Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (June 30th, 2023)

[PizzaCake]

The crazy thing about this movie is that it cost up to $300m to make, yet Raiders cost $20m, which adjusted for inflation is about $60m. That means DoD cost up to six times as much as Raiders, despite Raiders using all real sets and special effects.
I thought the whole point of CGI was to reduce cost (as well as safety for stunt people).
Where the heck did all the money go?

Well, for one, I’d guess Harrison Ford’s recent paychecks alone are probably closer to that original budget than not at this point.

Ridiculous paychecks driven by Hollywood Accounting aside, I do think that if they (not just Lucasfilm, Hollywood in general) locked themselves in at $100-150 million for these blockbusters we’d see a little more ingenuity in terms of sets, set pieces, and effects.

The estimated budget of John Wick 4, for example, was $100 mil (up from $20 mil since JW1), and that has plenty of globetrotting, practical action with an international movie star mixed in with the CGI spectacle.

There’s no reason that something like this should cost that much. More than Mad Max Fury Road. More than even The Flash in the same summer (although the effects work was pretty atrocious in that).

 

[Khev]

I don't care what anyone says I actually love this ad.

 

[The Buffinator]

Yeah, Mangold continually poking his head out really annoys me. People here can't stand the Youtube brigade, but when director's overtly go fans on Twitter etc, that to me is a whole other league of lame. And Mangold keeps doing it - he's even contradicted John Williams, Harrison, and now Karen Allen. Just so petty. Actions speak louder than words...

And on that note; it's going to be in a new realm of failure never before conceived of, after this weekends numbers have just dropped. Insidious was the nail in the coffin that no one was expecting. There's now speculation it could top out at only 300M

Half a billion dollars lost on one movie...

Have you forgotten The Flash already? Not that anyone would blame you lol...

DoD just breezed past The Flash's domestic box office and will pass its worldwide take in a matter of days, so while still a financial failure it's not unprecedented and won't be seen as the biggest bomb of 2023. And the majority of people who have seen it found it enjoyable.

 

[The Buffinator]

The crazy thing about this movie is that it cost up to $300m to make, yet Raiders cost $20m, which adjusted for inflation is about $60m. That means DoD cost up to six times as much as Raiders, despite Raiders using all real sets and special effects.
I thought the whole point of CGI was to reduce cost (as well as safety for stunt people).
Where the heck did all the money go?

I think you meant five. 6 x $60M = $360M. Another error like that and it'll go on your permanent record!

 

[Khev]

Well at least DOD is on track to outgross BR 2049's global earnings (it has already surpassed the domestic) which most consider to be the "better" movie so at least there's that, lol.

Sometimes good (DOD) or great (BR2049) movies just don't find a very large audience.

 

[Wor-Gar]

DoD just breezed past The Flash's domestic box office and will pass its worldwide take in a matter of days

Ouch! Take that, Batman!

 

[davejames]

Things were different in the 70's. It was a primitive time.

And even more primitive in the 1930s. Maybe they were just trying to be accurate to the period?

Yeah, that's it. Lol

 

[Wor-Gar]

Indy loves all things ancient... except his women.

 

[Khev]

 

[Khev]

Indy loves all things ancient... except his women.

 

[The Buffinator]

Ouch! Take that, Batman!

One can only imagine how bad its box office would have been if Keaton wasn't in it. Scratch that - it wouldn't have had any box office as it would have received the Batgirl treatment.

 

[Khev]

One can only imagine how bad its box office would have been if Keaton wasn't in it.

Keaton:

Indy:

 

[choombaz]

The crazy thing about this movie is that it cost up to $300m to make, yet Raiders cost $20m, which adjusted for inflation is about $60m. That means DoD cost up to six times as much as Raiders, despite Raiders using all real sets and special effects.
I thought the whole point of CGI was to reduce cost (as well as safety for stunt people).
Where the heck did all the money go?

