Your point that the franchise wasn't in a great spot at acquisition is noted, and I'd agree with it. I'm not the same commenter who originally voiced the broad anti-Disney polemic, I'm mostly just chiming in my general disappointment at this one franchise's lifespan in hindsight.
But, I'd say it's only gotten worse over Disney's ownership. It's not much of an achievement for any film to be better than Crystal Skull, and results seem to be indicating neither movie is a successful new installment for the franchise.
I was going to give Disney credit for Lego Indiana Jones as another positive moment for the franchise, but that game actually predates the acquisition!
On the note of squeezing blood from the stone that is Harrison Ford as the protagonist, James Bond has switched its eponymous leading act many times and remains a pretty strong franchise (and has endured quite a few clunker releases) - for some reason the various writers of Indiana Jones over the years decided to do the opposite with these films.
Neither the lego game nor Atlantis feature any voicing from Harrison Ford, but they still capture the "feeling" of the original trilogy of movies better than either of Disney's sequels, IMO. I think the decision for Indiana Jones 4 to be led by Ford again could be a good example of a franchise -steering decision by Disney that's really only been to its detriment.
The Lego games in general (across all the various properties) really seem to have been made by actual amateur fans (in the sense of amour) who love the material and respect it whilst poking fun.
I assume they had very little high level management oversight.
It wouldn't suprise me if Lucasfilm pre-Disney may have intended to use 4 to hand things off to Shia LeBeouf, but, well, whoops.
The Bond model is an interesting one, I wonder how well it would work for Indiana Jones. First I guess you gotta decide if you are gonna bring it forward in time or not. If you do, I think there's something of a bad guy problem. Raiders and Last Crusade both benefited a lot from the Nazis being on the other side of things. Keeping that scale + keeping the focus on archeological finds vs whatever Bond McGuffin can be imagined seems a hard job to me... And if you leave it set in the WWII era... there's only so much you can plow that land too.
And once you're 30 years after major media relevance, recasting your hero is a highly risky move. Does Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford have more pull? Or even less? (Compare to, say, Uncharted, which opened to less money than Dial of Destiny, but was cheaper to make at least).
(Of course, "highly risky move" also has to include spending $300M to make a new entry after that long... so... whoops again)
Casino royale was a remake of an older bond movie with the same name, using a rather well known actor at the time. Could've been a nostalgia cash grab but ended up being so great he's still the only James bond some people have known.
That was a risk taken and it pulled off greatly. Can we ever imagine seeing billion dollar studios taking similar risks?
It was originally designed to emulate serials which had no end of (literal) cliffhanger stories. Temple of Doom didn’t rely on Nazi’s and is not told in sequential order with the other movies.
But, I'd say it's only gotten worse over Disney's ownership. It's not much of an achievement for any film to be better than Crystal Skull, and results seem to be indicating neither movie is a successful new installment for the franchise.
I was going to give Disney credit for Lego Indiana Jones as another positive moment for the franchise, but that game actually predates the acquisition!
On the note of squeezing blood from the stone that is Harrison Ford as the protagonist, James Bond has switched its eponymous leading act many times and remains a pretty strong franchise (and has endured quite a few clunker releases) - for some reason the various writers of Indiana Jones over the years decided to do the opposite with these films.
Neither the lego game nor Atlantis feature any voicing from Harrison Ford, but they still capture the "feeling" of the original trilogy of movies better than either of Disney's sequels, IMO. I think the decision for Indiana Jones 4 to be led by Ford again could be a good example of a franchise -steering decision by Disney that's really only been to its detriment.