It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The films budget is about 300 million which means it needs to make about a billion to break even.I don’t see that happening.
Also,it’s a Kathleen Kennedy production with Phoebe Waller Bridge as the real Star of the film apparently ( which means you just know it’s going to be a complete wokefest and humiliate Indy just as The Force Awakens did to Han Solo ).
I don't know why people bother making predictions about box-office success, leaving yourself open for easy ridicule later on.
However, at the same time, welcome back @AstonLotus - I weirdly missed laughing at your posts.
Good to be back and glad to see that some people here are still so hostile to alternative opinions than their own,they resort to petty insults.
Hostile is too strong a word. I enjoy comedy! :)
Did you take issue with Marion talking to Indy like a small man in Raiders, too? Or Willie Scott? Or Elsa playing him like a fiddle in Crusade, just like his father?
If you don't like Waller-Bridge (I'm pretty indifferent to her, myself) then that's fine. But by having a strong opinioned female counter-part, the demon-Kennedy is just continuing something that has been part of Indiana Jones since the beginning. The film may or may not do a decent job of it - I'll wait and see for myself whether that's the case - but people seem to take issue with the concept even though it's nothing new!
From the sounds of it, you're equating "humiliation" with the notion of Indy being older and struggling with his own mortality. Mortality has been a theme of previous films, too.
Look i sat through bad films before i have also watched films that i hated the ending like No Time to Die… i am gonna watch the film and hope for the best
When Disney bought Lucasfilm in October 2012, the distribution rights for a potential fifth movie still belonged to Paramount, per the initial deal signed for ROTLA, because Barry Diller didn't want to be Alan Ladd-ed by Paramount over the distribution rights for a sequel, and put the first four sequels in the deal. 25 years later, Paramount actually didn't make much money on KOTCS, given the size of the cut taken by Lucas, Spielberg and Lucas, but like Fox with the Star Wars prequels or Sony with James Bond, it still had a lot of cachet.
Disney/Lucasfilm regained the rights to this fourth sequel in December 2013 through a separate deal, while no project was in active development then.
https://variety.com/2013/film/news/disney-acquires-indiana-jones-rights-from-paramount-1200927216/
Harrison Ford teased as soon as the Star Wars sequels were announced that Han Solo would most likely appear in Episode VII, but the formal announcement about the cast and Ford's involvement only came in April 2014. Of course, Han croaks in this one, which was something that Ford had wished as early as 1982, but this time, he's in first place in the credits.
Sure, the plans for this Indy V were still on the backburner for a while. I guess that the initial release date of July 2019, announced in March 2016, was a mere placeholder (that could be taken by any Disney or Marvel release, it finally went to Spider-Man: Far From Home), given that the Star Wars sequels were supposed to be released two years apart, in the summers of 2015, 2017 and 2019 (all three were eventually delayed to Christmas due to production issues). I can't see how Lucasfilm would have been able to negotiate the release of two huge projects (SW9 and Indy 5) a few weeks apart. In April 2017, logically, SW9 officially got a summer 2019 slot, while Indy 5 was pushed back to 2020.
As it's been already mentioned, the next delays were caused by Spielberg's busy schedule with other projects and the search for a satisfying script, that would accommodate both Spielberg and Ford, plus Kennedy. As Spielberg ultimately left the project, you can see who had the upper hand in this.
Nothing supports the theory that Kathleen Kennedy has forced Ford to embark on an Indiana Jones sequel to support her own agenda.
Disney won't probably make a ton of money on this final episode (Paramount will most likely get a cut of the box-office in exchange for the distribution rights). And it's much easier to imagine that Ford, who had very little input over KOTCS and who had to deal with Lucas and Spielberg making compromises between their respective sensibilities that didn't bring the best in either, wanted to retire the character on better terms (taking a huge fee in the process).
It would make a lot of sense for Ford to accept to return to Star Wars in exchange, among others, for a final Indiana Jones film on which he would have more control. The original Star Wars cast returning was a big driving point in the promo, and in The Force Awakens, enough to make Disney agree with the idea of an Indy sequel at a point where all hands at Lucasfilm were supposed to be with the new Star Wars projects, hence the acquisitions of the distribution rights.
