Indy V's Potential Box Office Haul

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
No, it's just going to the extreme opposite direction. Just because Lucas went superlight and over the top in KOTCS, doesn't mean a next Indy has to be ultra-dark, totally realistic and pretentious. As to the melodrama of BB and TDK, that's I'd say more Nolan's style. Melodrama of that sort doesn't fit in Indy's world just as much as nuclear fridges don't.

Since Harrison's Indy is effectively, over we're either looking to something completely different for #5, or a reboot without him. It would be better to start again, and put him back into the '30s where he belongs.

The old formula won't work any more with the current actors.

Raiders112390 said:
The team which made Mask of Zorro (the screenwriters were also responsible for Pirates of the Carribean) might do a good job with Indy, particularly if we're dealing with Harrison Ford still as an older Indy. Note that in that film, Hopkins' Zorro is a teacher, yes, but he is also very much in the action himself.

I found the The Mask of Zorro to be abysmal tripe of the KOTCS variety. Indy 5 would end up being yet more self-referential parody that doesn't even attempt to ask to be taken seriously.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Since Harrison's Indy is effectively, over we're either looking to something completely different for #5, or a reboot without him. It would be better to start again, and put him back into the '30s where he belongs.

The old formula won't work any more with the current actors.



I found the The Mask of Zorro to be abysmal tripe of the KOTCS variety. Indy 5 would end up being yet more self-referential parody that doesn't even attempt to ask to be taken seriously.

Could you tell me why you thought The Mask of Zorro was abysmal tripe? I thought it handled the idea of an aged hero very well. It presented the hero at his peak in the beginning, his fall, and his grooming of an heir. All the while, Hopkins never faded into the background; He still fought and was a presence in the film (unlike in KOTCS where Indy becomes a mere observer in the Jungle Chase). We're always showed in Mask that the original hero may be aged, but he still has it, and Hopkins' Zorro doesn't have to climb out of a nuked fridge to prove that. I mean he easily bests Banderas' in swordplay twice, for example. He's shown to be older, but not utterly aged, but it's handled with respect. In KOTCS the theme of "INDY'S STILL GOT IT" is sort of punched in our face repeatedly from the the Hanger scene to Doom town to the Waterfalls, etc. In Mask, Hopkins' Zorro basically teaches Bandera's character everything he knows: How to fight, how to be a gentleman, essentially how to become a hero; Banderas' character would not have succeeded without him. The original hero is not taught anything by his successor, whereas we see Indy's Grave Robber side be sort of emasculated by Mutt when Mutt guilts Indy into putting the dagger back.

You have to also remember too that Zorro was always a lighter character than Indy, and Mask did add a level of depth to the character that wasn't there before.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Could you tell me why you thought The Mask of Zorro was abysmal tripe? I thought it handled the idea of an aged hero very well. It presented the hero at his peak in the beginning, his fall, and his grooming of an heir. All the while, Hopkins never faded into the background; He still fought and was a presence in the film (unlike in KOTCS where Indy becomes a mere observer in the Jungle Chase). We're always showed in Mask that the original hero may be aged, but he still has it, and Hopkins' Zorro doesn't have to climb out of a nuked fridge to prove that. I mean he easily bests Banderas' in swordplay twice, for example. He's shown to be older, but not utterly aged, but it's handled with respect. In KOTCS the theme of "INDY'S STILL GOT IT" is sort of punched in our face repeatedly from the the Hanger scene to Doom town to the Waterfalls, etc. In Mask, Hopkins' Zorro basically teaches Bandera's character everything he knows: How to fight, how to be a gentleman, essentially how to become a hero; Banderas' character would not have succeeded without him. The original hero is not taught anything by his successor, whereas we see Indy's Grave Robber side be sort of emasculated by Mutt when Mutt guilts Indy into putting the dagger back.

You have to also remember too that Zorro was always a lighter character than Indy, and Mask did add a level of depth to the character that wasn't there before.

I found it mind-numbingly dull. Apart from that scene with Catherine Zeta-Jones.

It lacked the spark of other Banderas movies, such as El Mariachi, Desperado and Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

I place Mask of Zorro in the same category as Rocketeer. They feel like movies that don't matter. I know there was more fun to be had watching Zorro Rides Again and Zorro's Fighting Legion. I want to track down the two Douglas Fairbank Zorro films from 1920 and 1925. There's something more appealing with going back to a more original vision.

