Indiana Jones set to be released soon

[BrianL]

- Luke throwing his lightsaber off a cliff, one his most prized possessions, was not Luke Skywalker
- Luke being a angry old man that was mad at the world was not Luke Skywalker
- Luke refusing to train a promising young Jedi in Rey was not Luke Skywalker
- Luke contemplating killing his nephew and son of his beloved sister was not Luke Skywalker
- Master Jedi Luke milking an animal for green milk while shaking his fist at the sky was not Luke Skywalker
- Luke abandoning all of his friends to live like a Hermit, was not Luke Skywalker

Luke was hopes and dreams and the ultimate farm boy who wanted to make the galaxy a much better place. The depiction was simply not Luke Skywalker. All of that and much more is what damaged the character of Luke Skywalker.

Well, I'll just provide my take on that, for what it's worth:

- Luke throwing his lightsaber off a cliff, one his most prized possessions, was not Luke Skywalker
That was the saber that he lost anyway, and he knew it wasn't going to be hurt. He was making a point.
- Luke being a angry old man that was mad at the world was not Luke Skywalker
He wasn't angry at the world - he was angry at himself. People do change and after the things that happened....
- Luke refusing to train a promising young Jedi in Rey was not Luke Skywalker
Luke wanted to be very careful about training her - he actually DID train her, even though he said he wasn't.
- Luke contemplating killing his nephew and son of his beloved sister was not Luke Skywalker
He thought about it for a second - BUT DIDN'T GO THROUGH WITH IT!
- Master Jedi Luke milking an animal for green milk while shaking his fist at the sky was not Luke Skywalker
What does that have to do with anything? It was just one of those funny Star Warsy moments.
- Luke abandoning all of his friends to live like a Hermit, was not Luke Skywalker
This is right out of the Jedi playbook after a failure - see Yoda, Obi-Wan.

That's just my two cents. It won't convince anybody, but all of that is there in the movie - though not all of it spoon-fed. I'll admit that some of it was handled a little roughly. None of it ruined Luke for me though. It's all in character.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Agree to disagree and thousands of other people seem to agree with me, including the man who played the role. So I believe that is what is known as check mate.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Back to the topic at hand. My fear with Lucasfilm on Indiana is they will dismantle Indy like the did Luke in The Last Jedi. I just think the fan base will not line up in droves to see another childhood hero who is broken to pieces to be outclassed by a young replacement. People understand that heroes age and it's the new generations turn. However, the formula is very predictable at this point in Hollywood. Aging Hero for a generation get's scolded and told how wrong they were. Get's their butt kicked by the replacement hero. Get's upstaged mentally and physically by the replacement hero. New character is smarter, wiser, stronger, universally loved by all, and morally superior to the old Hero. Hero ultimately fails and passes the torch to the new and in many cases female lead. Why is it required to destroy all of the traditional heroes from yesteryear to replace them with a formulaic pick.

Just do a new and exciting Indy like character with PWB, and write the story for her. You can even say she was inspired by Indy or there can even be a connection. Why does Indy have to be present and damaged on film for her to rise from his ashes? It's a tiring trope currently.

It's also why a movie like Top Gun Maverick, that ran in the other direction just made $1.5 Billion at the box office with a smallish $175 Million dollar budget.

 

[BrianL]

Back to the topic at hand. My fear with Lucasfilm on Indiana is they will dismantle Indy like the did Luke in The Last Jedi. I just think the fan base will not line up in droves to see another childhood hero who is broken to pieces to be outclassed by a young replacement. People understand that heroes age and it's the new generations turn. However, the formula is very predictable at this point in Hollywood. Aging Hero for a generation get's scolded and told how wrong they were. Get's their butt kicked by the replacement hero. Get's upstaged mentally and physically by the replacement hero. New character is smarter, wiser, stronger, universally loved by all, and morally superior to the old Hero. Hero ultimately fails and passes the torch to the new and in many cases female lead. Why is it required to destroy all of the traditional heroes from yesteryear to replace them with a formulaic pick.

