Box Office 2008

I'd say it's a success for sure! By the end of the weekend KOTCS will have pulled in $275 million dollars domestically and most likely over $600 million worldwide in 3 weekends! The numbers speak for themselves, and I don't know how that can be argued? Once the final tally comes in KOTCS will probably be the number one film of the summer, possibly the number one film of 2008, most likely the number two film worldwide for the year behind Harry Potter, and with all the merchandise(DVDs, toys, books, comics, clothes, etc..) it'll have raked in millions more. How is that not successful?

I understand it has mixed reviews, but with an overall 77% rating on rotten tomatoes.com that's not a critical mauling by any means. I too think KOTCS will go down as on par critically wise as TOD, and in several years be enjoyed as yet another fun popcorn flick in the series! If anything the only thing I can agree with regarding those who feel it's a failure, is that it didn't blow up the box office like some were expecting. This film had a Phantom Menace feel to the initial pre-release hype, but Indy was never as big as Star Wars especially worldwide, and reaching $400 million domestically just wasn't going to happen.

deckard24 said:

I'd say it's a success for sure! By the end of the weekend KOTCS will have pulled in $275 million dollars domestically and most likely over $600 million worldwide in 3 weekends! The numbers speak for themselves, and I don't know how that can be argued? Once the final tally comes in KOTCS will probably be the number one film of the summer, possibly the number one film of 2008, most likely the number two film worldwide for the year behind Harry Potter, and with all the merchandise(DVDs, toys, books, comics, clothes, etc..) it'll have raked in millions more. How is that not successful?

I understand it has mixed reviews, but with an overall 77% rating on rotten tomatoes.com that's not a critical mauling by any means. I too think KOTCS will go down as on par critically wise as TOD, and in several years be enjoyed as yet another fun popcorn flick in the series! If anything the only thing I can agree with regarding those who feel it's a failure, is that it didn't blow up the box office like some were expecting. This film had a Phantom Menace feel to the initial pre-release hype, but Indy was never as big as Star Wars especially worldwide, and reaching $400 million domestically just wasn't going to happen.

Click to expand...

Some films, no matter how well they do, pick up a rep as having failed for some reason. The Wizard of Oz (1939) did excellently, but just didn't make as big an impact as Disney's "Snow White", so to this day it is remembered as a B.O. bomb - and it wasn't. Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" pulled in $80 million domestic, but because the film was so unfinished and rushed, and left a bad taste in the mouths of ardent Tolkien fans, and because many critics didn't like it, is still remembered as a 'bomb'. KCS, on the 'net anyway' may inherit a rep like that, since so many 'fanboys' didn't take to it, and there is so much controversy surrounding Darabont's contributions.

Peacock's-Eye said:

Some films, no matter how well they do, pick up a rep as having failed for some reason. The Wizard of Oz (1939) did excellently, but just didn't make as big an impact as Disney's "Snow White", so to this day it is remembered as a B.O. bomb - and it wasn't. Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" pulled in $80 million domestic, but because the film was so unfinished and rushed, and left a bad taste in the mouths of ardent Tolkien fans, and because many critics didn't like it, is still remembered as a 'bomb'. KCS, on the 'net anyway' may inherit a rep like that, since so many 'fanboys' didn't take to it, and there is so much controversy surrounding Darabont's contributions.

Click to expand...

In the eyes of hardcore internet fanboys I can see that happening! But for the rest of world I think it's just going to be considered yet another fun summer blockbuster. Transformers was referenced earlier, and that too had mixed reviews, fanboy mauling, and so-so word of mouth, but it came out as a juggernaut at the box office (worldwide and domestically) and is loved by many. I don't think anyone would consider that film a failure but internet fanboys, who at the end of the day have been given way too much clout as of late!

KOTCS definitely didn't leave me with a bad taste in my mouth, but I wasn't as content leaving the theater as I was with LC. Even though it was probably my least favorite of the original 3 films, the ending of Indy and Co. riding off into the sunset was perfect! The ending of KOTCS...not so much. The wedding is a nice touch, but felt lackluster and kind of cheesey unlike LC!

