|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jun 23, 2023 23:21:54 GMT 1
Saw the RT score and it actually got a little boost in becoming fresh in the low 60s. We'll how that goes with its opening weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jun 26, 2023 19:31:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jun 27, 2023 22:38:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jun 29, 2023 23:27:27 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 30, 2023 6:10:55 GMT 1
Yeah let's revisit our outlook on Nazi's.
At what point can we stop validating people's opinion and just starting to tell them they are stupid and should shut up and just listen to educated people again?
Millenials, Gen Z and Gen Alpha.... Go back into your box
My God I start to sound like my boomer parents.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jul 1, 2023 15:04:54 GMT 1
Yeah... That was great. Enjoyed every second of this movie
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 2, 2023 23:33:12 GMT 1
Good movie. I really don't know why so many critics found fault with it.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 3, 2023 16:15:43 GMT 1
Despite the backlash from many fans, I found Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny to be one of the best entries in the series. It's easily Better than the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While critics argue that it lacks the buoyancy and allure of its predecessors, I see the film offering a deeper, more nuanced reverence for history.
I don't see the desolate, broken Indiana Jones that fans are complaining about. I view this version of the character as a man out of time, grappling with a changing world. He's the one that belongs in a museum now. He finally met his match in the 1960's counterculture.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jul 3, 2023 16:58:20 GMT 1
Despite the backlash from many fans, I found Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny to be one of the best entries in the series. It's easily Better than the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While critics argue that it lacks the buoyancy and allure of its predecessors, I see the film offering a deeper, more nuanced reverence for history. I don't see the desolate, broken Indiana Jones that fans are complaining about. I view this version of the character as a man out of time, grappling with a changing world. He's the one that belongs in a museum now. He finally met his match in the 1960's counterculture. I do see complaints about it from fans and critics alike, but honestly it doesn't seem that rabid compared with like the SW sequels or what I recall with CS. I almost wonder if the Cannes premiere was a mistake a la the early screenings for the Flash and it wound up poisoning the proverbial well. Hence the low opening weekend. Although the $300M is downright laughable. Someone needs to tighten these movies' budgets. It's getting out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jul 3, 2023 22:03:40 GMT 1
While critics argue that it lacks the buoyancy and allure of its predecessors, I see the film offering a deeper, more nuanced reverence for history. What nuanced reverence? All i saw was repetitve and predictable chase scene after chase scene after chase scene with light exposition in-between with boring/annoying supporting characters. Mads Mikelson is a 1 note villain with hardly any nuance. He starts the movie with that description and by the end nothing changes, when he wants to give up and stay in the past. Hes a defeated man throughout. And its mainly because he has no focul point in his objective other than to retrieve an artifact he already possesed in his library that he thinks has no power. In Raiders his quest is to find an actual prized artifact that has been elusive for centuries, at the same time trying to save Marion and stop the Nazis. In Temple hes saving children from slavery. In Crusade hes finding the one item that his father has dedicated his whole life too, whilst also trying to save his life. Here in DoD, theres no imminent peril or a sense of ultimate achievement to gaining his hands on the Antikherya. They didnt translate the man out of time theme very well. Why isnt he excited about the Moon landing? Its not explain
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 3, 2023 22:58:25 GMT 1
While critics argue that it lacks the buoyancy and allure of its predecessors, I see the film offering a deeper, more nuanced reverence for history. What nuanced reverence? All i saw was repetitve and predictable chase scene after chase scene after chase scene with light exposition in-between with boring/annoying supporting characters. Mads Mikelson is a 1 note villain with hardly any nuance. He starts the movie with that description and by the end nothing changes, when he wants to give up and stay in the past. Hes a defeated man throughout. And its mainly because he has no focul point in his objective other than to retrieve an artifact he already possesed in his library that he thinks has no power. In Raiders his quest is to find an actual prized artifact that has been elusive for centuries, at the same time trying to save Marion and stop the Nazis. In Temple hes saving children from slavery. In Crusade hes finding the one item that his father has dedicated his whole life too, whilst also trying to save his life. Here in DoD, theres no imminent peril or a sense of ultimate achievement to gaining his hands on the Antikherya. They didnt translate the man out of time theme very well. Why isnt he excited about the Moon landing? Its not explain Hey charzhino , I'm sorry to hear you didn't like the movie. I'm sharing some of my thoughts and opinions below, but first, I do have to note that your comments contain spoilers and should either be hidden or labeled as such. To that end… @spoilers ahead@
{Spoiler}For the first time in an Indiana Jones film, we see him experiencing living history firsthand, rather than just from a dusty dig site. This allows us to witness his true love for history and how it deeply impacts him when he sees it with his own eyes. It's a revelation for Jones, and even he didn't realize how much he loved history until that moment.
