Indiana Jones And The Dial of Destiny (2023)

[Swank]

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.

It will be the rave success of a the Han Solo movie.

If you want to successfully reboot something, put Harrison Ford in it (The Fugitive). Not take him out.

 

[KGeo777]

Indiana Jones was a pastiche. The quest for the Ark came first and they wanted a stock serial adventurer for it (though haven't admitted that he is based on Charlton Heston's character in Secret of the Incas which was also a Paramount film).
He's afraid of snakes (that was established to make the Well of Souls more of a challenge for him). He is told a few times that the Ark is not something he can covet---and the title "Raiders" refers to all of those who want to disturb it. The Ark IS the main character in the story. Indiana Jones is just a raider among the others.

He wasn't that interested in Marion. Look at what he does. He doesn't release her from the tent because he cares more about finding the Ark's location before they are discovered.
He also can't bring himself to firing on the Ark because he wants to see it open-no matter the risk.
Only when it is opened--he decides they won't survive unless they block out the view.
And originally, according to Marcia Lucas, it goes from the island to the DC office, and then the warehouse. She asked what happened to Marion--and they shot a new scene with her.
And he doesn't look happy to be with her.

There's a comical subversiveness to that. He's thinking about the Ark.

And the film was intended to be a stunts showcase. And they sequel had some of that but by the third film they were getting tired of that and because of Connery, they needed more of a character-focused story.
Which is fine but I felt it had too much comedy and Marcus Brody became a goof. I assume that was because Connery was playing the father kind of eccentric so they needed to have someone even more goofy than him.

 

[Swank]

Indiana Jones was a pastiche. The quest for the Ark came first and they wanted a stock serial adventurer for it (though haven't admitted that he is based on Charlton Heston's character in Secret of the Incas which was also a Paramount film).
He's afraid of snakes (that was established to make the Well of Souls more of a challenge for him). He is told a few times that the Ark is not something he can covet---and the title "Raiders" refers to all of those who want to disturb it. The Ark IS the main character in the story. Indiana Jones is just a raider among the others.

He wasn't that interested in Marion. Look at what he does. He doesn't release her from the tent because he cares more about finding the Ark's location before they are discovered.
He also can't bring himself to firing on the Ark because he wants to see it open-no matter the risk.
Only when it is opened--he decides they won't survive unless they block out the view.
And originally, according to Marcia Lucas, it goes from the island to the DC office, and then the warehouse. She asked what happened to Marion--and they shot a new scene with her.
And he doesn't look happy to be with her.

There's a comical subversiveness to that. He's thinking about the Ark.

And the film was intended to be a stunts showcase. And they sequel had some of that but by the third film they were getting tired of that and because of Connery, they needed more of a character-focused story.
Which is fine but I felt it had too much comedy and Marcus Brody became a goof. I assume that was because Connery was playing the father kind of eccentric so they needed to have someone even more goofy than him.

See, I thought the movie was about the hat. It appears in every scene except the climatic ark opening, but then rushes back into the action for the ending.

Clearly about the hat...

 

[KGeo777]

See, I thought the movie was about the hat. It appears in every scene except the climatic ark opening, but then rushes back into the action for the ending.

Clearly about the hat...

It's not called Raiders of the Lost Hat.

 

[Swank]

It's not called Raiders of the Lost Hat.

And objects seen in 3% of the film are never protagonists.

 

[KGeo777]

And objects seen in 3% of the film are never protagonists.

Yeah but it is no simple object. It is the manifestation of a supreme deity.

 

[Dave]

Without hats there is no civilization

Never try to wear a hat that has more character than you do.

 

[Swank]

Yeah but it is no simple object. It is the manifestation of a supreme deity.

Like how Sauron is the protagonist of Lord of the Rings?

 

[Elckerlyc]

"Without hats there is no civilization"
- Only to take them off to be civil.

"Never try to wear a hat that has more character than you do."
- Generally people select to wear a hat to achieve some character they would otherwise lack! It goes on top of you, that says it all.

 

[Dave]

My own take is that the hat and the whip - these are the equivalent of James Bond's Aston Martin, Walther PPK and his various watches (and other gadgets) supplied by Q.

They are very much a part of the Indiana Jones (or James Bond) character, but without the right actor in the role then they are just hats, whips, cars, guns and watches.

 

[KGeo777]

Like how Sauron is the protagonist of Lord of the Rings?

Well there's only one Ark. It's not Raiders of the Lost Arks. If there was more than one it would be less significant.
Like Moby Dicks or Draculas.

 

[BAYLOR]

Well there's only one Ark. It's not Raiders of the Lost Arks. If there was more than one it would be less significant.
Like Moby Dicks or Draculas.

Even had it been better film then it was , Dial of Destiny couldn't recapture the magic of Raiders.

You can't go home again.

 

[BAYLOR]

My own take is that the hat and the whip - these are the equivalent of James Bond's Aston Martin, Walther PPK and his various watches (and other gadgets) supplied by Q.

Originally they wanted Cary Grant to play the part of Bond but he would only play him once, so Sean Connery got the nod. The thing is Sean Connery pretty much crystalized James Bond in such a way that everyone who came after him good or bad never quite measured up.

They are very much a part of the Indiana Jones (or James Bond) character, but without the right actor in the role then they are just hats, whips, cars, guns and watches.

One wonders what the franchise would have been like had Tom Selleck gotten to play Indiana Jones . Raiders and the other films that followed with him the lead would had been very different tone. Bu, t Harrison Ford made the role his own and, no one will ever measure up.