Only time will tell if KOTCS will become the "black sheep" of the franchise. One thing is for sure though, if Indy gets knocked down to 3rd or 4th place in the final summer box office tally, then I could see it getting the "failure" or at least not living up to expectations rep!

Any negativity surround KOTC is a product of the crushing expectations it had. While I told myself to go into the movie with an open mind, I had a bland reaction to my first viewing. I liked it much better the second time just watching it for the popcorn adventure it is, and on that score I think it holds up as well as any of the Indy sequels.

Some folks here seem to be chagrined that the movie does not seem to be an "event" that has captivated everyone's attention. The days of the "event" movie are gone. The original Star Wars was definitely an event movie. It played for a solid year at the Raintree cinema I passed on the bus every day for school. It was news when it finally came down. It truly captured the world's attention. It created pop culture references that people still use today ("May the Force be with you", etc). That was before the summer blockbuster season, the boom in cable television, the Internet, etc. In short, we have a lot more distractions for our time now.

Also, sequels are rarely as fresh. "Here we go again" is seldom as good as "Here we go". Most Indy fans are going to compare any Indy movie to Raiders, and it's hard to top.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and the Bourne Trilogy contained movies that were all equally as good in my opinion, however, you could make the very viable argument that these weren't true sequels as much as the continuation of a single storyline broken into three parts. Other than that, I thought "Aliens" was better than the original "Alien". It has everything from "Alien", but more. Even in that case, however, it's really a continuation of original movie. I also preferred Spider Man2 to Spider Man1 (close, but I liked Doc Ock better than Green Goblin. Spidey3 fell into trap of having too many villians and bogging down).

Indy movies have a particularly difficult challenge in that each movie stands on its own. The setting, the characters, the objectives all get overhauled in each movie. It's a difficult balancing act to create something that retains enough elements of a beloved series while not feeling like recycled material (e.g. - one of the criticisms of LC is that it recycled too much from Raiders).

"Iron Man" was a good time, and it was new and fresh, but it was hardly an "event" movie. It was first big summer movie and had run of things for the first couple of weeks. It made a pile of money but summer movies just don't stay on top for long with a new, heavily promoted film coming out almost every week. In a couple of years, Iron Man2 will come out, make another pile of money and have lots of fans complaining that it wasn't as good as the first movie. "Dark Knight" will come out in a few weeks. It will have the morbid curiosity factor due to Heath Ledger's death, particualrly considering the dark role he plays. It will make a pile of money, rule at the box office for a few weeks, but it's not going to be an "event".

I think by any measure, KOTCS is a success. Reviews have been solidly positive, if unspectacular. It's likley to be #1 grosser worldwide this year. Informal conversations I've had with casual fans have been very positive. Just because it's not everything the uber fans on the boards here (myself included) dreamed it would be doesn't mean it's not successful. I think time will treat KOTCS kindly.

No movie 19 years in the making, and coming with such a rabid fanbase, can EVER live up to the expectations that you've had in your mind for almost 2 decades.
It was not, never, no, not ever going to happen, ever.
I'm not sure how long this website and messageboard have been around but I'm sure some of you have been talking about a new indy movie since its inception, what it should be about, who should be in it. Oh the dreams of a new indy movie, surely it will happen someday. And when it does it will exceed the wildest of fanboy imaginations. . .

Well, obviously it didn't. I've loved the trilogy since I was 12 and saw Raiders for the first time.

BUT, I haven't been coming to this board, talking about, thinking about, drawing pictures of, writing stories about, making home videos of, buying costumes, going to conventions (do they have those?), daydreaming about, etc, etc, etc. . . Indiana Jones.

THAT is the reason I enjoyed it more than many here. You can argue fuss about, and curse my logic but I believe with every fiber of my being that you haters ruined it for yourself by spending so much time talking about every little thing Indy for so many years.