Just do a new and exciting Indy like character with PWB, and write the story for her. You can even say she was inspired by Indy or there can even be a connection. Why does Indy have to be present and damaged on film for her to rise from his ashes? It's a tiring trope currently.

It's also why a movie like Top Gun Maverick, that ran in the other direction just made $1.5 Billion at the box office with a smallish $175 Million dollar budget.

First of all, we don't even know that this will happen in the movie, so why the tooth-gnashing already? I'm pretty convinced that fans simply don't want to like it regardless of what they actually do. They want to see this stuff, even when it's not present.

All of these fans apparently just want their characters to be coddled and treated right, even if the story is junk. Top Gun: Maverick is a DUMB movie - like beyond dumb. There is so much cringe-worthy nonsense in it. Which is to say that doesn't make it BAD - I enjoy a lot of dumb movies. That said, taking risks is how you make a poingnant movie, which I think is what a lot of filmmakers want to do.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Of course we don't know if this will happen yet, the movie has not even been released yet. What do we know is it got very luke warm (Pun Intended) reception at the Cannes film festival viewing. However, this has indeed happened in cinema a good bit lately and certainly enough to be considered a pretty substantial Hollywood trend. It is completely normal for fans to have concerns about another one of their childhood heroes being dismantled. It all takes care of itself though. If Indy comes out and the general audiences like it and have a good time, word of mouth will give it good legs. The movie will be a commercial success if this happens and it gets to around the $900K mark it needs to break even. If they don't like it, it will likely lose hundreds of millions of dollars based on the astronomical production budget.

See this is where you and I differ greatly. I represent the thoughts of the common man and average movie goer. You are obviously more inline with an elitist film critic, that wants nuance, complexity, and subverted expectations at every turn. The average movie goer has worked in a factory all week, and wants to eat some popcorn and be entertained for two hours. Top Gun Maverick was a massive success from a financial investment standpoint. It will go down as one of the most financially winning films in the past several years. It does not matter than you think it was dumb, it was a massive box office hit. Further more it was an American based hit at a time when people were thrilled the pandemic was coming to an end and they could leave there house. It's the only movie in years I have been to where people stood and applauded at the end of the movie. I know kids that went back multiple times to see this movie. First time I have seen that since End Game. Commercial viability is ultimately what determine the success or failure of a film or film franchise. No one cares about award shows or even what critics thinks anymore. Most people me included think all that crap is manipulated / corrupt anyway. The just gave an Oscar to a man that got up and physically assaulted another man during the same show he was awarded at for Pete's sakes.

Top Gun Maverick did $1.5 B box office with a $170 M budget

Super Mario is at $1.3 B box office with a tiny $100 M budget

I am sure you would say both of these movies are simple, dumb, with too much fan service. The entertainment executives from Universal and Paramount don't mind you not liking their films as they cash their massive bonus checks.

 

[BrianL]

Don't be so sure what I would say. I actually am hardly a film snob - I like movies that are fun and entertaining, and even a lot that were dumb. I said I like some dumb movies - and, man, Maverick was a dumb movie (and also rips off Star Wars a bit). My actual only beef with it though is that I can't stand Tom Cruise in anything. I just don't care about his films.

Super Mario Bros. was great - a perfect translation of the game. I am a HUGE Nintendo nerd - like HUGE. You don't even know. I really enjoyed the movie.

Here's the thing though - I also had fun watching the Star Wars sequels. I had fun watching Crystal Skull. I didn't feel like any legacies got trashed or anything - it all worked for me. Nuance and complexity are just a bonus when they are pulled off right. You're trying to cast me into a specific mold - becuase we disagree about Star Wars we therefore MUST disagree about everything. That's the kind of thinking that starts wars.

Also, Indy is not a Cannes type of movie. I don't know why they even showed it there. Bad move.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Glad to hear you like the Super Mario movie, I feel like they that got that just about perfect. Perfect respect to the character and the proper amount of fan service to make us remember all of the stuff from the games over the years.

My understanding is the head of Nintendo was very involved with the film and put his foot down many times on the script and the dailys and said nope, "that's not what Mario, this is what he would do". He loved the character so much he aggressively protected his legacy.

