Almost 400m
not bad for an 80 year old
shareTrue, but sadly not enough to recoup the production, promotion and advertising budget. Might just BARELY break even, maybe... I know how much the film made doesn't matter in the end, but it's a financial reality that will likely preclude any new iterations of the Indy character any time soon.
shareIt's not even remotely close to breaking even, and it won't hit 400m - it's done. This is an even bigger flop than Solo was.
shareIt bloody well DOES matter!
shareEven 600m wouldve been a disappointment
Disney/LF will have no doubt been hoping for similar to Crystal Skull 800ish which is actually about 1b when adjusted to 2023 (similar to the original 3 films... All made roughly 1b each when adjusted to now, Raiders & Crusade abit more)
If you would of said to me years ago that the final Indiana Jones movies would struggle to make 400 million i would of called you a stinking lying psychopath, I mean its a decent movie, not the worst, perhaps people were so disappointed with Crystal Skull and the fact Harrison Ford is 80 it just wasn't for them.
shareikr, its like someone saying years ago that a SW movie would bomb but it happened - Solo (but at least that had kind of an excuse with HFord not being in it), i remember it was shocking to me the realisation that a SW movie had made less than a recent Star Trek movie (Into Darkness made 470m to Solo 390m)
way back in 2009 i remember thinking imagine telling someone years ago just after T2 that a Terminator movie would make less than a Star Trek movie theyd think you were nuts! (both T2 and Trek VI came out same year and obviously T2 was the biggest movie of the year) but it happened that summer 09 T4 made less than Trek.. and worse was to come for Terminator 10y later when a direct sequel to T2 starring Arnold and Linda Hamilton would bomb even worse than T4 (which at least had the excuse of not having either of them in it)