I would argue that his character arc is more nuanced than your assessment. Yes, he begins the movie struggling against change and coming to grips with his past mistakes, but by the film's end, we see him surrounded by people he loves and who love him. He appears to be renewed in spirit, embracing the present and finding joy in his connections with others. It's important not to mistake his external circumstances (a run-down apartment in NYC's midtown) for his inner emotional landscape.
Furthermore, it's crucial to understand the context of the 1960s in which the film is set. The societal changes during that time, such as the civil rights movement, feminism, the sexual revolution, and the space race as an extension of the cold war, are unprecedented. People's focus and interests were shifting towards society's future, not it's past, i.e., archaeology and historical exploration.
Archeology is neither sexy nor particularly relevant during this point in history - and, as a result, neither is our beloved Dr. Jones. And yet Indy takes every jibe toward his character and diminished status in stride; he is morally unflappable and openly condemns unethical people around him.
Indiana Jones is living in a time when his work and passions are not considered particularly important or exciting by the general public. He's literally a man on horse pack fighting his way through a ticker tape parade for men, half his age, who just came back from the moon. However, this doesn't make him defeated; it's more a reflection of the genuineness of the era in which the story takes place.
In Dial of Destiny, Indiana finds himself searching for the rarest and most valuable prize - his love of history, his fellow man and himself.
Yes, the film has issues, including a pointless government intervention subplot that goes nowhere and a lackluster villain. Still, the implications surrounding Operation Paperclip and the villain's willingness to support the American rocket program for all those years, knowing all the while that he planned to "turn back the clock," is a fascinating idea.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jul 3, 2023 23:49:37 GMT 1
I'm sorry to hear you didn't like the movie. I'm sharing some of my thoughts and opinions below, but first, I do have to note that your comments contain spoilers and should either be hidden or labeled as such. Ok ive spoiler tagged the spoiler. {Spoiler}
That was actually my favourite part in the movie. I didnt expect them to travel back 2000 years into the past in the middle of the Roman siege and for Indy to meet and converse with Archimedes in the flesh. Conceptually thats a fantastic idea on paper. However the impact doesnt last long given the obvious green screen, Helenas annoying presence and the fact the scene ends with Indy getting knocked out against his wishes like a Looney Toons skit.
I guess that works, but I didnt feel the movie earned the ending. Mainly because the ending in his apartment seems tacked on and rushed. I dont know if the reshoot rumours are true but it certainly felt on first viewing the cut from Ancient Greece to modern day 1969 had an off kilter vibe about it. But aside from that, what exactly renewed his spirit in your opinion because I dont see it? As I said, Indy didnt really save the day from an imminent Nazi resurgence (because he didnt believe the device would work and if it did it would not take Mikelson to 1939 because of continental drift), he didnt save people he cared about and he didnt save any artifact of importance. He came home empty handed so I dont see what would re-energize him as he was in previous movies, even Crystal Skull as he saved the day alongside his wife and son.
They should have emphasised that a lot more then. All i got from that view is Indy being indifferent about the whole moon day celebrations but we never discover why he isnt enthusiastic about it. The students in his lecture are non-responsive but is that out of boredom in general or were they too excited about the moon landing later on because the latter wasnt implied. If archaeology is going out of fashion and being replaced by space exploration, then at least a few thoughts from Indy during some conversation with a student or fellow professor would have gone a long way.
I didnt think about it like that.
Not sure I agree that this was his unrealized goal. When Salah says ''''And I miss morning wondering what wonderful adventure the new day will bring to us'', Indy defeatedly replies ''Those days have come and gone''. This shows he is desolate and defeated in the movie start, middle and finish.
