or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Spielberg To Make Another "Indy" Movie..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Spielberg To Make Another "Indy" Movie.. - Page 3

post #61 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You can copy/paste this sentence after pretty much anything hitchfan writes.

Except that the preponderance of professional reviews for it and the numbers IJ/Kingdom has racked up even after the reviews and virtually all of the word-of-mouth for it was known supports my contention and fairly soundly refutes any contention that Spielberg should have learned the lesson not to bother directing another one.

It has probably by now racked up nearly $1 Billion (that's Billion, with a "B" this time. lol!) in combined worldwide box office/DVD/Blu-Ray/cable/satellite sales and is no doubt Steven Spielberg's biggest directorial box office/sales success of the past 14 or 15 years.

Meanwhile, it would be much easier for Spielberg to fix what was lacking in IJ/Kingdom so as to get even better reviews and word-of-mouth for the next one than it would be for Christopher Nolan to repeat or best the unintentional confluence of events that turned TDK into the curiosity/box office phenomenon it became for his next one.

However, neither of those prospective movie releases can hope to outperform the critical praise and box office success of a "decent little time-waster that is silly and derivative with action scenes that are frantically staged and over-the-top ridiculous" like...The Losers.

Right, Josh?
post #62 of 96
I don't really see what the discussion is all about. Even Spielberg said it was abysmal:

http://www.slashfilm.com/steven-spie...l-skull-story/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Spielberg View Post

I'm very happy with the movie. I always have been I sympathize with people who didn't like the MacGuffin because I never liked the MacGuffin. George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin. I didn't want these things to be either aliens or inter-dimensional beings. But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in - even if I don't believe in it - I'm going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it. I'll add my own touches, I'll bring my own cast in, I'll shoot the way I want to shoot it, but I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that.

Translation: It's not my fault. I didn't write the story, I just shot the film.

Sounds about right to me.
post #63 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Meanwhile, it would be much easier for Spielberg to fix what was lacking in IJ/Kingdom so as to get even better reviews and word-of-mouth for the next one than it would be for Christopher Nolan to repeat or best the unintentional confluence of events that turned TDK into the curiosity/box office phenomenon it became for his next one.

I know that you're incapable of comprehending any viewpoint other than your own, but the majority of viewers who watch Christopher Nolan's movies like them and consider him a good filmmaker. People liked Memento, they liked Batman Begins, and they really liked The Dark Knight. This isn't an accident; it's a progression. If the success of The Dark Knight were an "unintentional confluence of events," then you'll have to explain how his next film, Inception, also managed to be massive box office blockbuster with tremendous critical acclaim, including a Best Picture Oscar nomination. It must be a crazy coincidence that he hit upon the same "unintentional confluence of events" twice in a row.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, Nolan actually knows what he's doing, and people like what he's doing.

Quote:


However, neither of those prospective movie releases can hope to outperform the critical praise and box office success of a "decent little time-waster that is silly and derivative with action scenes that are frantically staged and over-the-top ridiculous" like...The Losers.

You keep acting like that sentence of mine you're quoting is some sort of rave review, when anyone who speaks the English language can see that it clearly is not. I don't understand what your point is in bringing it up or how you believe that it supports your argument, but then I don't understand what your point is in doing anything that you do.
post #64 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

the majority of viewers who watch Christopher Nolan's movies like them and consider him a good filmmaker. People liked Memento, they liked Batman Begins, and they really liked The Dark Knight. This isn't an accident; it's a progression.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, Nolan actually knows what he's doing, and people like what he's doing.

So...B.O. is NOW a measurement of the quality of filmmaking?
You're making my head hurt...again.
post #65 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

So...B.O. is NOW a measurement of the quality of filmmaking?
You're making my head hurt...again.

So what yardstick would you like to use?
post #66 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

You're making my head hurt...again.

That's not very difficult, is it?
post #67 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So what yardstick would you like to use?

OK, you have a point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

That's not very difficult, is it?

Perhaps not.
post #68 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHolleman View Post

I don't really see what the discussion is all about. Even Spielberg said it was abysmal:

http://www.slashfilm.com/steven-spie...l-skull-story/



Translation: It's not my fault. I didn't write the story, I just shot the film.

