65 replies to this topic

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

IJ is bigger than Bond in numbers only. The last movie was so bad I couldn't believe it. I was already prepared for a letdown but that piece of manure went even lower. All through the movie I was saying to myself "I can't believe how bad this thing is". No plot, no character development, bad fx and above all a complete desdain for the legacy of the series by the same people who did the originals. Bad cinematography after all the lip service about trying to emulate Douglas Slocombe's (British DP's are the best), bad sets (it shows it wasn't filmed in the UK like the previous three: these look like sets) and some of the worst acting I've seen in decades. What's saddest is Spielberg, a decent filmaker, dragged into committing this travesty by that hack Lucas. Not happy with ruining everybody's memories of Star Wars, he gives us this and even has the balls to show it in Cannes. It may kill at the box office now but I don't expect anybody buying this on new formats ten years from now.

[Skudor]

Indy and Bond seem to be about as popular outside the US, but in the US Indy earns double the box office. Clearly it helps leaving a 19 year break between films - it also shows just how valuable the Indiana Jones brand is - even rubbish like KOTCS makes this much money (Lukas is the master of raking in cash based on rubbish).

[dee-bee-five]

Even though the new Indy film was just an average film it has now earned at least £200 million more at the box office than Casino Royale did..which I think is still the better movie.

The main reason is that Bond does not make more than £200 million at the US box office and stumbles for that reason. What is it about US audiences?

Seems like Bond will never achieve the same as Indy. Perhaps Thunderball is the only movie adjusted by inflation that probably has beaten of each Indy movie.

Even QOS I don't think will earn as much as Indy even though it will be a much better film.

What is it about Indy? What has the Indy films got that Bond hasn't.

Granted there is some good action in Indy but the special effects are awful...even the earlier films had some awful green, blue screen shots.

It will be always baffling why Indiana Jones appeals more to audiences than James Bond.


Current takings up to date worldwide in US dollars:

CASINO ROYALE $587,607,184
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL $736,795,294 and still going

In the grand scheme of things none of this actually matters. It's about as relevant as two little lads comparing the length of their dicks behind the school bike sheds. The fact that one film made more money than another doesn't mean it's better (nor does it mean it's worse, either) or that people have enjoyed it more. No two films are the same, even within a franchise. Each production is a unique product, released in its own time, so box office comparisons are always pointless ultimately. Does it bother me that Indy 4 made more money than Bond 21? Of course not; all that matters to me is that each Bond turns in a decent profit to maintain the series and that the quality of the films remains high.

[Invincible1958]

Indy and Bond seem to be about as popular outside the US.

In some countries perhaps.
But here in Germany "Indy 4" had 2,7 million admission, while "Casino Royale" had 5,4 million admission - twice that much.

In the UK "Casino Royale" made $106 million, while "Indy 4" made $78 million.

So in the big countries Bond is way more popular than Indy.

And you have to remember that the weak dollar makes it even easier to get high grosses overseas even with less admissions.

But who cares? Indy 4 wouldn't have been so succesful if there was a new Indy movie every 2 years.

[Skudor]

Indy and Bond seem to be about as popular outside the US.

In some countries perhaps.
But here in Germany "Indy 4" had 2,7 million admission, while "Casino Royale" had 5,4 million admission - twice that much.

In the UK "Casino Royale" made $106 million, while "Indy 4" made $78 million.

So in the big countries Bond is way more popular than Indy.

And you have to remember that the weak dollar makes it even easier to get high grosses overseas even with less admissions.

But who cares? Indy 4 wouldn't have been so succesful if there was a new Indy movie every 2 years.

Actually, that's a very good point with the weaker dollar. It's about 30% cheaper than 2005 - so CR probably did have better appeal internationally (which makes sense).

