Alternate title: "Disney reportedly planning to throw a lot of money away rebooting a beloved franchise that no one is asking for and will inevitably flop."
Alternate title: "Disney reportedly planning to throw a lot of money away rebooting a beloved franchise that no one is asking for and will inevitably flop."
My fear is that Disney will throw a lot of money at the reboot of this beloved franchise that no one asked for, and that it will still make money. Kind of like all of the "live action but actually...
My fear is that Disney will throw a lot of money at the reboot of this beloved franchise that no one asked for, and that it will still make money.
Kind of like all of the "live action but actually just 3D lifelike animation" reboots they've done.
FWIW: I hate those movies as well, Lion King being the main one. But, you have to keep in mind that Disney has always been an advanced technology company that masquerades as a media company, and...
Kind of like all of the "live action but actually just 3D lifelike animation" reboots they've done.
FWIW: I hate those movies as well, Lion King being the main one.
But, you have to keep in mind that Disney has always been an advanced technology company that masquerades as a media company, and that their movies are just a way they raise funding from the public.
Those 3D Lifelike animation films are research and development for the tech to do them, their animation designs, their physics engines, their rendering agents, etc. They slap essentially a premade script and story (not requiring a lot of script work or cast work), limited marketed budget needed, minimal focus testing, proven-to-work formula and property that they know will bring in $50M minimum within a day in revenue just off the name and nostalgia factor alone (Lion King, Little Mermaid), worst case makes 150M+ just from increased merch sales from the nostalgia and press, etc *(...or you know, $1.657 billion as LK did just in movie money, not merch) , and even if doesn't make the development costs back, it helps supplement the overall R&D budget for the tech. Even the ones that do bad, are not bad for them, they supplement the budget.
Just to go a bit beyond, for example their theme parks have always been purely a R&D endeavor to fund their tech, since the very beginning. Their robotics developments are incredible - and they are using them with the public. It's an excellent, chaotic, but well-tuned, well-managed, strict environment.
The Marvel films? the switch to using robots for their stunt doubles are R&D for humanoid robotics under extreme conditions, it's brilliant. The 'green screen of film death'? advanced vfx, spatial orientation, generative real-time effect management (they can see the general effects generated in real time, as the cast and crew are working/acting), the display tech, the camera tech, all of it, it's incredibly advanced. They pump them out nonstop because the core tech stays the same, but advances. Not for the story, or characters, or fans, but for the budget, for the continual advancement.
Disney is just the megacorp version of James Cameron, which should be noted, since Disney bought 20th Century, and Avatar is now one of their most important properties. It was a tech acquisition.
Do they make a tonne of money on media? Yeah. Do they invest an ungodly sum back into R&D? Oh yeah, they might be one of the biggest publicly known, but unknown advanced technology companies in the world. It's insane.
I appreciate your veracity in making your argument here, but in no way did Disney skimp on the marketing. They reportedly spent $145 million on it! The entire budget was $250 million. I'm sure a...
They slap essentially a premade script and story (not requiring a lot of script work or cast work), limited marketed budget needed, minimal focus testing, proven-to-work formula and property that they know will bring in $50M minimum within a day in revenue just off the name and nostalgia factor alone (Lion King, Little Mermaid), worst case makes 150M+ just from increased merch sales from the nostalgia and press, etc *(...or you know, $1.657 billion as LK did just in movie money, not merch) , and even if doesn't make the development costs back, it helps supplement the overall R&D budget for the tech. Even the ones that do bad, are not bad for them, they supplement the budget.
I appreciate your veracity in making your argument here, but in no way did Disney skimp on the marketing. They reportedly spent $145 million on it! The entire budget was $250 million. I'm sure a non-small amount of that went to the truly famous people they hired, from Jon Favreau as the director, to Beyoncé. These people do not come cheap! I do agree that they probably saved some money reusing some of the score, and not getting a better screenwriter (I feel weird making this statement because Jeff Nathanson does have some truly memorable writing credits, but he also has some stinkers). But alas, the movie wasn't made for me, so I'm not sure my opinion is valid on it.
I'm not disputing any of your claims as such (although I'm not familiar with them), but to what end? Is Disney actually in the business of selling that tech? Or is it tech to then be used in other...
I'm not disputing any of your claims as such (although I'm not familiar with them), but to what end?
Is Disney actually in the business of selling that tech? Or is it tech to then be used in other film projects, that are actual film projects and not just tech demos? Or some other option?
This is the point I was also coming to. I love drannex’s optimism and they do bring about a fact most of us probably don’t think about much, but I’m remembering a recent discussion about The...
This is the point I was also coming to. I love drannex’s optimism and they do bring about a fact most of us probably don’t think about much, but I’m remembering a recent discussion about The Minecraft Movie, specifically its trailer. Who was this made for, and why can’t studios just make an objectively good piece of art from the IP we all love instead of churning out crap for profit?
Then the movie came out, smashed the box office and made tons of chicken jockey money. The end goal was met in the studio’s eyes… But the real question is, what’s Disney’s goal with these increasingly unwatchable adaptations of films we never asked for? Is it for profit, of course, but to research advanced technology? If so who is that for and why? Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Star Wars and some day, god forbid, Calvin & Hobbes… We all love these, and yet they’re going to end up making thousands more of them even if we say “no.” While I can agree that these films are terrible, we may get some gems finally: Rogue One, Andor.
