Disney vs. Paramount

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Toht's Arm said:
Thanks for the in-depth analyses, Le Saboteur, despite them all being so depressing.

I do wonder though - does Spielberg actually have difficulty getting stuff made these days? Every time I've heard of his films stalling, it usually seems to be him that has put on the brakes, since he's so finicky about not going over budget.

But if Spielberg is happy to move ahead with a script - and considering that all the Indy films have definitely made money, even if it isn't gajillions - would Disney really say no?

They might, if we're talking about something that isn't a sure tentpole. Here's an account of happened with Lincoln, with some pull quotes excerpted below.

With studios set on tent pole franchises to carry them, newer filmmakers with fresh ideas are less likely to get a chance to try something new. "That's the big danger, and there's eventually going to be an implosion, or a big meltdown," Spielberg says. "There's going to be an implosion where three or four, or maybe even a half dozen, mega-budget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."

He even says there was trouble getting "Lincoln" a deal to show in theaters. Though Daniel Day-Lewis went on to win an Oscar for Best Actor due to the film, Spielberg says "Lincoln" was nearly a TV movie with no theatrical distribution, admitting he was close to a deal with HBO.

Moving along...

Le Saboteur said:
An animated series is out of the question. It would be the last stand of the fetishists, because at least they could, maybe, get Ford's voice and likeness. That aside, animated films have become increasingly expensive to produce. The much lauded return to traditional animation with The Princess and the Frog cost Disney ~$105-million. Tangled cost a whopping $260-million to produce!*

Le Sab, are you posing "animated series" here to mean an animated film series? Otherwise, I'm guessing that an animated television series would cost a heck of a lot less.
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Attila the Professor said:
They might, if we're talking about something that isn't a sure tent pole. Here's an account of happened with Lincoln, with some pull quotes excerpted below...

Le Sab, are you posing "animated series" here to mean an animated film series? Otherwise, I'm guessing that an animated television series would cost a heck of a lot less.

I don't have anything substantial to add to LeSab, whose work here is tremendous..but I was considering the future.

With the Marvel universe inking a deal with Netflix and the Once Upon a Time universes having its successes too, I would like to throw the thought out that perhaps the tent-pole model of an Indiana Jones feature is indeed outdated.

Hope for the franchise - (see what I did there :p ) may lie in a different sort of content distribution via the ever changing television/streaming model Disney is having successes with.
 

kongisking

Active member
Maybe I'm too naive to understand this yet, but I really don't see why an animated TV show with Indy wouldn't be a very smart idea. If it were done similarly to Batman: The Animated Series (animation and story-qualitywise, I mean. Calm down, everyone) or Gargoyles, it could be magnificent, and rebirth interest in the character and the genre once again. Were this early 2000's Disney, they'd have no problem milking Indiana Jones for what it's worth purely for the brand name value.

I'm probably like a typewriter die-hard fighting the extinction of his favorite gadget, but this world needs adventure as a genre, IMO. At this point, the nostalgic power of Indiana Jones is the only thing that seems to make anyone go out of their way to watch pulp adventure-y stuff. If Indy doesn't come back, soon, I fear we as fans of the genre will have to suffer a Dark Age even worse than the one in between Last Crusade and Crystal Skull. :eek:
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
Hope for the franchise - (see what I did there :p ) may lie in a different sort of content distribution via the ever changing television/streaming model Disney is having successes with.


Yes, I'm quoting myself. Deal with it.

 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Le Sab, are you posing "animated series" here to mean an animated film series? Otherwise, I'm guessing that an animated television series would cost a heck of a lot less.

I'm suggesting that animation, whether that's on teevee or theatrical, is an absolute non-starter. There's no real upside for anybody.

While The Simpsons and Family Guy have been wildly successful, animation and anime have made very few inroads with adults. The much lauded Batman: The Animated Series couldn’t find an audience on Sunday nights opposite 60 Minutes, and was relegated to the more traditional afterschool block where it was phenomenally successful.

Why is that? I don’t know, but I suspect that it’s a cultural truism at this point in time. After a generation and a half were raised on Disney’s form of family entertainment, it’s accepted without question. If you see a cartoon advertised or, Allah forbid, on the air, move along. It’s for children.

