Is the $185 mill. budget for Indy 4 justified?

[Josh500 1,615]

Titanic, the most expensive movie ever made, cost 200 mill, and that was a 3 hour epic.

KotC was made for $185 (for a 2 hour movie). I wonder what they spent so much money for... in comparison, TLC was made for a meager $48 mill. That was 19 years ago, sure, different times, but $185 mill. still seems high to me, even if the marketing costs are included.

What do you think?

I wonder how much Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford got up front... they certainly get a percentage of the gross later on.

[Quintus 5,399]

I thought Superman Returns annihilated Titanic's meagre sized budget...

[Hlao-roo 389]

I wonder how much Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford got up front...

Waived.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

i thought it was made (relatively) on the cheap?

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I thought Superman Returns annihilated Titanic's meagre sized budget...

To be fair to SR, a lot of its huge budget went into the failed take off attempts I think. Does anyone have numbers of how much cash was actually used by Singer?

[Ollie 1,059]

From what I remember it was close to $200 million.

Wow that's kinda high for KOTCS. The prequels were made with a cheaper budget for each film if I'm not mistaken.

Although working almost completely with CGI probably cuts down on the costs.

[Romão 2,274]

Where did that figure come from, anyway?

[drwynn 0]

I wonder how much Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford got up front...

Waived.

So...Ford, Spielberg, and Lucas all waived payment up front? I thought Ford got something like $22 million for this one...PLUS a percentage of the gross.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Where did that figure come from, anyway?

I wonder how much Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford got up front...

Waived.

So...Ford, Spielberg, and Lucas all waived payment up front? I thought Ford got something like $22 million for this one...PLUS a percentage of the gross.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-indi...1,4784324.story

The structure of the deal between Paramount and Lucas' San Francisco-based Lucasfilm Ltd. predated the current 3-year-old regime at Paramount, headed by Brad Grey. Grey and his associates subsequently tweaked the arrangement to further lower the studio's risk.

When it became clear the movie would cost more than expected, Lucas, Spielberg and Ford agreed to offset it by waiving their large upfront fees.

Paramount executives declined to be interviewed, as did Spielberg, Lucas and Ford. However, several people familiar with the deal behind "Crystal Skull" spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential arrangement.

According to these people,

Paramount spent about $185 million to make the movie and will pay at least $150 million to market it worldwide.

The studio will earn a distribution fee of 12.5% of the revenue it receives from the film's release in all media, including theaters, DVD and television.

[Josh500 1,615]

WOW. The picture has to make AT LEAST 400 mill. Otherwise Spielberg and co. won't get ANYTHING!

I wonder how much JW got paid up front. Or does he get money only through the sales of the soundtrack albums??? (I woudln't be surprised if he got a percentage of the gross, as well!)

In the event that "Crystal Skull" fails at the box office, this arrangement will leave the filmmakers and talent empty-handed. Paramount would lose part of its investment, but not as much as it would have under a conventional deal with top talent.

Although the "Indiana Jones" franchise is considered one of Hollywood's surest bets -- the first three pictures amassed $1.2 billion in worldwide ticket sales -- there is no guarantee that younger moviegoers will turn out in droves to see a now 65-year-old action hero in a fedora dust off his trademark leather jacket and crack his bullwhip. Today's under-25 action junkies are wowed by computer-generated effects spectacles, such as "Spider-Man," "Harry Potter," "300" and "Fantastic Four."

Set in 1957, the fourth Indiana Jones tale relies more on physical stunts than eye-popping effects as it chronicles Indy's adventures battling Russians during the Cold War and racing through the Peruvian jungle in pursuit of the crystal skull. To appeal to the iPod-and-YouTube generation, Spielberg cast as Ford's motorcycle-riding sidekick Shia LaBeouf, the 21-year-old star of last summer's "Transformers."

Though the deal struck between Paramount and the talent is designed to mitigate the studio's financial risk -- and reward the filmmakers in success -- no one in Hollywood can predict the outcome.

[Ollie 1,059]

Yeah it's going to have to make quite a bit.

Hopefully audiences will have a healthy appetite after 19 years.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

wouldn't it be prudent to ask this question after the movie comes out.

Titanic was made over a decade ago, movie budgets have skyrocketed since then.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will more than make its money back world wide between distribution and eventual dvd sales.

