Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny | June 30 2023 | Very mixed reviews out of Cannes

[WorkingonaName]

Guardians 3 might be Disney's only profitable movie of the year.

[von Kenni]

42 minutes ago, WorkingonaName said:

Guardians 3 might be Disney's only profitable movie of the year.

 

The most profitable "Disney" movie of the year might be AtSV released by SONY. The 25% profit cut and added merchandising sales are likely higher than what GOTG3 delivers to Disney!

 

With a fast glance, there are many movies that are likely to dance around the breakeven point between losing $50m to making $50m. GOTG3 probably delivers $100m+ profit and AtSV more.

 

[Youngstar]

3 minutes ago, von Kenni said:

 

The most profitable "Disney" movie of the year might be AtSV released by SONY. The 25% profit cut and added merchandising sales are likely higher than what GOTG3 delivers to Disney!

 

With a fast glance, there are many movies that are likely to dance around the breakeven point between losing $50m to making $50m. GOTG3 probably delivers $100m+ profit and AtSV more.

 

Doesn't Disney only get 25% from the Spider-Man MCU movies? Or does this apply to all Sony Spider-Man films?

[Boxx93]

4 hours ago, von Kenni said:

 

The most profitable "Disney" movie of the year might be AtSV released by SONY. The 25% profit cut and added merchandising sales are likely higher than what GOTG3 delivers to Disney!

 

With a fast glance, there are many movies that are likely to dance around the breakeven point between losing $50m to making $50m. GOTG3 probably delivers $100m+ profit and AtSV more.

 

That deal only applies to the live-action movies co produced with Marvel Studios (aka the Home Trilogy).

 

The animated movies are purely a Sony product.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Boxx93

[von Kenni]

12 minutes ago, Boxx93 said:

That deal only applies to the live-action movies co produced with Marvel (aka the Home Trilogy).

 

The animated movies are purely a Sony product.

 

Do you have a source for this?

 

I'm trying to search for the same thing and scared that the humour in the previous post is lost

 

AtSV is produced in association with Marvel so it implies that Marvel financed the 25% to get the 25% cut of the profits too. Then again AtSV was initiated prior to the 2019 deal about the 25%.

 

Otherwise AtSV is under the new deal (plus only the NWH was under the new deal of 25% from the trilogy):

 

In April 2021, Sony signed deals with Netflix and Disney for the rights to their 2022 to 2026 film slate, following the films' theatrical and home media windows.^[87][88] Netflix signed for exclusive "pay 1 window" streaming rights, which is typically an 18-month window and included the sequels to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse; this deal built on an existing output deal that Netflix had signed with Sony Pictures Animation in 2014.^[87][89] Disney signed for "pay 2 window" rights for the films, which would be streamed on Disney+ and Hulu as well as broadcast on Disney's linear television networks.^[88][90]

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by von Kenni
NWH

[WittyUsername]

18 minutes ago, Youngstar said:

Doesn't Disney only get 25% from the Spider-Man MCU movies? Or does this apply to all Sony Spider-Man films?

I’m pretty sure the 25% profit thing only applies to the Spider-Man films made in collaboration with Marvel Studios, which would be the MCU Spider-Man movies. Disney does profit off all the Spider-Verse merchandise though. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by WittyUsername

[von Kenni]

13 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I’m pretty sure the 25% profit thing only applies to the Spider-Man films made in collaboration with Marvel Studios, which would be the MCU Spider-Man movies. Disney does profit off all the Spider-Verse merchandise though. 

 

That would make sense. I'm still trying to find a source clearly stating it. E.g. that Sony financed the production fully or reporting on the deal on this level.

[von Kenni]

No dice with clear confirmation if Sony gets all the revenue from Spider-Verse except the merchandise but likely so based on the indirect sources I've found so far. Only that Disney paid Sony to get Spider-Verse movies to Disney+ after Netflix.

 

...shoot, a good chance of irony lost there.

[Phoenix22]

I just want to know if this is really bad or good for entertaining purposes (for example Fast X was at least fun and entertaining), also I have to wonder why they took 15 years to make this one and then go the route of The Last Jedi - TROS in the way that it seems like they dismissed that character development (Marriage, having a song) and going back to him being divorced and his son ignored on the film (I've not read spoilers but they have mentioned that the son is not on film and that they mention a reason).

 

Also I wonder if this would be the end of the franchise? Since the rumors said that the D+ series was scrapped and the videogame that it seems like it's coming up at least not before Summer 2025? 

[scytheavatar]

6 hours ago, Phoenix22 said:

I just want to know if this is really bad or good for entertaining purposes (for example Fast X was at least fun and entertaining), also I have to wonder why they took 15 years to make this one and then go the route of The Last Jedi - TROS in the way that it seems like they dismissed that character development (Marriage, having a song) and going back to him being divorced and his son ignored on the film (I've not read spoilers but they have mentioned that the son is not on film and that they mention a reason).

 

Also I wonder if this would be the end of the franchise? Since the rumors said that the D+ series was scrapped and the videogame that it seems like it's coming up at least not before Summer 2025? 

