Indiana Jones and the Dial of Doom is going to be the biggest box-office bomb of all time, heads are going to roll at Disney, we're talking about a >$300 million loss this is unbelievable
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Doom is going to be the biggest box-office bomb of all time, heads are going to roll at Disney, we're talking about...
>"flop"
>already made half its budget in one week
600 million to break even for frick's sake
What, theaters don't get a cut? It needs close to a billion to break even
You mean 825 million
>t. Kathleen Kennedy
>already made half its budget in one week
Are you moronic enough to think that Disney gets 100% of the box office and that theatres screen the movie for free?
it's disney, they certainly get larger returns than small indies.
but yeah, they'll need like 600Mil before it becomes profitable, although at this point it's hard to calculate because of things like disney+ that need to be weighed in.
More than 300mil. They need 800mil just to break even. This was a $300 million movie + $100 million for marketing.
>800m to break even
>300m budget plus 100m for marketing
Why do they need 800 to break even when the cost is ~400m?
Box office is measured in tickets sold, not the fraction profit for the parent company
Studios don't get 100% of box office, moron. It's more like 50-60%.
Theaters get a cut of the box office, usually half
Learn basic math. They won’t be making a profit if it makes under 800mil because then the movie would have cost more to produce than how much it actually made. If I invest more in materials than the product is worth then what’s the point?
Imagine that you used 50 dollars to buy the materials to make X and after expending Y time you only got back 49 dollars for selling it
$400m tip
Do you not know how middlemen work? You sell a product to a retailer and they sell it to the consumer. Even if disney owned the theater they would still have to pay the overhead of running the theater.
to be precise, box office is the combined revenue of the theatres not the studio. the studio's take is the theatrical rentals, which usually amounts to about 55% of the box office. disney isnt really an exception to that.
Guessing toy stuff also was supposed to bring more money.
>redo
Why not just throw everything as tax writeoff, then make a "new" project? Just call it Jones V or somthing to avoid legal stuff.
Just curious - rather than losing multiple billions over many failures why don’t they just buy up all the theatres?
Studios are not allowed to run their own theaters by law.
This has been a thing for a long time.
>Just curious - rather than losing multiple billions over many failures why don’t they just buy up all the theatres?
Because this was explicitly outlawed in 1948.
>"Hey yo, hol up. So what you be sayin' iz, they be showin' movies n' sheitz 4 free?!?!?!?!?!"
Theaters take a fat cut of those gross earnings, padre
I wonder if these are shills or legitimate ideologues who refuse to process inconvenient information. They show up in most threads about woke bombs, so there's no way that they haven't heard that making back your production budget isn't anywhere near enough to break even.
Imagine being either. What an undignified existence.
Contrarian Trolls
Nobody should be defending this elderly abuse except Disney shareholders.
Definitely shills.
Production AND Promotional budget is likely $500 million, and studios only see about HALF of box office revenue. So if box office is $160 million so far, Disney only gets about $80 million of that.
Noooo, you don't understand, it needs to make 900 garillion to break even!!!
Google "Indiana Jones flop"
It's not a /tvpol/ meme
I do hope they sincerely believe that.
yes, that's the definition of a flop. Successful blockbuster movies make their budget back and then some during the opening weekend usually. Half the budget after a july 4th release week is basically a confirmed flop.
even movies like Sound of Freedom are going to wind up being flops. That movie doesn't get 100% of the box office either and theatres don't screen the movie for free. Theaters take a fat cut of those gross earnings. studios only see about HALF of box office revenue.
huh? That movie is currently outperforming all expectations and actually competes with DoD on a fraction of its budget.
are you fricking moronic? theaters take a cut, theres still marketing costs, post production costs. Stop pretending a box office number equals success. Indy is a fricking flop too get over it
Sound of Freedom has an estimated budget of $15 million and after its opening weekend it's already at $18 million. If Dial of Destiny had made back its production budget on its opening weekend, it would be on track to outperform the Avengers. But alas, it barely made back half of its production costs after an entire week, so it is poised to be a huge flop. Hope that clears things up for you, friend.
but they're both flops
But how do you come to that conclusion? If DoD had made $250- $300 million on its opening weekend, which is the equivalent of what Sound of Freedom made in relation to its production cost, nobody would consider it a flop. In that case DoD would be poised to be one of the most successful movies of all time.