Maybe Disney just plans on taking over the world. They already have “bases” in most countries. Alright that’s too far, but I can’t help it.
when this Q1 has to be better than last year's Q1, forever x infinity, I don't think there's much room for other goals, unfortunately. Elio totally snuck up on me & is a beautiful & also...
when this Q1 has to be better than last year's Q1, forever x infinity, I don't think there's much room for other goals, unfortunately. Elio totally snuck up on me & is a beautiful & also incredibly moving film, felt like a return to form for Pixar while still pushing, but those are rare these days.
In order for that to be true, their technology would have to be their product, but it isn't. They're not selling technology at a large scale. They're using technology to make entertainment...
In order for that to be true, their technology would have to be their product, but it isn't. They're not selling technology at a large scale. They're using technology to make entertainment products. In that same way, Amazon isn't a robotics or a logistics company, even though they spend more on robotics and logistics than all but the largest companies in those arenas. They use robotics and logistics to deliver consumer products. They also weren't a technology company until AWS was spun up, because that's the point they actually started directly making money off of technology.
I would say that until Disney starts selling hardware, software or technology services directly to other businesses or consumers at a significant scale of their income, they're still absolutely an entertainment company, even though they develop a lot of advanced technology.
Their revenue gets reinvested into R&D, but that's not the reason they make these terrible remakes that no one asked for. They make them because it makes them a ton of money, which is what their shareholders want.
I wouldn’t mind series like Indiana Jones getting more entries and passing the torch to a new generation of actors. I just feel you need to own it and do new stories and still have decent writing....
I wouldn’t mind series like Indiana Jones getting more entries and passing the torch to a new generation of actors.
I just feel you need to own it and do new stories and still have decent writing. Maybe one nod to the old films and that’s it.
On one hand, WHY? The usual fan response, ya know? On the other hand, new story, new actor, new adventures? Okay, fine. Don't remake Raiders. Don't redo the boulder scene. Slap a new actor in the...
On one hand, WHY? The usual fan response, ya know?
On the other hand, new story, new actor, new adventures? Okay, fine. Don't remake Raiders. Don't redo the boulder scene. Slap a new actor in the role, ala 007, and let's get whip cracking. Don't give me 90 minutes of fanservice and wink winks to the original movies. Don't try to tie Harrison Ford into it. Let's just start with the premise of Professor/Adventurer gets into world spanning adventures and go from there.
And for good measure, give Shia LeBeouf a background role as a bartender or something.
I dunno, I've reached full circle of cynicism I guess. I'm so checked out by the idea, I'm actually into it the tiniest bit.
Come on. Let's be real for a minute here. You know they're going to redo the boulder scene. These kinds of iconic scenes are like a bag of pure heroin dangling in front of an addict for the people...
Okay, fine. Don't remake Raiders. Don't redo the boulder scene.
Come on. Let's be real for a minute here. You know they're going to redo the boulder scene. These kinds of iconic scenes are like a bag of pure heroin dangling in front of an addict for the people who write these scripts. They can't handle it. It's not their fault, they have a disease that prevents them from being able to resist.
As soon as we heard that Disney was making a new Star w
Wars movie, we all knew that the millennium falcon would be in it. We knew that someone would say "I've got a bad feeling about this", we knew there'd be x-wings and light sabers and on and on. Projects like this just aren't capable of being really creative or interesting. They're just nostalgia bait, crammed as full as possible with as many references they can shoehorn in.
So yes, someone will say "why'd it have to be snakes". There will be a boulder. Indiana Jones will shoot someone that shows off with fancy martial arts or swordplay. He will save his hat from being lost in a situation where its extremely risky to do so. The plot will be about Nazis doing supernatural stuff. He will have some kind of young sidekick. All of these things will happen, and there's nothing you or I or anyone else can do that'll stop it.
Best to just look reality in the face and accept it now.
That one will probably be optional, at least for the nostalgia motive - it wasn't in the first or third original movie, and both the sidekicks in the second and fourth were widely disliked....
He will have some kind of young sidekick.
That one will probably be optional, at least for the nostalgia motive - it wasn't in the first or third original movie, and both the sidekicks in the second and fourth were widely disliked. However, one might just be crammed in anyway for demographics if the new Indy isn't already baby-faced.
Hey, Disney: If you're going to successfully reboot Indiana Jones, you're going to need to do 3 things. Make Indiana Jones an asshole: Dashing, suave, badass... our hero is many things, but his...
Hey, Disney: If you're going to successfully reboot Indiana Jones, you're going to need to do 3 things.
Make Indiana Jones an asshole: Dashing, suave, badass... our hero is many things, but his defining trait is that he's a despicable jerk. Let us not forget that this guy's history includes cavorting with an underage girl, putting minors in mortal danger, and being the guy who shot first. He's redeemable, but you'll need to cast an actor who magnifies his malice and smarm onscreen. Someone less Tom Holland, more Glenn Howerton.
Nostalgia is relative: When Raiders of the Lost Ark came out in 1981, it was a notable standout from other summer blockbusters in that its setting took place 45 years before that. This reboot should do the same thing and be set 45 years ago.... in 1980. The movie should rely on wars and historical events of this time because audiences can relate to them. I agree that WWII is important to the Indiana Jones franchise, but WWII isn't nostalgia for most audiences; it's just an unrelatable era. But one thing is for sure...
