Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy
This makes no sense, either.
The Star Wars prequels were much more hurtful to the Star Wars brand than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ever was.
Yet...did the prequels hurt the success of The Force Awakens? No. Because the film looked good.
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was far more positively reviewed critically than any prequel and among general audiences, it fared quite well. It divided die hards - but still - the damage is not irreparable.
By your logic, this new Star Wars trilogy should be a flop because the prequels damaged the Star Wars brand both so badly and so very recently. But it's not. Far from it.
The new Star Wars films marketed to the nostalgic sensibilities of the original three films. Why can't a next Indy? You could argue that card was played with the last one - but the same thing was played when the prequels were marketed. So it's obvious it can work twice.
Your arguments don't make sense once they're actually looked at closely. And this coming from a guy who thinks a 5th film is too little, too late. I should be on your side - but your arguments stink.
Star Wars have had at least one major film release for the last 3 years and with Solo, it will be 4 years of major releases in a row.
You can't use Solo: A Star Wars Story as an example of low demand for Indiana Jones.
The lack of enthusiasm for Solo has more to do with the excessive milking of Star Wars and the abundance of product the last 4 or 5 years. Indy has only had one major release since 1989. It's not remotely the same.
Blade Runner was already a niche film, though. It became a cult classic hit eventually. Hardly comparable to Indiana Jones that was a widespread hit out of the gate that demanded two sequels in under 8 years.
So what? The time period is the setting and the setting is a character. It's not there for nostalgic purposes but for a storytelling purpose.
There's a big difference with TFA, though. TFA was the brainchild of a new creative team (along with one holdover, that being Kasdan, who is beloved by the fans) which helped to inspire hype and hope. The removal of Lucas from the process in totality made fans both hopeful and curious about the project. Indy 5 shares virtually the same team as KOTCS, even down to the screenwriter who gave us the horrid KOTCS script.
Also, TFA was more exciting than the prequels, and more exciting than Indy 5 in that it was something fans had wanted to see for over thirty years: The return of Han, Luke and Leia. The last time anyone had seen them in theaters, most in the audience were either children or not even born. That was a massive sell for that film.
This film will conceivably have Harrison in some way (how much remains to be seen) but that's not really comparable to having three beloved characters that audiences literally grew up with over half a decade back on screen for the first time in 33 years.
You say the prequels used nostalgia - yes, to a degree - but it's nowhere near in the same league as seeing having Han, Luke, and Leia back. Those characters defined the childhoods of millions. I think it was always pretty clear R2 and 3PO would be back in some way in the prequels. Other than easter eggs and seeing Boba Fett as a kid there wasn't all that much pandering to nostalgia in hindsight. TFA had the main cast of the original trilogy, Imperial ships we grew up loving, the Millenium Falcon, storm troopers, and so on; it was soaked in nostalgic elements as much as it was with new things.
So take those two elements and you have a much different hook and hype angle than Indy 5.
KOTCS may have been received better by critics but I think the fanbase and general public responded to it much differently than the critics. This was a film that inspired the whole South Park episode involving Indy being raped. Even the prequels have a sizable fanbase, whereas the ranks of KOTCS' defenders are rather slim in comparison. If we're really going by reviewers' rankings, KOTCS is lower on RT than ROTS. The fact that the prequels, for all their flaws, went out on what is generally considered a strong footing with that film, compared with the whimper that KOTCS went out with, also helped to undo some of the damage from the previous two films.
Also consider that there has been quite a bit of reassessment of those films in the almost 20 years since they've come out - some positive, some negative. They're not met with indifference; KOTCS is. You either love or hate the prequels it seems whereas KOTCS seems to get a general "meh."
Sure, part of Solo's problems stem from Star Wars fatigue - no denying that. But I'm on multiple geeky sort of sites and the consensus I saw regarding the film was basically "Why?" It doesn't seem to me like there was any real hype for Solo, even aside from any SW fatigue - it wasn't a story that really needed to be told or that fans seemed to crave. Compare this to the hype all over the web for a possible Kenobi film.
I mean even on this site, I don't think there's all that much enthusiasm for Indy 5 - certainly not compared to what there was for KOTCS before it came out. And this is a site for diehards who would have more enthusiasm than most for a fifth film; I simply don't see that excitement radiating much elsewhere, either.
The markets and fanbases for Star Wars, as compared to Indy, are simply not comparable. It's like comparing a galaxy to a single star system in terms of size and the makeup of the fanbases.
I'm confident in predicting that it will make around 750 million when all is said and done - give or take ten million or so. Respectable, but not a blockbuster in today's billion dollar world.