Sounds about right to me.

"Abysmal" is an extremely wild translation of what Spielberg said there.

Have you been taking interpretation lessons from Josh Z? Better not. He has always been really crappy at it.
post #69 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I know that you're incapable of comprehending any viewpoint other than your own, but the majority of viewers who watch Christopher Nolan's movies like them and consider him a good filmmaker. People liked Memento, they liked Batman Begins, and they really liked The Dark Knight. This isn't an accident; it's a progression. If the success of The Dark Knight were an "unintentional confluence of events," then you'll have to explain how his next film, Inception, also managed to be massive box office blockbuster with tremendous critical acclaim, including a Best Picture Oscar nomination. It must be a crazy coincidence that he hit upon the same "unintentional confluence of events" twice in a row.

Well, Josh, I'll expand on what I meant so even a dim bulb like you might get it since, as usual, you did an "abysmal" job of interpreting what I posted. As you do with everyone and everything else you attempt to interpret.

Heath Ledger was essentially an art house prestige actor, not a comic book action movie actor, who had just previously been nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor in one of those art house prestige movies. He already would likely have attracted at least some percentage of cross demographic audience to the Batman franchise...as Jack Nicholson did with Tim Burton's mega-hit Batman movie.

Now, imagine if Jack Nicholson had died an untimely death just a month or so before Tim Burton's Batman was released. That would have brought even more mega-box office buzz and interest to the release, as I feel the same event did with Nolan's TDK.

Personally, I thought Heath Ledger's performance never rose above what any rookie young actor would have brought to the role. He did exactly what I expected him or anyone else to do with it and not one sliver of surprise more. After the first ten minutes, I had seen everything he was going to do with that role for the rest of the movie. He was just ok in it, imo.

But what I just wrote could not have been written by any professional movie reviewer for a major metropolitan newspaper or publication under the unfortunate circumstances that existed at the time. Instead, his performance had to be touted as the penultimate performance of his or anyone's career, somewhere between Brando's Terry Malloy and Olivier's Richard III, but much, much better than either of those. Consequently, he got another Oscar nomination and then a win. Which means there was even more curiosity about what an art house prestige actor's Oscar winning performance in a comic book action movie might look like, wouldn't you say?

Moreover, this last big movie appearance of his could not be characterized as an ok comic book action movie with a narrative more like a train wreck over a mine field but as something...fantastic...wonderful...greater than the greatest movies of the past 50 years, nay, the past 100 years! Which "10 Greatest of All Time" lists shall we place it on first?

Sure, Inception was a hit. But nothing like TDK. And I'd be very surprised if the same cross over demographics show up to see the next one in nearly the same numbers if the reviews aren't as fantastic...wonderful...greater than the greatest...the way the last one was for reasons that, imo, had nothing to do with an honest assessment of the movie and that cross over demographic probably realized it about halfway through that mess.

What I am saying about a possible next Indy movie vs Nolan's next Batman movie is the gamble on the next Indy movie being better reviewed with the critics and a bigger box office relative to the previous one is a better bet than the same being true of Nolan's next Batman movie.
post #70 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Well, Josh, I'll expand on what I meant so even a dim bulb like you might get it since, as usual, you did an "abysmal" job of interpreting what I posted. As you do with everyone and everything else you attempt to interpret.

Heath Ledger was essentially an art house prestige actor, not a comic book action movie actor, who had just previously been nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor in one of those art house prestige movies. He already would likely have attracted at least some percentage of cross demographic audience to the Batman franchise...as Jack Nicholson did with Tim Burton's mega-hit Batman movie.

Now, imagine if Jack Nicholson had died an untimely death just a month or so before Tim Burton's Batman was released. That would have brought even more mega-box office buzz and interest to the release, as I feel the same event did with Nolan's TDK.

Personally, I thought Heath Ledger's performance never rose above what any rookie young actor would have brought to the role. He did exactly what I expected him or anyone else to do with it and not one sliver of surprise more. After the first ten minutes, I had seen everything he was going to do with that role for the rest of the movie. He was just ok in it, imo.

