Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:00 pm
i asked a pretty simple question. You said that the original Indiana Jones 5 movie was a gender swap. And they ran it by test audiences and it flopped so they had to do a total of 5 re-writes. I just asked for a link to something that backs that up.
I gave you one right here.
Its not something Disney likes to talk about because the reaction was so intensely negative so its not like youre going to find official Disney literature on it. The various sources I've seen and watched have mentioned up to five reshoots. The number 5 isnt a hill I'm willing to die on though. Does "multiple" work better for you? https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/1 ... x7yq4ybrku
"Rumors are swirling about Disney’s recent test-screenings of James Mangold’s “Indiana Jones 5.” Supposedly, a handful of different endings have been tested and audiences haven’t liked any of them. Furthermore, the rumors indicate that Disney is in a panic over the screenings and that they’re worried the movie will bomb.
One of the endings, which was said to be the least popular one, had Phoebe-Waller Bridge replacing Harrison Ford at the end of the movie. Presumably, this would set up the franchise for further sequels with Ford not returning. Another unpopular conclusion had Ford’s Indiana Jones dying.
The last thing Disney needs is another Indiana Jones movie bombing with audiences, especially after the major shrug that greeted “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”. I’m still holding out hope that this fifth installment will be a return to form, but, I won’t lie, I’m concerned.
Disney obviously wants to milk the Indiana Jones franchise, with even a rumored TV Series in the works, but you need a great movie for that to occur and, as it stands, the last worthy Indy move was released in the late ‘80s."
--------------------------------------
The original ending was to swap Indiana Jones with the Waller-Bridge character to enable additional movies and/or series as the "Indiana Jones" character because the obviously aging Harrison Ford wont be able to anymore. With all of the race and gender swap stuff that Disney has done, do you really think this didnt happen?
The Critical Drinker review site mentions the numerous reshoots/rewrites here at the 5 minute mark but honestly there are references all over.
you jumped from that to "Gender swapping"?
Well, yes because thats exactly what the quote I provided says; Waller- Bridge replaces Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones at the end of the movie. I provided the Critical Drinker link because its a respected review site that mentions the numerous reshoots and rewrites. Do you think the test screenings leaks are fake? The gender swap thankfully didnt happen because the test screenings were so bad. As bad as the movie turned out to be imagine how bad the test screenings that failed were!
Heres another one of many places you could find the swapping and rewrites mentioned. The Indy stuff starts about 4 minutes in.
I've got some bad news for you, dude. Lots of movies have had rewrites and alternate endings. Lots of them.
Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:00 pm
i asked a pretty simple question. You said that the original Indiana Jones 5 movie was a gender swap. And they ran it by test audiences and it flopped so they had to do a total of 5 re-writes. I just asked for a link to something that backs that up.
I gave you one right here.
Its not something Disney likes to talk about because the reaction was so intensely negative so its not like youre going to find official Disney literature on it. The various sources I've seen and watched have mentioned up to five reshoots. The number 5 isnt a hill I'm willing to die on though. Does "multiple" work better for you? https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/1 ... x7yq4ybrku
"Rumors are swirling about Disney’s recent test-screenings of James Mangold’s “Indiana Jones 5.” Supposedly, a handful of different endings have been tested and audiences haven’t liked any of them. Furthermore, the rumors indicate that Disney is in a panic over the screenings and that they’re worried the movie will bomb.
One of the endings, which was said to be the least popular one, had Phoebe-Waller Bridge replacing Harrison Ford at the end of the movie. Presumably, this would set up the franchise for further sequels with Ford not returning. Another unpopular conclusion had Ford’s Indiana Jones dying.
The last thing Disney needs is another Indiana Jones movie bombing with audiences, especially after the major shrug that greeted “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”. I’m still holding out hope that this fifth installment will be a return to form, but, I won’t lie, I’m concerned.
