Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (James Mangold, June 30 2023)

[mrbellamy 6,287]

14 minutes ago, crocodile said:

accept it for what it is and move on.

 

The mantra of all fandoms 

[crocodile 8,017]

All I'm saying is that, to me, having 80-year old pretend to be 30-something is not any bigger stretch than having that 80-year old be an action star of a major summer blockbuster. I'll have to suspend my disbelief in any case. If the film is bad, this will be the least of its issues.

 

Karol

[Indianagirl 298]

I actually think the film has a chance of being at least somewhat likable. But it will not be on par with the original 3.

[Edmilson 7,466]

To be honest, very few blockbusters manage to be better than any of the first 3 Indys. Certainly none of this decade.

[Tom 4,666]

On 04/05/2023 at 2:55 PM, Edmilson said:

To be honest, very few blockbusters manage to be better than any of the first 3 Indys. Certainly none of this decade.

I think if the "human" story works well and has some genuinely poignant gravitas, it may crack the top 3.  But, that is a big "if."  

[mrbellamy 6,287]

Mad Max: Fury Road and Top Gun: Maverick are the two legacy sequels that come to mind where if this got an equivalent response then the consensus would probably be that it's the best Indy sequel.

 

But I think for that to happen, that mythical film would have to be the best of both worlds where it rivals Temple of Doom's funhouse setpieces and stunts for even the biggest fans of that one, while also having a comparable sentimental ending to Last Crusade. The inherent challenge with both of these is that it's hard to be as authentically outrageous as Temple of Doom while also being palatable for today, and conceptually "Holy Grail and Indy's father" resonates more immediately than "Dial of Destiny (?) and Indy's goddaughter (?)"

 

I think for myself and probably a lot of people, Crystal Skull will be the main comparison point. A low bar for 5 is that it ends up being a fairly derivative action-adventure, straightforwardly entertaining and perhaps capturing the Indy "vibe" without really doing much new with it. In which case the argument probably becomes if that's better or worse than 4 which maybe has more personality even if it's awkward lol. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

I think there's a fundamental flaw that makes these late-coming sequels, like Indy 5 (or 4 for that matter) a tough sell, and a tough nut to crack in terms of quality.

 

The problem is, people think "Oh, well Indy 5 should logically be set in the 60's, it's been 40 years since Raiders after all!" and "OF COURSE Indy acts differently, he's an old man now, people change". But Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the character of Indians Jones were conceived as a homage to 1940's serials...a certain kind of story with a certain kind of character set in a certain time period. Its in the DNA of the films. But Indy's not real person, and when you take him out of the 1940's milieu, make him an old man, and try to logically construct a story around the same character decades later, it becomes...well, something different. It's no longer what it was created to be, and that, for me anyway, is a big issue that prevents these films from truly being great, no matter how well crafted the story may be. Everyone loves Indy so everyone wants more films, but the reality is, the ship sailed when Lucas and Spielberg went decades without making a movie. We can't have another Indy movie. Not really, it's impossible. Indy's not a retired old man any more than Han Solo is a dead-beat Dad.  Or Luke Skywalker is a washed up hermit. Or Jean-Luc Picard is a sad, bitter pensioner. Those characters as, we fell in love with them, are immortal. They belong to a place and time, one that doesn't exist except when we revisit it.

 

An ageing Indy in the 1960's is a wholly different thing, and is only tangentially related to what came before because it shares the name Indiana Jones. It doesn't mean it can't be entertaining to watch, but too long has passed and it's not quite the genuine article.  

[Faleel 5,359]

12 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I think there's a fundamental flaw that makes these late-coming sequels, like Indy 5 (or 4 for that matter) a tough sell, and a tough nut to crack in terms of quality.

 

The problem is, people think "Oh, well Indy 5 should logically be set in the 60's, it's been 40 years since Raiders after all!" and "OF COURSE Indy acts differently, he's an old man now, people change". But Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the character of Indians Jones were conceived as a homage to 1940's serials...a certain kind of story with a certain kind of character set in a certain time period. Its in the DNA of the films. But Indy's not real person, and when you take him out of the 1940's milieu, make him an old man, and try to logically construct a story around the same character decades later, it becomes...well, something different. It's no longer what it was created to be, and that, for me anyway, is a big issue that prevents these films from truly being great, no matter how well crafted the story may be. Everyone loves Indy so everyone wants more films, but the reality is, the ship sailed when Lucas and Spielberg went decades without making a movie. We can't have another Indy movie. Not really, it's impossible. Indy's not a retired old man any more than Han Solo is a dead-beat Dad.  Or Luke Skywalker is a washed up hermit. Or Jean-Luc Picard is a sad, bitter pensioner. Those characters as, we fell in love with them, are immortal. They belong to a place and time, one that doesn't exist except when we revisit it.