All you have to do is compare the number of people in the credits for Raiders to the number of people in the credits for DUD. The difference is extraordinary. All major modern Hollywood films have an insane number of people on them and there are tons of reasons. Everything now has to be checked and balanced from stunts to covid to intimacy etc etc. Back in 1980 none of this was a thing. Spielberg shot Raiders in something like 70 days which is extraordinary and just not possible today with schedule arranging, legal. And everything is so much more expensive. Inflation alone can’t possibly explain ballooning budgets. I think you are right that initially CG was meant to make things cheaper but because the way the studios play the game now with release dates they throw everything they have in terms of more underpaid people to get these movies across the finish lines.

The budget for this film isn’t as outrageous as it sounds. The budget for Spider-Man 3 was the same as this so this feels kinda cheap lol. Ok in any book it’s a lot of money. Hopefully Hollywood will implode soon over this ridiculousness.

 

[Mandible]

Have you forgotten The Flash already? Not that anyone would blame you lol...

DoD just breezed past The Flash's domestic box office and will pass its worldwide take in a matter of days, so while still a financial failure it's not unprecedented and won't be seen as the biggest bomb of 2023. And the majority of people who have seen it found it enjoyable.

I'm talking the greatest loss of money on a single film in history.

I wasn't talking about The Flash, or any of the other million films that have lost money, one thing's got nothing to do with the other.

As I've said 6000 times, if you and others like it, that's great. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a financial failure beyond compare.

 

[Felinx]

I think you meant five. 6 x $60M = $360M. Another error like that and it'll go on your permanent record!

$20m in 1980 is actually $75m today, but movie budget inflation disconnected from "official" CPI-style inflation long ago (part of it is the MCU-ization (mega-spectacle) of movie-going.)

Yet to put things in perspective, "Wizard of Oz" - produced 41 years before Raiders, the same time period DoD was produced after Raiders, was made for $2.7m, so less than 1/7 of the Raiders budget. And it was MGM's most expensive production up to that point, and was the Titanic/Waterworld "mega-budget blowout" movie of its era.

 

[Felinx]

Well, for one, I’d guess Harrison Ford’s recent paychecks alone are probably closer to that original budget than not at this point.

Ridiculous paychecks driven by Hollywood Accounting aside, I do think that if they (not just Lucasfilm, Hollywood in general) locked themselves in at $100-150 million for these blockbusters we’d see a little more ingenuity in terms of sets, set pieces, and effects.

The estimated budget of John Wick 4, for example, was $100 mil (up from $20 mil since JW1), and that has plenty of globetrotting, practical action with an international movie star mixed in with the CGI spectacle.

There’s no reason that something like this should cost that much. More than Mad Max Fury Road. More than even The Flash in the same summer (although the effects work was pretty atrocious in that).

While it's true that HF earned more for DoD than the entire Raiders budget ($25m vs $20m) he supposedly took a roughly $40m shortfall versus the deal he got for KOTCS where he earned $65m all-up.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Inflation doesn't take into account actors increased salaries -- and how that changes budgets.

Since Brando got $1M for Jor-el and Willis got $5M for Die Hard and Carrey got $20M for Cable Guy, the costs have skyrocketed... because other actors and producers and directors and writers, and basically all the above-the-line, have to get increases that are commensurate in some way. So the budgets balloon.

 

[The Buffinator]

I'm talking the greatest loss of money on a single film in history.

I wasn't talking about The Flash, or any of the other million films that have lost money, one thing's got nothing to do with the other.

As I've said 6000 times, if you and others like it, that's great. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a financial failure beyond compare.

Is it though? It's a bit early to call its final numbers but even if it loses $250 to $300M, those are today's dollars. There have been some pretty expensive failures in the past (Waterworld, John Carter, The Lone Ranger, etc.) that might challenge DoD when adjusted for inflation. I'm not arguing your contention that it will be a massive financial failure, just the "beyond compare" part. And if it makes only slightly more than you're assuming then The Flash is definitely in the running as well for biggest flop.

 

[Wor-Gar]

TWO biggest flops in ONE year!!!! Batman, meet Indy.

 

[Khev]

TWO biggest flops in ONE year!!!!

Right now Dune is all: