Movies: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny June 2023

[Jussi]

I think Lucasfilm/Disney made a mistake in dropping the review embargo so early. The critic rating has gone up to 68% and the Audience Score is at 88% after 2500+ Verified Ratings.

 

[Osprey]

They did, but their mistakes go far beyond that. People aren't staying home simply because the critic score was lower a few weeks ago. Even a poor critic score on the eve of release doesn't mean much, as blockbusters with rotten critic scores (like The Rise of Skywalker) have made 3-4x in their opening weekends what Dial of Destiny has. People are staying home because they don't like what they saw in the trailers, what they heard in leaks, what they're hearing from non-critics (i.e. regular people like them) who have seen it and how Kennedy, Iger and Waller-Bridge have been attacking them for it. All of these things have only confirmed their fears, so whether they were confirmed a month ago or at release doesn't really matter. It might've made a little bit more in its opening weekend if the embargo hadn't been lifted so early, but it wouldn't have saved the movie, like how making $24M more in its opening weekend didn't save Solo.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Reshoots doomed this movie to failure. It is absurd that this has a $300 million production budget. They really need to trim the fat over at Disney because they can't budget every movie so that they need to hit $1 billion to make money.

 

[Osprey]

Reshoots doomed this movie to failure. It is absurd that this has a $300 million production budget. They really need to trim the fat over at Disney because they can't budget every movie so that they need to hit $1 billion to make money.

That $300M figure is even before the reshoots. We don't know how much those cost on top.

I saw an interesting fact a few days ago: Raiders was made for only $70M in today's dollars. Even Crusade, with its much larger budget, was made for only $120M in today's dollars. It really makes you wonder where they wasted $300M+ on this movie. It wasn't on Harrison Ford, who reportedly accounts for only 3% of the budget, whereas he accounted for 30% of Raiders' and 10% of Crusade's. It seemingly wasn't because of COVID because Crystal Skull cost almost as much in today's dollars. A lot of it was probably on CGI, which is stupid because fans told them with Crystal Skull that they don't appreciate a lot of CGI in Indiana Jones. They could've made a much cheaper movie that the fans would've still appreciated and which would've easily turned a profit, but they're so out of touch, want to reach that billion dollar mark and think that a movie needs to cost $250M+ to do it. Meanwhile, others are making movies like The Super Mario Bros. Movie for only $100M and reaching $1.3B and Top Gun: Maverick for $170M and reaching $1.5B.

 

[Jussi]

That $300M figure is even before the reshoots. We don't know how much those cost on top.

I saw an interesting fact a few days ago: Raiders was made for only $70M in today's dollars. Even Crusade, with its much larger budget, was made for only $120M in today's dollars. It really makes you wonder where they wasted $300M+ on this movie. It wasn't on Harrison Ford, who reportedly accounts for only 3% of the budget, whereas he accounted for 30% of Raiders' and 10% of Crusade's. It seemingly wasn't because of COVID because Crystal Skull cost almost as much in today's dollars. A lot of it was probably on CGI, which is stupid because fans told them with Crystal Skull that they don't appreciate a lot of CGI in Indiana Jones. They could've made a much cheaper movie that the fans would've still appreciated and which would've easily turned a profit, but they're so out of touch, want to reach that billion dollar mark and think that a movie needs to cost $250M+ to do it. Meanwhile, others are making movies like The Super Mario Bros. Movie for only $100M and reaching $1.3B and Top Gun: Maverick for $170M and reaching $1.5B.

Most of the cost comes from shooting on location all over the world. That is THE reason that drives the cost of shooting a movie, especially in multiple countries. I saw a Deadline clip or 329 million cost. They had two breaks due to Covid, one due to Ford's injury, a whole bunch of producers getting paid.

 

[Jussi]

They did, but their mistakes go far beyond that. People aren't staying home simply because the critic score was lower a few weeks ago. Even a poor critic score on the eve of release doesn't mean much, as blockbusters with rotten critic scores (like The Rise of Skywalker) have made 3-4x in their opening weekends what Dial of Destiny has. People are staying home because they don't like what they saw in the trailers, what they heard in leaks, what they're hearing from non-critics (i.e. regular people like them) who have seen it and how Kennedy, Iger and Waller-Bridge have been attacking them for it. All of these things have only confirmed their fears, so whether they were confirmed a month ago or at release doesn't really matter. It might've made a little bit more in its opening weekend if the embargo hadn't been lifted so early, but it wouldn't have saved the movie, like how making $24M more in its opening weekend didn't save Solo.

Average movie goer has no idea about leaks, as they don't pay attention to websites that cover those and major movie/entertainment sites don't. Audience Score is 88%, several Youtubers who saw it Stateside liked it. Harloff, Campea, Stuckmann etc. So I think you're mostly projecting your own thoughts/agenda in there. It's also very clear Kathleen Kennedy lives rent free in your head.