William Shatner said it best to the trekkies - "Get a Life"

ToD got 4 out of 4 stars from Roger Ebert back in 1984. This is a rating, I highly agree with. Also, back in 1984, Ebert was a much tougher critic, nowdays he gives everything great reviews, but back in the 80s, he was very hard on movies. If he gave ToD 4 stars in the 80s, than he obviously saw that it was a well made, quality film. It just wasn't to everyone's liking. ToD is the perfect movie for me, because I like horror movies and horror related things, and ToD combined horror with adventure.

MolaRam2 said:

ToD got 4 out of 4 stars from Roger Ebert back in 1984. This is a rating, I highly agree with. Also, back in 1984, Ebert was a much tougher critic, nowdays he gives everything great reviews, but back in the 80s, he was very hard on movies.

Click to expand...

Roger Ebert is one of the few critics who consistently 'got' what each Indy sequel was trying to do. He gave one of the best reviews to TOD, and even defended LC to Gene Siskel (who gave it a thumbs down).

It's silly to imply that Ebert only enjoyed KOTCS because he's somehow easier on films now. He explains exactly why he liked it, and illustrates that he again understood the tone the series was striving for.

ChromiumBlue37 said:

Raiders of the Lost Ark stands alone as it's OWN adventure. Why would anyone want to see a carbon copy duplicate? There are enough similarities to ROTA in TLC. Kingdom is different enough and refreshing. Glad it's not the exact same thing.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. One of the reasons why I like all the Indy movies is that they aren't all the same. TOD and KotCS are both different than Raiders and Crusade. Maybe they are going on a formula to make every second movie different. Maybe if we get an Indy V it will have the same feel as Raiders and Crusade.

Goonie said:

I have to agree with this. One of the reasons why I like all the Indy movies is that they aren't all the same. TOD and KotCS are both different than Raiders and Crusade. Maybe they are going on a formula to make every second movie different. Maybe if we get an Indy V it will have the same feel as Raiders and Crusade.

Click to expand...

How would people have perceived Raiders if Temple Of Doom had preceded it in reality aswell as chronology?

The Man said:

How would people have perceived Raiders if Temple Of Doom had preceded it in reality aswell as chronology?

Click to expand...

Depends on how successful TOD was. In 1981, it would still have been a fresh & new concept. Maybe audiences would have complained that Raiders wasn't scary enough, had too much talk & plot and not enough action, or that the baddies weren't as memorable. Who knows?

The Man said:

How would people have perceived Raiders if Temple Of Doom had preceded it in reality aswell as chronology?

Click to expand...

To be honest, I think people would have found Raiders a bit dull if TOD had been released first. For all TOD's faults, it's almost end to end non stop action... It's still fast paced even by today's standards.

jazzycmk,

A good measured post. Respect.

Moneywise - definite success. But otherwise everybody just acts like it was no big deal. They were all over it by the time Sex and the City was out. When the DVD comes out there might be some buzz with contests and whatnot but for now Indy is a distant memory to most. Just bring on The Dark Knight!

And I predict at least two Razzie nominations. Shia for worst supporting and Shia/Ford for worst Screen Couple. Not my opinion, but its inevitable

UKIndyFan said:

Moneywise - definite success. But otherwise everybody just acts like it was no big deal. They were all over it by the time Sex and the City was out. When the DVD comes out there might be some buzz with contests and whatnot but for now Indy is a distant memory to most. Just bring on The Dark Knight!

And I predict at least two Razzie nominations. Shia for worst supporting and Shia/Ford for worst Screen Couple. Not my opinion, but its inevitable

Click to expand...

Gee, that must be why it's still raking in money, why people are still packing theaters to check it out 3 weeks after it opened, and why it's ready to open big in half a dozen new territories. And why fans are still debating it, re-watching it, reading the novelization & even raiding earlier drafts of the script?

Thanks for your contribution.

UKIndyFan said:

Moneywise - definite success. But otherwise everybody just acts like it was no big deal. They were all over it by the time Sex and the City was out. When the DVD comes out there might be some buzz with contests and whatnot but for now Indy is a distant memory to most. Just bring on The Dark Knight!