At some point in development, Spielberg realizes that Ford doesn't necessarily agree with the direction he had in mind, they split even more amicably that Spielberg's heart isn't really in action blockbusters these days (KOTCS and Ready Player One were definitely not up to his 1973-2005 standards) and he let Ford have a go with a new team, supported by Kennedy, who was his employee for 30 years, by the way. Spielberg has only kind words for the result. If he had been put on the sideline, he would have remained as silent as Lucas was with the sequels trilogy.
The movie flopped.Big time.
Look,if Indy 5 actually manages to be decent I may give it a shot,but I will wait for the opinion of critics I trust.But it’s not looking good if even most of the shill media are less than enthusiastic about the film.
See also: James Cameron and the Terminator sequels (though I liked a decent chunk of the last one).
Does he vocally not like them? Anyways, obviously this would be the less common route.
He was overly positive about both them for the sake of marketing purposes. Though, in fairness, he came up with the story idea for the last one so at least that one is understandable.
Ah, okay. I know nothing about it and have only seen the first two movies haha. My optimism for DoD has gone down a little, but I still think there’s a reasonable chance I end up liking it more than KOTCS. In any case, I’m not concerned about the bologna assertions of “woke trash.”
This claims to be a complete plotline ; I don’t know if it is , but if accurate , it does not sound bad at all. Of course execution is everything.
James Cameron on Terminator: Genisys.. “ YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! “
I think even Arnie was embarrassed by that.
And they are throwbacks to 1930s films, which were filled to the brim with female characters throwing a bunch of sass at male protagonists. It feels like the MRA dorks that are so sensitive to seeing women talking back to men would have a heart attack if RAIDERS came out today. “OH MY GOD A WOMAN PUNCHES A MAN! MISANDRY! WAH WAH!!!”
Before the Mario Movie came out, there was premature rage that Peach would be “woke-ified,” so to speak, and people trashed it as woke garbage before it came out. Then they called it anti-woke for some reason after it came out. If that doesn’t prove this crowd doesn’t even know what they’re talking about, I don’t know what does.
As someone that actually watched WSS (and wasn’t a fan of) and doesn’t speak Spanish, the lack of subtitles was a non-issue because the context is crystal clear. Also, Spielberg never uses subtitles for any of his films because he thinks they’re distracting and wants audiences to remain focused on the sound and imagery. So this fandom menace narrative of WSS flopping because it didn’t include subtitles for what are essentially brief phrases (which were immediately repeated back in English at times by Latino characters that insisted on speaking English so they can become American) is just nonsense.
You know that scene where Marion outdrinks a man twice her size? Ridiculous! :)
It’s because they’re sold about a fairy tale past that never existed. The Hays code imposed so much censorship back in the 40s/50s about who or what you could show on films, which is why minorities had so few representation. It had an impact on how generations view films on an unconscious level.
For example, George Lucas got a lot of heat for the original STAR WARS film because the cast was pretty much all across the board white. That wasn’t something he was conscious of when casting his film. STAR WARS was a throwback to serials of the 30s/40s, so he basically cast with that mentality without realizing it and has apologized for it since. Hence why films from that point forward he would be more open to casting POC, as we immediately saw with Billy Dee Williams’ casting. So if George Lucas unconsciously cast based on the films he was brought up on, imagine how that impacted so many other filmmakers.
Part of why we are seeing a lot more representation today is because of younger generations taking over, who were not influenced by Hays code era films. It’s also a statistical fact that the more diverse your films are, the higher your chances of appealing to a wide demographic. That’s why it worked wonders for THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS.
So this whole “go woke go broke” thing is just a myth. GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 didn’t flop because it was “woke”, it flopped because it was another bad remake with wasted talent.
Thank you for the informative post. I admittedly am not the most educated about film history; I had never even heard of the term Hays code until now. Of course, I knew the general idea that older films had censorship and whatnot, but sadly it’s hardly a surprise there was bigotry involved, too. My guess is so much backlash comes from a place of misguided fear, of “replacement” and whatnot. But much just stupid hatred, too. Hopefully the day comes sooner than later that we won’t hear as much anger towards diversity in entertainment.
