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

[Andy 4,141]

I went at 3:00 pm opening day. Theater was 30% full, mostly people over 50. 

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Im also so sad this movie doesnt have a drew struzan poster 😭

[Andy 4,141]

It’s 10:15 AM, I’m seeing my second viewing in 15 minutes!  Hope to wrap my mind around it and appreciate more of it this time. 

[Pieter Boelen 740]

15 minutes ago, Andy said:

It’s 10:15 AM, I’m seeing my second viewing in 15 minutes!  Hope to wrap my mind around it and appreciate more of it this time. 

Enjoy!

I'm looking forward to my second showing also.

Not sure when that will be, but can't imagine I'll wait too long.

And I'm very interested in the 4D version!

[Thor 7,520]

My review of the film is up. It's in Norwegian, but I've run it through Google Translate for you if you're interested. I mention some locations/situations, but it's spoiler free. Can be read here.

[Edmilson 7,473]

Indy made $24 millions on its first day at the US box office, which is close to The Flash's first Friday ($24.1m) and above No Time to Die ($23.3m, but in a worse pandemic environment) and M: I Fallout ($22.7m).

 

https://www.the-numbers.com/daily-box-office-chart

 

Both The Flash and NTTD ended up opening with $55m. Fallout opened with $61m. This should be close to where Indy 5 will finish tomorrow, I think.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Honestly it probably would have been way cheaper to commit to practical effects.  And it would have looked way better too

 

So much of it was real yet it all looked like cg junk

[paleo 63]

I just went to see the movie, and lucky me! There was a super loud beach party at the public swimming pool next to the theater, plus, the sound volume of the movie was low. The experience was near-ruined for me especially during the quieter moments because of all the bawling and boom-boom-boom noise.

Anyway, rant out of the way, I really liked the movie, and I thought the climax was handled quite well (I had feared much worse). There could have been a lot more tomb and cave exploring, ancient riddles or booby traps for my taste, but the action was good. I did notice many interesting snippets of music not on the album; funny enough, once again the climax moments of finding and using the MacGuffin are not released, like so often before. Here it's not as regrettable as in Last Crusade, though.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

That was thankfully a much better last hurrah for everybody's favourite hat-wearing, whip-cracking, tomb-raiding, Nazi-punching archaeologist than Crystal Skull. Perhaps a little overlong but for the most part, tremendous fun laced with more than a little nostalgia and poignancy (I had 'something in my eye' at the end). 

[Jurassic Shark 12,091]

49 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

That was thankfully a much better last hurrah for everybody's favourite hat-wearing, whip-cracking, tomb-raiding, Nazi-punching archaeologist than Crystal Skull. Perhaps a little overlong but for the most part, tremendous fun laced with more than a little nostalgia and poignancy (I had 'something in my eye' at the end). 

 

That's good to know. Why do you think it hasn't gotten better reviews?

[Edmilson 7,473]

The movie opened with $60 millions domestic, $130 millions worldwide. All the major sites are already calling it a box office bomb because of the huge cost.

 

https://www.boxofficepro.com/weekend-box-office-indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-draws-disappointing-60m-domestic-debut/

[Bellosh 3,419]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

The movie opened with $60 millions domestic, $130 millions worldwide. All the major sites are already calling it a box office bomb because of the huge cost.

 

https://www.boxofficepro.com/weekend-box-office-indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-draws-disappointing-60m-domestic-debut/

 

yikes.

 

one reason though, casual, younger audience does not give a shit to see an old Indy.

[Jurassic Shark 12,091]

But he's de-aged. 

[Edmilson 7,473]

13 minutes ago, Bellosh said:

one reason though, casual, younger audience does not give a shit to see an old Indy.

That was one of the reasons for the underperformance according to most sites. A huge part of the audience was over 40 years old. 

 

Usually, that audience is not like the Marvel fans, which race to the theater on opening weekend to avoid spoilers. They like to take their time. However, that won't help Indy because this month will also see the premiere of two movies also directed at older males: Mission: Impossible and Oppenheimer.

 

With so many options, I wouldn't be surprised if most people decide to wait for streaming.

[TolkienSS 407]

48 minutes ago, Bellosh said:

 

yikes.

 

one reason though, casual, younger audience does not give a shit to see an old Indy.

 

No audience who is just a bit of a movie fan wants to see Indy sad and depressed, playing sidekick in his own film.

 

The notion that anyone would be surprised at this film not doing good is, well, outstandingly tone deaf.

[Demodex 557]

Saw it today.  Loved it.  Looking forward to seeing it again.