Make Indiana Jones fight Nazis: I mean, we want Indy's punches to sound extra satisfying. So even though they weren't a world power in the 80s, Nazis should still factor into an Indiana Jones story -- even one that takes place outside of WWII.
On the topic of #3, make sure that the Nazis aren't suave, clever, or appealing. Make them hideous, embarrassing, and inept. That way anyone who talks about how unfair the representation is can be...
On the topic of #3, make sure that the Nazis aren't suave, clever, or appealing. Make them hideous, embarrassing, and inept. That way anyone who talks about how unfair the representation is can be easily lined up for the next punch.
As someone from what used to be the eastern block, I really want Indiana Jones to punch Soviets. It fits the proposed time period and Russia is finally correctly perceived as a bad guy again, make...
Make Indiana Jones fight Nazis: I mean, we want Indy's punches to sound extra satisfying. So even though they weren't a world power in the 80s, Nazis should still factor into an Indiana Jones story -- even one that takes place outside of WWII.
As someone from what used to be the eastern block, I really want Indiana Jones to punch Soviets. It fits the proposed time period and Russia is finally correctly perceived as a bad guy again, make it happen!
The first one in which he goes to find Abner in Nepal, only to find his daughter Marion who yelled at him, "I was a child! I was in love!" Marion had a lot of good lines in that movie, including:...
The first one in which he goes to find Abner in Nepal, only to find his daughter Marion who yelled at him, "I was a child! I was in love!"
Marion had a lot of good lines in that movie, including: ""You can't do this to me! I'm an American!"
I’d like to add my own 4… I had never seen the original Indiana Jones movies until I recently went through all of them at the insistence of a friend as part of a group activity. I had caught parts...
I’d like to add my own 4… I had never seen the original Indiana Jones movies until I recently went through all of them at the insistence of a friend as part of a group activity. I had caught parts of them on TV but that was it.
The thing that struck me most about them was how fun and sexy they were in a… messy way that you don’t really see any more. It’s definitely more of an overall aesthetic appreciation than me getting the vapours over young Harrison Ford - I’m a lesbian, for the record, haha - but the overall feel was warmer, softer, and moodier in the older adaptations than the new ones even.
I don’t think any big media companies have an appetite for that aesthetic any more and haven’t for a very long time. I don’t know. There was something extremely charming about it.
Indiana Jones is the movie prototype of the "guy dressed a T-shirt and jeans" that embodies the Uncharted video game series so well. He's just a guy, and if we were to be accurate, a slob. By the...
messy way that you don’t really see any more
Indiana Jones is the movie prototype of the "guy dressed a T-shirt and jeans" that embodies the Uncharted video game series so well. He's just a guy, and if we were to be accurate, a slob. By the end of his movies, he looks like trash and, knowing this, the guy doesn't make an effort to get dressed up. After cosplaying as James Bond at the beginning of the second movie, once the guy slips into something more comfortable, the audience can relax knowing that entertaining shenanigans will begin.
Sure, he's charming and charismatic, but that's the movie star. Indiana Jones the character is a sweaty slob who is covered in dust/ashes of the dead and is right at home crawling in a pit of spiders.
In today's sociopolitical hellscape, I can't help but think even Disney would be hesitant, for "reasons." That being said, I wholly agree, it wouldn't be an Indiana Jones movie if he wasn't...
Make Indiana Jones fight Nazis:
In today's sociopolitical hellscape, I can't help but think even Disney would be hesitant, for "reasons."
That being said, I wholly agree, it wouldn't be an Indiana Jones movie if he wasn't whaling on occultist Nazis.
This is a recurring theme seen in everything from Hellboy to Bloodrayne to those Nazi zombie movies (Dead Snow? And the one on the moon?) But "occultist Nazis" is unique to Indiana Jones because...
occultist Nazis
This is a recurring theme seen in everything from Hellboy to Bloodrayne to those Nazi zombie movies (Dead Snow? And the one on the moon?) But "occultist Nazis" is unique to Indiana Jones because they embody everything his character is about.
The guy is a college professor who believes that archeology should be for everyone ("It belongs in a museum!"). So it's natural that he'd be upset if there are people trying to weaponize the thing he loves, kind of like what an aerospace engineer's reaction to the 9/11 attacks would be. But it's more than that. The guy is a rogue cannon who embodies the independence and freedom that Americans (used to) cherish. The Nazis are an existential threat to his way of life (at his point in history). The guy will be compulsively punching them in the nursing home with nary a MacGuffin in sight.
I agree with you 100% on 1 and 3, but I think a huge part of what makes Indiana Jones "work" is its colonial fetishization of the exotic. I don't think you could pull the character any further...
I agree with you 100% on 1 and 3, but I think a huge part of what makes Indiana Jones "work" is its colonial fetishization of the exotic. I don't think you could pull the character any further forward in time without sacrificing that. Honestly even WWII is a bit late in history for some of his white savior, western academic, Howard Carter ideals, but it works. I don't think there's anything wrong with locking the series to that time period. 1980 would have a radically different tone that would, I think, transform it into something too unrecognizable.
Hydra. And in the post-credit scene, Indy gets recruited to the Avengers. (I shouldn't even be posting such jokes. Someone from Disney may see it and think it's a good idea.)