It is and I wished they gave more meat to Mads character. There is one very interesting exchange he has with the POC waiter in the hotel room scene where he ends the conversation by saying the U.S didnt win the war, Hitler lost it. That was his best line and I wanted more of that throughout the movie. But as you point out there is a lot of needless stuff like government intervention plot and I will add that whole chase sequence in Morroco on the tuk tuks by some random Morrocan past lover of Helenas character who had no relevance to the story and wasted 20 minutes of screentime which could have been better used.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 4, 2023 0:23:55 GMT 1
I'm sorry to hear you didn't like the movie. I'm sharing some of my thoughts and opinions below, but first, I do have to note that your comments contain spoilers and should either be hidden or labeled as such. Ok ive spoiler tagged the spoiler. {Spoiler}That was actually my favourite part in the movie. I didnt expect them to travel back 2000 years into the past in the middle of the Roman siege and for Indy to meet and converse with Archimedes in the flesh. Conceptually thats a fantastic idea on paper. However the impact doesnt last long given the obvious green screen, Helenas annoying presence and the fact the scene ends with Indy getting knocked out against his wishes like a Looney Toons skit.
I guess that works, but I didnt feel the movie earned the ending. Mainly because the ending in his apartment seems tacked on and rushed. I dont know if the reshoot rumours are true but it certainly felt on first viewing the cut from Ancient Greece to modern day 1969 had an off kilter vibe about it. But aside from that, what exactly renewed his spirit in your opinion because I dont see it? As I said, Indy didnt really save the day from an imminent Nazi resurgence (because he didnt believe the device would work and if it did it would not take Mikelson to 1939 because of continental drift), he didnt save people he cared about and he didnt save any artifact of importance. He came home empty handed so I dont see what would re-energize him as he was in previous movies, even Crystal Skull as he saved the day alongside his wife and son.
They should have emphasised that a lot more then. All i got from that view is Indy being indifferent about the whole moon day celebrations but we never discover why he isnt enthusiastic about it. The students in his lecture are non-responsive but is that out of boredom in general or were they too excited about the moon landing later on because the latter wasnt implied. If archaeology is going out of fashion and being replaced by space exploration, then at least a few thoughts from Indy during some conversation with a student or fellow professor would have gone a long way.
I didnt think about it like that.
Not sure I agree that this was his unrealized goal. When Salah says ''''And I miss morning wondering what wonderful adventure the new day will bring to us'', Indy defeatedly replies ''Those days have come and gone''. This shows he is desolate and defeated in the movie start, middle and finish.
It is and I wished they gave more meat to Mads character. There is one very interesting exchange he has with the POC waiter in the hotel room scene where he ends the conversation by saying the U.S didnt win the war, Hitler lost it. That was his best line and I wanted more of that throughout the movie. But as you point out there is a lot of needless stuff like government intervention plot and I will add that whole chase sequence in Morroco on the tuk tuks by some random Morrocan past lover of Helenas character who had no relevance to the story and wasted 20 minutes of screentime which could have been better used. {Spoiler}
I admit some aspects of the execution of the time travel portion of the story were mediocre, but Ford is such a great actor he pulled me into the emotional reality of the moment.
I thought the ending was deserved in the context of the overall franchise. Indiana Jones has earned a quiet retirement with the only woman he's ever loved, his best friend, and his Goddaughter. He may not have found fortune and glory, but he's still Indiana Jones. He looked like a new man to me. You could interpret that ending to the franchise as Indiana's final adventure with his family and friends at the sunsetting of his life.
As a writer, Mangold is rarely ever didactic in his approach; he doesn't spoon-feed or leave heavy-handed breadcrumbs. Indiana tells a colleague that all there is on the Moon is dust and rocks. His students are clearly bored with his lecture, but they immediately light up when other students drag a TV set into the lecture hall playing a newsreel featuring the hero astronauts. If you're remotely familiar with the era's history, it's easy to understand why Jones feels cast aside. Archeology was popular in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. It's the 60s now, and young people are interested in the dust and rocks on other planets.
Indiana's final quest is less about an artifact than about reaffirming his passion for history and humankind. That's just my opinion.