Disney obviously wants to milk the Indiana Jones franchise, with even a rumored TV Series in the works, but you need a great movie for that to occur and, as it stands, the last worthy Indy move was released in the late ‘80s."
--------------------------------------
The original ending was to swap Indiana Jones with the Waller-Bridge character to enable additional movies and/or series as the "Indiana Jones" character because the obviously aging Harrison Ford wont be able to anymore. With all of the race and gender swap stuff that Disney has done, do you really think this didnt happen?
The Critical Drinker review site mentions the numerous reshoots/rewrites here at the 5 minute mark but honestly there are references all over.
you jumped from that to "Gender swapping"?
Well, yes because thats exactly what the quote I provided says; Waller- Bridge replaces Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones at the end of the movie. I provided the Critical Drinker link because its a respected review site that mentions the numerous reshoots and rewrites. Do you think the test screenings leaks are fake? The gender swap thankfully didnt happen because the test screenings were so bad. As bad as the movie turned out to be imagine how bad the test screenings that failed were!
Heres another one of many places you could find the swapping and rewrites mentioned. The Indy stuff starts about 4 minutes in.
I've got some bad news for you, dude. Lots of movies have had rewrites and alternate endings. Lots of them.
Of course. Thats the way studios do things now a lot of the time (along with scrapbooking). I'm not the one disbelieving they happened. What does that have to do with one of those tested endings that failed so miserably being Waller-Bridge taking over the Indy role?
Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:00 pm
i asked a pretty simple question. You said that the original Indiana Jones 5 movie was a gender swap. And they ran it by test audiences and it flopped so they had to do a total of 5 re-writes. I just asked for a link to something that backs that up.
I gave you one right here.
Its not something Disney likes to talk about because the reaction was so intensely negative so its not like youre going to find official Disney literature on it. The various sources I've seen and watched have mentioned up to five reshoots. The number 5 isnt a hill I'm willing to die on though. Does "multiple" work better for you? https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/1 ... x7yq4ybrku
"Rumors are swirling about Disney’s recent test-screenings of James Mangold’s “Indiana Jones 5.” Supposedly, a handful of different endings have been tested and audiences haven’t liked any of them. Furthermore, the rumors indicate that Disney is in a panic over the screenings and that they’re worried the movie will bomb.
One of the endings, which was said to be the least popular one, had Phoebe-Waller Bridge replacing Harrison Ford at the end of the movie. Presumably, this would set up the franchise for further sequels with Ford not returning. Another unpopular conclusion had Ford’s Indiana Jones dying.
The last thing Disney needs is another Indiana Jones movie bombing with audiences, especially after the major shrug that greeted “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”. I’m still holding out hope that this fifth installment will be a return to form, but, I won’t lie, I’m concerned.
Disney obviously wants to milk the Indiana Jones franchise, with even a rumored TV Series in the works, but you need a great movie for that to occur and, as it stands, the last worthy Indy move was released in the late ‘80s."
--------------------------------------
The original ending was to swap Indiana Jones with the Waller-Bridge character to enable additional movies and/or series as the "Indiana Jones" character because the obviously aging Harrison Ford wont be able to anymore. With all of the race and gender swap stuff that Disney has done, do you really think this didnt happen?
The Critical Drinker review site mentions the numerous reshoots/rewrites here at the 5 minute mark but honestly there are references all over.
you jumped from that to "Gender swapping"?
Well, yes because thats exactly what the quote I provided says; Waller- Bridge replaces Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones at the end of the movie. I provided the Critical Drinker link because its a respected review site that mentions the numerous reshoots and rewrites. Do you think the test screenings leaks are fake? The gender swap thankfully didnt happen because the test screenings were so bad. As bad as the movie turned out to be imagine how bad the test screenings that failed were!
Heres another one of many places you could find the swapping and rewrites mentioned. The Indy stuff starts about 4 minutes in.
I've got some bad news for you, dude. Lots of movies have had rewrites and alternate endings. Lots of them.