Hydra. And in the post-credit scene, Indy gets recruited to the Avengers.
(I shouldn't even be posting such jokes. Someone from Disney may see it and think it's a good idea.)
Immortal Nazis that have been engaged in blood sacrifices to prolong their lifespan? Drinking the blood of the young to try and eke out a little more time?
Immortal Nazis that have been engaged in blood sacrifices to prolong their lifespan? Drinking the blood of the young to try and eke out a little more time?
Oh, point. I wasn't thinking about that, I was thinking about more modern situations where rich older men like Bryan Johnson are trying to extract something of value from the blood of younger men...
Oh, point. I wasn't thinking about that, I was thinking about more modern situations where rich older men like Bryan Johnson are trying to extract something of value from the blood of younger men and inject it into themselves.
I'd be so excited about a new franchise inspired by Indiana Jones, done well with quality and passion... but rebooting it just seems utterly pointless. My thinking is thus: What is so specific to...
I'd be so excited about a new franchise inspired by Indiana Jones, done well with quality and passion... but rebooting it just seems utterly pointless. My thinking is thus:
What is so specific to Indiana Jones that it's worth rebooting? Star Wars, Star Trek, those have established, unique universes. Trying to create a 'spiritual successor' to any of those is very difficult, as the elements that people really enjoy about them are quite specific to their worlds, and it's much easier to screw up in taking inspiration from them and produce something that only feels derivative, not original. So I can understand and sympathize with companies persevering in trying to reboot those series. I might not like most of what they put out, but when they do make something great (such as Skeleton Crew), it's truly wonderful, because it really is difficult to capture the magic of that franchise's idiosyncrasies anywhere else.
But Indiana Jones is literally just historical fiction, inspired by real-world mythologies and events. Indiana Jones himself is very cool and swaggering and all, but is his hat and whip really that important to what made the movies so appealing? I wouldn't say so... Indy is cool and all, but that's not what I really like most about the movies, and I bet most people would probably agree with that? Besides, just sticking the hat and whip on a new actor is not going to recapture Harrison Ford's charisma anyway, so what's the point?
To be clear, that's rhetorical... I know the point is that when people see the name 'Indiana Jones', they theoretically know exactly what to expect. But given that the last two Indiana Jones were failures with audiences, one would think the name 'Indiana Jones' to be an active detriment at this point, especially with the inherent skepticism that will come with a reboot... And again, the premise of Indiana Jones is not that out there. To me, it seems pretty easy to convey "it's like Indiana Jones: a historical-fiction globe-trotting archaeology-adventure" in a trailer or poster. Uncharted did that just fine, after all.
But still, I'm tentatively hopeful. If they focus on just making a good movie without needing to feel beholden to the 'legacy' of Indiana Jones or whatever, that'd be great. If I can watch it and mentally redact it to be called "Montana Smith", renaming the main character "Monty", and it comes out just fine, then great! I'm all for that. I just fear that starting from the premise of a reboot will inherently saddle it with the expectations of a 'legacy', referential writing, fanservices, easter eggs, etc...
Indiana Jones is an established unique universe too. It's not just the 30s. It's the 30s if there were a secret, occult war being fought before WW2 with Nazis having a lead on occult, biblical...
Indiana Jones is an established unique universe too. It's not just the 30s. It's the 30s if there were a secret, occult war being fought before WW2 with Nazis having a lead on occult, biblical artifacts that could allow them to rule the world if properly exploited. Nazis didn't really scour the globe looking for artifacts from the Bible, and they didn't really think that magic allow them to take over the world.
Plus, to state the obvious; magic isn't real. Opening the ark of the covenant wouldn't really make beams of light shoot out and melt off your face.
It's probably leans more towards alternate history than historical fiction from a technical standpoint, but really it's just a very specific pulp adventure story.
“Nazis doing secret occult stuff” isn’t unique or specific to Indiana Jones though, unlike e.g. Jedi to Star Wars or Klingons to Star Trek. Nazis are a part of actual history and really did have...
“Nazis doing secret occult stuff” isn’t unique or specific to Indiana Jones though, unlike e.g. Jedi to Star Wars or Klingons to Star Trek. Nazis are a part of actual history and really did have an interest in the occult (even if Biblical lasers weren’t real, haha)
Why can't they just...make something original? It's like they've hit a critical mass of owned IPs where they never need to make something new ever again, just endless reboots and remakes.
Why can't they just...make something original? It's like they've hit a critical mass of owned IPs where they never need to make something new ever again, just endless reboots and remakes.
Because audiences turn out for remakes and franchises, not originals. Look at Pixar's performance over the past decade; all the sequels have done fantastic while their originals keep bombing or...
Because audiences turn out for remakes and franchises, not originals.
Look at Pixar's performance over the past decade; all the sequels have done fantastic while their originals keep bombing or barely breaking even.
Honestly they would probably like to. Evidence of this is that big studios still put out original stories from time to time, despite them almost universally not doing as well as sequels and...
Honestly they would probably like to. Evidence of this is that big studios still put out original stories from time to time, despite them almost universally not doing as well as sequels and reboots.
For some reason, people just really, really like name familiarity. There are people that will pay money to see anything that says mission impossible on it, or fast and the furious, or star wars, regardless of reviews, director, originally, quality, or anything else.
