Culture ‘Indiana Jones 5’ Underwhelms With $70 Million at International Box Office, ‘Spider-Verse’ Hits $600 Million Globally - Making everything black, female, gay, and retarded continues to not work

Article
Archive

Indiana Jones 5’ Underwhelms With $70 Million at International Box Office, ‘Spider-Verse’ Hits $600 Million Globally​

By Rebecca Rubin
“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is stumbling in its box office debut, generating $70 million internationally and $130 million globally to start.

Those ticket sales wouldn’t be bad for a film aimed at older audiences, except for the fact that Disney and Lucasfilm spent $295 million before marketing to bring the fifth and final action-adventure, starring Harrison Ford, to the big screen. “Dial of Destiny” is posting similar numbers to Warner Bros. and DC’s misfire “The Flash,” which opened to $75 million internationally and $139 million globally but cost $100 million less to make. Both tentpoles are expected to lose money in their theatrical runs.

Outside of its underwhelming $60 million debut in North America, “Indiana Jones 5” had the biggest turnout in the United Kingdom ($8.9 million), France ($5.9 million), Japan ($4.7 million), Korea ($4.1 million) and Germany ($4.1 million).

“Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken,” a $70 million-budgeted family film from DreamWorks and Universal, also underwhelmed with $7.6 million from 67 markets. Along with $5.2 million in North America, the movie has grossed a dreary $12.5 million to date. Top overseas markets were Mexico ($1.2 million), the U.K. and Ireland ($1.09 million) and Spain ($643,000).

“Ruby Gillman” has stacked competition from kid-friendly films like Pixar’s “Elemental,” Sony’s “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” and “The Little Mermaid.” This weekend, those films each earned more (or roughly the same) amount as “Teenage Kraken” despite being released in theaters weeks prior.

“Elemental” added $29.8 million from 40 markets, bringing its overseas tally to $98 million and its global total to $186.8 million. Like “Indy 5,” the movie’s massive $200 million price tag makes it difficult to achieve profitability in its theatrical run.

Ditto the studio’s $250 million-budgeted “The Little Mermaid,” which collected $7.2 million from 52 markets in its sixth weekend of release. So far, the Disney remake has amassed $242.8 million internationally and $523.8 million worldwide.

“Spider-Verse,” already a theatrical winner, made $13.8 million from 63 markets over the weekend, enough to take the animated adventure past the $600 million mark globally. The comic book sequel has grossed $267.4 million overseas and $607.3 million worldwide.

Miles Morales, as Spider-Man is known in the “Spider-Verse,” has had far better success in selling tickets compared to “The Flash,” which added $11.4 million from 78 markets in its third weekend in theaters. The Warner Bros. and DC comic book adventure has generated $146 million overseas and $245.3 million to date.



http://edition.pagesuite-profession...4-f8e6fb9ac52d&utm_source=vip-insertion-image

 

[JULAY]

Even the trailer alone was insufferable. I don't want to go see a movie that's going to lecture me about how problematic the original films I enjoyed are.

They should have called it "Indiana Jones and the Insufferable Feminist".

 

[Scout Trooper]

They are just a shitty writer, what they are saying is that the Flash cost $100 million less than Indy Five to make but both films are struggling

100 million less than the Indy movie. It's very easily derived from the chapter. I'd focus more on "$75 million internationally and $139 million globally".

Okay now I see it and it makes sense. I'm the dummy, thank you.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

And dear god Kathleen Kennedy. You've just mined and ruined ever single property George Lucas

Well, there's still this:

Though the trailer says "George Lucas" and not LucasFilm, so perhaps they don't hold the rights to it?

FWIW, I don't get this movie's status as a cult classic at all. Which I've been told it is. I think it is just flat out awful.

 

[WhiskeyJack]

100 million less than the Indy movie. It's very easily derived from the chapter. I'd focus more on "$75 million internationally and $139 million globally".