Of course. Thats the way studios do things now a lot of the time (along with scrapbooking). I'm not the one disbelieving they happened. What does that have to do with one of those tested endings that failed so miserably being Waller-Bridge taking over the Indy role?
You're cherry-picking an alternate ending that no one ever saw because it fits your agenda. What does it possibly matter when they didn't use it?
Keep in mind that they also tried to reboot Indiana Jones using Shia LaBeouf.
Re: Post nothing for good reason (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:21 pm
by Animal
Man, you are treading into some crazy conspiracy stuff here.
Re: Post nothing for good reason (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:28 pm
by Reservoir Dog
Animal wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:21 pm
Man, you are treading into some crazy conspiracy stuff here.
Dude! Are you not taking Victor Doomcock seriously?
Re: Post nothing for good reason (NSFW)
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:29 pm
by CHEEZY17
Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:20 pm
You're cherry-picking an alternate ending that no one ever saw because it fits your agenda. What does it possibly matter when they didn't use it?
Keep in mind that they also tried to reboot Indiana Jones using Shia LaBeouf.
The entire point is that it was an attempted gender swap of a well known beloved established character. Why even attempt that kind of bullshit? And no one ever saw it because it tested so miserably. If Disney wants to create a different awesome female driven adventurer archaeologist then go ahead. Maybe that could work. Why cant she be her own awesome character instead of trying to "reimagine" an existing one?
Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:20 pm
You're cherry-picking an alternate ending that no one ever saw because it fits your agenda. What does it possibly matter when they didn't use it?
Keep in mind that they also tried to reboot Indiana Jones using Shia LaBeouf.
The entire point is that it was an attempted gender swap of a well known beloved established character. Why even attempt that kind of bullshit? And no one ever saw it because it tested so miserably. If Disney wants to create a different awesome female driven adventurer archaeologist then go ahead. Maybe that could work. Why cant she be her own awesome character instead of trying to "reimagine" an existing one?
you have to really be searching hard for a conspiracy theory to latch onto this one. damn.
Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:20 pm
You're cherry-picking an alternate ending that no one ever saw because it fits your agenda. What does it possibly matter when they didn't use it?
Keep in mind that they also tried to reboot Indiana Jones using Shia LaBeouf.
The entire point is that it was an attempted gender swap of a well known beloved established character. Why even attempt that kind of bullshit? And no one ever saw it because it tested so miserably. If Disney wants to create a different awesome female driven adventurer archaeologist then go ahead. Maybe that could work. Why cant she be her own awesome character instead of trying to "reimagine" an existing one?
you have to really be searching hard for a conspiracy theory to latch onto this one. damn.
Disney released 32 movies in 2023 and Chezzy has cherrypicked 3 of them.
Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:20 pm
You're cherry-picking an alternate ending that no one ever saw because it fits your agenda. What does it possibly matter when they didn't use it?
Keep in mind that they also tried to reboot Indiana Jones using Shia LaBeouf.
The entire point is that it was an attempted gender swap of a well known beloved established character. Why even attempt that kind of bullshit? And no one ever saw it because it tested so miserably. If Disney wants to create a different awesome female driven adventurer archaeologist then go ahead. Maybe that could work. Why cant she be her own awesome character instead of trying to "reimagine" an existing one?
you have to really be searching hard for a conspiracy theory to latch onto this one. damn.
Disney released 32 movies in 2023 and Chezzy has cherrypicked 3 of them.
and he's having to rely on rumors to confirm the thing that one of those 3 nearly did, but ended up not doing.
Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 8:20 pm
You're cherry-picking an alternate ending that no one ever saw because it fits your agenda. What does it possibly matter when they didn't use it?
Keep in mind that they also tried to reboot Indiana Jones using Shia LaBeouf.
The entire point is that it was an attempted gender swap of a well known beloved established character. Why even attempt that kind of bullshit? And no one ever saw it because it tested so miserably. If Disney wants to create a different awesome female driven adventurer archaeologist then go ahead. Maybe that could work. Why cant she be her own awesome character instead of trying to "reimagine" an existing one?
you have to really be searching hard for a conspiracy theory to latch onto this one. damn.
