_caleb
Well-Known Member
Yeah, $50M was an exaggeration, but Indy 4 had like $180M budget and, well, wasn’t better for it, in my opinion.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
SPOILERS: Indiana Jones 5 (Jun 30, 2023)
- Thread starter MisterPenguin
- Start date
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
Indy 4 was a train wreck but I don't that it had to do with the budget. The script was bad, the MacGuffin was dumb, and most of the action pieces were just stupid. And it unleashed Mutt to the world.
Last edited:
_caleb
Well-Known Member
No disagreement on any of that.
I just think Indy is at its best when someone is thinking, “how can we do this for less?” This keeps some of the B-movie DNA that is vital to the genre and can lead to excellent creativity on effects. The mine cart chase in Temple of Doom used dolls as stand-ins for actors and it was glorious:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
The Raiders budget using today's dollars would be only $65.5M, couldn't make that same film today for that.
For example Temple's budget was closer to $30M, in today's dollars that would be almost $100M, which is around the starting point for a film like this. Think between $90-120M average for a film like this.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I get it. Like I said, it was a bit of an exaggeration to make the point of a limited budget actually helping creativity.
I'm not sure how much they might save if they used alternatives to large-scale production, like ILM's stagecraft.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Not sure how much you can say that lack of budget spawned creativity rather than it being more a passion project for Spielberg and Lucas which lead to the creativity of the production.
As for using alternatives to The Volume/stagecraft, not sure what alternatives could be used at its unique. I guess other green screen technology is cheaper, but its also not as technologically advanced and it can show on screen. So other than practical effects with on-site shoots, both of which are expensive and add to the budget, not sure what alternative you'd use.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
It's hard to compare the budgets because of other reasons as well. Lucas negotiated to keep creative control and licensing rights so the movie had to make a profit for the studio on its' own. The deal Lucas made including penalties for going over budget so they had to work efficiently and/or frugally.
Disney now owns it all so they get the theatrical money and merchandise revenue.
Disney now owns it all so they get the theatrical money and merchandise revenue.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
It's fascinating to watch old movies like this, and see how they did it. The miniatures weren't super convincing but they cut to them super briefly so you barely notice any shortcomings.
Today they would just CGI the scene and insert the live actors digitally. Using miniatures and dolls may not look super "realistic" but neither do scenes that are overly digital, such as what we see in the Star Wars prequels.
Practical effects are always better IMO. It's a major reason The Force Awakens "felt" like old school Star Wars and hopefully they have kept that in mind here as well.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Good point about Spielberg's/Lucas's passion. For their times, earlier films weren't exactly cheap. But in my opinion, both of those guys' creativity have not been helped by bigger budgets and more expensive toys.
I was thinking that The Volume/Stagecraft was a lower-cost alternative to green screen. Maybe I'm mistaken.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Another of my favorite scenes is the rope bridge at the end of Temple of Doom- the obvious dummies falling into the crocodile-infested waters below. Probably cost very little, but not noticeable at all in the first couple viewings, and didn't take away from the film at all!
The Nazi planes in Indy 3, however, didn't age quite as well for me. At any rate, hoping for lots of practical effects in this 5th film!
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
Especially seeing as its always the same person.... Like give it a break and do something better with your time instead of spreading toxic negativity ALWAYS.
jeangreyforever
Active Member
I must be the only person who didn't hate the fourth movie. It's maybe the one I would rewatch the least out of the four films but I never understood all the hate for it (Shia aside).
That being said, this trailer doesn't look all that great and despite the director disputing the rumors and spoilers that are lurking around on the Internet, I'm not inclined to believe him. Directors will lie to placate the fans. Maybe I'm just burned by JJ Abrams with Star Trek and The Rise of Skywalker.
That being said, this trailer doesn't look all that great and despite the director disputing the rumors and spoilers that are lurking around on the Internet, I'm not inclined to believe him. Directors will lie to placate the fans. Maybe I'm just burned by JJ Abrams with Star Trek and The Rise of Skywalker.
Movielover
Well-Known Member
Just want to say that watching that trailer at D23 and now again that its online just brings a warm feeling to my heart. Indy is my favorite film series and Raiders is my all-time favorite movie and watching that trailer just takes me back to being a little kid again. Call me whatever you want, but I will be there opening night ready to experience a new adventure!
Last edited:
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Simply put regardless of why people want to see it Indiana Jones 5 will make bank.
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
Depends on how many old people will go to the theaters to see it. Because young people won't want to see this recycled trash.
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
Uninformed LOL! You are definitely mistaken.
.... Especially if you think this movie isn't about time traveling.... and think it's actually going to be good.
Us realist, have to counteract your overly positive opinions. You don't own the company, quit acting like you do. You don't have to love everything Disney does. There's a reason why their stock has plummeted. Most of their recent content sucks. Except for a few gems here and there (Guardians Xmas).
Snow Queen 83
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't like the overly positive reviews for crappy shows (she-hulk, falcon and winter soldier) and movies (dr strange 2). Everyone with a working brain can see these aren't any good.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Uninformed because you have not seen the film. I have not shared any positive opinions about it, other than the fact that I’m a fan of the franchise.
I’m not acting like I own the company. I’m just a fan, talking about things I’m interested in. I think everyone here sees things they like and things they don’t like in The Walt Disney Co., the films, and the parks. The balance of your posts come across as aggressively negative, surely you see that?
Or people like different things than you do.
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
Lol. If you can’t see how ridiculous your posts are, there is no hope for you.
The movie isn’t even out yet, and you come in with your negativity as always.
Where as some of us are excited based on the trailer, which somehow makes us only positive?
If the movie is crap when I see it, I will let you know, but I don’t live life in a negativity cloud.