Perfect movie adaptation and is a huge box office hit. Disney wishes they had a box office and mechandising hit like Mario right now.

 

[BrianL]

Glad to hear you like the Super Mario movie, I feel like they that got that just about perfect. Perfect respect to the character and the proper amount of fan service to make us remember all of the stuff from the games over the years.

My understanding is the head of Nintendo was very involved with the film and put his foot down many times on the script and the dailys and said nope, "that's not what Mario, this is what he would do". He loved the character so much he aggressively protected his legacy.

Perfect movie adaptation and is a huge box office hit. Disney wishes they had a box office and mechandising hit like Mario right now.

Not hte head of Nintendo, but Shigeru Miyamoto, the creator of Donkey Kong & Mario.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Yeah, you knew what I meant.


So just curious, you were ok with the creator of Mario forcing his hand in the movie to ensure they got Mario right?

 

[wabbott]

https://deadline.com/2023/06/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-box-office-projection-1235412010/

‘Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny’ To Ring Up Around $60M Opening: Here’s Why – Early Box Office Outlook
By Anthony D'Alessandro
Editorial Director/Box Office Editor
June 8, 2023 9:48am PDT

In the wake of world premiering in Cannes to lackluster film reviews at 50% Rotten, Disney/Lucasfilm’s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is currently looking at a $60M+ domestic opening.

The movie opens on June 30 heading into what is conceivably a five-day play period given that Independence Day falls on a Tuesday.

Dial of Destiny‘s 3-day is down from the $100.1M 3-day of the last movie, 2008’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull — and this latest sequel reps the finale for the entire franchise. Crystal Skull opened on a Thursday over a Memorial Day weekend earning in total over five days, $151.9M. Logan filmmaker James Mangold took over helming the finale from franchise architect Steven Spielberg. Currently, Dial of Destiny is tracking significantly with older guys over younger, which has many comping he pic to the Daniel Craig 007 finale, No Time to Die ($55.2M) and 2018’s Mission: Impossible – Fallout ($61.2M).

Some are saying a $70M start for Dial of Destiny — that’s quite a stretch. Realize that Lionsgate’s John Wick: Chapter 4 opened to $73.8M with double the tracking metrics that Dial of Destiny is showing here.

Disney will need to pick up the slack in the coming weeks in their marketing to get more interest from younger guys, their distraction now being Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse in theaters and the upcoming Warner Bros DC The Flash on June 16. However, that hard word of mouth out of Cannes is quite the hurdle. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which wasn’t beloved by many, settled at 77% certified fresh and a B CinemaScore versus the previous 1989 installment, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which earned 84% certified fresh from critics and a solid A CinemaScore.

With Dial of Destiny at a $60M 3-day, that’s easily the second-best start for the Indiana Jones franchise. In the box office era, Last Crusade opened to $29.3M 3-day ($46.9M over extended Memorial Day weekend) at 2,327 theaters. 1984’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom bowed to $25.3M 3-day ($42.2M extended Memorial Day weekend) at 1,687 theaters. 1981’s Raiders of the Lost Ark‘s gross trajectory harkens back to the way blockbusters were made over a year: The pic opened to $8.3M at 1,078 theaters and by January 1982 earned $179.6M with an initial cume of $212.2M, lifetime gross of $248.1M.

 

[Kaleidodad]

Let's just hope they spell his name right in the title!

 

[BrianL]

Yeah, you knew what I meant.


So just curious, you were ok with the creator of Mario forcing his hand in the movie to ensure they got Mario right?

Well, I think a collaboration is always going to come out positively. I don't think he had to "force" too much as he just made suggestions. He didn't want things to turn out the way they had in the past, but Chris Meledandri worked up a good relationship with him and guaranteed it was in good hands.

 

[TikiRob]

Commercial viability is ultimately what determine the success or failure of a film or film franchise.

You've spent this entire thread condemning the artistic choices made to appeal to a broader audience. Now that is all that matters?