I'm not really seeing the "desolate" character you're referring to, especially toward the film's end. There's a moment where one of the Roman warheads gets lodged in the plane's fuselage, nearly killing Indiana. His shock melts away and turns to pure wonder as he realizes he's looking at an ancient weapon that is new - instead of a crumbling relic that he might dig up 2 millennia from that moment. Ford plays it beautifully. When he decides he wants to stay in the past, it's because he doesn't feel like the present/future holds anything for him. That shakes his goddaughter out of her affectation of Machiavellian greed and studied apathy, she knows she needs Indiana Jones, and by extension, we all need him.
I'm personally over Mads as a villain - he's over exposed in that capacity. His DoD character is undisputably underdeveloped. Mangold isn't interested in the villain in this story so much as he is in the emotional and literal journey of the film for Indy. The last ruin he has to explore is his life and choices. He abandoned his Goddaughter, he alienated his mentor, wife and son… It feels truthful that there would be a cost for his adventuring. I truly enjoyed the film and, again, I'm sorry that you didn't.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Jul 4, 2023 1:46:03 GMT 1
Indiana Jones unlike most movie characters--was created after the plot. He wasn't James Bond or Doc Savage--they had the Ark story first and then created a character to fit it (based on Secret of the Incas). Maybe that is why he never could be used in more movies because they designed him as the guy who seeks the Ark and doesn't get it in the end. I see the reviews where people say "this isn't the ending the character deserved" but we already got an ending--the official ending is the pilot of Young Indiana Jones where he has an eye patch and a cat. That was the Lucas ending.
I never saw Crystal Skull-the trailer was enough. If they really believed in the character they would have recast him like they did with James Bond or even Kirk--but the treasure quest matters more than the character. Also, and this is the elephant in the room--there is a disdain for strong successful white man depictions--it is in the DNA of Disney's ownership so they will prevent any kind of traditional adventure approach--that's why the nerdy woman is a superhero-because they refuse to give what an audience expects from an adventure story like this--strong successful character. If people paid close attention to the original trilogy though they would see that Indiana Jones was never strong or successful. He lost fights, he lost treasures, he needed dad to tell his 50-year-old self not to fall in the chasm. People ignore that because the novelty of the stunts and spfx at the time glosses over these facts.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Jul 4, 2023 1:52:02 GMT 1
Indiana Jones unlike most movie characters--was created after the plot. He wasn't James Bond or Doc Savage--they had the Ark story first and then created a character to fit it (based on Secret of the Incas). I'm not entirely sure that's accurate, in fact I have read almost the exact opposite, that George Lucas envisioned a "James Bond like" character ( who was an alcoholic and a womanizer ) then later they had to make up an actual adventure for him to go on. Indiana Jones may have more insight ps I also have never bothered to watch Skulls.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jul 4, 2023 1:56:14 GMT 1
Indiana Jones unlike most movie characters--was created after the plot. He wasn't James Bond or Doc Savage--they had the Ark story first and then created a character to fit it (based on Secret of the Incas). I'm not entirely sure that's accurate, in fact I have read almost the exact opposite, that George Lucas envisioned a "James Bond like" character ( who was an alcoholic and a womanizer ) then later they had to make up an actual adventure for him to go on. Indiana Jones may have more insight ps I also have never bothered to watch Skulls. Lucas came up with the character Indiana Jones while his colleague Philip Kaufman (Invasion of the Body Snatchers; The Right Stuff) came up with the idea of using the Ark as the MacGuffin. Spielberg was the one more interested in a James Bond type of film and Lucas replied he had something better. And the rest is history.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Jul 4, 2023 3:40:22 GMT 1
I'm not entirely sure that's accurate, in fact I have read almost the exact opposite, that George Lucas envisioned a "James Bond like" character ( who was an alcoholic and a womanizer ) then later they had to make up an actual adventure for him to go on. Indiana Jones may have more insight ps I also have never bothered to watch Skulls.
When it came out--the whole focus was the Ark. That's why it wasn't called Indiana Jones - Raider of the Lost Ark--the Raiders were everyone who wanted it.
The documentary Great Movie Stunts mentions that Indiana Jones was conceived as an amalgamation of serial characters "inspired by many but a copy of none." But anyone who has seen SECRET OF THE INCAS immediately clues in that the Charlton Heston character Harry Steele IS basically Indiana Jones with a scarf instead of a whip.