I would far rather they not do a "full reboot," but just cast someone younger to make films that fit into the existing continuity. Nothing good can come from screwing with an iconic series. Expand...
I would far rather they not do a "full reboot," but just cast someone younger to make films that fit into the existing continuity. Nothing good can come from screwing with an iconic series. Expand it with something original, not half-assed callbacks to the thing people call like, or leave it alone.
100% this. I would like an entire storyline (trilogy?) surrounding Marion Ravenwood before she even met Indy please. I want to learn how she got so good at drinking games. And don't even think...
100% this. I would like an entire storyline (trilogy?) surrounding Marion Ravenwood before she even met Indy please. I want to learn how she got so good at drinking games. And don't even think about teasing a young Indiana Jones until the end of the second (or maybe third!) movie.
The Dial of Destiny (still cringing about that name and repeatedly calling the Antikythera mechanism "The Antikythera™️" the whole time) felt kind of like that Simpsons bit, with the backstory....
The Dial of Destiny (still cringing about that name and repeatedly calling the Antikythera mechanism "The Antikythera™️" the whole time) felt kind of like that Simpsons bit, with the backstory.
Picture of Shia LaBeouf with voice over.
"Unfortunately, I must leave. My home planet needs me." Animation cel slides down "NOTE: Mutt died on the way back to his home planet."
I seem to be in a minority who thinks a reboot could work? I'm sick of reboots and remakes, but part of what makes Indiana Jones so fun is that the series is pretty flexible. The movies don't need...
I seem to be in a minority who thinks a reboot could work? I'm sick of reboots and remakes, but part of what makes Indiana Jones so fun is that the series is pretty flexible. The movies don't need to be fully connected like some series, each one tells a different adventure. So a "reboot" could be as simple as having a new actor (a la James Bond), or following, say, his kid(s) or one of his students. It doesn't have to overwrite the existing canon to cover some totally new adventures.
So long as they don't radically change the time period to modern day, or try to make a reboot series that tells one big story arc and let each movie stand on its own, a reboot could turn out pretty fun.
I kind of thought that's what they were doing with the last one, passing the mantel to Phoebe Waller Bridges. And I was here for it! I thought they did a great job with the setup and Bridges was...
I kind of thought that's what they were doing with the last one, passing the mantel to Phoebe Waller Bridges. And I was here for it! I thought they did a great job with the setup and Bridges was excellent! I hope they follow that thread and keep running!
You know, when Mel Gibson got too old to play mad max they just recast him without a reboot. But I suppose you don't get to reuse a bunch of old plots that way...
You know, when Mel Gibson got too old to play mad max they just recast him without a reboot. But I suppose you don't get to reuse a bunch of old plots that way...
Alternate title: "Disney reportedly planning to throw a lot of money away rebooting a beloved franchise that no one is asking for and will inevitably flop."
My fear is that Disney will throw a lot of money at the reboot of this beloved franchise that no one asked for, and that it will still make money.
Kind of like all of the "live action but actually just 3D lifelike animation" reboots they've done.
FWIW: I hate those movies as well, Lion King being the main one.
But, you have to keep in mind that Disney has always been an advanced technology company that masquerades as a media company, and that their movies are just a way they raise funding from the public.
Those 3D Lifelike animation films are research and development for the tech to do them, their animation designs, their physics engines, their rendering agents, etc. They slap essentially a premade script and story (not requiring a lot of script work or cast work), limited marketed budget needed, minimal focus testing, proven-to-work formula and property that they know will bring in $50M minimum within a day in revenue just off the name and nostalgia factor alone (Lion King, Little Mermaid), worst case makes 150M+ just from increased merch sales from the nostalgia and press, etc *(...or you know, $1.657 billion as LK did just in movie money, not merch) , and even if doesn't make the development costs back, it helps supplement the overall R&D budget for the tech. Even the ones that do bad, are not bad for them, they supplement the budget.
Just to go a bit beyond, for example their theme parks have always been purely a R&D endeavor to fund their tech, since the very beginning. Their robotics developments are incredible - and they are using them with the public. It's an excellent, chaotic, but well-tuned, well-managed, strict environment.
The Marvel films? the switch to using robots for their stunt doubles are R&D for humanoid robotics under extreme conditions, it's brilliant. The 'green screen of film death'? advanced vfx, spatial orientation, generative real-time effect management (they can see the general effects generated in real time, as the cast and crew are working/acting), the display tech, the camera tech, all of it, it's incredibly advanced. They pump them out nonstop because the core tech stays the same, but advances. Not for the story, or characters, or fans, but for the budget, for the continual advancement.
Disney is just the megacorp version of James Cameron, which should be noted, since Disney bought 20th Century, and Avatar is now one of their most important properties. It was a tech acquisition.
Do they make a tonne of money on media? Yeah. Do they invest an ungodly sum back into R&D? Oh yeah, they might be one of the biggest publicly known, but unknown advanced technology companies in the world. It's insane.
I appreciate your veracity in making your argument here, but in no way did Disney skimp on the marketing. They reportedly spent $145 million on it! The entire budget was $250 million. I'm sure a non-small amount of that went to the truly famous people they hired, from Jon Favreau as the director, to Beyoncé. These people do not come cheap! I do agree that they probably saved some money reusing some of the score, and not getting a better screenwriter (I feel weird making this statement because Jeff Nathanson does have some truly memorable writing credits, but he also has some stinkers). But alas, the movie wasn't made for me, so I'm not sure my opinion is valid on it.