Yeah, they should've just used the global figure. If you're going to break down things to the international box office you really need to then mention the domestic take as well. Shitty writer, like usual these days.

Anyway, Indy 5 needs to make about $900 million (if the new $330 million production + $100 million marketing claim is accurate) just to break even. Which isn't happening, obviously. In fact, it looks like the Uncharted movie will actually beat it out, which is just sad.

Well, there's still this:

Though the trailer says "George Lucas" and not LucasFilm, so perhaps they don't hold the rights to it?

FWIW, I don't get this movie's status as a cult classic at all. Which I've been told it is. I think it is just flat out awful.

Howard the Duck is a Marvel property (and has cameoed in MCU films), so wouldn't be part of KK's territory to mess with.

Besides, Marvel's Howard the Duck is a worthless clone not the original character, because the creator of the character successfully stole him back from Marvel ages ago in one of his own comics that did a crossover with the Marvel comic. No one at Marvel noticed the switcheroo, so Howard is safely hidden from Disney's clutches.

 

[CarlosDanger]

Did it, though? As far as I'm aware, the money reported at the box office is before middlemen take their cut. Disney will be lucky to get $300 million of that global $523.8 million, which will cover the $250 million production costs but won't do better than dent the marketing budget.

From everything I read it needed $600-$700 million to break even, at one time they were predicting close to a 1 billion box office for the movie.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Ditto the studio’s $250 million-budgeted “The Little Mermaid,” which collected $7.2 million from 52 markets in its sixth weekend of release. So far, the Disney remake has amassed $242.8 million internationally and $523.8 million worldwide.

Generally a movie spends twice it's listed budget. The "named" budget is production and the "unnamed" budget is promotion and distribution. Generally speaking a movie makes the most money for early weeks (Weekend 1 in particular) as that favors the studio more in distribution rights typically.

So generally speaking if a movie costs $250m to make, it costs $500m to "break even". I maintain that Disney spends more in marketing than that to prop up bad movies, but it's a good reference point.

There are a lot of smaller movies that don't really advertise/promote and just rely on word of mouth and film festivals (Paranormal Activity comes to mind) as well.

If it's making money (which is an IF) - it certainly isn't making anything that warranted the huge investment.

 

[Oilspill Battery]

Making everything black, female, gay, and retarded continues to not work​

​

Nobody tell this guy what spiderverse is about.

 

[Cpl. Long Dong Silver]

As a rule my math for Disney films is that to be profitable they have to make 2.5 announced budget.

This is to cover marketing, paying shill reviews, paying review sites to clamp down on any "trolls" and other related expenses

 

[Product Placement]

$330 million budget, Disney is crazy. No way should it have or need a budget over $200 million

 

[Mothra1988]

I still kinda want to see this one, but I don't know.

 

[Oilspill Battery]

Lightyear had a budget of 200$ million, made 226$ million back, and after marketing was accounted for, hollywood reporter claimed the film lost them 106$ million. However this seems sussy to me.

Theaters take 40% from the US and 60% from overseas more or less, so let's round it to 50%.

Box office of 200$, means the studio got back 100$ mil, and needed to make another 100$ mil to break even (as per their own word)

So to recap:

Pre marketing budget: 200 mil

Recouped cost: 100 mil.

Official losses: 100 mil.


So what the fuck was the marketing budget?

 

[saintJogger]

Yeah, they should've just used the global figure. If you're going to break down things to the international box office you really need to then mention the domestic take as well. Shitty writer, like usual these days.

No, actually I'm the retard this time. I was caught up thinking 'international' and 'global' box office income mean the same thing. Took me longer than I care to admit to realize global = domestic + international.

 

[WelperHelper99]

​

Nobody tell this guy what spiderverse is about.