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

You've spent this entire thread condemning the artistic choices made to appeal to a broader audience. Now that is all that matters?

It's not all that matters, but it is ultimately the best quantifiable metric we currently have to determine the success of a theatrical endeavor. The Last Jedi was a very successful theatrical endeavor that made lots of money, unfortunately it is also universally regarded as being incredibly divisive in the fan base.

The Original Trilogy of Star Wars are considered beloved classics that have stood the test of time and still make money streaming, physical sales, and merchandizing sales after 40 years. Will the Sequel Trilogy be able to say this after 40 years?

The Original Indiana Jones movies are considered beloved classics that have stood the test of time and still make money streaming, physical sales, and merchandising after 30 years. Will the Dial of Destiny be able to say this after 30 years?

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Let's just hope they spell his name right in the title!

Fair criticism, ooops!

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

So here is a follow up question. What does Lucasfilm need to do to get the car out of the ditch? There is simply no way possible that the investors in this company are happy with the recent performance of Lucasfilm.

Most recent releases:
- Willow (flopped and now is being taken as a tax write off)
- Andor (most superfans say it was really good, but it had very low viewership numbers)
- Mando Season 3 (significantly declining viewership numbers compared to previous seasons)
- Obi-Wan (not well received and not very good streaming numbers)
- Book of Bobba Fett (not well received and not very good streaming numbers)
- No movies since Solo (2018) which lost a significant amount of money

Upcoming:
- Indiana Jones and the dial of destiny (likely struggles to make any money based on pretty low box office predictions and an massive production budget)
- The Acolyte (not perceived favorably by much of the fan base, books really didn't sell)
- New Rey movie in script development?
- New Filoniverse movie in script development? (seems to have the most promise in the fandom)
- New Star Wars movie set in the future also in script development?

Did I miss anything? What are your thoughts on how to fix Lucasfilm?

 

[BrianL]

So here is a follow up question. What does Lucasfilm need to do to get the car out of the ditch? There is simply no way possible that the investors in this company are happy with the recent performance of Lucasfilm.

Most recent releases:
- Willow (flopped and now is being taken as a tax write off)
- Andor (most superfans say it was really good, but it had very low viewership numbers)
- Mando Season 3 (significantly declining viewership numbers compares to previous seasons)
- Obi-Wan (not well received and not very good streaming numbers)
- Book of Bobba Fett (not well received and not very good streaming numbers)
- No movies since Solo (2018) which lost a significant amount of money

Upcoming:
- Indiana Jones and the dial of destiny (likely struggles to make any money based on pretty low box office predictions and an massive production budget)
- The Acolyte (not perceived favorably by much of the fan base, books really didn't sell well)
- New Rey movie in script development?
- New Filoniverse movie in script development? (seems to have the most promise in the fandom)
- New Star Wars movie set in the future also in script development?

Did I miss anything? What are your thoughts on how to fix Lucasfilm?

I mean, there's not much to "fix" - they just need to have one big hit. I think they should pull back on the streaming series and focus on one good Star Wars movie, whichever one it may be. Keep the animation on streaming - you didn't mention that The Bad Batch is pretty popular. It really is just focus, which I think is what they lack.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

I mean, there's not much to "fix" - they just need to have one big hit. I think they should pull back on the streaming series and focus on one good Star Wars movie, whichever one it may be. Keep the animation on streaming - you didn't mention that The Bad Batch is pretty popular. It really is just focus, which I think is what they lack.

Bad Batch is a fair point, but I always feel like the animated stuff kind of goes into another bucket. Not all Star Wars live action folks make the jump over into animated content.

I also agree that focus is what is needed, the shotgun approach does not appear to be working.

 

[BrianL]

Bad Batch is a fair point, but I always feel like the animated stuff kind of goes into another bucket. Not all Star Wars live action folks make the jump over into animated content.

I also agree that focus is what is needed, the shotgun approach does not appear to be working.

The animated stuff is better than the live action anyway.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

The animated stuff is better than the live action anyway.

But do you agree that a much smaller audience of Star Wars fans watch the animated stuff?