 

An ageing Indy in the 1960's is a wholly different thing, and is only tangentially related to what came before because it shares the name Indiana Jones. It doesn't mean it can't be entertaining to watch, but too long has passed and it's not quite the genuine article.  

Or you fundamentally misunderstood what Indy was.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

34 minutes ago, A Farewell to Kings said:

Or you fundamentally misunderstood what Indy was.

Nah, pretty sure I get it. And if I need reminding, I’ll watch one of the three Indy movies again.  

 

Though you’ve swerved into the truth, “was” being the operative word. Even Harrison Ford knows that.

[Faleel 5,359]

11 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Nah, pretty sure I get it. And if I need reminding, I’ll watch one of the three Indy movies again.  

 

 

Or you can listen to the IndyCast interview with Mike Matessino.

 

http://theindycast.com/the-magic-of-john-williams-57/

 

 

[TolkienSS 407]

30 minutes ago, A Farewell to Kings said:

Or you fundamentally misunderstood what Indy was.

 

Yes.

Like with practically all movie franchises, they need to be remade, to educate people properly how they *really* always felt about them, and how they only ever need to feel about them.

We need those brave new films.

[Faleel 5,359]

1 minute ago, TolkienSS said:

 

Yes.

Like with practically all movie franchises, they need to be remade, to educate people properly how they *really* always felt about them, and how they only ever need to feel about them.

We need those brave new films.

Now you are fundamentally misunderstanding my post.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

5 minutes ago, A Farewell to Kings said:

Or you can listen to the IndyCast interview with Mike Matessino.

 

http://theindycast.com/the-magic-of-john-williams-57/

 

 

Ha! Well, yes, JW’s scores are another thing entirely…

[Faleel 5,359]

3 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Ha! Well, yes, JW’s scores are another thing entirely…

He talks about his thoughts on Indy 5, and how it could work without needing to have tons (or any) action, because Indiana Jones isn't just an action adventure franchise.

 

There you go, fundamentally misunderstanding again.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

I feel like Indiana Jones is mostly Harrison Ford Jackass so him being old doesn't really detract that much.  Plinkett's point about Indiana Jones being a generic self insert badass you look up to is dead wrong.  Most of the films are him eating shit and getting out by the skin of his teeth

[DarthDementous 1,059]

I believe Mangold has gone on record saying that whilst the opening will absolutely be taking influence from those adventure pulp serials of old, he's shifting his influence to something more contemporary (by a matter of few decades from that original influence I mean), so the influences are actually growing up with the series. That is the more natural and organic way to approach something like this I think, because you're mirroring how things literally did evolve in terms of media

Also quite clever to make one of the central conceits of the film mirror the meta angst towards whether something like Indiana Jones works in the modern world. Just as Indy has to find his place in this strange new world, so does this new Indiana Jones film in the current state of society. From Mangold's comments he seems to be leaning more towards 'yes, those style of films and heroes are still valuable perhaps even more so now' which I think is lovely and compellingly introspective compared to pretending like nothing changed and just smashing that nostalgia button over and over to milk every fond memory of the originals dry

[Tallguy 3,401]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The problem is, people think "Oh, well Indy 5 should logically be set in the 60's, it's been 40 years since Raiders after all!"

 

That's Hollywood math. 1936 + 40 = 1976.

[Cerebral Cortex 3,357]

oh shit, there's a new indiana jones movie and score coming out next month. don't get to say that everyday.

[Tom 4,666]

From the perspective of a Williams' fan, the movie is really about him (to me).  I don't just mean that the score is what I am looking forward to the most. Rather, it is fascinating to witness Williams as an artist take on the character again.  How does a 90 year old artist connect to his much younger self in approaching the feel of the movie (particularly with the flashback prologue).  We saw it a bit with SW.  I think VII represents this link well, and weirdly the Obi-Wan theme more than the other movies. 

