Indiana Jones And The Dial of Destiny (2023)

[Justin Swanton]

Raiders had the magic that comes with being the first one in the series .

Toy Story 1, 2 and 3?
Back to the Future 1, 2 and 3?
Etc.

 

[BAYLOR]

Toy Story 1, 2 and 3?

Good point.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Where have the good writers gone? (actually I know perfectly well where)

 

[paranoid marvin]

Raiders had the magic that comes with being the first one in the series .

I do think Last Crusade was the best in the series. It was helped by Connery playing arguably the best supporting actor role of his career. So many great lines in that movie.

 

[BAYLOR]

I do think Last Crusade was the best in the series. It was helped by Connery playing arguably the best supporting actor role of his career. So many great lines in that movie.

Even as a supporting actor Connery practically stole the movie. Also, Julian Glover was outstanding as Walter Donovan the main villain in the film.

 

[KGeo777]

I think Raiders had the best treasure quest. The Ark opening is some sequence.
It is a monster movie really-the OT God is a monster! That's how I saw it.
But Raiders is very sparse on characterization and I think it hurts it now because the stunts were state-of-the-art at the time but not so unique anymore and it almost feels like a parody to me for the lack of quiet moments. I thought of that after watching a Kevin Connor-Doug McCLure film--those were adventure films but they had slower pacing and I think I prefer that. Last Crusade had more humor and some of it turned me off. Plus the Jordan finale reminded me a lot of Rambo 3--in fact I heard Ford was on the same horse Stallone had.

The Mummy 1999 was similar to Raiders in many ways.
They can make those kinds of films but they don't want to.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think Raiders had the best treasure quest. The Ark opening is some sequence.
It is a monster movie really-the OT God is a monster! That's how I saw it.
But Raiders is very sparse on characterization and I think it hurts it now because the stunts were state-of-the-art at the time but not so unique anymore and it almost feels like a parody to me for the lack of quiet moments. I thought of that after watching a Kevin Connor-Doug McCLure film--those were adventure films but they had slower pacing and I think I prefer that. Last Crusade had more humor and some of it turned me off. Plus the Jordan finale reminded me a lot of Rambo 3--in fact I heard Ford was on the same horse Stallone had.

The opening sequence in raider in any other movie would have been spectacular finale . Raider was not exactly character driven , but it didn't matter, It was a fun ride .

The Douglas McClure film even with their limitation in special effect technology m. were more fun that a great many of the films that have the benefit of CGI

The Mummy 1999 was similar to Raiders in many ways.
They can make those kinds of films but they don't want to.

Eventually,, they are going to have no choice but to produce those films that they don't want to produce otherwise, they're going to put themselves out of business

 

[Justin Swanton]

The opening sequence in raider in any other movie would have been spectacular finale . Raider was not exactly character driven , but it didn't matter, It was a fun ride .

The Douglas McClure film even with their limitation in special effect technology m. were more fun that a great many of the films that have the benefit of CGI


Eventually,, they are going to have no choice but to produce those films that they don't want to produce otherwise, they're going to put themselves out of business

Somehow I doubt they'll change direction. Them boxes gotta be ticked.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Chris Gore sums up nicely what is wrong with contemporary filmmaking. Actually when I said them boxes gotta be ticked I hadn't seen this video and he says the same thing. Great minds...

Another take.

 

[KGeo777]

I read that they reshot the ending because 5 different test audiences hated it.

Disney management behaves as if Maleficent's plan for the prince in Sleeping Beauty when she has him as a prisoner is the greatest idea since sliced bread.
The real big problem is that those who are making the decisions on what gets made do not like films, they do not like cultural history, and they do not like people.
Yes, there have been misanthropic writers--but usually they are disillusioned idealists or something. The owners of Disney do not like people. And yet they are saying "hey idiot, pay attention to what I am doing."

And then when people are not receptive--they blame the audience.
lol

 

[BAYLOR]

They have too many flops on the books. Not a good thing.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'm not sure that I'd lay blame for any failings of DoD at Disney's door. How many successful sequels (with the same lead actor) have there been that were made more than several decades after the first in the series? Not many. It's unsurprising that most of the magic has been lost in the intervening period.


I do think though that Disney missed a trick by not replacing the lead actor. Remember the beginning of Last Crusade when we see a guy in a leather jacket and fedora, and are fooled into thinking it's Indy? Well maybe they should have started the new movie with a guy in a leather jacket, fedora and whip, but with his face obscured. Then he turns/raises his head and it is Indy, but played by a different actor. It worked perfectly well with Bond; the familiar soundtrack starts up and suddenly we accept the new guy (or gal) as being Indy, just as we accepted Moore/Lazenby/Dalton etc. As long as all the familiar trappings are there, and it's an interesting story, then the audience will accept it; and so much better than using CGI.

What they needed was a new Indy for a new generation, perhaps with Harrison Ford playing his dad? But they needed a fresh start, and DoD definitely isn't that.

 

[KGeo777]

I agree that it is easy to blame Disney and there is a pile on attitude. And they did have a long pause between movies but let's face it--it's totally cynical on their part. Look how much they blew on it. They didn't have to spend it--they did it because they used the CGI angle as the selling point.
To Disney, it's a brand--and they want to use it.
Not the way you do entertainment art. And the fact is--Indiana Jones was a pastiche--he was not created to be some great adventure hero--his entire reason to exist was to have someone who would be the focus in seeking the Ark but IMO the star of Raiders IS the Ark. I forgot how many times IJ did stuff that was weird or unheroic--like when he going to kill himself in the bar and the children save him. It does look kind of weird that he needs to be saved by others so much. Yes, you can say it makes it more interesting or funny but they really push it. He was even saved by Hitler in one of those moments!
And Disney does not want to do more adventure stories with someone who looks like that to put it mildly.
They have an agenda--it's weird and counterintuitive if you want to entertain.