Doesn't say anything about the quality or lack thereof with regards to the movies. It is interesting to see how things measure up though.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

IJ is bigger than Bond in numbers only. The last movie was so bad I couldn't believe it. I was already prepared for a letdown but that piece of manure went even lower. All through the movie I was saying to myself "I can't believe how bad this thing is". No plot, no character development, bad fx and above all a complete desdain for the legacy of the series by the same people who did the originals. Bad cinematography after all the lip service about trying to emulate Douglas Slocombe's (British DP's are the best), bad sets (it shows it wasn't filmed in the UK like the previous three: these look like sets) and some of the worst acting I've seen in decades. What's saddest is Spielberg, a decent filmaker, dragged into committing this travesty by that hack Lucas. Not happy with ruining everybody's memories of Star Wars, he gives us this and even has the balls to show it in Cannes. It may kill at the box office now but I don't expect anybody buying this on new formats ten years from now.

I'd agree with alot of that, there were so many bad things in that movie. I adore Raiders and Temple [perhaps Temple is my favourite] and like Crusade, but this one was a travesty. A terrible script with the characters constantly talking about the plot, Shia Lebeouff swinging through the trees like Tarzan [the equivalent of the DAD paragliding sequence and I preferred DAD as a film!], the Fridge, the entire last half an hour,etc. You know when an Indiana Jones film is in trouble when it imitates an Indiana Jones imitation [the scarabs in The Mummy].

[Publius]

Indy, like most other franchises, is an event film. Bond movies have, since 1962, come out every two years on average. It's like comparing the ratings for the premiere of a mini-series to those of the latest Simpsons episode.

[Mike00spy]

What's saddest is Spielberg, a decent filmaker, dragged into committing this travesty by that hack Lucas. Not happy with ruining everybody's memories of Star Wars, he gives us this and even has the balls to show it in Cannes. It may kill at the box office now but I don't expect anybody buying this on new formats ten years from now.

Sigh. All of this 2 year old-like complaining against Lucas is very old by now. You all have to get over yourselves by now.

[Daddy Bond]

What is stopping US audiences to watch a Bond movie?

Part of America is too sex-paranoid to take their kids to a Bond film. For whatever reason that makes it non-PC for EON/Sony to market Bond to kids the way Indy is marketed even though it has the same MPAA ratings as The Dark Knight or Indy 4.

So now we've reached a point in our world where a parent who doesn't want to expose their young children to the innuendo and mild sex scenes of Bond is "paranoid". Oh, PUH-LEEZ!

And by the way, it is possible to be appropriately protective of children regarding BOTH immorality AND violence in movies and TV. It does not have to be an either or proposition.

[Publius]

So now we've reached a point in our world where a parent who doesn't want to expose their young children to the innuendo and mild sex scenes of Bond is "paranoid". Oh, PUH-LEEZ!

And by the way, it is possible to be appropriately protective of children regarding BOTH immorality AND violence in movies and TV. It does not have to be an either or proposition.

I actually do respect your attempt at filtering what your children are exposed to. As ardent an opponent of censorship (or any government control) as I am, I think freedom needs to be coupled with good parenting.

That said, I hope you realize how easy it is for them to completely bypass you nowadays. I managed to do it even before the Internet age, as I'm sure many of you did.

[Skudor]

All censorship is ultimately futile and mostly counterproductive - easy to bypass and increases curiosity.

[Daddy Bond]

So now we've reached a point in our world where a parent who doesn't want to expose their young children to the innuendo and mild sex scenes of Bond is "paranoid". Oh, PUH-LEEZ!

And by the way, it is possible to be appropriately protective of children regarding BOTH immorality AND violence in movies and TV. It does not have to be an either or proposition.

I actually do respect your attempt at filtering what your children are exposed to. As ardent an opponent of censorship (or any government control) as I am, I think freedom needs to be coupled with good parenting.

That said, I hope you realize how easy it is for them to completely bypass you nowadays. I managed to do it even before the Internet age, as I'm sure many of you did.

Well said.

I too am very opposed to government controlled censorship (even though I carefully seek to guide my children through a crazy and mixed up world).

Regarding Indy, although I am much more of a Bond fan, Indy seems much more marketable (for several reasons) when it comes to kids. I admit, I too am an Indy fan. I was really looking forward to this latest Indy film. While I didn't HATE KOTCS, I must say it was not a great movie - nothing like Raiders or Last Crusade.