>he thinks Sound of Fury doesnt also have marketing budget, post-production costs, doesn't have to give a large cut to the actual theaters
why am i surrounded by morons on Cinemaphile everyday. Face it. These movies are flops. Hollywood is dead.
holy cope
The first comment is bait but the responses aren't that much better informed. People are treating rules of thumb as facts like "marketing budget same as production". Not if you frick up the production and have to make the movie twice over. That doesn't magically make ad-time cost twice as much or make you buy twice as many ads. In those cases there may even be less ads, such as possibly happened here since I haven't seen much promo
Kingom of the Crystal Skull made its production budget back in under a week
moron
They are still people who unironically believes this is how it works
You've been doing this since little nigmaid came out and now you do it for every new flop because of all the (You)s it gets you
>the flash comes out
>literally no one argues it's a massive flop
>indy 5 has more budget and it's making less money
>UHHHH ACKSUALLY IT'S NOT A FLOP B-BECAUSE IT JUST ISN'T OKAY?
Why are mouse shills so obvious nowadays?
Indiana Jones 5's numbers are so bad that there are rumors that most of the C-suit of Lucasfilm is getting fired, they lost more money on this film alone than they made on The Rise of Skywalker
>C-suit of Lucasfilm is getting fired
Stop perpetuating this myth, no one is getting fired except this one animator nobody even cared about.
That's what Midnight's Edge are saying at least
>gross = net
baka gaijin
shitty bait but it works in this pozzed af subreddit. put me in the screencap plox
>subreddit
Replying to bait with further bait. Interdasting....
look at the replies m80 and tell me this isnt reddit
>indiana jones is going to bo-
hold the line!
>APPLEBEES
if they simply chose Chili's this one be the biggest hit of 2023
Love isn’t always on time!
Can anyone explain how a movie about an 80 year old in a jacket is more expensive to make than Avatar?
Salaries because of unions at all levels.
Salaries were 25% in LOTR, over 70% in Avengers: Endgame.
Thanks for reminding me to put on my laundry.
The film was so bad in test screenings that they basically had to redo the entire film.
Wasn't Avatar 2 budget around 800? Except Avatar made 2B and some more instead of costing 600 and making back only 160
>Wasn't Avatar 2 budget around 800?
No, that's complete nonsense. It cost 250 million.
>It cost 250 million
What?! Impossible no way they were able to make Avatar 2 with only that
But they did, anon. They did.
They should invest in cloning tech then to get an infinity supply of James Camerons
He is certainly an example to follow if you want your movies to make money
See
>t. guy involved on VFX side of things in Hollywood, Ironman specifically
https://tomluongo.me/2023/04/24/podcast-episode-140-mike-hill-conspiracy-film-making/
The big studios support a huge mass of dead weight, the better to plausibly launder more money presumably. Lots of redundant positions and people that can't hack it carried by actual talent. Depending on the task half to 80% of whoever's probably superfluous to getting the the shit done.
yeah it's a israelite gravy train until the movie companies go under. which they will
homie, the israelites literally founded Hollywood, they built it from the ground up, read An Empire of Their Own about it. Do you think they were less greedy before and have become more so in the last 15 years or so? And coincidentally, at the same time as massive industry consolidation?
Thank you anon whoever posted this... First podcast I've listened in years and this was great
Also love that the dude also knows the entire WB Hamada meddling with Snyder history, confirms what all I've read too
Thanks again
israelite nepotism. they overpay companies owned by satan's chosen people
Why does /misc/ so badly want me to think this movies has failed?
...do you seriously not understand the difference between "having fun mocking something" and a psyop?
>backpedaling
>moving le goalposts
I mean you're looking at the numbers just like us, /misc/ shouldn't have to try at all
How do you honestly think this isn’t a failure? Are you moronic or a troll?
he is a israelite. hence the buzzwords
they should have known. ANYONE who knows any fricking thing about Indiana Jones knows that after Indiana 4, there was no chance of it ever being good again
they should have known
Total Disney death
more like Indiana Jones and the Flop of Destiny
if you still think that normal rules apply to companies like this and they give a single shit about "losing" money on stuff like this then you are hopelessly naive.