 

When I do I need to listen to the score first. I don't remember any new themes at all. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

13 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

That's good to know. Why do you think it hasn't gotten better reviews?

Dunno. Maybe grumpy critics need to get laid more, or something.  

[Chen G. 3,950]

11 hours ago, Edmilson said:

The movie opened with $60 millions domestic, $130 millions worldwide. All the major sites are already calling it a box office bomb because of the huge cost.

 

There's still some faint hope for the movie for a later turnout from older audiences, but its a fool's hope because of Mission: Impossible coming to scratch the same itch for the same audience.

 

Its such an expensive movie, and it has all of these parties taking slices off of the back-end, that it will be hard to recoup that expenditure.

 

I think Ford's age is absolutely acting as a repelent for many people. They don't want to see an old, miserable Indy not any more than they did in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. They want him young, dashing and virile.

 

[Amer 2,117]

The fan base is quite supportive and the movie is an enjoyable romp unlike KOTCS which despite its crappy storyline still made a lot of money. I think the film will do well and start going up.

[Chen G. 3,950]

Lets hope. I'm not one to hope for a movie to not do well: its people's livelihood!

 

But I'm skeptical.

[JNHFan2000 2,968]

10 hours ago, Bellosh said:

 

yikes.

 

one reason though, casual, younger audience does not give a shit to see an old Indy.

Lot's of younger audiences don't even know who Indiana Jones is

[Chen G. 3,950]

That's also true.

 

For this new, Disney-helmed iteration of Lucasfilm, Indiana Jones just doesn't have the same potential as Star Wars: It doesn't live in the zeitgeist in the same way, and most important it just cannot branch off into spinoffs: all they could have realistically done with it was "make another one" which they had, and the results thus far are...not all that reassuring.

 

Along with Willow, it seems like two strikes against Lucasfilm vintage IP.

[Tom Guernsey 2,287]

15 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

That's also true.

 

For this new, Disney-helmed iteration of Lucasfilm, Indiana Jones just doesn't have the same potential as Star Wars: It doesn't live in the zeitgeist in the same way, and most important it just cannot branch off into spinoffs: all they could have realistically done with it was "make another one" which they had, and the results thus far are...not all that reassuring.

 

Along with Willow, it seems like two strikes against Lucasfilm vintage IP.

Investors should note that past performance is not a guarantee of future returns... as they say.

 

I've not seen it yet (waiting for a trip to London in a couple of weeks) but Indy (like Bond) is the kind of character that's best in essentially one off adventures at a particular stage in their life/career. I don't feel the need to see Indy retired or Bond in the Old Spies' Home (although there is a great sketch imagining Moore and Connery in just that scenario... but a sketch is a sketch, not a movie), but hey, I'm looking forward to it anyway. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

On that ... the focus on whether Bond/the 00 section is still 'relevant' from Skyfall to No Time To Die grated a bit. I know it was so Bond could go on to prove he/it still was, but ... eh.  

[Tallguy 3,401]

I loved it. Nothing is Raiders, so, OK. I liked it better than Temple of Doom and it didn't make me depressed like Skull did. In some ways it's better than Last Crusade and in other ways it wasn't.

 

Box office: I don't think it's all about "Hey, who is this guy?" I think a lot of it was "Hey you got me to see one of the worst big budget movies I've ever seen last time, and now Harrison Ford is 80!" I know several of my friends who are waiting for the "all clear". If my wife didn't want to go see it I would have been one of them.

 

Maybe I don't know Mangold's style that well, or maybe he doesn't have a really identifiable one, but it does feel very later-day Spielberg in a mostly good way.

 

If you haven't even seen the trailers, quit reading:

 

I have to say the prologue would have been nearly perfect if it didn't have to deal with Tintin-diana Jones.

 

I don't see why they set it in 1969. I guess Ford is just "old". I know Ford and Indy's ages never quite matched and Ford was usually older. But they could have set the movie in 1981!

[Chen G. 3,950]

29 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

But they could have set the movie in 1981!

 

That would have been a rather poetic idea!

[Mephariel 451]

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

There's still some faint hope for the movie for a later turnout from older audiences, but its a fool's hope because of Mission: Impossible coming to scratch the same itch for the same audience.

 

Its such an expensive movie, and it has all of these parties taking slices off of the back-end, that it will be hard to recoup that expenditure.

 

I think Ford's age is absolutely acting as a repelent for many people. They don't want to see an old, miserable Indy not any more than they did in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. They want him young, dashing and virile.

 

 

I just don't think there is a universal audience for Indiana Jones anymore. How many people under 50 years old cares that much about Indiana Jones? I know I don't. Also, I think the internet and the globalism of today's world makes treasure hunting less appealing. Egypt, India, China, and exotic places are not mysteries anymore. 