Indy was fine as a trilogy, but KOTCS robbed the bank of novelty. It was a laborious parody of an homage. So, if there's a will to take Harrison's Indy forward into another movie, there has to be a major shift of direction. And, as I've argued, since that won't be what's expected by those familiar with the character, it would be like making a cult movie.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
I found it mind-numbingly dull. Apart from that scene with Catherine Zeta-Jones.

It lacked the spark of other Banderas movies, such as El Mariachi, Desperado and Once Upon a Time in Mexico.
Banderas must be the Chuck Norris of the 90s if he was able to bring a spark into a movie he was nowhere to be seen.

Though I can understand this particular mental relapse, your vision was obviously all steamed up from that scene with Salma Hayek.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
Banderas must be the Chuck Norris of the 90s if he was able to bring a spark into a movie he was nowhere to be seen.

Though I can understand this particular mental relapse, your vision was obviously all steamed up from that scene with Salma Hayek.

:D

One too many Mariachi players!

I think it was Robert Rodriguez who brought the spark. While Salma just created the sparks.
 

kongisking

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
I can't speak to Del Toro, but I'm certainly inclined to agree with you regarding Nolan. I generally appreciate his Batman movies, but has there ever been a heist movie less fun than Inception?

It wasn't really meant to be a fun film in any sense. It was supposed to be a character drama with some thriller elements and a subtle sci-fi bent. As it was, it worked incredibly.

Yes, I'm one of THOSE people...:p

But I think Nolan would have done KOTCS like Unforgiven, and that could have been unforgettabl great. As for del Toro, I stand by my opinion that The Golden Army had a similar concept and basic plot structure to an Indy film (a villain wants to find a long-lost artifact/treasure/weapon/whatever, and a plucky band of heroes have to reach it before him). So he's got my vote too.

And I'm quite sad that Smiffy hated Mask of Zorro. I thought that was a delightful adventure. :(
 

Montana Smith

Active member
kongisking said:
It wasn't really meant to be a fun film in any sense. It was supposed to be a character drama with some thriller elements and a subtle sci-fi bent. As it was, it worked incredibly.

Yes, I'm one of THOSE people...:p

Me, too. ;) I don't care what anybody says against BB & TDK, because, for me, they work they way I'd want them to.

kongisking said:
And I'm quite sad that Smiffy hated Mask of Zorro. I thought that was a delightful adventure. :(

Movies are like Indy's career. Win some. Lose some.

But I'm still a fan of Jackson's King Kong. Another film that worked the way I wanted it to.

Originally I didn't want anything from KOTCS, because I wasn't interested in the idea of it. Having seen it, it wasn't what I would have wanted if I'd put any thought into it beforehand!

And back on the track of a potential box office haul for #5, it would be a film that will fill many with trepidation, based on their experiences of KOTCS.

For those that loved KOTCS they might fear the next will be too different.

For those that hated KOTCS they might fear it will be too similar.

For everyone else, it will be Indy, Lucas and curiosity that will encourage them to pay up. Curiosity alone will earn it more than replican't's £1.75 prediction.

I'll wait for a secondhand DVD and expect to pay less than £1.75. ;)
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Looking again at HSX, of future films with fixed release dates, here's what the big ones are expected to collect domestically in their first 4 weeks of wide release. Mostly Pixar and sequels. Personally I don't see what's so intimidating about the fearsome summer of '15 or any other stretch.

2015
Fifty Shades of Grey $100.26
Insurgent $113.35
Penguins of Madagascar $87.32
Fast & Furious 7 $246.67
----
Avengers: Age of Ultron $388.08
Tomorrowland $114.07
San Andreas $84.91
Jurassic World $158.01
Fantastic Four $128.22
Inside Out $138.81
Ted 2 $118.02
Terminator: Genesis $97.94
Minions $168.22
Peter Pan $115.67
Ant-Man $126.21
----
James Bond 24 $190.21
Hunger Games: Mockingjay 2 $321.04
The Good Dinosaur $116.27
Star Wars: Episode VII $299.75
Kung Fu Panda 3 $125.22
Mission: Impossible 5 $120.45

2016
Batman vs. Superman $257.03
Alice in Wonderland 2 $132.52
X-Men: Apocalypse $169.10
Amazing Spider-Man 3 $187.29
How to Train Your Dragon 3 $127.20
Finding Dory $190.87
Independence Day 2 $118.16
Ice Age 5 $100.49
Avatar 2 $297.10

2017
Wolverine 3 $88.43
Avatar 3 $240.60
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Box office predictions

I am curious to hear how you guys think the next movie will do in the box office.