I'm not disputing any of your claims as such (although I'm not familiar with them), but to what end?
Is Disney actually in the business of selling that tech? Or is it tech to then be used in other film projects, that are actual film projects and not just tech demos? Or some other option?
This is the point I was also coming to. I love drannex’s optimism and they do bring about a fact most of us probably don’t think about much, but I’m remembering a recent discussion about The Minecraft Movie, specifically its trailer. Who was this made for, and why can’t studios just make an objectively good piece of art from the IP we all love instead of churning out crap for profit?
Then the movie came out, smashed the box office and made tons of chicken jockey money. The end goal was met in the studio’s eyes… But the real question is, what’s Disney’s goal with these increasingly unwatchable adaptations of films we never asked for? Is it for profit, of course, but to research advanced technology? If so who is that for and why? Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Star Wars and some day, god forbid, Calvin & Hobbes… We all love these, and yet they’re going to end up making thousands more of them even if we say “no.” While I can agree that these films are terrible, we may get some gems finally: Rogue One, Andor.
Maybe Disney just plans on taking over the world. They already have “bases” in most countries. Alright that’s too far, but I can’t help it.
when this Q1 has to be better than last year's Q1, forever x infinity, I don't think there's much room for other goals, unfortunately. Elio totally snuck up on me & is a beautiful & also incredibly moving film, felt like a return to form for Pixar while still pushing, but those are rare these days.
Bases with CASTLES, no less… you might be onto something.
In order for that to be true, their technology would have to be their product, but it isn't. They're not selling technology at a large scale. They're using technology to make entertainment products. In that same way, Amazon isn't a robotics or a logistics company, even though they spend more on robotics and logistics than all but the largest companies in those arenas. They use robotics and logistics to deliver consumer products. They also weren't a technology company until AWS was spun up, because that's the point they actually started directly making money off of technology.
I would say that until Disney starts selling hardware, software or technology services directly to other businesses or consumers at a significant scale of their income, they're still absolutely an entertainment company, even though they develop a lot of advanced technology.
Their revenue gets reinvested into R&D, but that's not the reason they make these terrible remakes that no one asked for. They make them because it makes them a ton of money, which is what their shareholders want.
I wouldn’t mind series like Indiana Jones getting more entries and passing the torch to a new generation of actors.
I just feel you need to own it and do new stories and still have decent writing. Maybe one nod to the old films and that’s it.
Bond made it work.
On one hand, WHY? The usual fan response, ya know?
On the other hand, new story, new actor, new adventures? Okay, fine. Don't remake Raiders. Don't redo the boulder scene. Slap a new actor in the role, ala 007, and let's get whip cracking. Don't give me 90 minutes of fanservice and wink winks to the original movies. Don't try to tie Harrison Ford into it. Let's just start with the premise of Professor/Adventurer gets into world spanning adventures and go from there.
And for good measure, give Shia LeBeouf a background role as a bartender or something.
I dunno, I've reached full circle of cynicism I guess. I'm so checked out by the idea, I'm actually into it the tiniest bit.
Raiders was originally envisioned as an American take on 007, so taking the franchise in that direction doesn't seem like an inherently terrible idea.
Come on. Let's be real for a minute here. You know they're going to redo the boulder scene. These kinds of iconic scenes are like a bag of pure heroin dangling in front of an addict for the people who write these scripts. They can't handle it. It's not their fault, they have a disease that prevents them from being able to resist.
As soon as we heard that Disney was making a new Star w
Wars movie, we all knew that the millennium falcon would be in it. We knew that someone would say "I've got a bad feeling about this", we knew there'd be x-wings and light sabers and on and on. Projects like this just aren't capable of being really creative or interesting. They're just nostalgia bait, crammed as full as possible with as many references they can shoehorn in.
So yes, someone will say "why'd it have to be snakes". There will be a boulder. Indiana Jones will shoot someone that shows off with fancy martial arts or swordplay. He will save his hat from being lost in a situation where its extremely risky to do so. The plot will be about Nazis doing supernatural stuff. He will have some kind of young sidekick. All of these things will happen, and there's nothing you or I or anyone else can do that'll stop it.
Best to just look reality in the face and accept it now.
That one will probably be optional, at least for the nostalgia motive - it wasn't in the first or third original movie, and both the sidekicks in the second and fourth were widely disliked. However, one might just be crammed in anyway for demographics if the new Indy isn't already baby-faced.
They're gonna remake that boulder scene immediately, and they're gonna throw in a bunch of ironic references to the original.
Hey, Disney: If you're going to successfully reboot Indiana Jones, you're going to need to do 3 things.
Make Indiana Jones an asshole: Dashing, suave, badass... our hero is many things, but his defining trait is that he's a despicable jerk. Let us not forget that this guy's history includes cavorting with an underage girl, putting minors in mortal danger, and being the guy who shot first. He's redeemable, but you'll need to cast an actor who magnifies his malice and smarm onscreen. Someone less Tom Holland, more Glenn Howerton.
