Indiana Jones 5. It's official.

[fireproof78]

I didn't realize that the nostalgia factor had become such a big business in the Hollywood industry.

Probably just looking at opportunities and seeing them dwindle. Sam Jackson being the outlier because the man loves to work, and won't really turn down a paying gig. But, the others, seeing those diminishing returns, decide to go back and capitalize on what made them big in the first place. Safe bet.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Also opportunity. LeVar Burton, Gates McFadden, Michael Dorn, Brent Spiner, Tim Russ, Johnathon Frakes, Marina Sirtis, etc, were lucky CBS really wanted a variety of Trek shows for their streaming platform and that Patrick Stewart ultimately agreed to come back for Picard after all. I don't think any of them would've gotten anything more than a cameo at most, otherwise.

Likewise, Sam Neil and the other Jurassic Park stars probably wouldn't have been brought back for JW Dominion if Pratt and Howard's characters were actually more memorable and well-liked. And I'd say Linda Hamilton wouldn't have had the opportunity to come back to Terminator if Genysis or Salvation had actually succeeded.

 

[the G-man]

Probably just looking at opportunities and seeing them dwindle.

Can anyone imagine Jimmy Stewart and/or Hollywood doing a sequel to "It's a Wonderful Life" in 1988? A new "Raiders" film in 2023 is sort of the equivalent thereof (prior sequels notwithstanding).

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I mean, Die Hard started life as an attempt to make a sequel to a 1968 movie starring Frank Sinatra. The studio was even contractually obligated to offer Sinatra the lead role, which he thankfully declined.

 

[fireproof78]

Can anyone imagine Jimmy Stewart and/or Hollywood doing a sequel to "It's a Wonderful Life" in 1988? A new "Raiders" film in 2023 is sort of the equivalent thereof (prior sequels notwithstanding).

No, but I can't imagine a lot of things older actors would do compared to what newer actors wish to have. It's a whole different world.

 

[Set Harth]

I didn't know whether or not to include Sam Jackson.

What role are you thinking of? The one he started in 2008?

 

[urbandefault]

Haven't seen it yet, but it's on the calendar.

Online, I'm seeing a lot of worry and fainting couch posing over the early box office returns.

Personally, if I'm interested in a movie I don't care what The Internet says. I think that in reality, most people don't care either. But that's just me.

At this point, I don't think I even remember which movie we're talking about.

 

[fireproof78]

At this point, I don't think I even remember which movie we're talking about.

The latest Cecil B. DeMille film.

 

[StarMan]

There seemed to be this recent trend of late middle-aged or elderly performers revisiting old roles - Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Karen Allen, John Rhys-Davies, Tom Cruise, Val Kilmer, Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Jeri Ryan, Kate Mulgrew, Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis, LeVar Burton, Michael Dorn, Robert Duncan McNeill, Tim Russ, and Brent Spinner. I didn't know whether or not to include Sam Jackson. If fact, there have been younger performers like Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen, and Temuera Morrison doing the same. I didn't realize that the nostalgia factor had become such a big business in the Hollywood industry.

They say there was a time long ago in Hollywood where studios took creative risks on projects helmed by talented writers and directors. Crazy as it sounds, not only were these films not attached to a larger franchise, but the studios didn't throw the GDP of a small nation at each production. What's more, they contained characters you did not remember from your youth.

Yeah, right.

 

[JD]

He crashed a plane and survived. The man doesn’t play by normal human rules.

There's a little story that came out of the production of Dial of Destiny, he actually did some of horseback riding himself and when he went to get on or off the horse a bunch of the production people ran over to help him, and he told them to fuck off, he didn't need help.

Haven't seen it yet, but it's on the calendar.

Online, I'm seeing a lot of worry and fainting couch posing over the early box office returns.

It can't be doing too badly, I've been trying to see it since Friday, but every day all of the decent seats during the two showings I've been looking at have been taken.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

There's a little story that came out of the production of Dial of Destiny, he actually did some of horseback riding himself and when he went to get on or off the horse a bunch of the production people ran over to help him, and he told them to fuck off, he didn't need help.