Everybody talks about this but no one talks about how the budget alone for Fast X was 390 million dollars.
At least made 700 millions in the end, a flop nevertheless.
Indiana on the other hand won't even make 500, a total failure.
Who keeps approving these films that need to break records to be profitable?
Excecutives that have to keep the eternal growth arrow going up
James Cameron said they needed $2B just to make a dollar of profit for Avatar 2. Of course, big difference there is that Cameron could actually deliver
But surely that included all the developmental costs associated with the planned three sequels. If Avatar 2 bombed, it would have put an end to all the work they've already done for Avatar 3 to 5.
It's nebulous. According to Deadline, the pre-marketing production cost for Avatar 2 was 460 million. Using the 2.5 multiplier favored here for theatrical cut and marketing considerations, that'd put Avatar 2's needs at $1.15B. However, Cameron definitely said $2B and he would know better than anyone, especially since the reason it's so mysterious is that the studio refuses to disclose that information. Does the rest come from developmental costs for the other three planned films? He didn't say but it seems likely
>https://variety.com/2022/film/news/avatar-2-budget-expensive-2-billion-turn-profit-1235438907/
I reckon the whole "Avatar 2 needs 2 billies to turn a profit" thing probably came from them projecting forward the sequels box office. Like sure, with 1.5 billion or whatever in box office Avatar 2 would definitely be profitable. But what about 3 & 4? The original film made 2.5 billion, so if 3 & 4 have a similar drop off then by number 4 we're at potentially less than 1 billion, which isn't profitable given the budget.
This is where the 2 billion number comes from - assume the drop off is the same for each film. 2 billion for Avatar 2 means a 20% drop off. Which means Avatar 3 makes 1.6 billion, and Avatar 4 makes 1.28 billion, which is just about profitable given the huge budget.
Cameron never once said that it needs 2 billion and people need to stop spreading this lie. In the early 2010s he was asked about avatar 2 and he said it would need to be in the top 5 highest grossing movies which at the time would put it at 1.3 billion. During avatar 2s run, after it hit 1.2 Cameron said they broke even
>Pretending like the article in the post you're replying to doesn't exist
Take it up with Variety
>Made more than half its budget
>A flop nevertheless
Let me guess, we're still on the "The Last Jedi was a flop" narrative too?
Why are so invested in these corporate pieces of shit not flopping?
Well, excuse me for correcting people who insist every single movie is a flop. I guess that makes me a "corpo defender" somehow.
Not every single movie, but this one definitely is. So was the Little Mermaid by the way, a movie I'm sure you defended too.
What gives you the idea I defended that movie? I am genuinely curious how you came to that conclusion. I know this board loves to make up scenarios to get mad about, but this one makes no sense to me.
post your hook nose
>correcting le record
You still haven't given any sources for that, champ.
Most blockbusters this year have been flops.
>Ant-Man 3 flopped
>The Little Mermaid flopped
>Transformers flopped
>Elemental flopped
>Shazam 2 flopped
>Renfield flopped
>Fast X flopped
>Dungeons and Dragons flopped
>Teenage Kraken flopped
>The Flash flopped
>Indiana Jones 5 flopped
>The Marvels, Haunted Mansion, Aquaman 2, and Blue Beatle are most likely going to flop
I’m not usually a doomer but yeah cinema is dying. Barbie and Mission Impossible might be the last hit movies we get for a long time, and that’s assuming they’re successful.
Mission Impossible will do fine (not "Top Gun 2" fine, but fine) and have legs for years to come.
Barbie will have a semi-strong opening and then collapse.
>>The Marvels, Haunted Mansion, Aquaman 2, and Blue Beatle are most likely going to flop
they last tthree guranteed flops ,im not sure about the marvels i think at worst it will barely scrape by until profitability but if it does flop marvel is in trouble
Nobody likes captain marvel. The only reason the first movie was successful was because it tied into Endgame
>fast X flopped
Did it? I thought all of Mexico saved it?
It grossed two times its budget (390) so a flop, even TLM did better (relative to its budget).
>I’m not usually a doomer but yeah cinema is dying. Barbie and Mission Impossible might be the last hit movies we get for a long time, and that’s assuming they’re successful.