However to determine if the $$ shows up on the screen, it needs to be seen on the screen.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Yeah it's going to have to make quite a bit.

Hopefully audiences will have a healthy appetite after 19 years.

A Hollywood Reporter article suggests the weak state of the economy may limit repeat viewings:

[L]ast week, market research company NPD Group reported that 37% of Americans expect to spend less on entertainment products and devices in 2008 than they did in 2007. Big "tentpole" pictures still might enjoy hefty openings, but if thrill-seekers do start parceling out their dollars, it certainly could impact the repeat business that used to fuel the biggest blockbusters.

Will the fanboys who rush to "Iron Man" go back for a second viewing or opt to spend their spare cash on "Grand Theft Auto IV," which arrives in stores Friday? Will nostalgic boomers who shell out for the new boxed DVD set of the previous "Indiana Jones" adventures -- which also hits shelves Tuesday -- pay more than one visit to "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" when it hits screens May 22? The movies face a much more competitive landscape -- of Hollywood's own devising -- than existed during previous recessions.

[Ollie 1,059]

Well I'll only see IJ once this summer. In years past I'd see it several times but now only once.

[Romão 2,274]

I'll probably see it twice. BUt anyway, I would say 600mil $ worldwide is a pretty sure thing for this movie. In my country at least, Indy is incredibly popular and recognizable.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

If I like it I might see it more but with the cost of movie experience so high, here in LR it costs me $32 to take Dave, and for each of us to get a large coke, and a big tub of popcorn, in his town its a bit cheaper, it costs about $28 bucks for the same. I may wait to see it @ the $1 theatre, or I can see it for $5 bucks @ the matinee near work.

But there are so many movies I want to see this summer

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'm probably just seeing KOTCS and The X-Files: I Want To Believe. Can't think of anything else coming out.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

were going to see Iron Man this weekend, then Speed Racer, then Indy(I'll pass on Narnia)

[Ollie 1,059]

Yeah the matinee prices are cheaper, if my wife, kids and I go to the evening show it will cost us about $50.00 + with admission, drinks and popcorn.

With matinee prices it will be around $38.00.

There's about 3 movies I really want to see this summer. Truthfully I've only gone to one movie in the past 10 months and that was Cloverfield.

I'll see Wall-E, Indiana Jones and possibly Will Smith's new superhero film.

It's cheaper to wait until they hit pay-per view or DVD.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

yeah but pay per view and dvd don't offer the movie going experience, which is still the best way to see a movie.

[Henry B 50]

WOW. The picture has to make AT LEAST 400 mill. Otherwise Spielberg and co. won't get ANYTHING!

Oh noes!!

[Trent B 337]

Ya it's definitely hard to see movies multiple times with the way how expensive things at the theaters are these days. Last year I didn't see any of the major movies in theaters simply because I didn't have the money to go. However I'll be begging my dad to see Iron Man, Batman: The Dark Knight, and Indiana Jones 4. Those are the only ones I'm interested in this summer.

Hopefully Indiana Jones will be able to make pretty good bank.....but remember it's competing against two other major movies as well (the two I mentioned earlier). So we'll see how it will do.

Edit: In fact the last time I saw a movie in theaters was when Superman Returns came out...

[tpigeon 3]

I try to keep up with most Hollywood summer movies. I'll likely be seeing the following movies in the theater:

Iron Man

Speed Racer

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The Dark Knight

The Happening

Wall-E

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Other movies I have at least a marginal interest in, but will probably wait for DVD release include:

The Pineapple Express

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

The X-Files: I want to Believe

Tropic Thunder

Hancock

Wanted

The Incredible Hulk

Finally, movies that I have little interest in, but will probably see anyway out of obligation:

You Don't Mess With Zohan

Kung Fu Panda

Get Smart

The Love Guru

Sex and the City

Ted

[Hlao-roo 389]

For me, you can cut that list down to the Indy and Pixar films. I may pay some attention to The Happening, if only to see who might join Orson Scott Card and Margaret Peterson Haddix among the elite (but growing) few who have found their work unexpectedly adapted by Shyamalan.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

For me, you can cut that list down to the Indy and Pixar films. I may pay some attention to The Happening, if only to see who might join Orson Scott Card and Margaret Peterson Haddix among the elite (but growing) few who have found their work unexpectedly adapted by Shyamalan.

would you mind explaining this comment further, why would M. Night bother with children's writers work.