But what I just wrote could not have been written by any professional movie reviewer for a major metropolitan newspaper or publication under the unfortunate circumstances that existed at the time. Instead, his performance had to be touted as the penultimate performance of his or anyone's career, somewhere between Brando's Terry Malloy and Olivier's Richard III, but much, much better than either of those. Consequently, he got another Oscar nomination and then a win. Which means there was even more curiosity about what an art house prestige actor's Oscar winning performance in a comic book action movie might look like, wouldn't you say?

Moreover, this last big movie appearance of his could not be characterized as an ok comic book action movie with a narrative more like a train wreck over a mine field but as something...fantastic...wonderful...greater than the greatest movies of the past 50 years, nay, the past 100 years! Which "10 Greatest of All Time" lists shall we place it on first?

Sure, Inception was a hit. But nothing like TDK. And I'd be very surprised if the same cross over demographics show up to see the next one in nearly the same numbers if the reviews aren't as fantastic...wonderful...greater than the greatest...the way the last one was for reasons that, imo, had nothing to do with an honest assessment of the movie and that cross over demographic probably realized it about halfway through that mess.

What I am saying about a possible next Indy movie vs Nolan's next Batman movie is the gamble on the next Indy movie being better reviewed with the critics and a bigger box office relative to the previous one is a better bet than the same being true of Nolan's next Batman movie.

You are absolutely right. It really won't take much to beat $317 million in BO revenue. That's only #29 on the top 100 all time BO movies (not adjusted for inflation).

But to beat $533 million - #3 on the list - well that really would be a hell of an accomplishment. If it only earned $470 million - it would be #4 - ahead of Star Wars.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm
post #71 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

For fun, here is RedLetterMedia's review of Indy 4: http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/i...crystal-skull/

Same genius behind the epic Star Wars prequel reviews.

Not up to Plinkett's usual standards, but fun.
Some of the 'Half In The Bags' have been pretty good.
post #72 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You are absolutely right. It really won't take much to beat $317 million in BO revenue. That's only #29 on the top 100 all time BO movies (not adjusted for inflation).

But to beat $533 million - #3 on the list - well that really would be a hell of an accomplishment. If it only earned $470 million - it would be #4 - ahead of Star Wars.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

Why don't you want to count the foreign money, too? I'm sure the producers of all those movies do.

After all, if you only count the domestic box office, IJ/Kingdom trounces Nolan's followup to TDK two years later, Inception, where he bought an awful lot of CGI eye candy on that TDK worldwide money.
post #73 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Why don't you want to count the foreign money, too? I'm sure the producers of all those movies do.

After all, if you only count the domestic box office, IJ/Kingdom trounces Nolan's followup to TDK two years later, Inception, where he bought an awful lot of CGI eye candy on that TDK worldwide money.

You want to count worldwide? Sure . . .

The Dark Knight = #10

Indy/Skulls = #35

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

That didn't help you at all.
post #74 of 96
This debate is going into the surreal....

The final Nolan BAT will not exceed the proceeding 2...that's it, that's all.
If I am wrong, feel free to bitch slap me at a later date.
post #75 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

This debate is going into the surreal....

The final Nolan BAT will not exceed the proceeding 2...that's it, that's all.
If I am wrong, feel free to bitch slap me at a later date.

The extra tickets gonna hurt my wallet, but it may be worth it.
post #76 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Well, Josh, I'll expand on what I meant so even a dim bulb like you might get it since, as usual, you did an "abysmal" job of interpreting what I posted. As you do with everyone and everything else you attempt to interpret.

I don't know what history you two have on the forums, so I don't want to step on any toes...

Quote:


Heath Ledger was essentially an art house prestige actor, not a comic book action movie actor, who had just previously been nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor in one of those art house prestige movies. He already would likely have attracted at least some percentage of cross demographic audience to the Batman franchise...as Jack Nicholson did with Tim Burton's mega-hit Batman movie.