Cinema is dying because everyone in the US is flat fricking broke and barely sustaining themselves using credit card debt. Hollywood is going to have to pull its head out of their asses and start cutting costs on their budgets and get it back to a reasonable level. The 1970s had a lot of cheap films that are well regarded to this day such as Taxi Driver, all driven because the economy was fricking shit and even cities like NYC were going bankrupt.
>everyone is broke!
lmao nice projection. actually, you israelites are just incapable of telling an entertaining story because of your constant Black person and homosexual worship.
>lmao nice projection. actually, you israelites are just incapable of telling an entertaining story because of your constant Black person and homosexual worship.
This is a major part of the problem, but the financials are whats driving people to go "Frick the movies, they're all dogshit anyway" when normally they would just suffer through Marvel Capeflick 23020329 'The Return of the Underwhelmer'
frick it let it die and then slowly come back with some actual new/interesting stories
I don't think Hollywood is going to change a damned thing. They seem perfectly confident that movie theaters aren't going to go bankrupt and vanish but at this rate theaters are going to go bankrupt and vanish. Bad ticket sales hurt movie theaters more than they hurt Hollywood. It's bad enough that our economy is trash and people are cutting luxuries like going to the movies once or twice a month, but with everything being either so BAD now or available so soon to stream from home I don't see these huge expensive theaters being able to stay in business for much longer. It's a large amount of real estate and there's no telling what the expenses are just to keep the air conditioners running. I've been keeping an eye on my local theater and regularly any given movie will only have around 5 seats booked ahead of time. If it's an opening weekend they'll book more but with flop after flop I don't see them staying in business. I just don't see how it's possible to.
I know at this is asking a lot of a leftist, but try to think beyond the first step of a process. Theaters don't show movies for free. Advertising isn't free. Taxes are high, thanks to you. Then there are other miscellaneous costs that might not be counted in the budget. A movie usually needs to make 2-3 times its production budget to break even, and earnings tend to be front-loaded.
Also, breaking even (covering all of the above costs) is a loss. Suppose that you open a lemonade stand for exactly $50. You make exactly $50 from the stand. You've wasted an afternoon or two for nothing. That gets much worse as you scale up and acquire more obligations.
>leftist
Like clockwork lmao.
I mean, if you are emotionally invested in defending large mega corporations online, especially Disney, there is a 99% chance that you are politically on the left. That's just a fact.
Yes, *if* you are. Again, you are making up scenarios in your head. All I did was point out Fast X wasn't a flop since it made more than twice its budget. Nowhere did I say anything about the film and the company who made it. I haven't even watched it, for frick's sake.
>defensive #clapback
>le chudjack
Thanks for validating youre a leftist. You have to go back.
>Well, excuse me
post your face so we can turn it into a wojak
that's a troony chud
Chudforce claim every flop is due to trannies and wokeshit. As trannies who believe in wokeshit, they need to defend them. Disney is their God, they created the trannies with the 90s Renaissance films.
well, the Last Jedi was an immense step down from the Force Awakens in terms of box office numbers. So at the very least everyone can agree that it underperformed massively.
>Indiana on the other hand won't even make 500,
I wonder if it will even make 400. Mission impossible opens this weekend in a lot of places
>Mission impossible opens this weekend in a lot of places
That I'd actually like to see
MI7 this week
Oppenheimer and Barbie two weeks later
Indiana israelite and the Dilation of Doom isn't coming close to breaking even kek
It opened on a three-day weekend and made less than than The Flash, and The Flash isn't going to make it to 300. While having a budget 30-80mil higher than The Flash.
The Flash is already considered one of the worst bombs ever and is projected to lose upwards of 200mil.
By that reckoning Indy is shaping up to be a loss of 250-300mil and could well take the cake for biggest bomb ever.
Your info graphics are a bit boring could you spice them up a bit? Thanks
I genuinely believe the only reason these studios aren't completely bankrupt is the constant pour of investments from hedge funds, completely independent from the actual box office revenue. You gotta give it to them, these Hollywood fricks sure know how to suck Wall Street dick
that is correct
It's true to a point, but the last time BlackRock (for example) bought into Disney was 2021. Now the studios are just racking up enormous debts.
The endless investment with no sign of a profit is way worse in tech, Uber lost $10 billion last year, Twitter made a profit once in 2018, Reddit, YouTube and Spotify have never turned a profit.