To be honest, while I don't see it flopping, I see it underperforming. I will explain why:

1) There is no demand for this film to be made. KOTCS, for whatever reason, was something the fans and general public wanted for almost 20 years. There was hype and demand for that film. Lesser adventure series like The Mummy and Lara Croft showed there was demand for the genre, and that people missed the man in the the hat.

After KOTCS, I do not believe many in the mainstream care anymore. I think KOTCS burned a lot of bridges and hurt the franchise. Ford's age now makes a fifth film look sort of like a joke.

2) There has been no attempt to keep the franchise on people's minds since KOTCS. Between LC and KOTCS you had a line of great books, video games, the TV series, comics and other things, all of which helped people not to forget about Indy. The universe of Indy since KOTCS has been a barren desert. It's not on people's minds.

3) The novelty of seeing Ford in the hat again has worn off. There was a sort of novelty to seeing Indy play Ford a last time as an older man. How many curtain calls can you give one guy before it becomes embarrassing? LC was supposed to be the last and its ending in the eyes of some can't be topped anyway. There's no "oh wow, Harrison Ford's coming back as Indy" wonder factor. KOTCS helped dampen the nostalgia for that, too.

4) People just really aren't as big into period movies anymore. And ultimately that's what Indy is in part. The character is limited by concept to a window of time - the early to mid 20th century roughly. That hurts the character too.

I think ultimately what we will see with this next film is diminished returns similar to the Terminator franchise. You went from II which was the biggest movie of 1991 to 3 which did okayish...Four which did eh...and then the last one which did abysmally. I think given how badly KOTCS damaged the franchise, and how dead the franchise has been since, you'll not see a smashing hit at the box office. A modest hit. But not a billion dollar baby.

It doesn't have the mainstream, universal appeal of something like Star Wars, or a massive expanded universe supporting it and keeping it on people's minds. Star Wars was dead until the EU novels brought it back to life in the early '90s.

It doesn't have a strong, built in fanbase the way Marvel movies do. There are millions of people who will go to see a Marvel or even a DC movie right out of the gate simply because it's a Marvel movie. Indy doesn't have that supporting it.

It doesn't have a very universal concept. Take the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise. There's a universal, transcendant concept that have helped keep that series from death: Dinosaurs. People love dinosaurs. People love seeing them on screen. Indy doesn't have anything akin to that.

It doesn't have the multigenerational appeal of James Bond. James Bond is something our grandfathers, fathers, older brothers, and ourselves all enjoyed. The longest gap between films was 6 years. What helped keep that series fresh was switching out actors every few years, because each new actor brought a fresh approach and feel to the character. Indy has relied on Ford for almost 40 years on the big screen. That would be the same thing if Connery had played James Bond until 2000.

It doesn't have a truly die hard fanbase that will see it no matter what the same way Star Trek did and does. There's this forum, yes, but I don't think the Indiana Jones fanbase is as fervent or as passionate as the Star Trek fanbase is or was.

So I can't, with all of these factors at play, see this film doing that great at the BO.

What about the rest of you?
 
Last edited:

Raiders90

Well-known member
IndyForever said:
$1.2Bn perhaps. Ford + Spielberg's last Indy= mega box office! The way Ford is being so reckless flying though in the last few weeks I would be more worried about if he even makes it to filming at this stage :dead:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4225082/Harrison-Ford-74-nearly-crashes-plane-AGAIN.html

See I don't see it making a billion due to the factors I outlined above.
Look at Batman v. Superman. On paper, that should've been a MEGA success. This was every geek and comic lover's dream. This was something people wanted to see for decades. And it was uneven, and it did well beneath expectations. And this is a film with a fanbase that is already in the millions to begin with.

I think the only reason KOTCS did so well is because of the fact that it was people's first exposure to Indy in 20 years. People took their kids (or in my case younger relatives) to see it. A steady stream of EU stuff kept the franchise going and hooked in younger fans.

Indy now is associated with a film that's considered on par with The Phantom Menace in many quarters, and who is remembered by modern audiences not so much for the classic films but for nuked fridges and Shia LeBeouf acting like a fool.