Big corporations can't do good art. They are too remote--too detached from the real world, and they don;t have to worry about the bottom line.
And they are so limited now in who they will hire.
Movies should not cost $300--a billion to make.
That's totally insane.

 

[BAYLOR]

I agree that it is easy to blame Disney and there is a pile on attitude. And they did have a long pause between movies but let's face it--it's totally cynical on their part. Look how much they blew on it. They didn't have to spend it--they did it because they used the CGI angle as the selling point.
To Disney, it's a brand--and they want to use it.
Not the way you do entertainment art. And the fact is--Indiana Jones was a pastiche--he was not created to be some great adventure hero--his entire reason to exist was to have someone who would be the focus in seeking the Ark but IMO the star of Raiders IS the Ark. I forgot how many times IJ did stuff that was weird or unheroic--like when he going to kill himself in the bar and the children save him. It does look kind of weird that he needs to be saved by others so much. Yes, you can say it makes it more interesting or funny but they really push it. He was even saved by Hitler in one of those moments!
And Disney does not want to do more adventure stories with someone who looks like that to put it mildly.
They have an agenda--it's weird and counterintuitive if you want to entertain.

Big corporations can't do good art. They are too remote--too detached from the real world, and they don;t have to worry about the bottom line.
And they are so limited now in who they will hire.
Movies should not cost $300--a billion to make.
That's totally insane.

The thing that really bugs me is why a movie cost 300 million ? Where does all the money go ? What are they spending it on ?

 

[KGeo777]

The money figure is probably a lie actually.
They say it cost a lot to make it more attractive but then it also means they have a harder time if it is not getting the attendance they expect.
I think the mentality of opening weekend being the most important is crazy--Star Wars and Robocop and Titanic were sleeper hits--they didn't have an impressive opening and made money later.
The mentality of caring how much money the film made makes no sense to me--you should judge it on whether you like it. Old-fashioned thinking.

 

[BAYLOR]

The money figure is probably a lie actually.
They say it cost a lot to make it more attractive but then it also means they have a harder time if it is not getting the attendance they expect.
I think the mentality of opening weekend being the most important is crazy--Star Wars and Robocop and Titanic were sleeper hits--they didn't have an impressive opening and made money later.
The mentality of caring how much money the film made makes no sense to me--you should judge it on whether you like it. Old-fashioned thinking.

On the plus side , there won't be a sequel to this one.

 

[Swank]

Raiders is a transformative story where a character that initially looks like a thief turns out to be a womanizing single minded academic who turns out to be a loving guy whose focus is split between his old flame current events. He's a guy that doesn't believe in "hocus pocus", yet the next prequel shows him witnessing exactly that. And then more of the same with every succeeding film, cheapening the stakes of the first.

All the sequels are failures. Last Crusade is cute, but most of the action looks like a theme park show. The adversaries are cartoonish. It has a strong dose of Return of the Jedi to it, losing that cruel edge that came before.


The best thing they could have done with Jones is give him an adult story that wasn't an action film. Make it a mystery or even a thriller. Avoid the whip and jacket until very late in the film and make the stakes personal rather than existential.

Examples like Road Warrior, Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Chronicles of Riddick, The Limey or T2 show that sequels don't have to clone the original.

 

[BAYLOR]

Raiders is a transformative story where a character that initially looks like thief turns out to be a womanizing single minded academic who turns out to be a loving guy whose focus is split between his old flame current events. He's a guy that doesn't believe in "hocus pocus", yet the next prequel shows him witnessing exactly that. And then more of the same with every succeeding film, cheapening the stakes of the first.

All the sequels are failures. Last Crusade is cute, but most of the action looks like a theme park show. The adversaries are cartoonish. It has a strong dose of Return of the Jedi to it, losing that cruel edge that came before.


The best thing they could have done with Jones is give him an adult story that wasn't an action film. Make it a mystery or even a thriller. Avoid the whip and jacket until very late in the film and make the stakes personal rather than existential.

Examples like Road Warrior, Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Chronicles of Riddick, The Limey or T2 show that sequels don't have to clone the original.

In all fairness ,these Raider films were intended to be thrills spills entertainment films with no real serious message involved.

 

[Swank]

In all fairness ,these Raider films were intended to be thrills spills entertainment films with no real serious message involved.

They were intended to be good films. Good filmmaking is whatever ends up on screen, not whether it has some sort of message. Raiders has no important themes, but tells a brilliant story because the revealed nature of the main character is part of that story rather than a set piece. Who is Indiana Jones? would have been a fine title for a film that plays with expectations right from the beginning.

Follow on films don't do anything for the character but put him in places to angrily declare his commitment and then kill some people. It isn't the same.

 

[BAYLOR]

They were intended to be good films. Good filmmaking is whatever ends up on screen, not whether it has some sort of message. Raiders has no important themes, but tells a brilliant story because the revealed nature of the main character is part of that story rather than a set piece. Who is Indiana Jones? would have been a fine title for a film that plays with expectations right from the beginning.

Follow on films don't do anything for the character but put him in places to angrily declare his commitment and then kill some people. It isn't the same.

I would imaging that in about 10 years, they're going dust of Indiana Jones and reboot it with a different actor. because in creatively bankrupt Hollywood mold become new again.