How the frick are these companies even being sustained
Selling your private info to the government
Tech is collapsing, too. You're always hearing stories about divisions closing, websites shutting down, benefits (e.g. catering) being cut, and mass layoffs. I'd be surprised if they don't start consolidating over the next few years.
It's going to be hilarious when society begins waking up to the fact that the Starbucks hipster who complains about capitalism on his overpriced Macbook is a dead archetype. I doubt that they'll be able to respond in a reasonable way expected from a normal person in a civilized society. The freakout in the face of their identity collapse will be legendary.
Even the trades aren't safe: electricians and plumbers are complaining about the huge competition that is driving wages to their lowest levels since the 70s
That part is bullshit tho, these jobs are always in high demand and full of boomers who try to spread fud because they're scared of the competition taking their margin
occultrock just posted the biggest losing quarter in history. it's over for israelites. fire up the ovens. seal the wooden doors on the gas chambers
>budget was vastly overinflated to begin with
>vaunted "muh price doubled due to advertising" is not a hard fact and DOD only spent 90 million on advertising
>studios take 80-100% of profits during first two weeks and it falls to the 55/45 rule after the third week
>actual cost to break even: 300,000,000 in the first two weeks
Not great but hardly le EPIC BOX OFFICE BOMB all the grifter outrage homosexuals on YouTube are telling you easily swayed phaggots to believe. If it makes half a billion in 10 more days it easily made a profit, if it makes 600 Milly at any time same thing. KK won't be fired, Disney won't be going under, the next Indiana Jones will still get made with a female lead and there's nothing you dorks can do but seethe about it.
>studios take 80-100% of profits during first two weeks and it falls to the 55/45 rule after the third week
Source? This seems completely made up. Why would cinemas operate on a net loss during the only time frame that actually matters for a new movie release?
I can’t back that up but it’s not crazy; studios have much more bargaining power than theaters and theaters get most of their money from concessions
No studio get a 100 cut at most only Disney was able pull off a 80 for things like Frozen and only the first week
No, that ia moronic to think the studio takes 80-100% of the receipts in the first two weeks. That's when the majority of $ is made.
So many moronic people in this thread. It's simple, morons: 50/50 take between studio and theaters. Also, majority of profits come from concessions? A snack bar jeeps the lights on in a 12- screen theater? Fricking idiots.
It's simple: 300m budget + 150-200m for marketing = 450-500m investment. Half the box office goes to theaters, which means to BREAK EVEN box office needs to be at least 800m. Even the studio admitted their low target was 1b bc then they would have made a profit.
I think the higher numbers, eg over 80-90%, are for for specific must see movies from big studios, eg Endgame and possibly apply only for certain smaller theater chains who do not have negotiating power. If you think such a movie will fill seats for a few weeks, you might agree because your theater will make bank on $15 popcorn etc. But I think 70% studio share might be closer to reality for most movies in the US, and 30-40% overseas.
it's well known. just look it up. your not on reddit. we don't care and israelite links
Lmao Dilator of Destiny cost almost the same as Amazing spiderman 2 that got a box office of almost 900 and was considered such a disaster that it was what lead Sony to share spiderman with Marvel
You’re not kidding, holy frick this movie is a disaster
homie actual working Hollywood producers are saying it's the biggest flop of all time on Midnight's Edge you now better than them?
> Not great but hardly le EPIC BOX OFFICE BOMB all the grifter outrage homosexuals on YouTube are telling you
It is and it’s not the YouTubers saying it. Actual box office experts and trades are saying it.