What exactly is the conspiracy theory?
That race swapped and gender swapped roles, realized or cut, along with other assorted agenda pushing has hurt Disney revenue via lower than expected consumer acceptance of their products and bad publicity? Thats not a conspiracy; its factual. Disney said so itself.
“Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance,” the company said in its SEC filing."
Crazy old Cheezy. You guys can deny it all you want. I'm simply echoing, yes in harsher ways, exactly what Disney itself has admitted.
quoting 15 articles that all stemmed from the same comment isn't proving much of a point. You are simply over blowing the actual cause of Disney's poor performance the past few years and you are trying too hard to pin it on some political agenda that you have bought into. Every company in the entertainment production business has struggled the past several years. What you are trying to do is pin Oprah's weight gain on the fact that she ate 3 candy bars one day, because you are on a mission to punish everyone that ate a candy bar.
Re: Post nothing for good reason (NSFW)
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2024 1:41 pm
by Reservoir Dog
Animal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 1:13 pm
quoting 15 articles that all stemmed from the same comment isn't proving much of a point. You are simply over blowing the actual cause of Disney's poor performance the past few years and you are trying too hard to pin it on some political agenda that you have bought into. Every company in the entertainment production business has struggled the past several years. What you are trying to do is pin Oprah's weight gain on the fact that she ate 3 candy bars one day, because you are on a mission to punish everyone that ate a candy bar.
Every movie studio puts out bombs. Every movie studio puts out movies that underperform.
This is absolutely nothing new. It's been going on for 100 years.
Re: Post nothing for good reason (NSFW)
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2024 7:12 pm
by CHEEZY17
The company literally said that its focus on messaging hurt its revenue and profit. You both are trying to say that that decision didnt matter. It did and the company admitted it. You can try to pretend that it didnt all you want but when the company itself says it did there really isnt an argument.
We're not talking about typical bombs or underperformers which, yes, every studio does. We are talking about Disney's conscious decision to inject politics and activism into its content and the results of that decision leading to underperforming projects and lost revenue.
Thats really not debatable.
Re: Post nothing for good reason (NSFW)
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2024 8:00 pm
by Reservoir Dog
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 7:12 pm
The company literally said that its focus on messaging hurt its revenue and profit. You both are trying to say that that decision didnt matter. It did and the company admitted it. You can try to pretend that it didnt all you want but when the company itself says it did there really isnt an argument.
We're not talking about typical bombs or underperformers which, yes, every studio does. We are talking about Disney's conscious decision to inject politics and activism into its content and the results of that decision leading to underperforming projects and lost revenue.
Thats really not debatable.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 7:12 pm
The company literally said that its focus on messaging hurt its revenue and profit. You both are trying to say that that decision didnt matter. It did and the company admitted it. You can try to pretend that it didnt all you want but when the company itself says it did there really isnt an argument.
We're not talking about typical bombs or underperformers which, yes, every studio does. We are talking about Disney's conscious decision to inject politics and activism into its content and the results of that decision leading to underperforming projects and lost revenue.
Thats really not debatable.
Yeah, when you realized that you are actually arguing against what Disney itself said, it makes it kind of hard for a real rebuttal.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 7:12 pm
The company literally said that its focus on messaging hurt its revenue and profit. You both are trying to say that that decision didnt matter. It did and the company admitted it. You can try to pretend that it didnt all you want but when the company itself says it did there really isnt an argument.
We're not talking about typical bombs or underperformers which, yes, every studio does. We are talking about Disney's conscious decision to inject politics and activism into its content and the results of that decision leading to underperforming projects and lost revenue.
Thats really not debatable.
Yeah, when you realized that you are actually arguing against what Disney itself said, it makes it kind of hard for a real rebuttal.