I can honestly say that this is the first time I've ever heard anyone call Heath Ledger an art-house prestige actor. I first saw Heath Ledger in the fantasy tv series Roar. I next saw him in the teenage chick flick 10 Things I Hate About You. Then the Mel Gibson blockbuster The Patriot. Then another pseudo-historical sorta chick flick A Knight's Tale. Then in Terry Gilliam's blech fantasy blockbuster The Brothers Grimm. This isn't really the resume of an art-house actor. In fact, his mainstream stuff well out numbers any artsy stuff he'd done.

Quote:


Now, imagine if Jack Nicholson had died an untimely death just a month or so before Tim Burton's Batman was released. That would have brought even more mega-box office buzz and interest to the release, as I feel the same event did with Nolan's TDK.

mmm... I don't think so. Burton's Batman was a phenomenal success without anyone dying. And even if you were right, that Nicholson dying before Batman would draw bigger numbers, Nicholson was by that time a wildly popular actor with a canon of works that way out number Ledger in shear brilliance.

Quote:


Personally, I thought Heath Ledger's performance never rose above what any rookie young actor would have brought to the role. He did exactly what I expected him or anyone else to do with it and not one sliver of surprise more. After the first ten minutes, I had seen everything he was going to do with that role for the rest of the movie. He was just ok in it, imo.

That's fine, but TDK wasn't the Joker show. I don't know why you feel that the whole film was about him. I didn't feel that way when I watched the film. I thought the film was about Batman, and Joker was his enemy this time around. The one actor, and the one character didn't make this movie for me, it was the confluence of all of the talent and direction that made it for me. I thought it was brilliant because it wasn't a regular superhero film. That said, even I got a bit tired of the never ending kudos for the film. I thought it was a fine film... maybe best of that year, but certainly not the best film ever.

Quote:


What I am saying about a possible next Indy movie vs Nolan's next Batman movie is the gamble on the next Indy movie being better reviewed with the critics and a bigger box office relative to the previous one is a better bet than the same being true of Nolan's next Batman movie.

Maybe. But we won't know till it happens. And who cares really how great the box office receipts are. I want a better Indy than we had last time around. Batman and Indiana Jones are two very different properties (though they may draw similar audiences). The last Batman film was awesome. The last Indiana Jones film was dreadful. I want the next Indiana Jones to be just as awesome as the original 3 (or at least 1 and 3 which were my favorites).
post #77 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

The extra tickets gonna hurt my wallet, but it may be worth it.

LOL, now that there is funny.
post #78 of 96
I'd be happy if ford were replaced with Sean Patrick Flanery of the young indiana jones series.
post #79 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by malovich View Post

I'd be happy if ford were replaced with Sean Patrick Flanery of the young indiana jones series.

Is Indy 5 an attempt at a reboot of the series? Or is it the last chapter?
post #80 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You want to count worldwide? Sure . . .

The Dark Knight = #10

Indy/Skulls = #35

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

That didn't help you at all.

I'm sorry, Lee, but how would #35 biggest box office success of all time, bigger than any previous Indy movie (according to your reference standards here) as well as the third biggest Spielberg box office hit of all time and bigger than Star Wars (again, according to your reference standard here), on a list filled with box office-busting sequels higher and lower on that list, many boosted by 3-D premium ticket prices that the Indy movie did not enjoy, not totally destroy your argument that Spielberg ought to have "learned a lesson" with that #35 not to make another one and instead fully support my opposing argument?

If you provide any more links to destroy your own argument and fully support mine, the next thing you know Josh Z is going to pipe in to adamantly agree with you again. Which would only add more substantiation that your position is indefensible and mine is unassailable.
post #81 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post

I can honestly say that this is the first time I've ever heard anyone call Heath Ledger an art-house prestige actor. I first saw Heath Ledger in the fantasy tv series Roar. I next saw him in the teenage chick flick 10 Things I Hate About You. Then the Mel Gibson blockbuster The Patriot. Then another pseudo-historical sorta chick flick A Knight's Tale. Then in Terry Gilliam's blech fantasy blockbuster The Brothers Grimm. This isn't really the resume of an art-house actor. In fact, his mainstream stuff well out numbers any artsy stuff he'd done.