[tpigeon 3]

While it's nice to see Christopher Nolan and his film getting some recognition, I fear that all the press for The Dark Knight is distracting from the fact that it could potentially be a worthy sequel to a really good movie. That seems to have been forgotten in all the hype. It's like the news media want you to think the first film in the series never happened.

Ted

[Hlao-roo 389]

For me, you can cut that list down to the Indy and Pixar films. I may pay some attention to The Happening, if only to see who might join Orson Scott Card and Margaret Peterson Haddix among the elite (but growing) few who have found their work unexpectedly adapted by Shyamalan.

would you mind explaining this comment further, why would M. Night bother with children's writers work.

It's probably not worth bothering with spoiler tags, but, just in case...

Compare the key plot twist in Card's Lost Boys with that in The Sixth Sense, and the entire plot of Haddix's Running Out of Time with that of The Village. The similarities are damning.

By the way, I wouldn't describe Card as a "children's writer," although Ender's Game is unsurprisingly popular among high school boys.

[Ollie 1,059]

yeah but pay per view and dvd don't offer the movie going experience, which is still the best way to see a movie.

Well I've got a pretty good home entertainment system but yeah it doesn't offer a true experience.

But I save my trips to the theatre for films I truly want to see.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

For me, you can cut that list down to the Indy and Pixar films. I may pay some attention to The Happening, if only to see who might join Orson Scott Card and Margaret Peterson Haddix among the elite (but growing) few who have found their work unexpectedly adapted by Shyamalan.

would you mind explaining this comment further, why would M. Night bother with children's writers work.

It's probably not worth bothering with spoiler tags, but, just in case...

Compare the key plot twist in Card's Lost Boys with that in The Sixth Sense, and the entire plot of Haddix's Running Out of Time with that of The Village. The similarities are damning.

By the way, I wouldn't describe Card as a "children's writer," although Ender's Game is unsurprisingly popular among high school boys.

Cards works are found in the children's section at Barnes and Noble and the scifi section as well. Perhaps I should've use the word novelist instead, as writer seems to be complimentary.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Well I've got a pretty good home entertainment system but yeah it doesn't offer a true experience.

But I save my trips to the theatre for films I truly want to see.

I'm the same. I love going to the movies as much as anyone else, but with how much it is right now, plus the rabble you usually get in there, I usually prefer to wait for DVD. I'll be there for IRON MAN, INDY and THE DARK KNIGHT though.

[Jacob 0]

yeah but pay per view and dvd don't offer the movie going experience, which is still the best way to see a movie.

Depends how you have your home theater set up.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

yeah but pay per view and dvd don't offer the movie going experience, which is still the best way to see a movie.

Depends how you have your home theater set up.

do you have a 50ft screen in your house, if no, then you must try again.

[tpigeon 3]

That's something of a fallacy, Joe. When it comes to your perception of the image, the size of the screen on which the image appears or is projected is not particularly relevant. The proportion of the distance from the viewer to that screen is what's important. You can have a smaller screen, but the eye would perceive it almost exactly the same as being at a greater distance from a larger screen.

I'm not saying the "moviegoing experience" can be replicated outside the theater. In fact, I don't the home theater experience can mimic the theater experience. But it has nothing to do with screen size.

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I disagree Ted, the size of the screen can often overwhelm the senses, as it used to do at my local Cinema 150 with its 70 x 40 foot screen, that simply cannot be duplicated in most homes that I know.

[John Crichton 4]

Truthfully I've only gone to one movie in the past 10 months and that was Cloverfield.

Me too. If Indy is good I'll probably go see it twice.

[tpigeon 3]

I disagree Ted, the size of the screen can often overwhelm the senses, as it used to do at my local Cinema 150 with its 70 x 40 foot screen, that simply cannot be duplicated in most homes that I know.

I definitely think there is something intangible about the large screen experience that makes it impossible to duplicate, but when it comes to the perception of the image, what matters most is where you are in relation to the screen. Distance is everything.

Ted

[Jacob 0]

yeah but pay per view and dvd don't offer the movie going experience, which is still the best way to see a movie.