And I predict at least two Razzie nominations. Shia for worst supporting and Shia/Ford for worst Screen Couple. Not my opinion, but its inevitable

Click to expand...

Don't forget Worst Actress.

UKIndyFan said:

And I predict at least two Razzie nominations. Shia for worst supporting and Shia/Ford for worst Screen Couple. Not my opinion, but its inevitable

Click to expand...

Not sure about Shia. Even the most critical fanboys were willing to admit that he did a respectable job.

I also think the Razzies may have their hands full with other films this year. Speed Racer was an instant bomb, while The Happening is getting incredibly bad reviews. The Love Guru and Get Smart have had poor buzz for weeks. And while Hancock is tracking very well, the inside word is that the film is a mess.

UKIndyFan said:

And I predict at least two Razzie nominations. Shia for worst supporting and Shia/Ford for worst Screen Couple. Not my opinion, but its inevitable

Click to expand...

I think that's BS! The film certainly didn't live up to expectations as an "Indy" film, but it was still entertaining when compared to your average summer blockbuster. (The boxoffice reflects that.) And I found Harrison and Shia's performances to be good, especially considering what they had to work with.

I definitely see KotCS getting razzies--which is stupid, because the movie was not bad at all. Like others have pointed out, the movie got decent reviews and seems to be well-liked(not loved, but liked) by the public at large. It's making a ton of money, etc. But I think there will always be this perception in the snarky entertainment world that it was a disappointment, and that it could have been more. Combine the perception of disappointment with a large budget and superstar producers/directors/stars and you have instant Razzie awards.

Keep in mind that Sophia Coppola got a razzie nomination for worst supporting actress in The Phantom Menace. Sophia Coppola! Come freaking on. I don't care how much you hate TPM, where is the sense in that?

KOTCS deserves the Razzie for Worst Lighting and Worst Cinematography. The Razzies may not even have those categories, but KOTCS definately had horrible lighting and cinematography.

Peacock's Eye - With the exception of Indyfans and movie buffs/nerds like ourselves, it isn't that big a deal. Almost everybody who wanted to see it has already seen it. Everybody else will either rent or don't give a hoot. But unless your on a site like this, KotCS is old news. Sex and the City, Kung Fu Panda, Incredible Hulk and Wanted are raking in the buzz at the moment. We could argue about this all day but I;m just giving my opinion and as far as I can see about 70% of people who have seen it are over it

The Man - Did I miss something? Cate Blanchett and Karen Allen were both brilliant. OK, maybe Karen Allen was a little peculiar at times but not Razzie worthy.

James - Hayden/Rachel have a chance at worst couple for Jumper. As do Kate/Matt for Fools Gold. Actually reconsidering my original point now.

HFFan - I loved the movie but going on what the haters think, this movie has a good chance. Plus, the opening weekend box office for something like Indy doesnt make a difference.

CasualJeff - Great point and perfect summary

MolaRam2 - They weren't as good as the originals but certainly better than half the garbage in Hollywood today. The lighting was defiently un Indy like but worked well IMO

UKIndyFan said:

Peacock's Eye - With the exception of Indyfans and movie buffs/nerds like ourselves, it isn't that big a deal. Almost everybody who wanted to see it has already seen it. Everybody else will either rent or don't give a hoot. But unless your on a site like this, KotCS is old news. Sex and the City, Kung Fu Panda, Incredible Hulk and Wanted are raking in the buzz at the moment. We could argue about this all day but I;m just giving my opinion and as far as I can see about 70% of people who have seen it are over it

Click to expand...

YES - exactly like, um - every other movie?
KCS has been a huge success, and is going worldwide to make more millions. People enjoy it. And then they move on. That's what you do with entertainment. I don't see your point - what were you expecting? How does KCS having an extremely successful normal life-cycle for a movie translate into not being successful? And since people are still reviewing the movie & debating about it online & the real world, I don't see how it's a "distant memory".