Here is Heath Ledger's entire film appearance list in the 10 years leading up to his appearance in TDK:
Quote:
2007 I'm Not There.
Robbie

2006 Candy
Dan

2005 Casanova
Casanova

2005 Brokeback Mountain
Ennis Del Mar

2005 The Brothers Grimm
Jacob Grimm

2005 Lords of Dogtown
Skip

2003 The Order
Alex Bernier

2003 Ned Kelly
Ned Kelly

2002 The Four Feathers
Harry Feversham

2001 Monster's Ball
Sonny Grotowski

2001 A Knight's Tale
William Thatcher

2000 The Patriot
Gabriel Martin

1999 Two Hands
Jimmy

1999 10 Things I Hate About You
Patrick Verona

1997 Paws
Oberon

I don't know how big a blockbuster 2005's The Brothers Grimm was, but I don't remember it being so big that it set up his being cast as The Joker in the umpteenth Batman movie as the logical progression of the fairly obvious non-comic book action movie career trajectory Ledger had been on at least since The Patriot/The Knight's Tale 7-8 years earlier and highlighted three years prior to TDK by his decidedly non-comic book action movie Oscar-nominated Brokeback Mountain.

I don't see how anyone could have characterized the vast majority of Ledger's pre-TDK film career as anything but more art house than populist/blockbuster-driven.

Quote:
mmm... I don't think so. Burton's Batman was a phenomenal success without anyone dying. And even if you were right, that Nicholson dying before Batman would draw bigger numbers, Nicholson was by that time a wildly popular actor with a canon of works that way out number Ledger in shear brilliance.

I'm not saying Burton's Batman needed Nicholson or for him to die to make money, just that his name being attached to it lent a "prestige" to the project that added immense crossover demographic buzz and to the box office. Same with Brando in Superman. Also Hackman. They and Ledger all brought an Oscar connection to a genre that historically wasn't where you'd go to see the latest Oscar nominee/winner.

Add the death of a young and promising actor with that Oscar connection and you've got the makings of reviews for the movie and his performance becoming more of a glorified Heath Ledger eulogy than an honest assessment of the final product, imo.

In fact, by contrast to the eulogy/generosity of spirit enjoyed by TDK, the reception for the latest Indy movie was weighed down by over-the-top expectations/demands that it be even better than our romanticized memories of the previous Indys combined with a show-me suspicion that the old folks before and behind the camera shouldn't even bother doing this again 20 years later.


Quote:
I don't know why you feel that the whole film was about him.

I don't.

Quote:
And who cares really how great the box office receipts are. I want a better Indy than we had last time around. Batman and Indiana Jones are two very different properties (though they may draw similar audiences). The last Batman film was awesome.

I agree and I don't really care how great the box office receipts are in the long run. The point in my posts here was that the box office receipts for IJ/Kingdom (and even the preponderance of professional major newspaper and publication reviews) more than justify Spielberg making another one. And that the difference between what was the number one biggest box office hit of that same year and the number two biggest box office hit, the Indy movie, was largely, but not totally, effected by a confluence of events that, imo, undeservedly benefited that number one hit vs unrealistic expectations and demands for that number two hit.
post #82 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

I'm sorry, Lee, but how would #35 biggest box office success of all time, bigger than any previous Indy movie (according to your reference standards here) as well as the third biggest Spielberg box office hit of all time and bigger than Star Wars (again, according to your reference standard here), on a list filled with box office-busting sequels higher and lower on that list, many boosted by 3-D premium ticket prices that the Indy movie did not enjoy, not totally destroy your argument that Spielberg ought to have "learned a lesson" with that #35 not to make another one and instead fully support my opposing argument?

If you provide any more links to destroy your own argument and fully support mine, the next thing you know Josh Z is going to pipe in to adamantly agree with you again. Which would only add more substantiation that your position is indefensible and mine is unassailable.

You are forgetting that the links I am using are not adjusted for inflation. You can now see that the other 3 Indy movies finished ahead of #4 which has fallen to #123:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Also, the average ticket price in 2008 was $7.18. In 1981, it was $2.78. In 1989 it was $3.99. That should squelch your complaining about 3D ticket premiums affecting BO results. Wasn't hard to overcome your arguments afterall.
post #83 of 96
Indiana Jones And The Lost Train of Thought.