 

[Dave]

Harrison Ford made the role his own and, no one will ever measure up.

I think Sahara (2005) with Matthew McConaughey has some huge similarities. It is action /adventure and treasure hunting, and of course, it was also a huge box office flop too!

I know many people don't like Matthew McConaughey, or Sahara either, but I liked it. it is a Clive Cussler book, and there are plenty of Clive Cussler and Charles Stross type books (but maybe not Dan Brown ) that could be adapted for the screen and would make excellent films (rather than this Disney committee by numbers script.) There are also plenty of younger actors they could get to play the role of the protagonist too - Jason Momoa??

That Treasure Hunter TV series with Lucy Luu seemed to do quite well. I liked that whenever I caught reruns on some obscure channel.

 

[Swank]

Well there's only one Ark. It's not Raiders of the Lost Arks. If there was more than one it would be less significant.
Like Moby Dicks or Draculas.

"Lord" is not plural, and refers to a godlike entity.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think Sahara (2005) with Matthew McConaughey has some huge similarities. It is action /adventure and treasure hunting, and of course, it was also a huge box office flop too!



I know many people don't like Matthew McConaughey, or Sahara either, but I liked it. it is a Clive Cussler book, and there are plenty of Clive Cussler and Charles Stross type books (but maybe not Dan Brown ) that could be adapted for the screen and would make excellent films (rather than this Disney committee by numbers script.) There are also plenty of younger actors they could get to play the role of the protagonist too - Jason Momoa??

That Treasure Hunter TV series with Lucy Luu seemed to do quite well. I liked that whenever I caught reruns on some obscure channel.

Ive seen Sahara , it's not a bad film at all.

 

[KGeo777]

"Lord" is not plural, and refers to a godlike entity.

The main point is the Ark does everything.
The Ark is the prime actor in the film.
The Ark saves Indiana Jones. He does not save himself. Not looking at it is hardly a heroic act. It's defensive.


Lucas said it himself--the problem after Raiders is that there is nothing as visually exciting as seeing these angels flying around and melting people.
Why couldn't he make as many Indiana Jones films as Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, or Doc Savage?
Because in addition to the fact that it had no single author for the character, the character is not as dynamic. He was created as a stock serial adventure hero (or anti-hero actually) to serve a purpose and the treasure quest is the gimmick.

 

[BAYLOR]

The main point is the Ark does everything.
The Ark is the prime actor in the film.
The Ark saves Indiana Jones. He does not save himself. Not looking at it is hardly a heroic act. It's defensive.


Lucas said it himself--the problem after Raiders is that there is nothing as visually exciting as seeing these angels flying around and melting people.
Why couldn't he make as many Indiana Jones films as Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, or Doc Savage?
Because in addition to the fact that it had no single author for the character, the character is not as dynamic. He was created as a stock serial adventure hero (or anti-hero actually) to serve a purpose and the treasure quest is the gimmick.

And it worked.

 

[Swank]

The main point is the Ark does everything.
The Ark is the prime actor in the film.
The Ark saves Indiana Jones. He does not save himself. Not looking at it is hardly a heroic act. It's defensive.


Lucas said it himself--the problem after Raiders is that there is nothing as visually exciting as seeing these angels flying around and melting people.
Why couldn't he make as many Indiana Jones films as Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, or Doc Savage?
Because in addition to the fact that it had no single author for the character, the character is not as dynamic. He was created as a stock serial adventure hero (or anti-hero actually) to serve a purpose and the treasure quest is the gimmick.

I don't feel like we've seen the same film.

The ark is a plot pivot, not a character. It doesn't actively do anything, has no personality and accomplishes nothing. It isn't even mentioned until 20 minutes into the film.

Indiana Jones is a dynamic figure that is revealed like an onion throughout the picture, starting out as an apparent grubby villain, then womanizer, and eventually a national hero. He is funny, interesting, smart, skilled, brave and the best in his field. We see a full range of emotions from him, despite the format of the film. He ends the film as a very different person than how he started for the audience, experiencing the kind of character development that good fiction is all about.

Raiders overall is about as entertaining as filmmaking gets - scenery, stunts, story, character, humor, dialogue, music, effects and even style. It doesn't matter how the film was conceived or written - it only matters what ends up on the screen. Harrison Ford is excellent. The film is excellent. You can talk about its context as the first in a series or as the revival of an old tradition, but the film is the film and it stands on its own as a cinematic masterpiece.

The reason the other films aren't as good is that the first film transforms the MC in a way no sequel can do again. You can only pull that stunt once. That's the difference between writing a great story and writing a character designed for serialization. Holmes does not start with a fascinating introduction as much as a complete character that remains consistent as the stories go on.


And just to address the common complaint that Jones doesn't accomplish anything, this is completely untrue. The Nazi's plan was to recover the Ark and fly it directly to Germany. Once there, even if it killed the people that opened it, it would still be in Nazi hands - bestowing whatever powers upon them. It was only due to Jones that the Nazi's ended up with it aboard a submarine, putting it on course for a stop on a mostly empty island. Due to Jones' persistence and knowledge, he is in position to survive the opening and get the US to rescue the ark from the sub base before the next German sub pulled in. How he did that we don't see, but it would have also required more savvy and bravery.

 

[KGeo777]

Indiana Jones is a dynamic figure that is revealed like an onion throughout the picture, starting out as an apparent grubby villain, then womanizer, and eventually a national hero.

lmao