It can't be doing too badly, I've been trying to see it since Friday, but every day all of the decent seats during the two showings I've been looking at have been taken.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. The box office numbers are what they are, and while one can certainly say they're not relevant to your enjoyment of the movie, it's just not true to say the movie is doing well financially. Especially not relative to the 295m dollar budget.

 

[Rich Watson]

It can't be doing too badly, I've been trying to see it since Friday, but every day all of the decent seats during the two showings I've been looking at have been taken.

It needs to make about 750m.
It will probably make less than 350m.
So it's on track to knock 'John Carter' off the top of the list of all-time biggest box-office failures.

Which doesn't mean you can't like it. But those are the cold hard numbers.

 

[FreezeC77]

It needs to make about 750m.
It will probably make less than 350m.
So it's on track to knock 'John Carter' off the top of the list of all-time biggest box-office failures.

Which doesn't mean you can't like it. But those are the cold hard numbers.

I mean realistically people see box office and then look at movie cost, but forget that box office splits are something like 60% to movie, 40% to the theater. Then overseas it is even lower with only 20% to 40% varying by country going to the movie. (Also that 'movie studio' take can obviously be reduced by any agreements with individuals involved in the money to take a percentage of the box office)

Let's say the movie gets $150m domestic and $200m global (probably won't even get this high). That's $350m.

The movie studio would get $90m out of that $150m domestic and about $60m out of that $200m global. That's $150m. (before any kind of agreements to divy up those box office returns)

You saying it needs to make 750m is probably pretty close. It looks like it's doing about 45% domestic to 55% global.
That would work out to 337.5m domestic + 412.5m global. Take out theater cuts and it becomes about $202.5m domestic + $123.75m global. For a total movie studio take of $326.5m. On a reported budget of $295m and before factoring in promotion costs and possibly any director/actor/producer cuts... Disney might still lose money even at $750m. Crystal Skull made close to $800m on an $185m budget (before promotion costs).

I doubt this movie is going to make even half as much, possibly even struggle to barely make 1/3 as much and the budget ballooned from $185m to $295m.

Disney is going to have a write-off at the end of the day for probably $100 to $200m.

 

[Skywalker]

I just hope this doesn't doom Lucasfilm's planned Dawn of the Jedi movie with Mangold directing. I really want to see that story told.

 

[JD]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. The box office numbers are what they are, and while one can certainly say they're not relevant to your enjoyment of the movie, it's just not true to say the movie is doing well financially. Especially not relative to the 295m dollar budget.

Oh, I know it's just that when a movie is doing that badly when my mom and I go to see it, there's usually at most 5 or 6 other people in the entire theater, but with this literally every showing I've checked has been over 2/3 full.

It needs to make about 750m.
It will probably make less than 350m.
So it's on track to knock 'John Carter' off the top of the list of all-time biggest box-office failures.

Which doesn't mean you can't like it. But those are the cold hard numbers.

Wow, I'm honestly shocked it's doing that badly.

 

[Set Harth]

I just hope this doesn't doom Lucasfilm's planned Dawn of the Jedi movie with Mangold directing. I really want to see that story told.

I'd rather see Mangold direct the Rey movie.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Like I said in the review thread, I don't care how it does in the box office. All that matters is that I loved it and that others at least enjoyed it, too.

I know shouldn't be, but I continue to be surprise how much people like to go out of their way to point out how things people enjoy are failing financially, as if it that were a metric of quality.

 

[Samurai8472]

Wow, I'm honestly shocked it's doing that badly.

The main 18 year old demographic has no interest in it.

 

[fireproof78]

know shouldn't be, but I continue to be surprise how much people like to go out of their way to point out how things people enjoy are failing financially, as if it that were a metric of quality

It's all in what people value. Fir some group acclaim is a mark of quality, others the amount of box office take , and still others keep their own consul.

It's interesting to see values expressed here.

 

[Rich Watson]

What I find funny is that no one ever complains if people post about how well a film is doing at the Box Office or how good its Reviews are.