 

[Jussi]

I saw it today and quite enjoyed it. In fact, I might rate it above Temple Of Doom, behind Raiders and the Last Crusade.

Expanding on my review as I have more time to write one.

I was entertained. 7½ or 8-/10. I would rank this slightly above Temple Of Doom, since I was never a big fan of that one. Miles better than the 4th one and Harrison probably gave his best acting performance in the franchise. I felt Helena warmed up to Indiana the longer the movie went on and her bond with her grew from just a distant godfather to a father-like figure, hence explaining the ending. PWB was good in the role but the character spent too much of the movie being ans asshole. Mads Mikkelsen was actually a good villain. I think the train sequence in the beginning took a little too long, I'd shave of about 5 minutes from that in the first place. The chase scene also took way too long. You could've shaved off 10-15 minutes from just those alone.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

I left the theater yesterday thinking I actually really enjoyed this movie, with only one or two moments where it was hard to suspend your disbelief beyond the typical end game of Indy movies.

Also thought it could have been half an hour shorter.

However as an overall experience I really enjoyed it. Way better than Crystal Skull. I need to rewatch the original trilogy to give it a proper ranking among them but it belongs with them.

 

[Jussi]

At the end of the movie, if you're thinking "if this is Indy's last adventure, it was satisfying", then they succedded in something, even if the movie's far from perfect. That final scene or moments really nailed it.

 

[PeteWorrell]

That $300M figure is even before the reshoots. We don't know how much those cost on top.

I saw an interesting fact a few days ago: Raiders was made for only $70M in today's dollars. Even Crusade, with its much larger budget, was made for only $120M in today's dollars. It really makes you wonder where they wasted $300M+ on this movie. It wasn't on Harrison Ford, who reportedly accounts for only 3% of the budget, whereas he accounted for 30% of Raiders' and 10% of Crusade's. It seemingly wasn't because of COVID because Crystal Skull cost almost as much in today's dollars. A lot of it was probably on CGI, which is stupid because fans told them with Crystal Skull that they don't appreciate a lot of CGI in Indiana Jones. They could've made a much cheaper movie that the fans would've still appreciated and which would've easily turned a profit, but they're so out of touch, want to reach that billion dollar mark and think that a movie needs to cost $250M+ to do it. Meanwhile, others are making movies like The Super Mario Bros. Movie for only $100M and reaching $1.3B and Top Gun: Maverick for $170M and reaching $1.5B.

The opening scene alone must have cost an absurd amount of money. It was very long and the majority was pure CGI.

 

[johnjm22]

Indie Wire reported the total budget after marketing could be around 450M. They're projecting its total worldwide box office will end up in the 300M-350M range (hard to believe it could be that low).

Even KOTCS, which wasn't loved, brought in 1.1B (inflation adjusted) at the box office. So Lucasfilm probably thought this was a sure bet.

I think general audiences just aren't as interested in these huge "blockbuster" movies anymore. There are exceptions of course. Top Gun was a huge hit. Difference being with a Tom Cruise movie it feels like great care is being put into it with lots of real stunts and practical FX with a heartfelt story. Meanwhile Indiana Jones feels like a cash grab.

I'm curious to see how the new Mission Impossible movie does.

 

[Osprey]

Average movie goer has no idea about leaks, as they don't pay attention to websites that cover those and major movie/entertainment sites don't. Audience Score is 88%, several Youtubers who saw it Stateside liked it. Harloff, Campea, Stuckmann etc. So I think you're mostly projecting your own thoughts/agenda in there. It's also very clear Kathleen Kennedy lives rent free in your head.

It just had a disastrous weekend. It was attended by only a quarter to a third of the people who came out to see each of the SW sequel trilogy movies and less than half of the people who came out to see the last Indiana Jones movie. That means that a majority of the audience stayed home. I believe that I have a good idea why because I've watched countless YouTube videos that are highly critical of the movie and read countless comments from fans who are unhappy and choosing not to see the film. I'm not "projecting." If you don't want to trust me, you can go on believing that the RT scores prove that it's just what the fans wanted, but the box office numbers suggest otherwise.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Indie Wire reported the total budget after marketing could be around 450M. They're projecting its total worldwide box office will end up in the 300M-350M range.

Even KOTCS, which wasn't loved, brought in 1.1B (inflation adjusted) at the box office. So Lucasfilm probably thought this was a sure bet.

I think general audiences just aren't as interested in these huge "blockbuster" movies anymore. There are exceptions of course. Top Gun was a huge hit. Difference being with a Tom Cruise movie it feels like great care is being put into it with lots of real stunts and practical FX with a heartfelt story. Meanwhile Indiana Jones feels like a cash grab.

I'm curious to see how the new Mission Impossible movie does.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had some goodwill at the time. Spielberg was at the helm and Harrison Ford was at an age where he was still somewhat believable in the role.

Not the case with this one with the last movie leaving a very sour taste in the mouths of people and it had bad receptions at test screenings and at Cannes.