Now there’s a general trend in television animation away from action-oriented cartoons. For starters, they’re expensive. The more moving parts on the screen, the more expensive it becomes. Somebody needs to draw all of that. Did you blow up a building? Your background art needs to be redrawn/reset. That takes time and money. The more “in-between” animation – that is, the frames between the key frames that give the illusion of movement – you have to dedicate more time and resources. That difference in frames is why Disney animation traditionally has been superior to, say, Hanna-Barbera. Disney ran at the traditional 24fps, and Hanna-Barbera ran between 4 & 14fps. A lot of anime has similarly low frame rates.

Secondly, there’s the issue of what we’ll call “shelf-space.” With only a relative few hours in the broadcast day, there are a fixed number of shows that can air at any given time. While adults might not have a problem focusing for an hour long program, children get bored easily. They aren’t going to sit still long enough to care what’s going on. So, 22-minutes it is. That leaves you eight minutes of advertising in a thirty-minute program block. Not exactly a lot of time.

Numbers vary, of course, but the average cost for a thirty second spot during primetime was $110,000. So over your allotted eight minutes of commercials you’ll make $1.7-million. Not bad, right? Well, no. That’s for a primetime spot on one of the major networks. Cartoons don’t air on primetime, and they don’t air on major networks anymore. Niche networks, like The CW, peaked out $75-grand per spot.

Assume that an Indiana Jones animated teevee series airs on Disney XD. Well, it’s airing at a substantial loss because Disney doesn’t allow outside advertising. Promos for other Disney shows and products, sure, but you won’t be seeing an ad for Kung-Fu Panda 3. Disney, of course, doesn’t pay to advertise its own offerings on its own channels.

Let’s say Disney allows the same series to air on the Cartoon Network. Their standard appears to be $25-grand per 10-seconds. Assuming advertising get a volume discount, let’s bump it up to a flat fifty grand for thirty seconds. $100-thousand per minute over 8-minutes nets you $800,000. Still, not bad. I wouldn’t mind having that kind of money. It’s a net loss for the production company, though.

Trying to find official numbers has been difficult, but it’s been estimated that Ultimate Spider-Man costs $1.6-million. The Simpsons and Family Guy, by comparison, cost two-three million-plus* per episode. Since this will ultimately be a Disney production, I suspect an Indiana Jones cartoon will cost about the same as Ultimate Spider-Man. Why? Marvel’s characters are visually complex, and require a significant amount of “inbetweening” to do justice to their respective powers. Dr. Jones will require the same type of treatment as he defies death week-in, week-out. Add in the major destruction to exotic sets, and the purely animation costs rack up. Just how high depends on the season length, but since Ultimate Spider-Man runs 26-episodes per season I would expect the same. So, at $1.6-million per episode you’re looking at $41.6-million over the length of a standard season.

Sample of Ultimate Spider-Man:


How does Disney make their money back? The hypothetical teevee series operates at a massive loss on Disney’s channels, a large loss on a niche network, and might eke out a miniscule profit if it could find an audience during the primetime schedule. Miniscule gets it canned after a season, but it gets yanked mid-way through its run only to be replaced by a low risk, high reward sitcom or reality show. The remaining episodes can be found on-line.

The answer, of course, to Disney’s monetization dilemma is toys. Lots of toys. $41.6-million is a rounding error for Spider-Man since he accounts for ~$700-million in merchandising sales alone. Dr. Jones can’t hope to ever match that kind of muscle without significant “repositioning.” In this case, it turns into something like… Adventure Friends! Indy will head up a multi-national, United Benetton of Explorers featuring a girl, a black guy, an Asian dude, and, maybe, somebody of Hispanic origin. Maybe a First Nations pal to round things out.

If anybody is interested in animation's cost per minute, do check out this report Cartoon Brew put out on the independent scene for a sense of scale.

Moedred said:
...but for now assume by Iger's statement it would cost much less that $100M to leave Paramount on the sidelines.

The actual price of those distribution rights aren’t the problem. Iger will cut the check, but digging through the transcript reveals some interesting facts. To begin with, only 25% of Lucasfilm’s business lies in films. It’s also very toy and North America-centric. Per Disney’s FY11 revenue breakdown, less than 40% of Lucasfilm business is derived from overseas. At the time of Marvel’s acquisition in ’09, over 40% of their business came from overseas. That’s a significant disparity, and Disney obviously sees a substantial return on any investment there. Star Wars, of course, being the driving force.