Still, I can see several things about Indy vs. Bond that makes it have more mass appeal as far as marketability.

Indy (as a hero) is more iconic. Don't get me wrong, the 007 logo is equally - if not more iconic - (as is perhaps the image of Bond in a tux holding a PPK - and many aspects of the Bond universe). However, the hat, the whip and the leather jacket give Indy a unique look that carries through each of the films. A look more young boys would desire to emulate than Bond (in all honesty).

Indy is more "romantic" (in the adventure sense of the word). Again, young kids are more likely to envision themselves exploring a cave in search of treasure, swinging across a chasm using a whip or any number of Indy things - rather than hanging out at a Casino or the like. The adventurer of Indy has more marketability than the spy of Bond in this sense. He is the modern day cowboy/adventurer.

Indy is more unique. Again, don't get me wrong, Bond is cool, he is unique, but to a kid, not as unique. Spies are a dime a dozen. There are TONS of spy movies and the like. I'm not downplaying Bond, but there REALLY is only ONE Indiana Jones. Movies like Romancing the Stone or even the Mummy don't come even close.

Indy is also Harrison Ford. Let's face it, he has more draw than most of the Bond actors. That doesn't mean you have to prefer him over say Connery or Craig, only that his marketability as Indy is VERY strong - more than Craig as Bond (and frankly, Craig was WAY more interesting to watch in CR than Ford in KOTCS - mainly because KOTCS was a poorly written film).

The locations in Indy movies are more unique. Oh, I'm NOT saying that Bond doesn't have great locations - Bond has the best, but most kids want to see (for example) a creepy ancient burial chamber more than they want to see some guy in swimshorts on a beach in the Bahamas or some such location.

Further, Indy isn't burdened down by too much romance - something most boys under 12 could not care less about.

Add to that the fact that Indy hasn't seen a movie in 19 years - and you combine Lucas, Spielburg, Harrison Ford and Indiana Jones (along with the hat, jacket and whip) and you have MAJOR marketability - even with a dud like KOTCS. Bond just can't reach this level of marketability.

Anyway, that is my take on things. Any feedback?

[Daddy Bond]

All censorship is ultimately futile and mostly counterproductive - easy to bypass and increases curiosity.

True enough. I wouldn't say ALL of it is futile, but much censorship is futile. Wouldn't you agree that some things should not be allowed on film however?

[Skudor]

All censorship is ultimately futile and mostly counterproductive - easy to bypass and increases curiosity.

True enough. I wouldn't say ALL of it is futile, but much censorship is futile. Wouldn't you agree that some things should not be allowed on film however?

I can think of plenty of things I'd prefer not to have on film but I shouldn't make that decision for others just like others shouldn't make it for me.

What children get to see is another matter - which brings us to ratings, which brings us to studios self-censoring films to get them passed to ensure commercial viability.

I might be open to a ratings system which allows parent to take their kids to films of any rating, though.

[Daddy Bond]

All censorship is ultimately futile and mostly counterproductive - easy to bypass and increases curiosity.

True enough. I wouldn't say ALL of it is futile, but much censorship is futile. Wouldn't you agree that some things should not be allowed on film however?

I can think of plenty of things I'd prefer not to have on film but I shouldn't make that decision for others just like others shouldn't make it for me.

What children get to see is another matter - which brings us to ratings, which brings us to studios self-censoring films to get them passed to ensure commercial viability.

I might be open to a ratings system which allows parent to take their kids to films of any rating, though.

Well, some things (such as child pørnography) should not be allowed on film and (in such cases as that) we must make the decisions for others. We must not allow such, because there are sick perverts out there who would do exactly that - put child pørn and other such illegal activity on film. They should be stopped from making such things and thrown in jail (or worse). So clearly there are some things that should not be allowed on film (because the activity itself is reprehensible).