The medallion and sun map scene is taken from the movie too. They are not being honest about the creation. They said Jim Steranko came up with the look for Indiana Jones but presumably that came after he watched SOTI and the costume designer claimed they watched the movie as they were making it. It was a Paramount movie too.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Jul 4, 2023 4:14:29 GMT 1
Another thing is that Lucas chose to do Young Indiana Jones--he didn't want to do adult adventures with the character--they had a number of books--Find Your Fate --and the games but...he said the reason they couldn't do another IJ film was because there was no McGuffin or treasure as good as the Ark. For Lucas, the character was secondary to that.
I think this dial is a better idea than the skull thing. It fits the occult better than the aliens.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jul 4, 2023 15:33:16 GMT 1
I didn't mind the aliens in KOTCS even if they copped out and called them 'interdimensional beings'. I think if they continued with Old Man Indy right after that, a shift from the supernatural to the paranormal in line with the Cold War setting could had been cool. Like a Jonny Quest vibe or some of the later Tintin books.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 4, 2023 23:04:02 GMT 1
I didn't mind the aliens in KOTCS even if they copped out and called them 'interdimensional beings'. I think if they continued with Old Man Indy right after that, a shift from the supernatural to the paranormal in line with the Cold War setting could had been cool. Like a Jonny Quest vibe or some of the later Tintin books. This opinion is unpopular, but I enjoyed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It was the first Indiana Jones film I'd ever seen in a theater, and I thought it was a fun time passer. They could have eased up on the gophers and monkeys and whatnot, but otherwise, I don't see why fans are so hard on that film. It is a bit cartoonish in its execution and leans too much into franchise nostalgia, but I don't see it as a major downturn in the franchise's quality. It isn't as good as some of the earlier films, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 5, 2023 2:34:45 GMT 1
Despite the backlash from many fans, I found Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny to be one of the best entries in the series. It's easily Better than the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While critics argue that it lacks the buoyancy and allure of its predecessors, I see the film offering a deeper, more nuanced reverence for history. I don't see the desolate, broken Indiana Jones that fans are complaining about. I view this version of the character as a man out of time, grappling with a changing world. He's the one that belongs in a museum now. He finally met his match in the 1960's counterculture. I didn't see much of that in it, but I agree it's a good movie.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Jul 5, 2023 7:16:11 GMT 1
Saw this review on IMDB. Interesting if the rumors of the original ending are true: {Spoiler} Deliberate destruction of a beloved franchise.... GrigoryGirl5 July 2023 This is a deliberate, disgusting destruction of a franchise for political purposes, and it has permanently tainted everyone who was responsible for this atrocity, Bob Iger (the guy who runs Disney) and Kathleen Kennedy, the woman who has overseen the destruction of Willow, Star Wars, and now Indiana Jones, all with the blessing and cheering on from Bob Iger. The film essentially emasculates Indiana Jones, mocking him for being an old man, sadistically so, then his snarky goddaughter comes in and saves the day because she's perfect in everything she does and has never messed up in her life. I guess we should be grateful that the original version of this film never saw the light of day. Reportedly, the original cut had Indy killed off in the past, and Phoebe Waller Bridge (the most overhyped person in Hollywood history at this point) replaced Indy and took over the character permanently. After Lucasfilm showed this version to five different audiences (and who all hated it), they had to reshoot it. And let us not forget James Mangold, who, up to this point, was a respected director who has made some good films. He isn't respected as much as he once was, and his going on Twitter to trash fans and deny the rumors of reshoots (which turned out to be true) made him look petty and childish, and his reputation has taken a huge hit. He is tainted as well for directing this awful, nasty, soulless, sadistic film. This is one of the worst films in Disney history.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 5, 2023 8:24:35 GMT 1
Saw this review on IMDB. Interesting if the rumors of the original ending are true: {Spoiler} Deliberate destruction of a beloved franchise.... GrigoryGirl5 July 2023 This is a deliberate, disgusting destruction of a franchise for political purposes, and it has permanently tainted everyone who was responsible for this atrocity, Bob Iger (the guy who runs Disney) and Kathleen Kennedy, the woman who has overseen the destruction of Willow, Star Wars, and now Indiana Jones, all with the blessing and cheering on from Bob Iger. The film essentially emasculates Indiana Jones, mocking him for being an old man, sadistically so, then his snarky goddaughter comes in and saves the day because she's perfect in everything she does and has never messed up in her life. I guess we should be grateful that the original version of this film never saw the light of day. Reportedly, the