I noticed the same thing happened with AVATAR 2.
I loved it, there are a few terrific scenes (staging "I Feel Pretty" in the department store or "Cool" on a floor filled with holes was very inspired), but I can see why it wasn't a hit, the same way Always (a remake of A Guy Named Joe) flopped big time.
Now, about the "woke" thing. I'm definitely not a supporter of the radical left, I disagree with a lot of the posturing or the emphasis on identity, changing the language to fit one's preferences, while the language is all about finding a middle ground, exchanging, communicating. I also find ridiculous that the critics now put Jeanne Dielman 23, quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles as the greatest film of all times (even if I think the film is great). But, as a few people have just pointed out, "woke" is mostly a boogeyman, an artificial fear that's invoked to justify questionable, regressive agenda that has unmentioned harmful consequences, with a vague definition continually modified to match some narrative.
Finally, about the metrics. These days, the last word to the success of a film is the box-office. Except when it isn't. Or the Rotten Tomatoes score. Except when it's "manipulated", as the critics were led into loving/hating something. And in that case, the audience score matters more, except when bots may be responsible for it, etc.
A number will never settle a debate. It just provides some kind of pseudo-evidence that tries to be definitive. KotCS received initially mostly good reviews, better than the SW prelogy, but early enthusiasm quickly died down. Today, reception to DoD is mostly lukewarm, as critics don't want to make the same mistake (and presumably because it's not as good as the first three movies). Critics also write reviews knowing that they will contribute to the RT score, something that wasn't at the back of their mind in 2008 (while nuance would be often much more useful than just fresh/rotten).
KotCS is definitely not in the same league as the first three films, as they're still influencing generations of filmmakers and audiences. KotCS is mostly mentioned now as a punchline for cheap jokes. That may not be the truth about its value, but that's the common narrative in pop culture, and it won't change overnight, even if it landed at the top of the 2032 Sight and Sound poll.
I loved the Robert Wise "original", but Spielberg's movie totally topped that. A clear 10/10 for me. I didn't even know it flopped at the box office, and now I don't care. Best. Musical. Movie. Ever.
Fully agreed, except that there's nothing "radical left" about not denigrating and not wanting to put down minorities and not having a "holier than thou" attitude, though I think that there is quite a bit of excess sensitivity about the subject. It's just a case of "love thy neighbor", which the anti-"woke" crowd should have heard about since they keep toting the bible. Talking about "heard about", I never did regarding that Belgian(?) movie you mentioned.
Well said. For me, the final metrics of whether a film is a success or a failure is my own taste, and whether I'm entertained and/or intrigued and/or touched by it. I let the producers and distributors worry about the box office and the critics about how to cause the most sales of their media. Regarding movies directed or (excutive-)produced by Spielberg there was not a single one I didn't like (Disclaimer: I haven't watched Always so far because I expect it to be too saccharine-sweet, nor War Horse because my wife insists she doesn't want to watch horses being killed, even as CGI).
But just last night we watched The Fabelmans, as the Blu-ray disk had finally arrived. A brilliant, brilliant, totally entertaining film of exactly the right length (150 minutes), considering quite a few commenters on IMDb find it overlong and boring. My wife and me weren't bored for a single second. But then we don't have ADHS and weren't weaned on superhero movies. I'll probably watch a double feature of West Side Story and The Fabelmans soon, and maybe finally one of Always and War Horse. I know I won't be disappointed.
And that's why I'm also immensely looking forward to DOD, even though not directed by Steven Spielberg.
I enjoy DAD until the ice place scenes and then the film heads south rapidly with shoddy VFX and plotting etc.
I'm not entirely sure, but perhaps it it safer to highlight irony as such even on this board.
Bias? I think if we had some creative and interesting storylines I might be tempted to give her a pass! LOL!
On her watch the following happended:
I could go on, but I think you get the gist. Lucas film is in a mess and will need some major wins to turn it around. Not sure how much of this is a bias. Clearly she has had missteps and DOD looks like it possibly could be the next one. Time will tell.
Well said. I'm amazed anyone can seriously support Kennedy after the mess she has done, let alone claim Indy 5 will be great based on trailers, yet totally ignoring all the critics.