Depends how you have your home theater set up.

do you have a 50ft screen in your house, if no, then you must try again.

I've got a decent sized projector in a dark room of the basement that makes quite a decent substitute. The room is still unfinished but there's even stadium seating.

What is this 'movie going experience' anyway? A super large screen? Overpriced popcorn? A whiny brat kicking the back of your chair the whole time? Just simply getting out of the house and doing something?

I'm willing to cut back on screen size and what not to enjoy what to me are the greater benefits of home viewing.

But don't get me wrong. I don't deny that intangible excitement of 'going to the movies'. But much of it can be replicated with the right home setup.

[Trent B 337]

I'm quite happy with my 40'' LCD HDTV. I don't need anything bigger.... in fact if I had anything bigger I wouldn't have any place for it! The only thing I need now is a decent home theater system...that's one of my main projects for next year. Switching to Blu-Ray and getting a decent home audio system.

[King Mark 3,631]

If your room is not big you don't need a super expensive amplifier .I don't see the need for more than 5 speakers either

I got a Sony 5.1 amp last boxing day for 150$,hooked it up with my old speakers,DVD player and HD cable box,and voila.Paying more would yield only a minor increment in sound quality

[Trent B 337]

If your room is not big you don't need a super expensive amplifier .I don't see the need for more than 5 speakers either

I got a Sony 5.1 amp last boxing day for 150$,hooked it up with my old speakers,DVD player and HD cable box,and voila.Paying more would yield only a minor increment in sound quality

True... I'll probably end up getting maybe one of those home theater in a box systems that go for about $400 or so. I can't see myself spending about $1,000 on a system say for example like Bose...

[Guest macrea]

The people involved with this film have nothing to lose, and no reason to gain. They're all filthy rich beyond any imagining and they have complete power in the industry to do anything they want and no one to say no, and at their age they probably figured why not ride the rocket. Plus let's not forget that Georgie retains the merchandising rights and revenue.

[Josh500 1,615]

The people involved with this film have nothing to lose, and no reason to gain. They're all filthy rich beyond any imagining and they have complete power in the industry to do anything they want and no one to say no, and at their age they probably figured why not ride the rocket. Plus let's not forget that Georgie retains the merchandising rights and revenue.

Why do you assume they're doing this mainly for the money? Maybe they just want to have fun.

Of course, that doesn't mean they're doing everything gratis, of course . . . why should they work and everybody else should get richer?

[tpigeon 3]

What a tired argument. Can't me move on from the "this person is rich and therefore lacks motivation" conversation?

Ted

[Josh500 1,615]

Who's talking about "lack of motivation"?

I think you missed the whole point!

[tpigeon 3]

Substitute "and lacks motivation" with anything else. We'll call it the "this person is rich, and therefore..." argument instead. Happy?

Ted!

[Josh500 1,615]

It seems to me that Spielberg is, despite being a billionaire, one of the most down-to-earth people/directors around. Money hasn't gone to his head. He's still doing what he loves to do. He does have a lot of power these days, of course, being the most successful director of all time, but, God bless him, he doesn't abuse it.

Don't know about Georgie, though...

[tpigeon 3]

It seems to me that Spielberg is, despite being a billionaire, one of the most down-to-earth people/directors around. Money hasn't gone to his head. He's still doing what he loves to do. He does have a lot of power these days, of course, being the most successful director of all time, but, God bless him, he doesn't abuse it.

Don't know about Georgie, though...

Ted

[A24 4,356]

It seems to me that Spielberg is, despite being a billionaire, one of the most down-to-earth people/directors around. Money hasn't gone to his head. He's still doing what he loves to do. He does have a lot of power these days, of course, being the most successful director of all time, but, God bless him, he doesn't abuse it.

Perhaps that's because we haven't found out about his "Neverland" yet.

[Ollie 1,059]

Paramount is in this to make money. All studios are in it to make money. That's why we keep seeing remakes and sequels to The Fast And The Furious, Saw, Hostel etc etc.

Anything that appears popular or makes a profit will get milked as long as it can.

[Luke Skywalker 1,798]

On the other hand, Lucas, Spielberg and Ford are doing this because of the fun, because they dont need the money. It was lucas or Spielberg who said that.