 

Why did you think Spielberg rage quit from being involved in this project? Obviously he really wanted to make this movie but then realized it's going to be a stinker he can't save. If Spielberg can't save a movie it is laughable to suggest James Mangold can. Which is why I have zero sympathy to Mangold's career after this film flops/bombs, it was pure arrogance and stupidity for him to think he can do something Spielberg can't.

[ZattMurdock]

 

 

Never doubt James Mangold and Indiana Jones. They don’t miss.

[von Kenni]

10 hours ago, Phoenix22 said:

I just want to know if this is really bad or good for entertaining purposes (for example Fast X was at least fun and entertaining), also I have to wonder why they took 15 years to make this one and then go the route of The Last Jedi - TROS in the way that it seems like they dismissed that character development (Marriage, having a song) and going back to him being divorced and his son ignored on the film (I've not read spoilers but they have mentioned that the son is not on film and that they mention a reason).

 

Also I wonder if this would be the end of the franchise? Since the rumors said that the D+ series was scrapped and the videogame that it seems like it's coming up at least not before Summer 2025? 

 

Here's my two cents:

 

Whether it's the zeitgeist we live in, exec producer Kathleen Kennedy's decisions, or both, there's a trend of turning old young heroes into bitter old people full of regret like Luke, Han, and Obi-Wan (and Picard in Star Trek, Xavier and Wolverine in X-Men). What we know of Indy 5, the trend continues, and I'm not interesting in seeing it, again.

 

When heroes grow old, or people generally, they don't become bitter and lost by default. If there's something that we need now, it's fun adventures that have their arc of drama but are also filled with hope and empowering messages of life.

 

This might be more balanced review what to wait from Indy 5:

 

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230519-indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-review-gloomy-and-depressing-final-act

[Liiviig 1998]

38 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

 

 

Never doubt James Mangold and Indiana Jones. They don’t miss.

They already missed the mark at least critically    . Other than Kate erbland one is interesting since she is a top critic , the rest are normie critics who pretty much like everything for the most part.

 

Social reactions can be sketchy at times  won't be surprised some of these end up giving it 3/5 lol.

 

[ZattMurdock]

2 minutes ago, Liiviig 1998 said:

They already missed the mark at least critically    . Other than Kate erbland one is interesting since she is a top critic , the rest are normie critics who pretty much like everything for the most part.

 

Social reactions can be sketchy at times  won't be surprised some of these end up giving it 3/5 lol.

 

The film doesn’t have 50 reviews posted on RT yet, let alone a critic consensus. Saying they have ‘missed the mark at least critically’ is a bit precipitated imho.

[ZattMurdock]

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by ZattMurdock

[Willowra]

14 hours ago, von Kenni said:

No dice with clear confirmation if Sony gets all the revenue from Spider-Verse except the merchandise but likely so based on the indirect sources I've found so far. Only that Disney paid Sony to get Spider-Verse movies to Disney+ after Netflix.

 

...shoot, a good chance of irony lost there.

Except the merchandise Disney don't get anything from Spider-Man animated movies as SM animated movies aren't part of MCU.

[Saul Goodman]

Had no idea there would be another screening for these more mainstream bloggers/critics. Disney needs to start their final marketing push in like 2 weeks.

[reddevil19]

1 hour ago, ZattMurdock said:

 

 

Never doubt James Mangold and Indiana Jones. They don’t miss.

The issue is these are the kinds of critics that would always be more inclined to give positive reviews to this. Hell, maybe this is the tone of reviews we'll be getting from here out, but that makes it even more bizarre that Disney played it at Cannes, to serious critics, rather than more feiendly press to build buzz...

[ZattMurdock]

2 minutes ago, reddevil19 said:

The issue is these are the kinds of critics that would always be more inclined to give positive reviews to this. Hell, maybe this is the tone of reviews we'll be getting from here out, but that makes it even more bizarre that Disney played it at Cannes, to serious critics, rather than more feiendly press to build buzz...

It’s Harrison Ford’s last ride as Indy. Likely is something that he would like, to present this work to his peers. And I don’t give a flark to ‘serious critics’, with all due respect but one of those trashing the film at Cannes is a bigger apologist to The Amazing Spider-Man 2 than me, and even if I feel like No Way Home redeemed that film, I don’t understand how much weight can be put into a such small collection of reviews and like I said earlier, we don’t even have a critic consensus yet. The jury is still out.

[Liiviig 1998]

1 hour ago, ZattMurdock said:

The film doesn’t have 50 reviews posted on RT yet, let alone a critic consensus. Saying they have ‘missed the mark at least critically’ is a bit precipitated imho.

Sure but saying mangold and co never miss the mark based on a few social reactions that have been proven to come up unreliable at times compared to the actual reviews that have been actually posted on RT is a tad more precipitated  IMO.

 

When reviews reach 80ish -100 . It's had for them to move by much . 46 reviews is not far off. 5.8/10 avg is damning and it ain't gonna jump much past 60s IMO.

 

Yeah this is the director who gaves us Logan and FvsF.  60s rt is not good for him or Indy as a franchise either.  

I would never plaster remarks such as

" they never miss" on such mid reviews.

 

 Audiences may really love this will see

 

But critically it's gonna be the worst reviewed lndy film and mangold and Indiana Jones have and can definitely offer better than this.