 

[johnjm22]

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had some goodwill at the time. Spielberg was at the helm and Harrison Ford was at an age where he was still somewhat believable in the role.

Not the case with this one with the last movie leaving a very sour taste in the mouths of people and it had bad receptions at test screenings and at Cannes.

Yeah Crystal Skull got the benefit of the doubt. This new movie, not so much.

Not only was the prior film bad, but we've all seen dozens of half-hearted attempts at milking every last dollar out of old franchises. I think it's made a lot of potential movie goers cynical about any new iteration.

It didn't help that something felt off about the trailers. I think franchises that established themselves in the pre-CGI era just don't feel right when made with modern production techniques. The heavy digital effects and "cinematic" lighting don't work for Indiana Jones IMO.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Yeah Crystal Skull got the benefit of the doubt. This new movie, not so much.

Not only was the prior film bad, but we've all seen dozens of half-hearted attempts at milking every last dollar out of old franchises. I think it's made a lot of potential movie goers cynical about any new iteration.

It didn't help that something felt off about the trailers. I think franchises that established themselves in the pre-CGI era just don't feel right when made with modern production techniques. The heavy digital effects and "cinematic" lighting don't work for Indiana Jones IMO.

Which is why Top Gun was a hit. Who were the target audience for that movie? Older people that saw the first movie in the 80s with real stunts and practical effects. So what did they do for the sequel? A movie with real stunts and practical effects. Those things also resonate with younger audiences. The Mission Impossible films still work for those same exact reasons.

We can say what we want about Tom Cruise as a person but he clearly cares about his craft and he understands his audience. The total opposite of Disney/Lucasfilm who are tone deaf and think that they can just throw money at everything. When it does not work and the audience ignores/criticize their movies; they just lash out. Has not paid out so far.

 

[Osprey]

Can you imagine if Disney had made Top Gun: Maverick? The planes, especially the dogfights, would've been CGIed, the cockpit shots would've been green screened or shot on The Volume, Maverick would've been a sad and broken man and it would've cost $100M more.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Here in the UK and a few other places, the critics are being savage.

It is like this movie went to The Flash movie and said Hold my beer, when it came to some critics being savage

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Can you imagine if Disney had made Top Gun: Maverick? The planes, especially the dogfights, would've been CGIed, the cockpit shots would've been green screened or shot on The Volume, Maverick would've been a sad and broken man and it would've cost $100M more.

The scenes at the bar would have been CGI

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

The scenes at the bar would have been CGI

Tom Cruise and Jennifer Connelly would have been de-aged...

 

[x Tame Impala]

I’d rather pay $20 to watch Raider’s or Crusade in theaters than see this

 

[Osprey]

I’d rather pay $20 to watch Raider’s or Crusade in theaters than see this

That's it. Disney could make up their losses on this by re-releasing the originals in theaters. You're a genius.

Incidentally, back in the 90s, I paid about $20 to watch a marathon of all three movies in the best theater in town. That was a cool experience.

 

[Leonardo87]

Saw it on Sunday, was much better than the last one, but I still think the original three you cannot top. Last Crusade still remains to be my favorite of the franchise.

 

[beowulf]

Saw it on Sunday, was much better than the last one, but I still think the original three you cannot top. Last Crusade still remains to be my favorite of the franchise.

Pretty much this. It was not terrible and some of the nostalgia was there but overall it was not as good as the first 3 for sure.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Top critics - the one's who matter the most - have this at a 57% approval rating which is considered rotten. Factor in the bad reviews from Cannes, the previous movie being mostly panned meaning less public goodwill going into this movie AND a release date 15 years after that movie, a boomer population (who were a significant portion of Indy's fanbase) aging out of attending theatres, and the Disney (possibly Kathleen Kennedy) signature of taking an iconic character and turning them into a broken down, out-of-touch, broken old man, alienating a significant portion of the fanbase and you end up with a movie that was doomed to be a box office bomb months before its release.

I would also add in Phoebe Waller-Bridge as part of the problem. Very few people know who she is. She has never been a box office draw and her biggest hit is Fleabag, which while critically acclaimed, was not seen by very many people. She also isn't a very versatile actress and certainly isn't capable of pulling off the female action star look. Contrast that to Shia Labeouf in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - a young actor who was a rising star and could draw in younger people back in 2008. Leading up to Indiana Jones, he had a big hit with Disturbia and the first Transformers movie. That casting made sense, PWB certainly does not.

 

[StreetHawk]

Most of the cost comes from shooting on location all over the world. That is THE reason that drives the cost of shooting a movie, especially in multiple countries. I saw a Deadline clip or 329 million cost. They had two breaks due to Covid, one due to Ford's injury, a whole bunch of producers getting paid.

Studios definitely need to reign in the costs more moving forward. Fewer and fewer of these several hundred million dollar box offices moving forward.