Nostalgia is relative: When Raiders of the Lost Ark came out in 1981, it was a notable standout from other summer blockbusters in that its setting took place 45 years before that. This reboot should do the same thing and be set 45 years ago.... in 1980. The movie should rely on wars and historical events of this time because audiences can relate to them. I agree that WWII is important to the Indiana Jones franchise, but WWII isn't nostalgia for most audiences; it's just an unrelatable era. But one thing is for sure...
Make Indiana Jones fight Nazis: I mean, we want Indy's punches to sound extra satisfying. So even though they weren't a world power in the 80s, Nazis should still factor into an Indiana Jones story -- even one that takes place outside of WWII.
On the topic of #3, make sure that the Nazis aren't suave, clever, or appealing. Make them hideous, embarrassing, and inept. That way anyone who talks about how unfair the representation is can be easily lined up for the next punch.
As someone from what used to be the eastern block, I really want Indiana Jones to punch Soviets. It fits the proposed time period and Russia is finally correctly perceived as a bad guy again, make it happen!
Your wish is my command. Book off your next weekend, grab your best guy/girl/other, and watch this.
(You messed up the link.)
I personally had an absolute blast shooting scores of commies in The Infernal Machine.
Indiana Jones cavorted with an underage girl? I dont remember that, which film was that in?
The first one in which he goes to find Abner in Nepal, only to find his daughter Marion who yelled at him, "I was a child! I was in love!"
Marion had a lot of good lines in that movie, including: ""You can't do this to me! I'm an American!"
I’d like to add my own 4… I had never seen the original Indiana Jones movies until I recently went through all of them at the insistence of a friend as part of a group activity. I had caught parts of them on TV but that was it.
The thing that struck me most about them was how fun and sexy they were in a… messy way that you don’t really see any more. It’s definitely more of an overall aesthetic appreciation than me getting the vapours over young Harrison Ford - I’m a lesbian, for the record, haha - but the overall feel was warmer, softer, and moodier in the older adaptations than the new ones even.
I don’t think any big media companies have an appetite for that aesthetic any more and haven’t for a very long time. I don’t know. There was something extremely charming about it.
Indiana Jones is the movie prototype of the "guy dressed a T-shirt and jeans" that embodies the Uncharted video game series so well. He's just a guy, and if we were to be accurate, a slob. By the end of his movies, he looks like trash and, knowing this, the guy doesn't make an effort to get dressed up. After cosplaying as James Bond at the beginning of the second movie, once the guy slips into something more comfortable, the audience can relax knowing that entertaining shenanigans will begin.
Sure, he's charming and charismatic, but that's the movie star. Indiana Jones the character is a sweaty slob who is covered in dust/ashes of the dead and is right at home crawling in a pit of spiders.
In today's sociopolitical hellscape, I can't help but think even Disney would be hesitant, for "reasons."
That being said, I wholly agree, it wouldn't be an Indiana Jones movie if he wasn't whaling on occultist Nazis.
This is a recurring theme seen in everything from Hellboy to Bloodrayne to those Nazi zombie movies (Dead Snow? And the one on the moon?) But "occultist Nazis" is unique to Indiana Jones because they embody everything his character is about.
The guy is a college professor who believes that archeology should be for everyone ("It belongs in a museum!"). So it's natural that he'd be upset if there are people trying to weaponize the thing he loves, kind of like what an aerospace engineer's reaction to the 9/11 attacks would be. But it's more than that. The guy is a rogue cannon who embodies the independence and freedom that Americans (used to) cherish. The Nazis are an existential threat to his way of life (at his point in history). The guy will be compulsively punching them in the nursing home with nary a MacGuffin in sight.
Iron Sky
I agree with you 100% on 1 and 3, but I think a huge part of what makes Indiana Jones "work" is its colonial fetishization of the exotic. I don't think you could pull the character any further forward in time without sacrificing that. Honestly even WWII is a bit late in history for some of his white savior, western academic, Howard Carter ideals, but it works. I don't think there's anything wrong with locking the series to that time period. 1980 would have a radically different tone that would, I think, transform it into something too unrecognizable.
How would Indiana Jones fight Nazis in the 80s though?
Secret Nazi community that survived WW2 or something?
Hydra. And in the post-credit scene, Indy gets recruited to the Avengers.
(I shouldn't even be posting such jokes. Someone from Disney may see it and think it's a good idea.)
Immortal Nazis that have been engaged in blood sacrifices to prolong their lifespan? Drinking the blood of the young to try and eke out a little more time?
Extremely unlikely Disney would touch blood libel, even if the Nazis are the ones doing it.
Oh, point. I wasn't thinking about that, I was thinking about more modern situations where rich older men like Bryan Johnson are trying to extract something of value from the blood of younger men and inject it into themselves.
Brazil seems like a good setting for an Indiana Jones story.
I'd be so excited about a new franchise inspired by Indiana Jones, done well with quality and passion... but rebooting it just seems utterly pointless. My thinking is thus:
What is so specific to Indiana Jones that it's worth rebooting? Star Wars, Star Trek, those have established, unique universes. Trying to create a 'spiritual successor' to any of those is very difficult, as the elements that people really enjoy about them are quite specific to their worlds, and it's much easier to screw up in taking inspiration from them and produce something that only feels derivative, not original. So I can understand and sympathize with companies persevering in trying to reboot those series. I might not like most of what they put out, but when they do make something great (such as Skeleton Crew), it's truly wonderful, because it really is difficult to capture the magic of that franchise's idiosyncrasies anywhere else.