Hot take, I liked it tho it was a downgrade from the first. Still, I actually watched it, because SPOODS, which is more than buck broken Indy can claim

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Hot take, I liked it tho it was a downgrade from the first. Still, I actually watched it, because SPOODS, which is more than buck broken Indy can claim

Haven't seen the new one, but the earlier Spideyverse was able to give a new Spiderman without humiliating and degrading Peter Parker.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Haven't seen the new one, but the earlier Spideyverse was able to give a new Spiderman without humiliating and degrading Peter Parker.

Let me put it this way: very solid, but building up for a 3rd. Has some issues, but it doesn't play it safe either, which is the main problem with every movie coming our rn; they are sticking to the formula way too fucking hard

 

[AnOminous]

So what the fuck was the marketing budget?

I'm beginning to think math is one of the nearly infinite number of things journalists suck at.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Honestly, who cares about Disney films or old franchises anymore? The old franchises were great because they were made in a time when everything was great.

Nowadays everything is full of fags, blacks and weak-arse white soyjacks. Stop watching this shit, caring about these franchises or films and it will all disappear. Indian Jones has 3 films and 2 soulless money-grabs.

 

[AnOminous]

Indian Jones has 3 films and 2 soulless money-grabs.

The franchise has one great film, one good film, one okay film, and two I haven't seen but smell like shit even from a distance.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

The franchise has one great film, one good film, one okay film, and two I haven't seen but smell like shit even from a distance.

Apart from the odd bits here and there, i've never sat through an indiana jones film. It's on the same lines as Back to the Future and Rocky for me; mainstream dross at worst, background sunday dinner-time flick at best.

 

[Jaimas]

All right, because Disney sure as shit isn't going to talk about this, I'm going to explain, in simple terms, why these last few bombs are absolutely fucking the house of mouse.

First, pretty much every movie has its announced budget slashed by about 20 percent or so. Sometimes less, sometimes more, but 20% is the rule of thumb. This is done through a series of questionably legal tricks (tax write-offs, accounting cheats) to hide costs. Let's say you have a film that allegedly costs 10 million to make: it probably cost closer to 12, given this shitty set of accounting practices.

Now, let's factor in the amount you need for advertising, to get the message out about your movie. On average, this is about 50% of the original movie's budget. For our little movie in question, that balloons our cost to 15 million, or about 17 million once you factor in the accounting faggotry to make the movie look cheaper to make than it actually was. That's not that high, right?

Well, next comes the distributor's fee. On average, this is about 50% as well. Which has ballooned our costs to require 30 million in theatre revenue just to break even (or 34 Million after Accounting snapgaggery). This was one reason Disney pushed Disney+ as hard as they did, but in practice, Disney wound up losing even more money through this method.

Now factor in interest on any outstanding loans made to make the film, that 20% we've been keeping tabs on this whole time (accomplished through bullshit), any backend deals you made with the actors and/or crew to get the movie made (royalties, etc). You are now rapidly coming up on 40 million dollars required to break even on a given movie. And break even is not good enough - the movie has to make bank, or the suits will not stand for it.

Now take a quick look at what happens when we apply the above formula to Indiana Jones and the Policy of No Refunds:

Budget: 300 Million
Advertising Budget: 150 Million

Without the accounting fucktardery I mentioned above, or the outstanding loans, or the secondary agreements, Disney would need to make back 900 Million Dollars at the box office. Meaning that this movie needs to outdo Avatar and Avengers: Endgame to break even.

Let's look at the new Pool's Closed due to MermAIDS movie:
Budget: 250 million
Advertising Budget: 140 Million (we have an actual figure announced by Disney this time)

This one only balloons to 780 million in cash spent, so it only needs to do slightly better than Top Gun: Maverick to break even.
Spoiler Alert: It fucking won't.

....So with this, you have a better understanding of just how badly Disney is fucking itself right now. It's able to cover it, to a degree, with ESG cash, dodgy accounting practices, and flat-out denial of reality, but the problem is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money. Eventually, this shit will come crashing down, and when it does, we will feast on a bounty of salt so vast that it will be made legend.