It comes down to capital allocation, and with such outsized returns on a relatively minimal investment, it's obvious where The Walt Disney Company's attention is going to be focused for the next decade.

*- The Simpsons": 6 voice actors -- $400,000 per episode. Script and production costs, retake costs: $900,000- $1.5 million = $3.3 million-$3.9 million.

kongisking said:
If it were done similarly to Batman: The Animated Series (animation and story-qualitywise, I mean. Calm down, everyone) or Gargoyles

You're way too young to be name checking either of those shows.
 
Last edited:

kongisking

Active member
Good Lord, Saboteur, you're good at this. I presume you work in print or journalism in some sense? And if you've already told us your profession and I missed it, apologies...

Le Saboteur said:
You're way too young to be name checking either of those shows.

I'm 21, and so grew up in the 90's on an unhealthy diet of Disney Channel/Toon Disney, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon. I certainly grew up aware of those shows, but it wasn't until my late teens that I rediscovered them, and could now fully appreciate their elaborate animation, excellent characters and storylines. A lot of my appreciation and respect for old animated films and shows came from this period of re-discovery (believe it or not, there was a time when I loathed Disney movies and musicals and cartoons of any sort).

I have yet to understand and join the anime craze, though, so I'm still a social outcast in that sense...:p
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
kongisking said:
I'm 21, and so grew up in the 90's on an unhealthy diet of Disney Channel/Toon Disney, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon. I certainly grew up aware of those shows, but it wasn't until my late teens that I rediscovered them, and could now fully appreciate their elaborate animation, excellent characters and storylines.

Since you weren't quite yet born when Batman: The Animated Series debuted, I sincerely doubt your powers of recollection. I'll give you a pass on The New Adventures of Batman, though. It's possible that you remember that one even though it was retroactively given the BTAS moniker and opening to boost video sales.

The point, however, lies in the fact that were a lot of minor inconsistencies in BTAS's animation*. With some 12-different production houses it's not surprising, but to a keen eye they're glaring issues. Otherwise, yes, Batman: The Animated Series is not only the finest representation of The Bat to date, but the greatest cartoon bar none.

* -- Batman: The Brave and the Bold has the overall superior animation.

Getting back to the overall expense of animation for a minute -- this is why Batman was retooled mid-way through Season 3. Not enough kids were watching, and thus Robin became a regular cast member. The New Batman Adventures (what Warner wants to B:TAS' fourth season) featured Batgirl & Robin on a regular basis. Plus, Nightwing. Notice the dramatic change in style? Production budgets were slashed. Why? The business unit didn't have any more patience for art and needed to sell more toys. The teamups on The Brave and the Bold were a merchandising bonanza.

Paul Dini has gone on record stating "Kenner wants to do a line of toys, we're taking advantage of the publicity from her being in Batman & Robin, and we just love Batgirl." Take a walk down your local store's toy aisle. Batman has preschool aged toys on the shelf.

kongisking said:
I have yet to understand and join the anime craze, though, so I'm still a social outcast in that sense...:p

Studio Ghibili's work is required viewing. Shinichiro Watanabe's work, too. You also need to watch the original Ghost in the Shell, Akira, and Steamboy. Satoshi Kon, too. I could recommend a few more, but that's enough.

Le Saboteur said:
Now there’s a general trend in television animation...

Dolt. You forgot to mention the other big trend. Yes, the really, really important trend is a drop from the standard 22-minute episode to 11-minutes per episode. See Teen Titans Go!, Adventure Time, Robot Chicken, Uncle Grandpa, etc. By shortening the run time, you've eliminated the need for a coherent story, rely on cutaways and visual gags, and, most importantly, budgets are teeny, tiny.

The Incredible Hulk isn't even immune to the infantilization. Remember, kids, every family is special and unique.


British Retailer John Lewis' new Christmas advert clocks in at 2:11. Guess how much it cost? $1.6-million!

 
Last edited:

kongisking

Active member
Blearghh, you're right, I was lumping TAS with Adventures.

All this talk of animation going down the tubes as a commercially viable form of entertainment has me saddened. I'll come back when I've sufficiently drowned my sorrows...
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
Disney will not be a roadblock for an Indy 5. At worst they stand to probably make a couple hundred million with very little risk.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Grizzlor said:
Disney will not be a roadblock for an Indy 5. At worst they stand to probably make a couple hundred million with very little risk.

