Indiana Jones 5 Now Pushed Back to 2021

[MisterPenguin]

I don't like Iger, so, Avatar 2 is a flop.

 

[spacemt354]

I used Thor 4 as a shorthand for films that are critically and financially disappointing, but still made a profit. In fact I made it clear that the film made money in my original comment by contrasting it with films that didn't make money. The word flop was unimportant. You can replace "how hard does this film flop" with "how poorly does this film do," if the semantics truly bother you that much.

As for this conspiratorial, anti-Disney narrative I keep hearing about... I asked a general question. I'm not sure why we have to walk around on egg shells and make sure not to insult the mouse. Disney's a multi-billion dollar corporation.. but somehow merely questioning whether its 'flop' is not accomplishing anything besides furthering a narrative of negativity.

You presented a loaded question that only had negative options yet claim you're just asking a general question. C'mon now.

 

[BlakeW39]

You presented a loaded question that only had negative options yet claim you're just asking a general question. C'mon now.

you're absolutely correct. I asked a loaded (complex) question that was composed of actually two separate questions; one, "will Indy 5 flop?" and two, "if so, to what degree will Indy 5 flop?" I did this because I assumed the first question was basically already answered. Most folks I was talking to seem to agree this film will be a financial underperformer. But feel free to say, "Indy 5 will not flop" if that is what you believe

(also.... an Indy 5 commercial came on the tv as I was typing this lol)

 

[erasure fan1]

and then use an example like Thor 4 which ultimately made a profit, but categorize it as a 'flop' (I didn't even like Thor 4 but the facts are it made money)

It did make a profit, but at the same time made 100mil less than 3. I mean batman v Superman made some money but I don't really see anyone calling that anything less than a flop. So I think the consensus on thor is it underperformed financially and was a flop critically. Heck, didn't Hemsworth even say recently that they went way too silly in the film.

I'm not sure why we have to walk around on egg shells and make sure not to insult the mouse. Disney's a multi-billion dollar corporation.. but somehow merely questioning whether its 'flop' is not accomplishing anything besides furthering a narrative of negativity.

Because in the words of Anakin Skywalker, "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!"

 

[BlakeW39]

It did make a profit, but at the same time made 100mil less than 3. I mean batman v Superman made some money but I don't really see anyone calling that anything less than a flop. So I think the consensus on thor is it underperformed financially and was a flop critically. Heck, didn't Hemsworth even say recently that they went way too silly in the film.

Hemsworth as I recall said he didn't want to even work with Taika again. But no worries! Everything is fine in Mickeyland.

Now smile. Right now. *points gun*

Real talk though, "flop" in this context is just slang. Whether or not something is considered a flop is relatively subjective. It depends on how you fine the term, which contrary to the opinions of some has no absolute definition. I mean it has a definition in the sense that it possesses meaning, but there are no specific traits that one can use to determine whether something is or is not a flop. A word with an absolute definition would be 'profitable.' A film is profitable if it makes profit, point blank. 'Flop' is way more arbitrary and subjective than that. A flop isn't necessarily just a product that doesn't make money...it's more generally just a product that does poorly. In, again, general terms.

Because in the words of Anakin Skywalker, "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!"

Apparently so, sadly. Folks are on edge.

 

[erasure fan1]

It depends on how you fine the term, which contrary to the opinions of some has no absolute definition. I mean it has a definition in the sense that it possesses meaning, but there are no specific traits that one can use to determine whether something is or is not a flop.

I also find it funny how when a movie is called a flop, so many seem to take it personally. Or defend Disneys honor. Princess and the frog flopped, prince of Persia flopped. But I have zero issues with people saying it, even though I really enjoyed both. A movie can be a flop, underperform or just be bad, and you can still like it.

 

[spacemt354]

Hemsworth as I recall said he didn't want to even work with Taika again. But no worries! Everything is fine in Mickeyland.

Now smile. Right now. *points gun*

Real talk though, "flop" in this context is just slang. Whether or not something is considered a flop is relatively subjective. It depends on how you fine the term, which contrary to the opinions of some has no absolute definition. I mean it has a definition in the sense that it possesses meaning, but there are no specific traits that one can use to determine whether something is or is not a flop. A word with an absolute definition would be 'profitable.' A film is profitable if it makes profit, point blank. 'Flop' is way more vague and subjective than that. A flop isn't necessarily just a product that doesn't make money...it's more generally just a product that does poorly. In, again, general terms.



Apparently so, sadly. Folks are on edge.

It seems like the only one on edge is you, who is going on and on defending your position all because someone didn't agree with your opine.

 

[Ghost93]

Lightyear and Strange World were definite flops. Quantumania was also a flop. Time will tell whether The Little Mermaid flops or is merely a disappointing "break even."

Thor: Love and Thunder and Wakanda Forever made money, but were still somewhat financially disappointing as they made less than their predecessors. But they weren't flops.

I'd say Avatar: The Way of Water, Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3 and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness are the only definite box office Disney successes from the past two years.

 

[BlakeW39]

It seems like the only one on edge is you, who is going on and on defending your position all because someone didn't agree with your opine.

lol I'm not on edge, nor am I upset that someone didn't agree with my position. It was you who replied to my comment.... saying I was perpetrating a negative narrative, not the other way around. If that's how you feel then that's fine, but I definitely think your idea that because I assume one of Disney's products will not do well financially, I am somehow contributing to some kind of alt narrative that's focused on tearing down Disney. It ain't personal man. Me asking how hard Indy will flop isn't some affront to Walt Disney himself.

 

[BlakeW39]

Lightyear and Strange World were definite flops. Quantumania was also a flop. Time will tell whether The Little Mermaid flops or is merely a disappointing "break even." Thor: Love and Thunder and Wakanda Forever made money, but were still somewhat financially disappointing as they made less than their predecessors.