So The Flash didn't bomb after all huh, good to know
>YouTube
Why is every coping disney shills so obsessed with those nerd cultural youtubers? They're literally the only people talking about them on this board, everybody can spot a disney shill a mile away the moment he starts sperging about le youtube grifter boogeyman, I don't get it
because they think people like the longhaired dogfricker in being critical of mass culture and shit like disney (sacrosanct) are somehow gateways to chud-dom and 'far-right radicalization' for sucking corporate wiener and liking mediocre products less than they do
take 80-100% of profits during first two weeks and it falls to the 55/45 rule after the third week
flat-out lie. just one example:
>https://deadline.com/2023/04/avatar-the-way-of-water-box-office-profits-1235328725/
here you can see that the revenue for avatar 2 is just over 50% of worldwide box office. indy 5 needs somewhere between 750m and 1 billie to break even
>Need to make over 5-600M to make a profit
Lmao
I did not watch the movie. What in it actually requires a 300 million budget? Not even Avatar 2 was that expensive
The de aging CGI, the salaries and the fact that they reshoot the third arc since it was pozz at extreme just likes the leaks said, but considering how much it's making it would be better for them to leave the original one
>salaries
a used up ford with no bargaining power and a bunch of literally whos... from whoville of course
Avatar 2 production budget was $400M according to this helpful Deadline article from three months ago which breaks down all the math for anyone interested Cinemaphile is right about everything ofc
>https://deadline.com/2023/04/avatar-the-way-of-water-box-office-profits-1235328725/
Why is it that every time numbers come up it’s something like $300M production + $150M advertising so they need 1.2B to break even, but $600M would put it among the top earners and $700M would make it a top ten bomb considering the $900M budget? It’s almost as if they’re all made up
Theater takes half the box office newfren
So bad faith arguments with misinterpreted numbers. Yeah that’s not surprising. you homosexuals are unbearable
but it's the same calculation any site like Forbes, the Guardian etc also use to determine whether a movie was a flop or a success.
You have no basis for either accusation, you're just flinging ad hominems. Why don't you consult the article posted here
which breaks down the costs for Avatar 2 using the same method I'm describing. Note the difference between worldwide box office and theatrical revenue. I'm off to bed now newfren have a nice night
The numbers come from the trades
>cant do math
Skill issue.
>why yes, I think math it's white supremacism
It's always been production budget + roughtly half of the production cost as advertizement and then take that times 2 because cinemas take a 50% cut. That's how the break even point for movies is conventionally calculated by most media outlets as well as Cinemaphile. Why do you people always pretend that this is some arcane calculation that is always hyperbolic and shrouded in mystery? It's really not.
Because the production budget is usually a random number between 100-900
I don't get it. Are you saying that we made up the production cost number for Dial of Destiny or are you saying that Disney and all the media outlets are lying about the number? Because the official number didn't come from Cinemaphile, it's the same number everyone else is reporting as well.
Both, but not necessarily for this. Making numbers sing for tax purposes and morons guessing or misreporting numbers. Shit, scroll up. Avatar 2 costed 800, 250, and 400 million
the official production cost for Avatar 2 is $250 million. The 400 million number is production cost + estimated marketing cost. Time that by 2, because cinemas take 50% of the cut, that comes to a break even point of 800 million. That's why you see those 3 numbers when Avatar 2 is discussed. All 3 numbers are based on the conventional calculation I mentioned earlier. It seems like you are the only one who is misinterpreting / misunderstanding the numbers here.
>Making numbers sing for tax purposes
Probably true. Many of these budgets are way overinflated from reality. In addition, the marketing numbers often include work from hugely inflated in-house marketing departments, so they charge themselves millions on paper, but the purpose is to get the expenses so high that the film sees little to no profit so you pay no taxes and pay no royalties, etc.
The production budgets do not include 10's of millions in product placement, incentive money from cities for filming there, etc. It's all an inscrutable mess that only the insiders really know wtf is going on
>Probably true. Many of these budgets are way overinflated from reality
Budgets are UNDER-valued for tax purposes, moron
Explain your logic here. By inflating your budget, it means you make less profit that can be taxed. Why would studios say their budgets were lower for tax purposes?
In many jurisdictions, both within the United States and internationally, filmmakers can receive tax credits or breaks for producing films. These incentives are often based on the reported cost of production. If a film's budget is undervalued, it might qualify for additional tax breaks or credits.
Hollywood accounting often involves shifting profits from one part of a project to another. This can mean that a film itself is reported as making little to no profit, while the profits are instead reported by other entities, such as the distribution or marketing arms of the film's production company.
Many contracts in Hollywood, particularly those involving writers, directors, and actors, involve a share of the film's profits. By using accounting techniques to reduce the reported profit of a film, studios can also reduce the amount of money they need to pay out in these so-called "backend" deals.
Everything you posted I agree with but:
>These incentives are often based on the reported cost of production. If a film's budget is undervalued, it might qualify for additional tax breaks or credits.