original cut had Indy killed off in the past, and Phoebe Waller Bridge (the most overhyped person in Hollywood history at this point) replaced Indy and took over the character permanently. After Lucasfilm showed this version to five different audiences (and who all hated it), they had to reshoot it. And let us not forget James Mangold, who, up to this point, was a respected director who has made some good films. He isn't respected as much as he once was, and his going on Twitter to trash fans and deny the rumors of reshoots (which turned out to be true) made him look petty and childish, and his reputation has taken a huge hit. He is tainted as well for directing this awful, nasty, soulless, sadistic film. This is one of the worst films in Disney history. Not nearly as interesting as the fact that only one sentence in this poison pen letter is actually a critical appraisal (i.e., a review) of the film. The rest is an indictment of Disney leadership and bizarre meanderings about a rumored alternate ending, accompanied by a prolonged dragging of the director and more hyperbolic vitriol. Love the alliterative 'deliberate, disgusting destruction' triptych used in her opener.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 5, 2023 16:02:38 GMT 1
Saw this review on IMDB. Interesting if the rumors of the original ending are true: {Spoiler} Deliberate destruction of a beloved franchise.... GrigoryGirl5 July 2023 This is a deliberate, disgusting destruction of a franchise for political purposes, and it has permanently tainted everyone who was responsible for this atrocity, Bob Iger (the guy who runs Disney) and Kathleen Kennedy, the woman who has overseen the destruction of Willow, Star Wars, and now Indiana Jones, all with the blessing and cheering on from Bob Iger. The film essentially emasculates Indiana Jones, mocking him for being an old man, sadistically so, then his snarky goddaughter comes in and saves the day because she's perfect in everything she does and has never messed up in her life. I guess we should be grateful that the original version of this film never saw the light of day. Reportedly, the original cut had Indy killed off in the past, and Phoebe Waller Bridge (the most overhyped person in Hollywood history at this point) replaced Indy and took over the character permanently. After Lucasfilm showed this version to five different audiences (and who all hated it), they had to reshoot it. And let us not forget James Mangold, who, up to this point, was a respected director who has made some good films. He isn't respected as much as he once was, and his going on Twitter to trash fans and deny the rumors of reshoots (which turned out to be true) made him look petty and childish, and his reputation has taken a huge hit. He is tainted as well for directing this awful, nasty, soulless, sadistic film. This is one of the worst films in Disney history. Not nearly as interesting as the fact that only one sentence in this poison pen letter is actually a critical appraisal (i.e., a review) of the film. The rest is an indictment of Disney leadership and bizarre meanderings about an rumored alternate ending, accompanied by a prolonged dragging of the director and more hyperbolic vitriol. Love the alliterative 'deliberate, disgusting destruction' triptych used in her opener. I'm sure you know as well as I do that "reports" about test audiences are almost always pure BS.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jul 5, 2023 16:09:23 GMT 1
I didn't mind the aliens in KOTCS even if they copped out and called them 'interdimensional beings'. I think if they continued with Old Man Indy right after that, a shift from the supernatural to the paranormal in line with the Cold War setting could had been cool. Like a Jonny Quest vibe or some of the later Tintin books. This opinion is unpopular, but I enjoyed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It was the first Indiana Jones film I'd ever seen in a theater, and I thought it was a fun time passer. They could have eased up on the gophers and monkeys and whatnot, but otherwise, I don't see why fans are so hard on that film. It is a bit cartoonish in its execution and leans too much into franchise nostalgia, but I don't see it as a major downturn in the franchise's quality. It isn't as good as some of the earlier films, obviously. Yeah, I always liked it too. Join the club.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 5, 2023 17:08:32 GMT 1
Despite the backlash from many fans, I found Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny to be one of the best entries in the series. It's easily Better than the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While critics argue that it lacks the buoyancy and allure of its predecessors, I see the film offering a deeper, more nuanced reverence for history. I don't see the desolate, broken Indiana Jones that fans are complaining about. I view this version of the character as a man out of time, grappling with a changing world. He's the one that belongs in a museum now. He finally met his match in the 1960's counterculture. I didn't see much of that in it, but I agree it's a good movie. That's fair, and I could be reading into it too much. Still, I enjoyed the juxtaposition of an archeologist in his prime during the two-fisted adventuring days of World War II against the 1960s counterculture.
|
|
|
Post by primemcgee on Jul 5, 2023 17:45:01 GMT 1
I'm sure you know as well as I do that "reports" about test audiences are almost always pure BS. Disney is not known for honesty though. They did reshoots right?