Filmed in 3-Dementia.
post #84 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOA View Post

Indiana Jones And The Lost Train of Thought.

Filmed in 3-Dementia.

OK...that's wrong...and very funny...
post #85 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Here is Heath Ledger's entire film appearance list in the 10 years leading up to his appearance in TDK:

And, as anyone can see, is filled with films that could hardly be rated art-house. If you're going to say that Ledger's involvement with TDK was to give the film some indie or artsy clout, then you're forgetting that it already had it in Christian Bale who's art-house list is just as impressive (more so maybe) than Ledger's. Heck, one could even argue that Nolan himself was/is fairly art house. And let's not forget the other big name draws in the film... Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, etc. To be honest, I think a good argument could actually be made that after Brokeback Mountain Ledger was sort of fading from the mainstream consciousness.

Quote:


I don't know how big a blockbuster 2005's The Brothers Grimm was, but I don't remember it being so big that it set up his being cast as The Joker in the umpteenth Batman movie as the logical progression of the fairly obvious non-comic book action movie career trajectory Ledger had been on at least since The Patriot/The Knight's Tale 7-8 years earlier and highlighted three years prior to TDK by his decidedly non-comic book action movie Oscar-nominated Brokeback Mountain.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on how indie and art-house an actor Ledger was by the time of Nolan's second more gritty, less fantasy-based Batman, or how much TDK can owe any of its phenomenal success on that sole indie/art-house actor. I just don't see it, but... its an interesting theory.

Quote:


I'm not saying Burton's Batman needed Nicholson or for him to die to make money, just that his name being attached to it lent a "prestige" to the project that added immense crossover demographic buzz and to the box office.

The whole film was filled with actors outside of their normal repertoire. Michael Keaton as a superhero? Really? The same guy who did Mr. Mom, Beetlejuice, and Clean and Sober? No one saw that coming. Sure Nicholson provided a heavy draw, but you're talking about one of the greatest actors alive with films like Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, Chinatown, The Shining, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, etc. The list of critically acclaimed and heavily praised films in Ledger's career? Brokeback Mountain. That's about it really. That doesn't strike me as enough to provide heavy crossover appeal, the likes that would propel TDK as one of the highest grossing films ever. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that I guess.

Quote:


Add the death of a young and promising actor with that Oscar connection and you've got the makings of reviews for the movie and his performance becoming more of a glorified Heath Ledger eulogy than an honest assessment of the final product, imo.

I don't agree. The film was fantastic despite Ledger's untimely death, and the critical praise was rightly deserved, in my opinion.

Quote:


In fact, by contrast to the eulogy/generosity of spirit enjoyed by TDK, the reception for the latest Indy movie was weighed down by over-the-top expectations/demands that it be even better than our romanticized memories of the previous Indys combined with a show-me suspicion that the old folks before and behind the camera shouldn't even bother doing this again 20 years later.

I disagree. I think that expectations for a wonderful adventure film by some of the worlds greatest talent isn't something that generally weighs a movie down. Quite the opposite actually. In fact, I think the B.O. results were directly related to those expectations. Had this film been churned out by any other talent, it would have probably been received as something more along the lines of the Mummy 2 or 3.

Quote:


I agree and I don't really care how great the box office receipts are in the long run. The point in my posts here was that the box office receipts for IJ/Kingdom (and even the preponderance of professional major newspaper and publication reviews) more than justify Spielberg making another one. And that the difference between what was the number one biggest box office hit of that same year and the number two biggest box office hit, the Indy movie, was largely, but not totally, effected by a confluence of events that, imo, undeservedly benefited that number one hit vs unrealistic expectations and demands for that number two hit.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
post #86 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

You are forgetting that the links I am using are not adjusted for inflation. You can now see that the other 3 Indy movies finished ahead of #4 which has fallen to #123:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Also, the average ticket price in 2008 was $7.18. In 1981, it was $2.78. In 1989 it was $3.99. That should squelch your complaining about 3D ticket premiums affecting BO results. Wasn't hard to overcome your arguments afterall.

Oh, I didn't forget that the link you provided wasn't adjusted for inflation. As you see in your quote of my post, I mentioned (twice) that it was a reference standard that you chose, not I.