But Indiana Jones is literally just historical fiction, inspired by real-world mythologies and events. Indiana Jones himself is very cool and swaggering and all, but is his hat and whip really that important to what made the movies so appealing? I wouldn't say so... Indy is cool and all, but that's not what I really like most about the movies, and I bet most people would probably agree with that? Besides, just sticking the hat and whip on a new actor is not going to recapture Harrison Ford's charisma anyway, so what's the point?
To be clear, that's rhetorical... I know the point is that when people see the name 'Indiana Jones', they theoretically know exactly what to expect. But given that the last two Indiana Jones were failures with audiences, one would think the name 'Indiana Jones' to be an active detriment at this point, especially with the inherent skepticism that will come with a reboot... And again, the premise of Indiana Jones is not that out there. To me, it seems pretty easy to convey "it's like Indiana Jones: a historical-fiction globe-trotting archaeology-adventure" in a trailer or poster. Uncharted did that just fine, after all.
But still, I'm tentatively hopeful. If they focus on just making a good movie without needing to feel beholden to the 'legacy' of Indiana Jones or whatever, that'd be great. If I can watch it and mentally redact it to be called "Montana Smith", renaming the main character "Monty", and it comes out just fine, then great! I'm all for that. I just fear that starting from the premise of a reboot will inherently saddle it with the expectations of a 'legacy', referential writing, fanservices, easter eggs, etc...
Indiana Jones is an established unique universe too. It's not just the 30s. It's the 30s if there were a secret, occult war being fought before WW2 with Nazis having a lead on occult, biblical artifacts that could allow them to rule the world if properly exploited. Nazis didn't really scour the globe looking for artifacts from the Bible, and they didn't really think that magic allow them to take over the world.
Plus, to state the obvious; magic isn't real. Opening the ark of the covenant wouldn't really make beams of light shoot out and melt off your face.
It's probably leans more towards alternate history than historical fiction from a technical standpoint, but really it's just a very specific pulp adventure story.
“Nazis doing secret occult stuff” isn’t unique or specific to Indiana Jones though, unlike e.g. Jedi to Star Wars or Klingons to Star Trek. Nazis are a part of actual history and really did have an interest in the occult (even if Biblical lasers weren’t real, haha)
Why can't they just...make something original? It's like they've hit a critical mass of owned IPs where they never need to make something new ever again, just endless reboots and remakes.
Because audiences turn out for remakes and franchises, not originals.
Look at Pixar's performance over the past decade; all the sequels have done fantastic while their originals keep bombing or barely breaking even.
Honestly they would probably like to. Evidence of this is that big studios still put out original stories from time to time, despite them almost universally not doing as well as sequels and reboots.
For some reason, people just really, really like name familiarity. There are people that will pay money to see anything that says mission impossible on it, or fast and the furious, or star wars, regardless of reviews, director, originally, quality, or anything else.
My guess is the market is just so saturated, there's a genuine choice overload when people choose a film to see. So they go with the safe bet.
On one hand, ugh no.
On the other, ugh no, but they can't possibly do worse than the last two Indiana Jones movies.
I would far rather they not do a "full reboot," but just cast someone younger to make films that fit into the existing continuity. Nothing good can come from screwing with an iconic series. Expand it with something original, not half-assed callbacks to the thing people call like, or leave it alone.
It worked for James Bond for decades.
100% this. I would like an entire storyline (trilogy?) surrounding Marion Ravenwood before she even met Indy please. I want to learn how she got so good at drinking games. And don't even think about teasing a young Indiana Jones until the end of the second (or maybe third!) movie.
Didn't they try that with the Crystal Skull? A younger guy there to swing into the scene chased by monkeys to carry on the legacy? It didn't go well.
The Dial of Destiny (still cringing about that name and repeatedly calling the Antikythera mechanism "The Antikythera™️" the whole time) felt kind of like that Simpsons bit, with the backstory.
Picture of Shia LaBeouf with voice over.
"Unfortunately, I must leave. My home planet needs me."
Animation cel slides down "NOTE: Mutt died on the way back to his home planet."
It can always be worse, though, as unfortunate as that is.
I seem to be in a minority who thinks a reboot could work? I'm sick of reboots and remakes, but part of what makes Indiana Jones so fun is that the series is pretty flexible. The movies don't need to be fully connected like some series, each one tells a different adventure. So a "reboot" could be as simple as having a new actor (a la James Bond), or following, say, his kid(s) or one of his students. It doesn't have to overwrite the existing canon to cover some totally new adventures.
So long as they don't radically change the time period to modern day, or try to make a reboot series that tells one big story arc and let each movie stand on its own, a reboot could turn out pretty fun.
Big grain of salt on this one, someone said someone at Disney is considering rebooting a franchise that isn't in one of their five tentpoles.
I kind of thought that's what they were doing with the last one, passing the mantel to Phoebe Waller Bridges. And I was here for it! I thought they did a great job with the setup and Bridges was excellent! I hope they follow that thread and keep running!
You know, when Mel Gibson got too old to play mad max they just recast him without a reboot. But I suppose you don't get to reuse a bunch of old plots that way...