Why would you get a tax break for spending less money in the economy? This doesnt make sense
Ask your congressman
>Why would you get a tax break for spending less money in the economy? This doesnt make sense
Lobbying by small players
Unions.
>but $600M would put it among the top earners
Budgets have been growing huge in the last 5-10 years, but box office has not. So even though it might put it in the top earners, still does not mean it is profitable because they spent more than they made. The better questions is: why would you spend $450m on a movie knowing it will need $900m before you start seeing any profit?
The whole thing is joyless shit. Yes, of course the "deconstructing the male action hero" plot is shit but the worst thing is that they've marvelized it. Raiders of the Lost Ark was filmed like a classic film, with great care for blocking, lighting and shot composition. If they wanted to really cash in on nostalgia, they should've shot it like it was made in the 80s, with analogic equipment.
They don't have anyone working in the industry anymore that could make a movie like that, even if they wanted to. Not even Spielberg and Lucas were able to do it back during Crystal Skull. That style of filmmaking from the 80s, shooting on location with analog equipment, having proper framing and compositions etc is a lost art from a bygone era. CGI isn't just a crutch anymore, it's all they can do.
That's an underperformance for sure, but there's been many big budget movies that made way less than half of their budget.
John Carter (2012) lost $255m and is the biggest box-office bomb of all time, according to insiders we're looking at >$300m for Indiana Jones 5
John Carter apparently made $284m, on a budget of $250m.
This has a budget of ~$300m and is only at $150m atm.
(Funniest part is that both films are disney)
>$325 million budget
>$125 million marketing
>theaters take 50% of the gross
What's the point of making a movie that needs a fricking billion to merely break even. If this same movie had a $60 million budget it would have done OK, instead of being the biggest bomb in the history of Hollywood
yeah sure, if you cut all the nepotism hires and their non-jobs and the bloated union rosters, but then it couldn't be a Hollywood production
The higher the budget,
>the more the producers get paid
>the bigger the profit, if it does profit
>the more money that the producers can funnel to friends and family during production
Breakeven is $800M to $900M.
clearly the issue is the budget and not movies, Hollywood should go all in into AI to make whole movies without paying for actors or directors to make movies
So the movie is a confirmed financial flop but was it even decent? People IRL I know who watched it said it was "just ok" and other places I look online seem too political to honestly judge the movie so it's either "the worst indie" or "it's fun and better than crystal skull"...but hearing the cope of having to compare it to crystal skull makes it kinda clear where it is.
I would trust the opinion of people who think that a geriatric depressed Indy being berated by an annoying ugly c**t with an incredibly anti-climatic ending is by any means fun
This is why you don’t make unoriginal sequels and why you don’t cast geriatrics. The franchise films are dying. New Hollywood 2.0, here we come!
I swear every commercial break there's that Applebees commercial begging me to spend $35 to get a free movie ticket.
I ate at applebees and didn't even get my free ticket. food was okay, which is stellar for applebees.
disney is late to the game as usual, should've made video game movies
gp woke, go broke. kathleen kennedy on suicide watch
Not my problem
GO BROKE
O
W
O
K
E
Why do you gays care so much? You invested nothing into it and lost nothing. It was Ford’s last movie anyway. It’s not your problem.
I want to see hollywood israelites commit sudoku
>t.
>Why do you care if your enemies lose?
This post here:
is basically the kind of post shills resort to when the box office gaslighting doesn't work
This is why it would be so awesome if Elon bought Star Wars. The nuclear asshurt would guarantee that at least one shill uploads the Disney shill handbook here.
Cute iPhone gaygit
>unbelievable
I don't think that word means what you think it means
sup
Love all the assuming that Mission Impossible will not be a flop. What makes everyone here so sure?
Tom Cruise sells
Literally because there's no wokeshit
Guaranteed billion dollar blockbuster
Tom wants to entertain the audience, not shit on them like 95% of current movies.
The movie isn’t losing money, it’s just not getting money,
>$300M
How are movies this expensive? It's almost incomprehensible. There must be money laundering involved.
Remember how there were rumors about Indiana Jones getting killed off and how some of these leaks mentioned scenes that wouldn't fit into the movie as released?
I think the budget had gone into filming scenes that didn't make it into the film