Here is the list of movies that, according to your premise and on your latest link, the filmmakers should have "learned a lesson" and not bothered to make a sequel. As you can see, there are many sequels and originals that were followed by sequels that did quite well at the box office. Well enough, like IJ/Kingdom, to win a coveted place on the top 200 biggest (domestic) box office hits of all time adjusted for inflation.

But if they had followed your advice, the studios, distributors and theaters would have had to find hundreds of million$ - billion$ in (domestic) box office receipts from something else.

In fact, they wouldn't have gotten the $588 Million (domestic) or $1 Billion (worldwide) they made on The Dark Knight either since that was also a sequel to the Batman movies that appear below IJ/Kingdom on your latest linked list here.

Quote:


123 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Par. $350,666,100 $317,101,119 2008
124 Toy Story BV $348,314,500 $191,796,233 1995^
125 Dances with Wolves Orion $346,972,400 $184,208,848 1990
126 An Officer and a Gentleman Par. $346,635,400 $129,795,554 1982
127 2001: A Space Odyssey MGM $344,091,900 $56,954,992 1968^
128 Rain Man MGM $343,736,100 $172,825,435 1988
129 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Col. $343,460,600 $56,666,667 1967
130 Kramer Vs. Kramer Col. $341,580,700 $106,260,000 1979
131 Armageddon BV $341,264,600 $201,578,182 1998
132 Psycho Uni. $338,773,400 $32,000,000 1960
133 Rocky III UA $337,555,200 $125,049,125 1982^
134 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix WB $336,993,800 $292,004,738 2007
135 Rambo: First Blood Part II TriS $336,422,100 $150,415,432 1985
136 Batman Forever WB $335,909,700 $184,031,112 1995
137 Pretty Woman BV $334,880,800 $178,406,268 1990
138 Earthquake Uni. $334,684,200 $79,666,653 1974
139 Alice in Wonderland (2010) BV $333,770,700 $334,191,110 2010
140 The Incredibles BV $333,717,800 $261,441,092 2004
141 Cast Away Fox $332,639,900 $233,632,142 2000
142 Home Alone 2: Lost in New York Fox $332,285,800 $173,585,516 1992
143 Three Men and a Baby BV $331,128,000 $167,780,960 1987
144 My Big Fat Greek Wedding IFC $328,870,700 $241,438,208 2002
145 Mission: Impossible Par. $325,112,200 $180,981,856 1996
146 Saturday Night Fever Par. $322,401,600 $94,213,184 1977
147 On Golden Pond Uni. $322,239,600 $119,285,432 1981
148 Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me NL $322,039,000 $206,040,086 1999
149 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince WB $321,340,700 $301,959,197 2009
150 Bruce Almighty Uni. $319,745,300 $242,829,261 2003
151 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban WB $319,059,000 $249,541,069 2004
152 Funny Girl Col. $317,913,300 $52,223,306 1968^
153 Mission: Impossible II Par. $317,320,000 $215,409,889 2000
154 Rush Hour 2 NL $317,269,300 $226,164,286 2001
155 Apollo 13 Uni. $316,470,400 $173,837,933 1995^
156 Patton Fox $316,318,200 $61,749,765 1970
157 Fatal Attraction Par. $315,065,100 $156,645,693 1987
158 Liar Liar Uni. $313,812,700 $181,410,615 1997
159 Beauty and the Beast BV $312,458,800 $171,350,553 1991^
160 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves WB $312,119,200 $165,493,908 1991
161 Beverly Hills Cop II Par. $312,046,100 $153,665,036 1987
162 Iron Man 2 Par. $312,040,300 $312,433,331 2010
163 Up BV $311,833,800 $293,004,164 2009
164 Batman Returns WB $311,538,200 $162,831,698 1992
165 Signs BV $311,515,100 $227,966,634 2002
166 Superman II WB $308,990,800 $108,185,706 1981
167 The Twilight Saga: New Moon Sum. $308,946,000 $296,623,634 2009
168 What's Up, Doc? WB $308,258,800 $66,000,000 1972
169 9 to 5 Fox $304,879,800 $103,290,500 1980
170 The Firm Par. $303,692,300 $158,348,367 1993
171 Who Framed Roger Rabbit BV $302,246,200 $156,452,370 1988
172 The Twilight Saga: Eclipse Sum. $300,153,700 $300,531,751 2010
173 Porky's Fox $299,514,100 $111,289,673 1982^
174 Air Force One Sony $299,121,100 $172,956,409 1997
175 Stir Crazy Col. $299,004,500 $101,300,000 1980
176 A Star Is Born (1976) WB $298,216,000 $80,000,000 1976
177 There's Something About Mary Fox $297,580,300 $176,484,651 1998
178 Cars BV $295,880,700 $244,082,982 2006
179 The Hangover WB $295,097,200 $277,322,503 2009
180 Lethal Weapon 2 WB $294,508,000 $147,253,986 1989
181 Night at the Museum Fox $294,110,300 $250,863,268 2006
182 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 WB $293,694,100 $295,983,305 2010
183 Inception WB $292,208,200 $292,576,195 2010
184 I Am Legend WB $291,588,500 $256,393,010 2007
185 Austin Powers in Goldmember NL $291,508,600 $213,307,889 2002
186 War of the Worlds Par. $290,200,600 $234,280,354 2005
187 Every Which Way But Loose WB $289,085,500 $85,196,485 1978
188 The Love Bug Dis. $286,645,200 $51,264,000 1969
189 You Only Live Twice UA $285,077,700 $43,084,787 1967
190 X-Men: The Last Stand Fox $284,097,400 $234,362,462 2006
191 The Mummy Returns Uni. $283,398,800 $202,019,785 2001
192 X2: X-Men United Fox $283,034,900 $214,949,694 2003
193 Platoon Orion $281,361,800 $138,530,565 1986
194 Rocky IV UA $280,975,200 $127,873,716 1985
195 Pearl Harbor BV $278,520,800 $198,542,554 2001
196 True Lies Fox $277,866,600 $146,282,411 1994
197 Heaven Can Wait (1978) Par. $277,018,700 $81,640,278 1978
198 Lethal Weapon 3 WB $276,908,000 $144,731,527 1992
199 Look Who's Talking TriS $276,649,800 $140,088,813 1989
200 Gladiator DW $276,423,500 $187,705,427 2000

Is there anyplace else you'd like to move the goal post in order to continue losing this argument?
post #87 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Oh, I didn't forget that the link you provided wasn't adjusted for inflation. As you see in your quote of my post, I mentioned (twice) that it was a reference standard that you chose, not I.

Here is the list of movies that, according to your premise and on your latest link, the filmmakers should have "learned a lesson" and not bothered to make a sequel. As you can see, there are many sequels and originals that were followed by sequels that did quite well at the box office. Well enough, like IJ/Kingdom, to win a coveted place on the top 200 biggest (domestic) box office hits of all time adjusted for inflation.

But if they had followed your advice, the studios, distributors and theaters would have had to find hundreds of million$ if not billion$ in (domestic) box office receipts from something else.

In fact, they wouldn't have gotten the $588 Million (domestic) or $1 Billion (worldwide) they made on The Dark Knight either since that was also a sequel to the Batman movies that appear below IJ/Kingdom on your latest linked list here.

Is there anyplace else you'd like to move the goal post in order to continue losing this argument?

Lose the argument? LOL - I won! Anyone can see that Indy 4 underpreformed compared to the other 3. Thanks for pointing that out!
post #88 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Lose the argument? LOL - I won! Anyone can see that Indy 4 underpreformed compared to the other 3. Thanks for pointing that out!

There's no sense in arguing with hitch. He's just going to lie about what he wrote one post ago, even though it's still there for everyone to read.
post #89 of 96
Anyways... Spielberg can still make great films. I saw WAR HORSE yesterday on a HUGE screen and loved it. Wonderful film.
post #90 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

There's no sense in arguing with hitch. He's just going to lie about what he wrote one post ago, even though it's still there for everyone to read.

Stop lying, Josh. It doesn't offset the fact that you've been wrong about this, too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Spielberg To Make Another "Indy" Movie..