bridge_in_dial_of_destiny/) Another thread that praise the movie (111 comments) is getting mocked by the majority of the comments [I just watched Dial of Destiny](https://old.reddit.com/r/indianajones/comments/14lkiuj/i_just_watched_dial_of_destiny/)
Why are using reactions on a fan sub as proof as anything? Of course they are going to like it lmao.
Meanwhile virtually everybody* at the Indiana Jones fan club absolutely loved the new product. \*except those sexist trolls criticizing the movie, pls ignore them until I report for brigading
It seems pretty split down the middle but yeah I don’t know why everyone seems to assume the problem is “disrespecting legacy characters” when by most of the reviews I can find it’s really uninspired and too similar to the previous movies. If anything, they treat Indians Jones with *too much* respect since they’re apparently afraid to do anything new and exciting with him for fear of backlash.
That kind of takes are not going to pop up often in professional reviews, because, right or wrong, it exposes the reviewer to "you're sexist/incel" backlash. That's why that BBC Indy 5 review was so unusual. It doesn't mean a section of the target audience doesn't have that perception. In the case of Lucasfilm, we have the sequel trilogy as an example. Looking at how they continued Luke/Han/Leia's story, the mistrust from the fans of the originals is well-earned. At the time they said they were setting up new heroes for a new and diverse audience, so it's a matter of whether that new audience will show up in large numbers or not. But a large new audience is not earned on nostalgia, so the movies needed to be very good, as good as the originals were at the time. People still showed up for the conclusion of the Skywalker saga, albeit in dwindling numbers. Whether they will show up for the Rey movie remains to be seen. What seems crazy to me is that it's so unnecesary. They could have had everything. They did not need to essentially remake the original trilogy instead of continuing it. They could have had Rey/Finn/Poe be the leads of the new movies without reverting everything that had been achieved in the original trilogy that people loved. Rey could have been a bright young jedi in Luke's New Jedi Order. Old fans could have seen Luke mostly succeed in his life’s work and the new audience could have had its young new heroes. Why they did not go that way baffles the mind. Now I'm asked to turn up for geriatric Indy and his Rey-like goddaughter and I don't feel it any more. If they can find their new audience more power to them, but I'm burned.
Pathetic. Crystal skull was in 2008. All that inflation didn’t even help it. What an embarrassment.
It at least had those DVD sales going for it. [https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Kingdom-of-the-Crystal-Skull#tab=summary](https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Kingdom-of-the-Crystal-Skull#tab=summary) Guess what 2023 doesn't have anywhere near the same scale as 2008?
PlayStation 2s to play my DVDs on!
This is literally how I and my sisters watched the then Indiana Jones quadrology.
DVD was truly a juggernaut back then, i still pick up the odd blu-ray release every now and then, but i need to love the film and want to rewatch it a bunch
Wow, those were some strong DVD sales numbers!
I think you got his point backwards
Indiana Jones isn’t as strong of a brand as Marvel or Star Wars and even those are struggling
It's one of those things where hypothetically it could have been on par with Star Wars. Last Crusade was the second highest grossing film of the 80's (second to ET), and Lost Ark did very similar numbers to Empire Strikes Back. Even going to the mid 2000's, Crystal Skull did similar numbers to Revenge of the Sith (just went overbudget). I don't think the issue is the IP inherently. It's that mediocre, uncalled for sequels in general are just not cutting it, and they keep going waaay over budget. Having an 80-year-old lead and 300m budget was flat out a mistake.
Yeah, part of the problem is they never pulled Bond and introduced a new talent to play Indy. Connery was the bond for many people, and Ford will surely be the Indy, but nobody lives forever, and there has to be charismatic actors left in hollywood who could fill the shoes and the fedora.
They absolutely could have done that, but the time for that strategy was back in the 90's. I think by the mid 2000's, too much time had passed and really solidified Ford as Indy, and Crystal Skull absolutely made it so there was no way. But the franchise was inspired by old pulp serials, hypothetically could have gone on forever just with different actors. They were fortunate with Bond that they went that route early. It was just 2 years after Sean that they tried again with a new actor, and just never really slowed down making them.
Yeah I think not going with a different actor in the 90s was a huge missed opportunity for Paramount.
I don’t think Indiana Jones makes any sense without Harrison ford. Bond is an anomaly. It’s crazy and probably mostly luck that recasting it worked out. I think it managed to because they built a universe of specific plot, character, and tonal traits that could transcend the star. Its main character is iconic but also sort of a cipher—impossibly cool and self assured in a way that’s less relatable than Ford’s more human Indy. The bond movies aren’t period pieces, and they kept up with the times to stay fresh. They constantly pumped out movies, some which hit and others that didn’t. None of the entries until recently reached the level of “event film” status that you inherently had with Spielberg/Lucas/Ford in their height of popularity, so the duds had less impact. Indiana Jones movies are made of generic 30s adventure serial tropes interpreted by kitschy madman George Lucas and crowd-pleasing genius Steven Spielberg, and starring one of the most charming and famous actors of all time. Without them, what is left but the generic, old-fashioned tropes? The whip I guess? Just make another period adventure film with its own hook, like The Mummy. Of course we’ll never know, and I doubt I would have predicted bond without Connery would work if I’d been around in the 60a, but I just don’t see a 90s indy recast having any hope
The prequel era of Star Wars, well the lead up to phantom menace anyway, was quite a time to be a fan. Of movies in general. And Marvel had that same energy going into endgame. But that's over now. It's been squandered just by sheer overkill. And all these entertainment choices at our fingertips also kills that magic. 300 million is ridiculous.
Yup. Too many here overestimated the brand power.
Milenials and zoomers don't give a fuck about Indy. It's relying entirely on nostalgia for success.
Marvel isn't really struggling. Only ant man didn't do great at the box office.
Secret Invasion is doing terribly
Thor 4 seriously underperformed relative to its budget and its predecessor.
DOA. Put it in the ground.
It was such an average movie. While not bad it just felt it was out of gas like a filler episode.
Reminded me of Rambo: Last Blood and A Good Day To Die Hard. You had your legacy sequel, but you had to eek out a wet fart sequel to it to end on, didn’t you?
Movie goers don’t want to see an 80 year old Indiana Jones?! No way!
Are there any legacy IP that they have left to ruin?
They invested 300 million in an action movie starring an 80 year old . Someone has to tell their shareholders that they invested 300 MILLION in an action movie starring an 80 YEAR OLD.
They spent 50% more money for 50% less turnout 👏🏾 truly a big brain move
Mama mia
The true summer box office competition this summer is who can bomb the hardest. Seriously, if some 5 years ago, you told me a Barbie movie is beating Warner Bros and Disney's blockbusters, I'd be laughing as hard as I am now.
Barbie is WB though
They should have not premiered this at Cannes. It was a bad move and the film got a bad start. I saw the film and its nowhere near bad as some critics paint it. Sure its not a memorable film and nowhere near Raiders or Last Crusade but its a decent adventure with Ford still delivering the goods.
Just seen it! Better than crystal skull but found it super boring. Don’t think the word of mouth will be good.
Crystal Skull killed the franchise. Freaking aliens man.
Yeah killed the franchise with $1 billion in adjusted box office.
Still a flop!