Why? Disney has total control over all movie content. Mangold has to do exactly what Iger tells him to do (remember when Kennedy and Abrams allegedly wanted to push back the release of a Star Wars movie and Iger said no?). Remember what happened with the mentor character in Dr. Strange? The director has to follow orders.
I said before that Disney management loves the scene in Sleeping Beauty where Maleficent shows the captured prince what her plans for him are. The audience was horrified--but Disney's owners react like "that's a fantastic plan! Geriatric heroes!"
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 5, 2023 18:12:48 GMT 1
I'm sure you know as well as I do that "reports" about test audiences are almost always pure BS. Disney is not known for honesty though. They did reshoots right? Yes most movies do reshoots
Why? There are many possible reasons Disney has total control over all movie content. Mangold has to do exactly what Iger tells him to do (remember when Kennedy and Abrams allegedly wanted to push back the release of a Star Wars movie and Iger said no?). Every studio has total control over the movies they make. That's what studios do. Remember what happened with the mentor character in Dr. Strange? No, I do not remember. The director has to follow orders.
I said before that Disney management loves the scene in Sleeping Beauty where Maleficent shows the captured prince what her plans for him are. The audience was horrified--but Disney's owners react like "that's a fantastic plan! Geriatric heroes!" I have no idea what you are talking about here. My point is that 'reports" about test screenings virtually never come from reliable sources. That's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 5, 2023 19:20:09 GMT 1
Disney is not known for honesty though. They did reshoots right? Yes most movies do reshoots
Why? There are many possible reasons Disney has total control over all movie content. Mangold has to do exactly what Iger tells him to do (remember when Kennedy and Abrams allegedly wanted to push back the release of a Star Wars movie and Iger said no?). Every studio has total control over the movies they make. That's what studios do. Remember what happened with the mentor character in Dr. Strange? No, I do not remember. The director has to follow orders.
I said before that Disney management loves the scene in Sleeping Beauty where Maleficent shows the captured prince what her plans for him are. The audience was horrified--but Disney's owners react like "that's a fantastic plan! Geriatric heroes!" I have no idea what you are talking about here. My point is that 'reports" about test screenings virtually never come from reliable sources. That's a fact. I recall James Mangold being emphatic about no alternate ending to Dial of Destiny existing. The confusion over this point arose when John Williams, the film's composer, said something contrary when sharing his progress on the score with fans. After reading Williams's contrarian notes, some fans returned to Mangold and accused him of lying. Mangold addressed the accusations by saying that Williams, the only source for the alleged reshoots, was in error. Williams never challenged Mangold. This bizarre exchange resulted in a years-long Twitter thread that trots out every conceivable Disney/Hollywood conspiracy one can imagine. In many ways, I think DoD was stillborn financially because its mother was punched in the stomach repeatedly by "adoring fans" while the child was in utero. Decide for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA CAT! on Jul 5, 2023 19:26:34 GMT 1
Disney is not known for honesty though. They did reshoots right? Yes most movies do reshoots
Why? There are many possible reasons Disney has total control over all movie content. Mangold has to do exactly what Iger tells him to do (remember when Kennedy and Abrams allegedly wanted to push back the release of a Star Wars movie and Iger said no?). Every studio has total control over the movies they make. That's what studios do. Remember what happened with the mentor character in Dr. Strange? No, I do not remember. The director has to follow orders.
I said before that Disney management loves the scene in Sleeping Beauty where Maleficent shows the captured prince what her plans for him are. The audience was horrified--but Disney's owners react like "that's a fantastic plan! Geriatric heroes!" I have no idea what you are talking about here. My point is that 'reports" about test screenings virtually never come from reliable sources. That's a fact.
I'll attest to that. I was part of a test screening once. Terrible film, imo. Alien Invasion movie with Tom Green. By the time the movie came out, nothing I would have had to say about the movie would still be true. It would be dated after changes made. Totally unreliable.
Even the title of the movie changed by the time I encountered it again.
|
|