[Edmilson 7,473]

22 minutes ago, Mephariel said:

I just don't think there is a universal audience for Indiana Jones anymore. How many people under 50 years old cares that much about Indiana Jones? I know I don't. Also, I think the internet and the globalism of today's world makes treasure hunting less appealing. Egypt, India, China, and exotic places are not mysteries anymore. 

I feel like the treasure hunting genre was kept alive for younger generations mostly through gaming, like Uncharted, Tomb Raider, etc. Many people under 40 who are a huge part of the moviegoing audience may not know Indiana Jones, but they surely do Nathan Drake or Lara Croft. Yet, Dial of Destiny seems more concerned in pleasing die hard Indy fans (most of whom are a little older now) than bringing in a new audience.

[Chen G. 3,950]

Its not a treasure hunt, but there's another movie about a globetrotting action hero that's expected to do big bucks, and that Mission: Impossible. So the idea of somebody galvinating around the world still has some appeal, provided its done with panache and plays credibly on the screen.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

The last Tomb Raider's box office fell just short of what it needed to break even, which presumably explains why 5 years on there's no sign of another one. 

Uncharted took 400 million off of a 120 million budget, which I imagine means it was enough of a hit for another one to be made.  

[King Mark 3,631]

 

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Its not a treasure hunt, but there's another movie about a globetrotting action hero that's expected to do big bucks, and that Mission: Impossible. So the idea of somebody galvinating around the world still has some appeal, provided its done with panache and plays credibly on the screen.

I think part of the reason it's  flopping because Disney's image took a hit in recent years as being a vehicle for "The Message" instead of focusing on quality entertainment and parts of the fan base are staying away because of it

[Chen G. 3,950]

I really, REALLY don't think Indy perfoming less-than-spectacularly as of yet has to do with Waller-Bridge's character in and of herself.

 

I think the concept for the movie is like Indy in the movie himself: old and out-of-time.

[iamleyeti 114]

My partner is younger than me and he doesn't care one bit for either Tom Cruise or Indiana Jones. For him and his friends, they are dinosaurs.

 

I guess Mission: Impossible will draw attention because of the incredible stunts, but seeing the movie is already a two-parter made me very very tired.

[Mephariel 451]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Its not a treasure hunt, but there's another movie about a globetrotting action hero that's expected to do big bucks, and that Mission: Impossible. So the idea of somebody galvinating around the world still has some appeal, provided its done with panache and plays credibly on the screen.

 

You are right. But that is why it is hard to do Indiana Jones. Basically to succeed, reboot the franchise with a younger actor, make it take place in modern day, and turn the film into a fast and furious type with over-the-top action and global destruction implications. Basically like another version of Uncharted. I am ok with this. But I can see a lot if die hard fans asking: At this point, is it still an Indiana Jones film?

[Edmilson 7,473]

6 minutes ago, iamleyeti said:

I guess Mission: Impossible will draw attention because of the incredible stunts, but seeing the movie is already a two-parter made me very very tired.

Yeah, when they announced the last M: I movie would be split in two my hype for it went down drastically. The last one (Fallout) was already so long and convoluted, watching four more hours of this would be very tiresome.

[Chen G. 3,950]

1 minute ago, Edmilson said:

The last one (Fallout) was already so long and convoluted

 

I do think M:I is falling into the same trap as did the Craig Bonds, of linking together films that have no business being linked together.

 

Rogue Nation and Fallout were linked, and obviously the two parts of Dead Reckoning are linked, and I'm pretty sure they're also linked to the previous two.

 

I love these kinds of linked story sagas, but they have to start that way. Mission: Impossible, like Bond and like Indy, is an anthology. That's in its DNA. You can't just suddenly turn a switch and go "actually, this is a cycle now!" never fails to ring false.

[Mephariel 451]

16 minutes ago, King Mark said:

 

I think part of the reason it's  flopping because Disney's image took a hit in recent years as being a vehicle for "The Message" instead of focusing on quality entertainment and parts of the fan base are staying away because of it

 

No Time to Die had the same "message" and it was able to managed $770 million (still below expectations). Bond sitting in the back of the motorcycle, tough black woman assisting/resisting him, badass Cuban girl kicking ass. He didn't even have sex with any of them. Guardians of the Galaxy made $800+ million just a month ago. I think there is a way Indiana Jones makes money. But the version as it is just has no broad appeal.

[iamleyeti 114]

They insist on connecting everything. They will have characters from every Mission: Impossible movie appear in Dead Reckoning. As a French person, I would love (but also hate) to see Jean Reno reappearing after the end credits, "Bonjour Étanne." 