 

If nothing else, in Williams' mind for much of the process, this was going to be his last film (and it still may be).  I think the score is going to have a special air and maybe even flair to it. 

 

 

[Alex 2,835]

Mangold is a serious director. I have complete faith in him. He’s no JJ.

[Indianagirl 298]

I didn't care for Logan but I've never liked anything Marvel really. But I was impressed with Ford vs Ferrari. 

 

[Cerebral Cortex 3,357]

13 hours ago, Tom said:

From the perspective of a Williams' fan, the movie is really about him (to me).  I don't just mean that the score is what I am looking forward to the most. Rather, it is fascinating to witness Williams as an artist take on the character again.  How does a 90 year old artist connect to his much younger self in approaching the feel of the movie (particularly with the flashback prologue).  We saw it a bit with SW.  I think VII represents this link well, and weirdly the Obi-Wan theme more than the other movies.

 

Your post reminded me a bit of a long ramble I went on over in a Rise of Skywalker thread. In short, you make light of something that I mentioned there that speaks now to your point that I found so especially interesting which is seeing composers spanning literal decades by getting to approach their music of old in the here of now and now adding new pieces to that musical tapestry. To me, I couldn't agree more. That journey that Williams is making, the human narrative that gets to find closure in Williams scoring an Indy 5 is, as you said so beautifully, fucking "fascinating."

 

It's even more interesting with Indy 5 for reasons the Star Wars films never encountered. One thing that fascinates me about the Williams Star Wars films is that to me it feels like Williams is approached in 3 different periods of his life (rising star - 70s, seasoned composer - 90s, and modern era - 2010s) and gives 3 different approaches to get at the same sound. It's like seeing an artist repeat the same painting and trying to improve each time with the skills he has picked up or improved upon in the lapse between attempts.

 

With Indy, even with 4 films under our belts, I'm still not quite sure what the Indy sound is. To me, the first 3 films have a "sound," something you just hear and go, oh, that's Indy music! Each film kinda builds on and stretches the mold on what can count as Indy music, but it still has a cohesion to it. The 4th film for me is a score that I'm still trying to understand, and have had a difficult journey in appreciating, but it's different enough for me to say that it does not sound like the first 3 films save for a few moments.

 

And that's where the Dial of Destiny score is gonna be so interesting.  If, for example, Dial of Destiny ends up sounding differently from 4 or 1-3, then we'll know that Williams didn't have a musical rulebook for Indy that he was overly beholden to, but rather changed the musical DNA of the films and adapted it to the adventures Indy had. Which would actually mean then that it's very possible the musical cohesion of the first 3 Indy films is entrenched more than anything in the fact that they all were films that Williams scored for a few years in the 80s.

 

In amending some of my previous post I mentioned earlier to get back on with my main point of agreement with you, with Indy 5 we are getting to see a composer who has already forever added to their indelible mark on society with a single film (Raiders) and throughout the course of multiple decades (that see both the franchise and the composer grow and change in ways not realized during the inception of the first installment) that same composer repeatedly comes back and somewhat literally has to confront the writing style of an older incarnation of themselves that no longer exists. How the composer chooses to deal with that confrontation of a previous musical identity, either through embracing it and trying to write in a style reminiscent of those years of old or by adapting and updating that identity to conform to the new musical norm for the composer, is a such an interesting puzzle to see someone tackle. One of the greatest benefits in being an observer to this unique relationship as a listener is being able to more directly than usual realize and appreciate the growth a composer has had. One thing that this film will bring that I can't wait are musical segues from Williams where he will no doubt have to jump between Indy's theme and Helena's theme. Getting too, in the space of a few seconds, hear a man span decades of life --all he has learned, all he has experienced, all he has felt, all that he is-- in those little seamless bridges between the music of new and the music of old is, well, you said it best...

 

 

And while there are many people who grew up with Star Wars, Star Wars has gone through so many different eras that the feel of Star Wars has not been a consistent one. But for people who have loved Indiana Jones, that has always looked the same. Most members here have spent most of their lives loving the Raiders March. It's firmly locked in the pantheon of great film scores. It has always taken on a singular shape: Harrison Ford and John Williams. And I think in that regard it's a more emotional milestone than Rise of Skywalker. Because they're both fucking back.

