Indy V's Potential Box Office Haul

Dr.Jonesy

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
FordFan said:
I thought Afterlife was too sentimental for a Ghostbusters movie. It was fine, and I get that Reitman was paying tribute to his father, but this is the same franchise where Dan Aykroyd got top from a ghost.
Click to expand...
I can see where you're coming from - but I think that it was a masterstroke to make the film that way (sentimental). It met the audience where it was at in this day and age, in how they view the series.

Instead of making a goofy comedy that goes "Ha, it was always silly, losers" - it validated how the audience has come to feel about the series and rewarded them accordingly.

I loved that approach.
 
FordFan

FordFan

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Instead of making a goofy comedy that goes "Ha, it was always silly, losers"
Click to expand...
Not in a malicious way. It's just that Ghostbusters is ranked as one of the best comedies of all time. Now it's become a family drama adventure. And the trailer for the new movie looks like it's trying to appease so many different demos, it's not even sure what it is or who its audience is.
 
fedoraboy

fedoraboy

Well-known member
FordFan said:
Not in a malicious way. It's just that Ghostbusters is ranked as one of the best comedies of all time. Now it's become a family drama adventure. And the trailer for the new movie looks like it's trying to appease so many different demos, it's not even sure what it is or who its audience is.
Click to expand...
Love or loathe DoD, it at least was very much its own thing and didn't seem to be pandering to multiple demographics. Probably one of the major reasons why it underperformed, but I'm happy the filmmakers got to tell the story they wanted to tell rather than the whole thing feeling like a soulless cash in.
 
Last edited:
Z dweller

Z dweller

Well-known member
antonb said:
They did really well making a movie about Indiana Jones that the character is nothing like the Indiana Jones we know and love !
Click to expand...
No no no no no !!!! It's nothing to do with that.

It's all down to poor marketing, Doomcock and Disney hatred!
And the critics at Cannes were kept waiting too long!

And it means nothing anyway, 'cuz so many great movies bombed last year!

😂😂😂
 
Last edited:
A

antonb

Well-known member
I don’t get pleasure on making comments like that , before people jump down my throat! In my opinion they went too far down the route of mardy and miserable Indy. Barring a few moments , it just doesn’t seem like you’re watching Indiana Jones . Which is a massive failing in my opinion. Harrison’s age was a big issue to the making and success of the movie. Simply because he just couldn’t perform up to standard that were used to seeing. And I’m a huge Ford fan, my favourite actor ever!
 
Z dweller

Z dweller

Well-known member
antonb said:
I don’t get pleasure on making comments like that , before people jump down my throat! In my opinion they went too far down the route of mardy and miserable Indy. Barring a few moments , it just doesn’t seem like you’re watching Indiana Jones . Which is a massive failing in my opinion. Harrison’s age was a big issue to the making and success of the movie. Simply because he just couldn’t perform up to standard that were used to seeing. And I’m a huge Ford fan, my favourite actor ever!
Click to expand...
I fully agree, and I don't get pleasure from pointing it out either.

I am glad that most posters here enjoyed DoD (I only liked the prologue), but IMO it's patently clear that Mangold's approach effectively sank the movie at the box office.

Regardless of how anyone here may rate it, the fact is DoD is the first Indiana Jones movie to bomb commercially, and it pains me that Indy goes out not with a bang, but with a whimper.
 
Last edited:
fedoraboy

fedoraboy

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
I fully agree, and I don't get pleasure from pointing it out either.
Click to expand...
Oh c'mon. You love pointing this stuff out!

Lots of us like the film, quite a few of you hate it, and I'm sorry you can't find more in there to enjoy. But MAYBE we can at least all agree that in making the film they didn't really pander to any particular demographic, they just did their own thing.
 
Finn

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
fedoraboy said:
But MAYBE we can at least all agree that in making the film they didn't really pander to any particular demographic, they just did their own thing.
Click to expand...
Well, this much is evident alone from the fact that its leading man is freakin' 80 years old.
 
Dr.Jonesy

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
I fully agree, and I don't get pleasure from pointing it out either.

I am glad that most posters here enjoyed DoD (I only liked the prologue), but IMO it's patently clear that Mangold's approach effectively sank the movie at the box office.
Click to expand...
Having your leading man be 80 and the fact that this franchise has run its course is not Mangold's fault and are clearly the biggest reasons why this film didn't do great at the BO.
antonb said:
They did really well making a movie about Indiana Jones that the character is nothing like the Indiana Jones we know and love !
Click to expand...
This is just patently incorrect. Indy was still Indy in this film.
antonb said:
I don’t get pleasure on making comments like that ,
Click to expand...
Then stop making comments like that because we've read the same post from you about 50 times, now.
 