The blind optimism is so, so aggravating. Yes, if only the Mouse wasn't **** blocking, Ford would blaze across the screen like Helios triumphant.

In the immortal words of Steve McQueen, 'Bullsh!t'.

I've spent far too much time (some would say wasted) attempting to detail the very real financial concerns Disney would have in bringing a fifth Indiana Jones picture to bear with Ford & The Beards attached. Not only does the Risk v. Reward not pencil out satisfactorily, but it makes infinitely better sense for Disney to spend its capital on other projects. Y'know, projects where the principles aren't going to bankrupt the production before it gets out of the gate.

Attila the Professor said:
Here's an account of happened with Lincoln, with some pull quotes excerpted below...

I really take anything out of Spielberg's mouth re: the ballooning budgets of blockbuster releases with a dose of salt. The man has a net worth of, what, $3-billion dollars? He rakes in a cool $150-million annually and has a studio of his own, but he can't help in getting those fresh new ideas on screen? Right. I forgot. He doesn't want to affect his cash flow after Hoovering up nearly half the take on Raiders and Temple between him and Lucas. Who knows how much he absconded with on Jurassic Park.

Udvarnoky said:
Regardless of how accurate I would contend these numbers to be, you've got to pick a scenario. We were talking about the reboot scenario which would not include Ford, Spielberg or Lucas (who account for the majority of the budget), and you're crunching numbers for the other one.

You could contend all you like, but those numbers are marginal upticks in what we've been publicly allowed to know. If The Beards wrested $65-million apiece from Raiders & Temple, it stands to reason that they both received $100-million for Kingdom. Accounting for some measure of inflation, it isn't inconceivable that they would receive the same from a fifth picture, possibly more depending on how those contracts are structured with Paramount. If a standing contract is in place, Disney will have to honor it.

re: The Reboot

Not only do I despise the term, it's also unnecessary. What exactly in the canon needs to be wiped from existence? Nothing. There are a few spots on the timeline that are writ in stone, but there are plenty of spots to play with. You set whatever new body of work in those, shall we say, empty spaces. To use the Bond analogy, they didn't remake Dr. No once George Lazenby stepped into the role. No, they shot another of Fleming's stories. Same thing works for another Indiana Jones picture. There's no narrative continuity, so unless you need to see a new face threaten to blow up the Ark, you shoot a new story. A budget will run you about $125-million, less if they truly go out of their way for location shooting.

Pale has it correct, though. There might be more longevity to the character if Disney took the opportunity to, y'know, build an actual character rather than a two-hour action sequence.

Udvarnoky said:
Given an Indy5 that gets made in the next few years with the Big Three involved - sure, that would be more of a concession to Ford to earn his Star Wars participation than it would be a windfall for Disney, but it would certainly not be a loss for them.

I would suggest something else: Ford is old. Sofa king old that he's not going to turn down the role that made him famous. Not only is he not going to turn down an appearance in Episode VII, but he doesn't have the clout to wrest any sort of real concessions from the House of Mouse. He doesn't have that sort of muscle. Ford is working his way towards box office poison. Which is probably not where you want to be while you're on the world's longest mid-life crisis.

No, a fifth picture may not lose Disney money, but it's not the surefire proposition you might think it is. Despite the total box office haul where did Kingdom primarily make its money? In North America. Outside of the New World it played well in the former colonial powers of the UK, Spain, Germany, and France. Japan and South Korea were quite enamored with it, as well. It did virtually bupkis everywhere else. That's a problem.

Since Disney is going to essentially betting the farm on three markets to recoup that expense, how are they going to make their money back? They just mightn't given the less than spectacular court of public opinion trailing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

kongisking said:
I'll come back when I've sufficiently drowned my sorrows...

Don't feel obligated. There isn't much else to say, and I've spent too much time on the topic already. Enjoy some Gloryhammer for your efforts.

 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Le Saboteur said:
it makes infinitely better sense for Disney to spend its capital on other projects. Y'know, projects where the principles aren't going to bankrupt the production before it gets out of the gate.
We could do this all day (not that I'm insisting you do), imagine a world where John Carter and Lone Ranger never happened, and speculate whether the same lessons learned or not learned would apply. Erasing even more hindsight, go back 15 years before Disney threw about $100M each at Mission to Mars, Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean. Were I an investor, I would have been most nervous about another Treasure Planet with the earning potential of Cutthroat Island. Fortunately they stole great characters from Lucasarts. Development is relatively cheap and a good story makes long-shot productions happen.