I'd say Avatar: The Way of Water, Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3 and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness are the only definite box office Disney successes from the past two years.

100% agreed.

 

[spacemt354]

lol I'm not on edge, nor am I upset that someone didn't agree with my position. It was you who replied to my comment.... saying I was perpetrating a negative narrative, not the other way around. If that's how you feel then that's fine, but I definitely think your idea that because I assume one of Disney's products will not do well financially, I am somehow contributing to some kind of alt narrative that's focused on tearing down Disney. It ain't personal man. Me asking how hard Indy will flop isn't some affront to Walt Disney himself.

My initial point was I didn't think Thor 4 was a flop, and it's ironic you just liked and agreed with a comment above that said it wasn't a flop so, glad we agree lol

I also felt your question perpetuated the negative box office narrative that consume many of the threads. Maybe you don't frequent here so you don't know. I never said you were part of an alt narrative, so please stop extrapolating things that aren't said.

I would like Indy to do well as a fan of the films and I hold out hope this will outdo expectations. We will see this weekend.

 

[Willmark]

So how about Indy 5?

 

[BlakeW39]

My initial point was I didn't think Thor 4 was a flop, and it's ironic you just liked and agreed with a comment above that said it wasn't a flop so, glad we agree lol

erm..what comment was this? And again, I wasn't trying to make a statement about whether L&T specifically was a flop. I was just using it for the sake of comparison. L&T was financially disappointing for TWDC, but whether it was a flop depends on your individual perception of what a flop is. I can see arguments in either direction.

I never said you were part of an alt narrative, so please stop extrapolating things that aren't said.

You said I was part of a "negative narrative," so could you explain to me the differences between that and an alt narrative? So that I can understand how I am extrapolating things you aren't saying or somehow putting words in your mouth. Maybe I am mistaken on what you mean.

I would like Indy to do well as a fan of the films and I hold out hope this will outdo expectations. We will see this weekend.

I was a fan of the Indy franchise as well. Indeed we will see how the film performs financially soon enough

 

[BlakeW39]

So how about Indy 5?

lol, smooth— I think there's not a whole lot to talk about just yet... personally I think Indy as an IP is iconic but not super relevant. So it'll be hard for the film to succeed solely based on the popularity of its IP.

 

[doctornick]

So how about Indy 5?

Well to bring it all together, I think a reasonable measure of success would be a box office similar to Thor Love and Thunder.

 

[spacemt354]

You said I was part of a "negative narrative," so could you explain to me the differences between that and an alt narrative? So that I can understand how I am extrapolating things you aren't saying or somehow putting words in your mouth. Maybe I am mistaken on what you mean.

You are mistaken. I specifically said I don't see what you hope to gain by your flop question other than continue the negative narrative in regards to the box office when the film isn't even out yet. There are many threads here to discuss negative box office numbers for Disney and while I enjoy box office discussion, I'd like to see this one succeed.

You're the one who then took that and claimed I'm labeling you as part of a conspiratorial anti-Disney narrative. Nonsense.

 

[erasure fan1]

Well to bring it all together, I think a reasonable measure of success would be a box office similar to Thor Love and Thunder.

Well unfortunately if it has a box office similar to Thor love and thunder, that puts it about $90mil short of making profit by my math. This movie is being reported to have a budget of 300mil. I'm guessing marketing will be similar to mermaid but I figured it about 30mil less. So it needs to be closer to multiverse of madness to say successful in my opinion.

 

[BlakeW39]

There are many threads here to discuss negative box office numbers for Disney

Yes, and this is one of them. So whether or not you felt my comment only served to continue some 'negative' narrative towards Disney does change the fact that it was intended as genuine, and importantly, was very much on topic. So if you'd like to reply to this comment, then go ahead. But I'm not continuing this petty argument on this thread. We're way off topic and this argument is 100% pointless.

 

[spacemt354]

Yes, and this is one of them. So whether or not you felt my comment only served to continue some 'negative' narrative towards Disney does change the fact that it was intended as genuine, and importantly, was very much on topic. So if you'd like to reply to this comment, then go ahead. But I'm not continuing this petty argument on this thread. We're way off topic and this argument is 100% pointless.

We're having a discussion about Indy box office predictions and the negative trends of recent Disney box office numbers which is all on-topic. But if you don't want to discuss anymore that's fine.

 

[wtyy21]

Lightyear and Strange World were definite flops. Quantumania was also a flop. Time will tell whether The Little Mermaid flops or is merely a disappointing "break even."

Thor: Love and Thunder and Wakanda Forever made money, but were still somewhat financially disappointing as they made less than their predecessors. But they weren't flops.

I'd say Avatar: The Way of Water, Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3 and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness are the only definite box office Disney successes from the past two years.

The Little Mermaid and Quantumania doesn't flop i believe. Despite domestic box office numbers for both respective films ($214M for Quantumania and $270M for TLM) are surpassed film's budget ($200M for Quantumania and $250M for TLM), but still expected them disappointing break even (when it count marketing cost), particularly TLM, despite having big marketing promotion for the film (only in less massive scale than Wish animated film).

We would see whether Indiana Jones 5 have better box office openings and better cinemascore rating, given that recent Disney film releases have received mixed cinemascore ratings, GOTG Vol.3, TLM and Elemental are received A while Quantumania received B cinemascore.

A reminder for us, previous Indiana Jones film (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull), which released in 2008 before Disney acquired Lucasfilm in 2012 and also distribution right of the future Indy films in 2013, received B cinemascore from the audience while grossed $790 million worldwide.