[Jurassic Shark 12,091]

44 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Yeah, when they announced the last M: I movie would be split in two my hype for it went down drastically. The last one (Fallout) was already so long and convoluted, watching four more hours of this would be very tiresome.

 

While being hit on the head by Balfe's music. 

[Edmilson 7,473]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I do think M:I is falling into the same trap as did the Craig Bonds, of linking together films that have no business being linked together.

 

Rogue Nation and Fallout were linked, and obviously the two parts of Dead Reckoning are linked, and I'm pretty sure they're also linked to the previous two.

 

I love these kinds of linked story sagas, but they have to start that way. Mission: Impossible, like Bond and like Indy, is an anthology. That's in its DNA. You can't just suddenly turn a switch and go "actually, this is a cycle now!" never fails to ring false.

Thanks to franchises like Star Wars and the MCU, these days Hollywood insists on connecting every franchise, even when their chapters used to be most standalone, like Bond, M: I, even Fast & Furious. They probably saw how much money stuff like Endgame made and now they can't resist making "the epic finale of the James Bond/Ethan Hunt saga, where every movie has led to this!"

[Bellosh 3,419]

The worst part about all MI movies post 3 was they constantly bring back his wife for that 'tension'.  nobody gives a shit!

[Mephariel 451]

51 minutes ago, Bellosh said:

The worst part about all MI movies post 3 was they constantly bring back his wife for that 'tension'.  nobody gives a shit!

 

She should have died in III. I honestly thought if that was really her getting tortured and killed in that chair, that movie would have been 10x more powerful. 

[Bellosh 3,419]

@Mephariel Wait does 3 end with him knowing she's still out there (vice versa) or is it 4?

 

Whatever that point they were trying to make should have been the end of it.

[King Mark 3,631]

Not a huge fan of Tom Cruise MI movies. I'll see them just for the sake of seeing them but 1 week after I already forgot everything in the movie

[Bellosh 3,419]

The "impossible" scenes are always worth the price of admission 

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

1 hour ago, King Mark said:

Not a huge fan of Tom Cruise MI movies. I'll see them just for the sake of seeing them but 1 week after I already forgot everything in the movie

They're fine as spectacle but I don't really care for heist movies or spy movies

[TolkienSS 407]

4 hours ago, King Mark said:

Not a huge fan of Tom Cruise MI movies. I'll see them just for the sake of seeing them but 1 week after I already forgot everything in the movie

 

I always have a great time watching them. At least you have a good time, even if you forget them. Opposed to most movies today, which are cringe to watch, and you can't forget them.

[Chen G. 3,950]

9 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Thanks to franchises like Star Wars and the MCU, these days Hollywood insists on connecting every franchise, even when their chapters used to be most standalone, like Bond, M: I, even Fast & Furious.

 

I think its more stuff like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings that popularized that more cyclical format.

 

Marvel kinda straddles the middle ground between anthology and cycle.

[iamleyeti 114]

I mean… Avengers and Endgame are in the top 10 most profitable movies. I would rather suggest TV shows forced or inspired movies to be more connected, to have cliffhangers and all.

 

(Even if sequels and multiverses have existed for decades… King Kong vs. Godzilla anyone?)

[Chen G. 3,950]

1 hour ago, iamleyeti said:

(Even if sequels and multiverses have existed for decades… King Kong vs. Godzilla anyone?)

 

I don't think about it in terms of multiverses and so forth. Basically, there are two kinds of film series:

 

An anthology, which is episodic and picaresque: every film is a new "adventure of the week." So stuff like Indiana Jones, James Bond, Star Trek, Mission: Impossible, etc...

 

A cycle, which is novelistic and continuous: every film is a part of a single, long-running story. So Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, to a lesser extent Star Wars, etc..

 

These are obviously not absolutes: the vintage Connery Bonds have a cyclical element insofar as they all chart Bond's continuing tribulations with SPECTRE: he becomes aware of them only at the end of Doctor No, and launches off from there. Marvel is kinda anthological, but also kinda cyclical. Harry Potter is a cycle, but has anthological elements insofar as each year in Hogwarts is a new adventure.

 

The issue, for me, is when a series starts off in one mould, has a good run in that mould, and only then tries to change: so M:I or the Craig Bonds changing from anthology to cycle very late in the game; or Star Wars trying to become more anthological with all those spinoffs, after having been (notwithstanding esoterica like the Holiday Special) a cycle for several decades and seven or eight movies. That sort of thing always ends up ringing a little false to me.

 

Thank you for coming to my TED talk about large-form narratology.