This is what I had in mind when I said that there must be some restrictions. However, a more accurate rating system would be very helpful. Things have improved, but they still could be improved even further, allowing parents to make wise decisions for their children.

Oddly enough, it was an Indy film that helped to create more accuracy (supposedly) with the PG-13 rating.

[Publius]

Oddly enough, it was an Indy film that helped to create more accuracy (supposedly) with the PG-13 rating.

Yes, the parental outrage over Temple of Doom's PG rating prompted Steven Spielberg to push for the creation of PG-13. Ironically, when Doom was reviewed for a possible re-rating, it kept the PG label.

[Skudor]

All censorship is ultimately futile and mostly counterproductive - easy to bypass and increases curiosity.

True enough. I wouldn't say ALL of it is futile, but much censorship is futile. Wouldn't you agree that some things should not be allowed on film however?

I can think of plenty of things I'd prefer not to have on film but I shouldn't make that decision for others just like others shouldn't make it for me.

What children get to see is another matter - which brings us to ratings, which brings us to studios self-censoring films to get them passed to ensure commercial viability.

I might be open to a ratings system which allows parent to take their kids to films of any rating, though.

Well, some things (such as child pørnography) should not be allowed on film and (in such cases as that) we must make the decisions for others. We must not allow such, because there are sick perverts out there who would do exactly that - put child pørn and other such illegal activity on film. They should be stopped from making such things and thrown in jail (or worse). So clearly there are some things that should not be allowed on film (because the activity itself is reprehensible).

This is what I had in mind when I said that there must be some restrictions. However, a more accurate rating system would be very helpful. Things have improved, but they still could be improved even further, allowing parents to make wise decisions for their children.

Oddly enough, it was an Indy film that helped to create more accuracy (supposedly) with the PG-13 rating.

I'd say it's the legality of the act being depicted that matters. Underage sex is illegal therefore making child pørn is illegal. I can't say I can argue against owning it being illegal too although the equivalent in other crimes - say a tape of someone being murdered or tortured - isn't illegal as far as I know (perhaps it should be).

[jaguar007]

Indiana Jones has captured the publics heart as the #1 action/adventure movie character. He is the only character that can beat Bond in that genre. When the AFI listed the top heroes/villiand Indy was #2 with Bond at #3 (Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird was #1). I remember seeing another poll a year or two ago that listed Indy as #1 favorite movie hero with Bond at #2.

Of course those polls were before KOTCS was released. IF QoS is as good as we all hope and the polls are redone next year, Bond could end up back on top.

[Publius]

Indiana Jones has captured the publics heart as the #1 action/adventure movie character. He is the only character that can beat Bond in that genre. When the AFI listed the top heroes/villiand Indy was #2 with Bond at #3 (Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird was #1). I remember seeing another poll a year or two ago that listed Indy as #1 favorite movie hero with Bond at #2.

Of course those polls were before KOTCS was released. IF QoS is as good as we all hope and the polls are redone next year, Bond could end up back on top.

I also recall a TV special one or two years ago (not sure what channel) about the greatest superheroes of all time, I think hosted and/or narrated by Stan Lee, and the top five was:

1) Spiderman
2) Superman
3) Batman
4) Indiana Jones
5) James Bond

I guarantee you a big part of it is Jones being American, and there being more Americans than Brits to vote on such things, whether for a TV special or with their pocketbooks when they go to the movies.

[SPOTTER]

Where Bond struggles to compete with other big films is mainly in the U.S. Although in the early 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball etc Bond sold loads of tickets stateside, the interest in the movies have slowly declined over the years. I think this is down to the fact the majority of the American audiences do not like watching a British hero or spy. They would rather watch one of their own. Indiana Jones is a bit like a James Bond and America is a big place.

It will be interesting to see the box office takings ( tickets sold ) in the United Kingdom for Casino Royale compared to the new Indy film. I would think that Bond has sold more.

[jaguar007]

I certainly don't think of Indiana Jones and James Bond as Superheroes.