There's no novelty to seeing Harrison as Indy again like there was in 2008. He was only 65 there; reasonably young enough to be taken seriously doing physical stuff.

I just feel this movie will attempt to please everyone and end up pleasing few or no one.
 

Walecs

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
See I don't see it making a billion due to the factors I outlined above.
Look at Batman v. Superman. On paper, that should've been a MEGA success. This was every geek and comic lover's dream. This was something people wanted to see for decades. And it was uneven, and it did well beneath expectations. And this is a film with a fanbase that is already in the millions to begin with.

I think the only reason KOTCS did so well is because of the fact that it was people's first exposure to Indy in 20 years. People took their kids (or in my case younger relatives) to see it. A steady stream of EU stuff kept the franchise going and hooked in younger fans.

Indy now is associated with a film that's considered on par with The Phantom Menace in many quarters, and who is remembered by modern audiences not so much for the classic films but for nuked fridges and Shia LeBeouf acting like a fool.

There's no novelty to seeing Harrison as Indy again like there was in 2008. He was only 65 there; reasonably young enough to be taken seriously doing physical stuff.

I just feel this movie will attempt to please everyone and end up pleasing few or no one.

The reason Batman v Superman was not a HUGE success is because the movie sucked. If its producers really thought such a dull flick would make tons of money, they're morons.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Walecs said:
The reason Batman v Superman was not a HUGE success is because the movie sucked. If its producers really thought such a dull flick would make tons of money, they're morons.


Batman V Superman also sucked. Like SUCKED. With a solid 27% approval rating on rotten tomatoes. To put that in comparison, many consider Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to be a "bad movie" and it had a 78% approval rating.

Also, BvS didn't have Harrison Ford which is what carried TFA over the 2 billion dollar mark. Star Wars will always make money, but without Harrison Ford they won't make near the numbers TFA made.

Indy 5 will hit a billion.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Updated, from HSX. Not including films like Star Wars 9 without pinned dates. Numbers change, but Indy might not make the top three this time.

2019
Avengers 4 May 03, 2019 $390.15
Toy Story 4 Jun 21, 2019 $233.72
Secret Life of Pets 2 Jul 03, 2019 $226.14
Fast & Furious 9 Apr 19, 2019 $179.58
LEGO Movie 2 Feb 08, 2019 $147.32
Godzilla: King of Monsters Mar 22, 2019 $123.08
Captain Marvel Mar 08, 2019 $120.78
How to Train Your Dragon 3 Mar 01, 2019 $89.27
Indiana Jones 5 Jul 19, 2019 $89.12
Minecraft May 24, 2019 $54.38
SpongeBob Movie 3 Feb 08, 2019 $39.25
Wicked Dec 20, 2019 $36.43
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
I don't know how they arrived at this number, but Variety says Ford will earn $10 to $12 million for Indy 5. Whatever the number is it's sure to increase with back end points like it did last time, when Ford, Spielberg and Lucas made about $65 million each.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I agree with the belief that Crystal Skull's box office triumph was all but ordained and had little to do with quality. The movie alleviated a 19 year Indy drought, and that's what made it successful. I always felt a fifth movie would fare worse at the box office (though certainly not enough to not be a success) due to the fourth movie's disappointment damaging the brand.

Though, that's an easier prediction to make in a scenario where Spielberg and co. had their act together and turned around a new installment more quickly. As things stand, the fifth movie will release more than ten years after Crystal Skull, which is long enough to rebuild the audience's appetite and introduce a new generation to the series. So it's possible Crystal Skull will hurt the movie and it's possible it won't.

But I also don't really care. This will be the last Indiana Jones outing with Harrison Ford no matter how much money it makes, and I sure have no profit participation. If they had made this earlier and there was still a chance of an Indy 6, maybe the box office take would be a more meaningful subject, but as far as I'm concerned, the end game is the movie itself. If it flops - and it won't - it's no skin off my nose.
 

IndyForever

Active member
$1bn is a lock I see it going way higher we all know its the last Ford Indy movie. Spielberg will really go all out this time (why he is taking so long on preproduction & story).

Families will come out in droves to see Ford one last time. Grand parents, with their children & grand children etc etc.

Indy 5 will be a family event movie so box office will be staggering most likely Jurassic World levels.
 
Top