re: Disney Lost $134 Million on ‘Indiana Jones 5’

You mean The Dildo of Destiny didn't make bank?

there are a couple problems
with the new indiana jones movies

1. Ford won’t let go and he is just too old.
2. The McGuffjn just isn’t cool enough.
The Holy Grail and the Ark are something we can really get behind being worth the hunt. Crystal Skulls and Dial of Destiny not so much.

The plot to Uncharted (the game) was better than 3/5 indiana jones movies.

quote:

---

I saw it just because I like going to the theatre, but in it's defense, it was lightyears better than Crystal Skull. Crystal Skull benefited financially from the "O hell yea another Indiana Jones movie" thinking and Dial of Destiny was hurt by the "O god why is there another Indiana Jones movie" thinking.

---

it gets a bad rap because of woman power or whatever but i thoroughly enjoyed it way more than the concept of some movie i've never heard of or acknowledged called "Crystal Skull."

it's a bit like Solo. It wasn't bad at all, but gets unfairly crapped on because of internet culture.

quote:

---

it gets a bad rap because of woman power

gets unfairly crapped on because of internet culture.

---

NObody crapped on the first one even though Marian was a powerful female role. It's crapped on because it's utterly and entirely unneccesary and unwanted. Nobody was begging for a 5th Indy movie. The powers that be felt like slapping the Indiana Jones label on a new film woudl be an instant and easy cash grab but it failed miserably because there wasn't an audience for it.

I enjoyed 5 a ton better than 4 (which doesn't say much) but I only went to see it just to check that box and say that I did. I honestly can't even remember anythign about the movie other than the time travel aspect which completely took me out of it.

quote:

---

it gets a bad rap because of woman power or whatever but i thoroughly enjoyed it way more than the concept of some movie i've never heard of or acknowledged called "Crystal Skull."

it's a bit like Solo. It wasn't bad at all, but gets unfairly crapped on because of internet culture.

---

Agreed. I was shocked at how much better it was than the Critical Drinkersphere told me it would be.

Light years better than Skulls, which I could only stomach a few minutes of.

quote:

---

It's crapped on because it's utterly and entirely unneccesary and unwanted. Nobody was begging for a 5th Indy movie.

---

What does this have to do with judging the movie based on the movie?

Sounds like you're using arguments similar to Leftists, taking shite that has nothing to do with the movie itself and shading your opinion based on that.

quote:

---

I honestly can't even remember anythign about the movie other than the time travel aspect which completely took me out of it.

---

THERE ya go

I'm not sure what's the greater travesty...

That Dial of Destiny was even made, or that Crystal Skull pulled in over $1 billion in today's dollars.

Nostalgia.

Long gap between movies had people clamoring for a new movie. Unfortunately, Skull was not what anyone wanted.

It was horrible which killed any interest in a sequel. This movie is partially responsible for the terrible box office for Destiny. Along with essentially replacing Indy with a completely unlikable character.

quote:

---

What does this have to do with judging the movie based on the movie?

---

It doesn't have anything to do with that. Look at what I was responding to again.

quote:

---

Sounds like you're using arguments similar to Leftists, taking shite that has nothing to do with the movie itself and shading your opinion based on that.

---

the hell? Could you possibly be any more backwards here? The person I was responding to was making the "leftist" talking point of "oh well people just don't like it because it has a strong female!" and I said that wasn't even close to correct.

quote:

---

THERE ya go

---

yes. There I, as a moviegoer who did see the movie in theaters, go by being so underwhelmed by this crappy movie that I barely remember any of it.

I don't understand what point you're even trying to make to me? I didn't like the movie based 100% solely on the fact that it wasn't a good movie, which is just the cherry on top of going in with low expectations anyway considering nobody was wanting this movie in the first place. Not sure how any of waht I just said is even slightly controversial.

This math does not add up.

Budget before promotion costs:

$387.2

Plus promotion costs, let's say, conservatively, it was $75 million (and that is probably low). Let's also say they got back a little more than 50% because they usually get higher rates (domestically) for Week 1 and so forth, so let's say Disney got receipts of about $210 out of the WW gross of $384m.

$462.2 (gross cost) - $210m, that's more like a $250m gross loss. They probably got UK tax credits in the $50m to $60m range, but that is still far closer to a $200m loss than $134m.

The ancillary market is nothing for this thing. It's on Disney+ which is only shifting cost from one division to another. There will be virtually nothing in physical media or merchandise profit, certainly not $60m to $70m return in anything like a reasonable return window.

They're using old assumptions for the ancillary market to mitigate this $200m boner down to "only" $134m.

Think how incompetent you are to lose $150m to $200m on a fricking Indiana Jones movie.