I'm fully aware Ford is old (and if anyone wants to see Ender's Game on the big screen they should start running). But there are workarounds. Audiences have yet to object to Shia paired with eye candy way out of his league. I know, it's unfair and an unrealistic portrayal, like Ron Jeremy. He can't keep it up forever, right? (rimshot)

Saboteur, how do you figure Lucas would earn more that $0.00 for an Indy sequel?

By the way thanks for that John Lewis bear and rabbit story. Much nicer than the Eddie Murphy version.
Pale Horse said:
perhaps the tent-pole model of an Indiana Jones feature is indeed outdated.
I've been thinking the same thing. Raiders wasn't even a hit until word of mouth. Imagine Spielberg vowing to keep it under budget like the old days, $100M tops. More mini-lectures on myth and history, fistfights and vistas, while not shunning FX entirely. It's what people expect anyway.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
re: The Reboot

Not only do I despise the term, it's also unnecessary. What exactly in the canon needs to be wiped from existence? Nothing.
Agreed, emphatically and categorically. "Reboot", schmeeboot.(n):sick:
Moedred said:
Marvel had a distribution deal with Paramount for 6 movies. Disney distributed the last 2 and paid Paramount about $100M for each to do nothing.

Fox has distribution rights to 5 of the 6 Star Wars films until May 2020 (4K UHD ennealogy set due that fall?) Paramount currently retains "some" Indy distribution rights, apparently indefinitely.
I sincerely hope that any future Indiana Jones theatrical film never, ever gets released under the Disney banner and that the Paramount logo continues to be the lead-in for the opening shot.

The "Star Wars" prequels became a different animal since they were essentially INDEPENDENT FILMS, in that they were financed entirely by George Lucas, himself, without the benefit of studio money and 20th Century Fox held only their distribution rights. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this was ever the case for Indiana Jones with Paramount.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
Don't count on it. Rights are funny things.

The further we get away from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and 2008, the actual value of those rights shrinks even further. There's nothing in the public consciousness in the terms of merchandise or product that allows them to retain any real value. Couple that with Ford's AARP-membership, and every second he ages, those rights are worth even less than would be in a simply dormant franchise like Batman or Bond. The long term viability of the character (read: Once Ford takes that dirt nap) is unproven.

I don't agree. Disney is really the only movie studio that relies heavily on profits outside of the movies. With the possible exception of Warner Borthers, every other movie studio's profits rely on the entertainment(movies or television) itself. Paramount is in that camp along with Fox, Sony, Lionsgate; their movies don't often generate fastfood toys or hallmark ornaments. Universal has theme parks, but the vast majority of their attractions are based on franchises from other studios.

I don't know exactly how well the trilogy sold on Blu-Ray but I don't even have to look it up to tell you it sold well. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull I know for a fact did sell well on DVD/Blu-Ray. It of course did well at the theaters. All the movies do well when they're on television. Indiana Jones IS a money maker. That's why Paramount sure seemed proud of it when they promoted their entire catalogue for the studio's 100th anniversary.

I see no reason why Paramount won't fight for it, especially when stuff like merchandise and theme-parks are done by other studios like Disney. For Paramount, the movie's grosses are enough for them to be content. Why wouldn't they want to hang on to the rights?

Le Saboteur said:
No, a fifth picture may not lose Disney money, but it's not the surefire proposition you might think it is. Despite the total box office haul where did Kingdom primarily make its money? In North America. Outside of the New World it played well in the former colonial powers of the UK, Spain, Germany, and France. Japan and South Korea were quite enamored with it, as well. It did virtually bupkis everywhere else. That's a problem.

Since Disney is going to essentially betting the farm on three markets to recoup that expense, how are they going to make their money back? They just mightn't given the less than spectacular court of public opinion trailing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

? Kingdom made $469 million at the box office, pretty much tieing it with The Dark Knight as the highest grossing movie that year. That number is even bigger today when you count inflation. Probably bigger than that last Spider-Man movie, which you seem convinced is somehow preventing us from seeing more Indy.

