-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Indiana Jones 5 Now Pushed Back to 2021
- Thread starter Dead2009
- Start date
TP2000
Well-Known Member
It's not illegal, but it might begin to affect his box office result. And I do think that's a key factor in Indy 5's box office problems.
Tom Cruise is getting up there now though. I think his appearance in mega-hit Maverick came at nearly the last second where his age would be believable to anyone who has ever served in the Armed Forces, much less in highly demanding Naval Aviation.
Looking at the trailer, Tom Cruise aesthetically still works for Mission: Impossible. But in 5 years time that may no longer be the case.
Let's also not pretend all these stars don't have a dumptruck's worth of work done on their faces and bodies, from medspas and surgeons and private chefs and physical trainers and aestheticians of all skillsets.
Tom Cruise at 61, who has spent at least a million dollars on his physical appearance in the last decade, looks absolutely nothing like the average American 61 year old man loading his Costco cart with gallon jugs of mayonnaise and 5-packs of frozen pizzas.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
I can’t even with this. My God.It's not illegal, but it might begin to affect his box office result. And I do think that's a key factor in Indy 5's box office problems.
Tom Cruise is getting up there now though. I think his appearance in mega-hit Maverick came at nearly the last second where his age would be believable to anyone who has ever served in the Armed Forces, much less in highly demanding Naval Aviation.
Looking at the trailer, Tom Cruise aesthetically still works for Mission: Impossible. But in 5 years time that may no longer be the case.
Let's also not pretend all these stars don't have a dumptruck's worth of work done on their faces and bodies, from medspas and surgeons and private chefs and physical trainers and aestheticians of all skillsets.
Tom Cruise at 61, who has spent at least a million dollars on his physical appearance in the last decade, looks absolutely nothing like the average American 61 year old man loading his Costco cart with gallon jugs of mayonnaise and 5-packs of frozen pizzas.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
He said he prefers
As far as cruise goes, there's a big difference between a 60 and 80 some year old person. especially when it comes to crazy action. And while cruise might be 60, he definitely doesn't look it. Ford looks every bit his age.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
Did you see it?
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Bingo.
60 is not 80. And Tom Cruise is not a normal human.
What's fascinating about Maverick is that it takes place 35 years after the first movie, but they pretend it's only 30 years because every veteran in the audience would know Maverick is not a flag Officer and thus as a Captain he would have been forced to retire by age 62 which makes no sense mathematically from the first film in 1986.
And they certainly don't let them be active test pilots at that age.
But, aesthetically at least, it still worked (barely) for Tom Cruise in Maverick. And the box office ate it up.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Not yet. But I'm not sure what that has to do with this. A poster said he prefers a younger action star. And you brought up Cruise who in no way resembles Ford from an age standpoint. I know plenty of mid 40s people who don't look as good as Cruise. And most importantly, I don't need to see Indy to know or think that. If you've noticed, I have not said ANYTHING about the quality of the film. I'm still looking forward to seeing it. I've been an Indy fan my whole life.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
Good.
MagicMouseFan
Well-Known Member
you will enjoy the film
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
"No one wants to see OLD action stars!" - someone who is pretending not to have been paying attention to American cinema for the last 20 years
Let's look at the 2023 action slate: John Wick 4, with 58 year old Keanu Reeves; M:I Dead Reckoning, with 61 year old Tom Cruise; Equalizer 3, with 68 year old Denzel Washington. Buncha spring chickens!
Why doesn't Hollywood just cast all those YOUNG stars, like... um... well, the Rock just got humbled, and he's 51 anyway... Dave Bautista? Oh, he's 54. So what young action stars are we pretending can open a film?
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Details, Details, Details. I am an old vet. You are correct that in the movie Tom Cruise (Maverick) is a Captain and not a flag rank officer I.E. an Admiral. However, he is not a Warrant Officer, he is a Commissioned Officer. Regardless, due to Maverick's antics he retained his Commission and O6 (Captain) but could not make the upward move to Flag Rank O7 (Rear Admiral). There is no Warrant rating in Maverick's career path. Of interest though is the fact Maverick had three dogfight kills to his credit going into the movie and before the end of the movie it was assured, he got two more so he could be an ACE. For a fighter pilot that is the way to close a career.Bingo.
60 is not 80. And Tom Cruise is not a normal human.
What's fascinating about Maverick is that it takes place 35 years after the first movie, but they pretend it's only 30 years because every veteran in the audience would know Maverick is not a flag Officer and thus as a Captain he would have been forced to retire by age 62 which makes no sense mathematically from the first film in 1986.
And they certainly don't let them be active test pilots at that age.
But, aesthetically at least, it still worked (barely) for Tom Cruise in Maverick. And the box office ate it up.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny Causes Big Boost For Original Trilogy on Disney+
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny may not exactly be crushing it at the box office, but it's [...]
MoonRakerSCM
Well-Known Member
First (only?) time Indiana Jones has been a 'thing' where a lot of younger people haven't watched them and it's easy for friends/family to sit them down and show them the trilogy on D+. I got a new co-worker who is absolutely hopeless- "What do you mean you haven't seen and can't quote a film that came out 15 years before you were born!?"
cookiee_munster
Well-Known Member
It's a good film. Not the greatest film ever. But a hell of a lot better than crystal skull.
MagicMouseFan
Well-Known Member
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Tremendously excited about this movie. It’s the best active film series going, and each film gets better and better. It elevated with the addition of Rebecca Ferguson’s Faust and hasn’t stopped there. And, it’s always had a very diverse cast.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I love M:I. It may be my favorite ongoing franchise. But this article is projecting a $90 million 5-day domestic opening.
Indy had $82 million. Not a world of difference.
Now, I fully expect M:I to have much longer legs (the reviews are excellent) and to do much better overall. But this an interesting example of how framing alters a story.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Framing does matter but MI is also estimated at $250m global for the opening; after two weeks Indy 5 is just now getting to that number.
Also significant that Indy’s 5-day had four weekend/holidays/days off so the expectation is people would have more free time to see it.
I think it’s symptomatic of Hollywood’s problems that internet movie talk has increasingly become focused on box office numbers. Not a good sign for the business when the box score is more interesting than the game itself.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
MI is going to blow the doors of of Indy5. I think we all can agree.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Don't you know? International numbers don’t matter anymore. Domestic only, and when those don’t help, we pivot to unknown merchandise sales and value to D+.