 

 

13 hours ago, Tom said:

If nothing else, in Williams' mind for much of the process, this was going to be his last film (and it still may be).  I think the score is going to have a special air and maybe even flair to it.

 

That's such a great point that I honestly keep forgetting. Suddenly makes me hope for Williams to end the credits by signing off with a Williams chord crescendo that evokes Shore's beautiful curtain call in ROTK. This is Williams giving it his all for something is shaping up to be a cinematic finale on multiple fronts: the Indy character, Williams scoring franchise blockbusters, Williams no longer doing film score, and the end of Harrison Ford led big blockbuster films, though I'm still holding out for a Air Force One 2.

 

Sorry for such a long response. You made a great point that I don't see talked about a ton, and I love that you added it to the discussion. I know that this is the Dial of Destiny discussion thread, but I think your point that this is, in a way, a film about Williams to be a very interesting point of discussion.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

6 hours ago, Alex said:

Mangold is a serious director. I have complete faith in him. He’s no JJ.

Mangold is a serious director. And a good one.
 

Spielberg is also a serious director. And a better one than Mangold. He’s no JJ. I had complete faith in him. And yet he directed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

 

So…we’ll see.

[Alex 2,835]

5 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Mangold is a serious director. And a good one.
 

Spielberg is also a serious director. And a better one than Mangold. He’s no JJ. I had complete faith in him. And yet he directed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

 

So…we’ll see.

The problem with KOTCS is there seemed to be a creative tug-of-war between Spielberg and Lucas, and you get the impression Spielberg wasn’t 100% invested in the story he was directing. 
 

Plus it didn’t help that Spielberg decided he wasn’t prepared to leave the US to film.

 

As far as I can see Mangold seems to have had almost all creative control with little studio meddling. Hopefully this bodes well.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

Maybe, but I think there's precedent to expect DOD could suffer from a similar creative tug-of-war between Mangold and Kennedy. Quality is not exactly something I associate with or expect from Lucasfilm, especially these days.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

 

All will be revealed, on June 30.

[Tom 4,666]

Following up on Cerebral's post above, another cool thing is that it is a movie self-consciously about Indy facing old age, retirement, and such.  What a crazy tie in with Williams' discussion of retiring from films.  Williams is scoring his own life at this point.  

[Amer 2,110]

Any idea if any online store  is starting to indicate pre orders as yet?  

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

10 minutes ago, Amer said:

Any idea if any online store  is starting to indicate pre orders as yet?  

That usually happens a couple weeks before release right?

[SilverTrumpet 638]

20 hours ago, Alex said:

As far as I can see Mangold seems to have had almost all creative control with little studio meddling. Hopefully this bodes well.

 

Worked wonders for The Last Jedi.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

It worked so well that it ruined Star Wars forever for half the people who saw it.

[Goldfinger 59]

At least The Last Jedi dared to try something different and not just repeat things over again and use 'member berries to tell the story. It wasn't everyone's cup of tea (mine included) but I appreciate that Johnson at least tried to do something different and move things forward, only for JJ to return and almost undo all the character work he did for no good reason.

 

As a huge Luke fan, I was at first quite upset with his portrayal and especially the ending. Upon further viewings and some reflection, I actually have accepted what occurred and can accept that Luke wasn't perfect. Hopefully Mangold will give us the same ending for Indy, a flawed man like we knew him and not a superhero. Whatever Indy's ultimate end fate may be, I'm just glad to get a little more time with the character.

 

[crumbs 14,318]

1 hour ago, SilverTrumpet said:

Worked wonders for The Last Jedi.

 

Would you prefer the sausage-factory, design-by-committee approach of Marvel films, where directors have effectively zero creative control?

[Alex 2,835]

I am prepared to die on the hill that The Last Jedi is a great movie. 

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Would you prefer the sausage-factory, design-by-committee approach of Marvel films, where directors have effectively zero creative control?

 

Spoken with the confidence of someone who hasn't seen Guardians 3 yet.

[Tallguy 3,401]

13 minutes ago, Alex said:

I am prepared to die on the hill that The Last Jedi is a great movie. 

 

You can be mortally wounded on the hill: The Last Jedi is a really good movie.