I think one of the appeals of Indiana Jones IS the fact that we don't see him all that much. Us fans of course get frustrated by the long wait it takes to see a new movie, but the fact its a 'franchise' with limited appearances and not particularly toy-driven is what appeals a lot of older audiences as well as young ones. Its hard to really claim Indiana Jones has been shoved down people's throats by studios to the extent that say Harry Potter or Spider-Man have. Of course, there's the problem of new generations being unfamiliar with Jones, but that tends to get remedied easier than people think.

Kingdom may have its share of critics, but enough years are passing that people will get interested in seeing another installment, like how people's curiousity kept the Star Wars prequels successful and how they'll most likely keep these upcoming Star Wars films successful.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Grizzlor said:
Disney will not be a roadblock for an Indy 5. At worst they stand to probably make a couple hundred million with very little risk.

They are a roadblock in the sense that they are not in a hurry, and they pretty much have to be for the Harrison Ford Indy 5 to get made.

Le Saboteur said:
Despite the total box office haul where did Kingdom primarily make its money? In North America.

Kingdom made more money from foreign markets than it did domestically, and this set it apart from its competition that summer like Iron Man and The Dark Knight. Indiana Jones is a demonstrably global brand.
 

Kernunnos

New member
Le Saboteur said:
Since Disney is going to essentially betting the farm on three markets to recoup that expense, how are they going to make their money back? They just mightn't given the less than spectacular court of public opinion trailing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Bollocks. People love Indiana Jones, and most people I know who aren't jumped up internet critics enjoyed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull despite its shortcomings.

We all know that movie could have been better, but any Indy movie with Harrison in the lead role would still be right up there among the biggest box office hitters of the year. No doubt at all about that.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Kernunnos said:
...any Indy movie with Harrison in the lead role would still be right up there among the biggest box office hitters of the year. No doubt at all about that.

That's a sad state of affairs which implies that, no matter how bad it might be, the public will flock to it like lambs to the slaughter.

Mere association with a popular name is not enough to do justice to Indy. It's like adding the words "Star Wars" to the Prequels in order to better sell three inferior films.

Not a lot of incentive there for the makers to put much effort in. Which is why I agree with Le Sab that Indy should be dropped in favour of other characters, either lesser known, or completely new. At least then they'll be motivated to put some effort in, in order to make them successful.
 

Kernunnos

New member
Whilst it might be true that there are people who would pay to see Harrison's Indy sitting on a rocking chair for two hours, I'm quite sure that most people would be hoping for a decent movie.

It's not too much to ask for an improvement on KotCS, and there's no reason why Indy V shouldn't deliver. Well, I say no reason. A few people have already decide they'll hate it just because Harrison is in his seventies, which is all the more reason to make the film as far as I'm concerned.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Kernunnos said:
Whilst it might be true that there are people who would pay to see Harrison's Indy sitting on a rocking chair for two hours, I'm quite sure that most people would be hoping for a decent movie.

In fact that might sell better than those 'roaring fireplace' and 'tropical fish tank' DVDs. He'd have to look up and give the Ford finger every now and then, of course!

Kernunnos said:
It's not too much to ask for an improvement on KotCS...

That's very true.

Kernunnos said:
...and there's no reason why Indy V shouldn't deliver.

As long as they put the effort in, and not just rely on the Indy name, Disney could have a winner on their hands.

Kernunnos said:
Well, I say no reason. A few people have already decide they'll hate it just because Harrison is in his seventies, which is all the more reason to make the film as far as I'm concerned.

I like that attitude! But, this time, even more than last, the writing has to be strong to make it work for the broad range of audience Indy has always been directed towards. And some supporting actors who look like they give a damn wouldn't go amiss either. Can't expect Harrison to carry every new Indy movie on his own!

As for Disney vs. Paramount, I've no idea where we are with that in this thread.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
I think there is still money to be made in the franchise and ultimately thats what disney are in it for, to make money on their pictures. But I still believe there would be a market for a new Indyand I've mentioned a few times in regards to KOTCS that the supporting cast and overall story wasn't good enough, but get those things corrected and Indy 5 would be a winner imo.

KOTCS, despite being bad, still made took nearly $800m. Thats good going in anyones book. The argument then is does that mean Indy 5 would make money or would the fact KOTCS wasn't great affect the performance of an Indy 5?

But time is ticking now with Harrison and with Disney concentrating on SW, will they be interested in taking on an Indy movie. In fact what is the deal with Paramount and Disney? Do they both have to co-operate to make any future Indy movies?
 
Top