Forbidden Eye

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Man, seeing the marketing push for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire - it really highlights how bad the marketing for Dial of Destiny was. The marketing for Ghostbusters has kicked ass and been really, really constant for months.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. The movie looks good - I agree. But I often forget that the movie is coming out THIS month at the end of March.

Maybe I’m just used to Ghostbusters being a “summer blockbuster”, but to keep forgetting the release month isn’t really a good sign. Can’t comment on tv spots, but I only see marketing for it when I see posters for it at the theaters.
 
Z dweller

Z dweller

Well-known member
fedoraboy said:
Oh c'mon. You love pointing this stuff out!
Click to expand...
No, I do not.
I take no pleasure from the fact that DoD bombed and wish Mangold had gone in a different direction with it.
fedoraboy said:
quite a few of you hate it
Click to expand...
I never said I hated it.
I love the prologue, the rest is mediocre and just doesn't feel like an Indiana Jones movie.
Dr.Jonesy said:
Having your leading man be 80 and the fact that this franchise has run its course is not Mangold's fault and are clearly the biggest reasons why this film didn't do great at the BO.
Click to expand...
Sure, Harry's age was always going to be a major handicap (which is why I was hoping they'd recast and go for a prequel instead), but IMO it's the movie's tone which is all wrong, and that's 100% on Mangold.
And if Disney thought the franchise had run its course they simply wouldn't have made it.
 
Mike00spy

Mike00spy

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
but IMO it's patently clear that Mangold's approach effectively sank the movie at the box office
Click to expand...
Dial is sitting at 6.6 IMDb score, which is higher than 6.2 score for Skull, and we all know Skull made a lot more money.

So “audience satisfaction” with Dial doesn’t seem to be the chief reason for its underwhelming box office.

Seems like… there’s other reasons.
 
A

antonb

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Having your leading man be 80 and the fact that this franchise has run its course is not Mangold's fault and are clearly the biggest reasons why this film didn't do great at the BO.

This is just patently incorrect. Indy was still Indy in this film.

Then stop making comments like that because we've read the same post from you about 50 times, now.
Click to expand...
Well no. This is therapy for me . Somewhere I can vent my frustration with people who will at least have an idea what I’m talking about. A lot won’t agree I guess. And that’s fine. However , don’t begrudge me a bit of therapy
 
Dr.Jonesy

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Mike00spy said:
Dial is sitting at 6.6 IMDb score, which is higher than 6.2 score for Skull, and we all know Skull made a lot more money.
Click to expand...
I never hear anyone talk about IMDB anymore. I feel like RT overtook it as people's go-to to rate movies.

Once they got rid of the boards - that place died, feels like.
 
Z dweller

Z dweller

Well-known member
Mike00spy said:
Dial is sitting at 6.6 IMDb score, which is higher than 6.2 score for Skull, and we all know Skull made a lot more money.

So “audience satisfaction” with Dial doesn’t seem to be the chief reason for its underwhelming box office.

Seems like… there’s other reasons.
Click to expand...
What does that prove? The correlation between IMDB/RT scores and box office results is unclear and inconsistent at best.
 
DirkPitt

DirkPitt

Well-known member
Also, the number of IMDB ratings should be taken into consideration - Skull has 6,2 and ~490k ratings and Dial has 6,6 and 194k. So, the result may change in the future (especially for Dial, as it is relatively new movie). Of course it may go eiither way - could be better or worse, but I think you can't compare them directly.
 
Mike00spy

Mike00spy

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
What does that prove? The correlation between IMDB/RT scores and box office results is unclear and inconsistent at best.
Click to expand...
That’s my point.

You made the claim that dissatisfaction with the film was the main reason for its box office failure. I point out that Dial is better received than Skull yet made less money.

Which suggests other reasons are playing a bigger factor for the failure.
 
FordFan

FordFan

Well-known member
Lukewarm reviews aside...as Finn said, it's probably got to do with it being an action movie with an 81-year-old in the lead.

It's the most niche project Disney has greenlit since "The World According to Jeff Goldblum".
 
Z dweller

Z dweller

Well-known member
FordFan said:
Lukewarm reviews aside...as Finn said, it's probably got to do with it being an action movie with an 81-year-old in the lead.

It's the most niche project Disney has greenlit since "The World According to Jeff Goldblum".
Click to expand...
I agree it turned out to be a niche project.
But surely the Disney suits and Mangold himself didn't set out to make one?

Of course it was always going to be an uphill struggle with an octogenarian actor in the lead, but IMO Mangold compounded it by making Indy too depressed/disillusioned/grumpy for way too long, and not giving him his mojo back in an uplifting finale.
The majority of us Indy geeks liked DoD, a few loved it - but for most casual audiences it simply misfired as a result of those two factors combined.

Just for the record I believe Mangold did a fantastic job recapturing the OT spirit in the prologue, but that's the high point in the movie. It's all downhill from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top