Bond was #1 in the action/ adventure genre for 20 years (60s & 70s). The first movie with a real action/adventure hero that totaly eclipsed Bond was Raiders in 81. He also had more of a human element to him than BOnd and really ushered in other action/adventure heroes during the 80s that were more human and gave Bond a run for his money (Lethal Weapon/Die Hard etc).

Where Bond struggles to compete with other big films is mainly in the U.S. Although in the early 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball etc Bond sold loads of tickets stateside, the interest in the movies have slowly declined over the years. I think this is down to the fact the majority of the American audiences do not like watching a British hero or spy. They would rather watch one of their own. Indiana Jones is a bit like a James Bond and America is a big place.

It will be interesting to see the box office takings ( tickets sold ) in the United Kingdom for Casino Royale compared to the new Indy film. I would think that Bond has sold more.

At this point, Indy 4 has not made much more $$ in the international market than CR did (less than $4million), howevever Indy 4 is still playing (although slowing down) where CR is not.

[Skudor]

It will be interesting to see the box office takings ( tickets sold ) in the United Kingdom for Casino Royale compared to the new Indy film. I would think that Bond has sold more.

That's an easy one. Casino Royale smashed records in the UK, as far as I know the new Indy didn't. I doubt it came close (CR really was very big here).

[Leon]

Well Indy 4 was an awful attempt at a far too late sequel, with Lucas wanking all over the story with big UFO's and aliens. Maybe Bond should have a side-kick with a stupid name who can't get enough of his knife?

I'm not particularly bothered about box-office takings.

[Daddy Bond]

Where Bond struggles to compete with other big films is mainly in the U.S. Although in the early 60's with Goldfinger and Thunderball etc Bond sold loads of tickets stateside, the interest in the movies have slowly declined over the years. I think this is down to the fact the majority of the American audiences do not like watching a British hero or spy. They would rather watch one of their own. Indiana Jones is a bit like a James Bond and America is a big place.

It will be interesting to see the box office takings ( tickets sold ) in the United Kingdom for Casino Royale compared to the new Indy film. I would think that Bond has sold more.

How do you explain Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings (although not filmed in England - it still has British roots and a British tone about the whole thing - and from the pen of a British author)? I think it has more to do with the kind of movie rather than American vs. British. I'm not saying that it makes NO difference, only that it wouldn't account for multiplied millions of dollars difference.

Well Indy 4 was an awful attempt at a far too late sequel, with Lucas wanking all over the story with big UFO's and aliens. Maybe Bond should have a side-kick with a stupid name who can't get enough of his knife?

I'm not particularly bothered about box-office takings.

Indy 4 could have been great but they failed with a poor story and the whole side kick thing. They should have sought to return to the Raiders roots of the first film. Ford still worked well in the roll.

I didn't HATE Indy 4, I just feel somewhat neutral about it. It's an OK film, but that's about it. I wouldn't mind one more, an Indy 5, in two years with a great story. After seeing Ford in this one, I think he could pull off one more, but ONLY one more.

[Judo chop]

I didn't HATE Indy 4, I just feel somewhat neutral about it. It's an OK film, but that's about it. I wouldn't mind one more, an Indy 5, in two years with a great story. After seeing Ford in this one, I think he could pull off one more, but ONLY one more.

I wouldn’t even know where to begin fixing the recent Indy film.

I said earlier that I don’t bother to hate movies, and that apathy or non-recognition is the worst insult a film should warrant. But I think I’m finding myself… disliking Indy 4. I won't hate it, but I’m less able to turn a blind eye to it than other failures. In light of recent proof that aging heroes CAN have successful comebacks, Spielberg and Lucas lured a willing and eager Harrison Ford into the worst snake pit Indy’s ever had to suffer, ultimately embarrassing the character and wasting a brilliant opportunity, and that still sticks in my craw.

I don't like you, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. You are not my friend.

[Daddy Bond]

I didn't HATE Indy 4, I just feel somewhat neutral about it. It's an OK film, but that's about it. I wouldn't mind one more, an Indy 5, in two years with a great story. After seeing Ford in this one, I think he could pull off one more, but ONLY one more.