[Cerebral Cortex 3,357]

 

Hey, look what I found! 😉

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

2 hours ago, Goldfinger said:

At least The Last Jedi dared to try something different and not just repeat things over again and use 'member berries to tell the story.

 

People always say this and I have no idea why because all The Last Jedi ever does is act like it's going to do something new, interesting and different before backing away from it and resuming with the boring old status quo. Are your expectations not subverted???

[Alex 2,835]

As long as JW´s score is front and centre of the sound mix, and isn´t micro-edited to death, I´ll be happy.

[1977 1,743]

2 hours ago, Goldfinger said:

only for JJ to return and almost undo all the character work he did for no good reason.

 

As a huge Luke fan, I was at first quite upset with his portrayal and especially the ending. Upon further viewings and some reflection, I actually have accepted what occurred and can accept that Luke wasn't perfect.

 

I think based on how TFA ended there weren't really many options as to how to deal with Luke. Based on his MIA status for 99% of the film, either he is dead, imprisoned or has chosen exile. So if anyone has an issue with TLJ Luke they should take it up with the creatives behind TFA. I was initially up in arms about it but some perspective over the past few years has helped. It's certainly a more interesting story thread than Rose and Finn go to Monte Canto and meet a lispy dude with a feeble name.

 

Anyway, back to Indy.

[Brónach 1,302]

2 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

It worked so well that it ruined Star Wars forever for half the people who saw it.

 

i thought this was in 1999, or in 1983, or 1980 for some

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

9 minutes ago, Brónach said:

i thought this was in 1999, or in 1983, or 1980 for some

 

Yeah, I'm sure there are many people who felt that way in those years. I doubt it was half of the audience in '80 or '83, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to that in '99. After all, a lot of people who'd grown up with Star Wars were adults by then and their tastes had no doubt changed and become more demanding.

[Chen G. 3,950]

On 07/05/2023 at 2:47 AM, Nick1Ø66 said:

An ageing Indy in the 1960's is a wholly different thing, and is only tangentially related to what came before because it shares the name Indiana Jones. It doesn't mean it can't be entertaining to watch, but too long has passed and it's not quite the genuine article.  

 

I mostly think its just sad.

 

Han Solo or Luke Skywalker can at least be shown as sad old men, because the overall tenor of that series is a little bit more serious-minded. But Indiana Jones? That's the last place to explore the pains of aging. So seeing Indy, the suave adventurer, reduced to an elderly Emeritus, is just...sad.

[Tom 4,666]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

That's the last place to explore the pains of aging. So seeing Indy, the suave adventurer, reduced to an elderly Emeritus, is just...sad.

Having an entire movie about the "suave adventurer" work through daddy issues would be just as sad on that analysis--yet the movie works perfectly.  It is all about execution.  

[Chen G. 3,950]

8 minutes ago, Tom said:

It is all about execution.

 

I think an elderly Indy is a flawed premise, regardless of execution.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

I don't quite agree with that as I do think there are valid ways to tell a story about an old indiana Jones. That said, I think a lot of the character's appeal is directly tied to the fact that he's smart, but also tough and unrelenting while still managing to be smooth with the ladies. It's pure male fantasy and as such the majority of his stories should absolutely take place when he's still relatively young and vital.

[Tallguy 3,401]

1 hour ago, JTWfan77 said:

So if anyone has an issue with TLJ Luke they should take it up with the creatives behind TFA.

 

THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS!

 

33 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Han Solo or Luke Skywalker can at least be shown as sad old men, because the overall tenor of that series is a little bit more serious-minded.

 

Yub nub!

 

31 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

So seeing Indy, the suave adventurer, reduced to an elderly Emeritus, is just...sad.

 

He's only 10-20 something years younger than he was in Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

[Chen G. 3,950]

35 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

Yub nub!

 

I said a little bit! 

[Tallguy 3,401]

24 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I said a little bit! 

 

Utinni! (I had to look that up. For almost 46 years I've thought that started with a K.)

[Brónach 1,302]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I mostly think its just sad.

 

Han Solo or Luke Skywalker can at least be shown as sad old men, because the overall tenor of that series is a little bit more serious-minded. But Indiana Jones? That's the last place to explore the pains of aging. So seeing Indy, the suave adventurer, reduced to an elderly Emeritus, is just...sad.

 

back at the beginning of raiders, he had already been reduced to a grave robber, which is sadder