I wouldn’t even know where to begin fixing the recent Indy film.

I said earlier that I don’t bother to hate movies, and that apathy or non-recognition is the worst insult a film should warrant. But I think I’m finding myself… disliking Indy 4. I won't hate it, but I’m less able to turn a blind eye to it than other failures. In light of recent proof that aging heroes CAN have successful comebacks, Spielberg and Lucas lured a willing and eager Harrison Ford into the worst snake pit Indy’s ever had to suffer, ultimately embarrassing the character and wasting a brilliant opportunity, and that still sticks in my craw.

I don't like you, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. You are not my friend.

Here are ten reasons why I generally disliked KOTCS as well (not hate, but dislike):

1. CGI, CGI, CGI!!! I hate it! Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes it looks great. Usually I dislike it. Way too much CGI in Indy. It looked fake so often - it really irritated me!

2. Aliens and the whole crystal skull thingy! I know that Indy has frequently dealt with the fantastic, but aliens! PUH-LEEZ!

3. The return of Marion. Not necessary. Ford looks old, but she reminded me just HOW many years had passed since Raiders - a lot!!!

4. ShayUh LaBeef (yes, I know that's not how you spell his name). He's been okay in some other films, but we want to see Indy, not some scene stealing side kick.

5. The ugly Russian woman.

6. No truly great action scenes. There really aren't if you think about it.

7. Did anyone else notice that Indy didn't actually DO very much through much of the film? There were too many distractions and other actors getting in the way.

8. Did I mention CGI?

9. Did I mention aliens?

10. Did I mention CGI?

Other than that it was okay.

P.S. Did I mention too much CGI?

P.P.S. Did I point out that there was too much CGI?

[Publius]

2. Aliens and the whole crystal skull thingy! I know that Indy has frequently dealt with the fantastic, but aliens! PUH-LEEZ!

Indy has deep roots in the old pulp comics of the early 20th century. Those often included extraterrestrials, such as the ones John Carter of Mars faced. Besides, aliens are just as "fantastic" as all the magic (Ark of the Covenant, Sankara Stones, Holy Grail) that appeared in the first three films. Hell, probably less fantastic, really.

[Judo chop]

2. Aliens and the whole crystal skull thingy! I know that Indy has frequently dealt with the fantastic, but aliens! PUH-LEEZ!

Indy has deep roots in the old pulp comics of the early 20th century. Those often included extraterrestrials, such as the ones John Carter of Mars faced. Besides, aliens are just as "fantastic" as all the magic (Ark of the Covenant, Sankara Stones, Holy Grail) that appeared in the first three films. Hell, probably less fantastic, really.

My gripe with the aliens is not where they lie on the fantasy scale. It's just an inept concept and far, far from being a fresh idea.

The Ark of the Covenant was fresh. In fact, if Raiders hadn't done it, it still wouldn't have been done elsewhere today, I'd betcha.
The Grail... not too tired, but not totally fresh.
The Shankara stones... who really cares?

And as you can see, there may be some connection between the freshness of the idea and the interest quotient of the film.

[Publius]

My gripe with the aliens is not where they lie on the fantasy scale. It's just an inept concept and far, far from being a fresh idea.

I know, which is why I was taking issue with DB taking issue with the mere presence of aliens. Their execution is another story entirely.

[Daddy Bond]

My gripe with the aliens is not where they lie on the fantasy scale. It's just an inept concept and far, far from being a fresh idea.

I know, which is why I was taking issue with DB taking issue with the mere presence of aliens. Their execution is another story entirely.

It was more the execution of it. If was done well, I probably would not have had such an issue with it. Somehow, when I heard there would be aliens, I just couldn't picture that working well for Indy.

My gripe with the aliens is not where they lie on the fantasy scale. It's just an inept concept and far, far from being a fresh idea.

I know, which is why I was taking issue with DB taking issue with the mere presence of aliens. Their execution is another story entirely.

Agreed.

Did I mention the CGI?