SPOILER TALK: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

[Bellosh 3,504]

4 minutes ago, Mephariel said:

 

People are hilarious to me. Women saving the day isn't realistic (and it is true, most of the time it isn't), but a 60 year old secret agent beating an army of trained guys half his age is ok. A 80 year old guy jumping from a moving carriage is realistic. 

 

None of these stuff are realistic enough to break egos you would think.  

 

and you know how they probably never batted an eye for Short Round doing what he did.

 

BUT HEY, HE KNOWS KARATE!

 

He probably doesn't post that meme if it's anyone other than a female doing it is essentially my (tired) point.

[Nick1Ø66 4,851]

1 hour ago, Bellosh said:

oh jesus fucking christ.

 

[Bellosh 3,504]

@Jay

 

I have no issue with someone hating the story/arc of the character.  and yes. the 'miserable' and needs to be redeemed trope is tiresome.  but there will be plenty of people who hate it even more because of a female character.  these fan bases have proved this with star wars.  it no doubt leaks it's way here.

 

@Nick1Ø66 genuinely lol'd.

[Jurassic Shark 12,232]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

You need better dreams my friend.

Have you tried porn before bed?

 

Yes, but I don't recommend dreaming of a naked Mutt.

[Nick1Ø66 4,851]

9 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Yes, but I don't recommend dreaming of a naked Mutt.

 

 

[Chen G. 4,016]

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

in 1981, Lucas and Spielberg wanted to create a movie around an 80 year-old archaeologist running around the world with his wise-craking God-daughter who did  the action bits, that's what they would have done.  Why didn't they do that? Because that story would have sucked.

 

Quite. It seems to me the virility is absolutely central to the character of Indiana Jones: he punches bad-guys, swings over chasms and sleeps with hot women. That's what the character is.

 

He's not supposed to be seen in his 80s, or even his 60s for that matter.

[Jurassic Shark 12,232]

One more time!

[Bellosh 3,504]

12 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Quite. It seems to me the virility is absolutely central to the character of Indiana Jones: he punches bad-guys, swings over chasms and sleeps with hot women. That's what the character is.

 

He's not supposed to be seen in his 80s, or even his 60s for that matter.

 

and this is the discussion that we should ultimately be having, but i foresee some bad faith discussion taking place here after the release, with Helena being the issue.  It's a shame really.

[Chen G. 4,016]

3 minutes ago, Bellosh said:

i foresee some bad faith discussion taking place here after the release, with Helena being the issue. 

 

I have no conceptual problem with Helena: I didn't see her in the film, I don't know what she's like. I certainly don't have an issue with Indy being upstaged by a woman: I have an issue with Indy being upstaged (as an all-too-obvious workaround for Ford's age) period. I had it with Mutt, too.

[Bellosh 3,504]

agreed whole heartedly.  i really don't think that will be the case...but we'll see.

 

you know...it's funny to me....

 

If they had decided to make Mutt's character, a daughter, (like the young indy chronicles talk about) back in 2008 when being bent out of shape over a girl character wasn't really a thing online and social media....

 

we wouldn't have this problem in Indy 5.  People would be like "well she's Indy's daughter, of course she's badass!"

[Chen G. 4,016]

I honestly can't see it not be the case: I mean, he IS eighty!

 

I remember the incredulity I had in Kindom of the Crystal Skull - "nevermind how you survived this: how did you not throw your back out?!" - this is shaping up to be that by the power of ten. How can it not be?

 

And just like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull invariably tried to contain this issue by giving Mutt the more outrageous action beats, that will invariably happen here too: its certainly on display in the clips we've seen: Indy, again, is "the one who drives the car."

[HunterTech 996]

Has anyone noticed that David Koepp still managed to get final screenwriter credit for DoD along with the other writers? Hell, Mangold isn't even credited alongside the two Butterworths (given the rules of using '&' and 'and' in writing credits). It probably means little, since the previous films aren't a stranger to having other writers on board later on (Tom Stoppard doing uncredited rewrites on Jeffrey Boam's script for TLC, Koepp himself having to go off of the many scripts that came before KotCS properly started production), and yet given what we know about the production for 5, it makes me want to paint a particular picture here that'd be hard to verify without some rumors that don't sound like the usual click bait bullshit.

[Bellosh 3,504]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I honestly can't see it not be the case: I mean, he IS eighty!

 

I remember the incredulity I had in Kindom of the Crystal Skull - "nevermind how you survived this: how did you not throw your back out?!" - this is shaping up to be that by the power of ten. How can it not be?

 

And just like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull invariably tried to contain this issue by giving Mutt the more outrageous action beats, that will invariably happen here too: its certainly on display in the clips we've seen: Indy, again, is "the one who drives the car."

 

I didn't really think Mutt outstaged Indy in KOTCS tbh.  I mean that fencing scene was dumb as hell....but the coolest thing about the jungle chase was indy hopping onto that jeep and taking out about 4 russians.  and Mutt was nowhere to be found during the ants fight.

 

but i understand your point.

[Edmilson 7,611]

33 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Quite. It seems to me the virility is absolutely central to the character of Indiana Jones: he punches bad-guys, swings over chasms and sleeps with hot women. That's what the character is.

 

He's not supposed to be seen in his 80s, or even his 60s for that matter.

Interesting: a famed movie critic from my country said that the best things about the franchise, which are present in DoD and not on KOTCS, is the "vulnerability and the humor of a character who seems always surprised that his actions are successful".

 

It's here the tweet, you can run it through Google Translate:

 

https://twitter.com/pablovillaca/status/1659522388046888965

[TolkienSS 409]

18 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Interesting: a famed movie critic from my country said that the best things about the franchise, which are present in DoD and not on KOTCS, is the "vulnerability and the humor of a character who seems always surprised that his actions are successful".

 

It's here the tweet, you can run it through Google Translate:

 

https://twitter.com/pablovillaca/status/1659522388046888965

 

Obviously yes. 

It's a similar character dynamic like in the first Die Hard movie(s).

And it's what makes the character relatable; in fact, that's what makes any character relatable.

A character that succeeds in everything he sets out to do is boring and flat.

It's a trait of most iconic and attractive male heroes, from James Bond to Indiana Jones. Showing braveness in the face of adversity, and taking an L with a pinch of self- deprecating humor.

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Quite. It seems to me the virility is absolutely central to the character of Indiana Jones: he punches bad-guys, swings over chasms and sleeps with hot women. That's what the character is.

 

That's not even debatable, of course it is.

[JTN 2,224]

6 hours ago, Bellosh said:

and Mutt was nowhere to be found during the ants fight.

He was busy tarzaning.

[blondheim 1,157]

KOTCS is wild.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,712]

21 minutes ago, blondheim said:

KOTCS is wild.

That's not the word that I would use, to describe it.

 

 

The NME has given DOD a positive review.

[Brónach 1,302]

I enjoy some of the descriptions on Indy's character here. let's not forget that he's also an academic, which is more fun than the endless Bond comparisons. ( the literary lesbians who are on these wavelengths are fun, they're my jam )

[Schilkeman 1,003]

Harrison Ford’s gift, which gets translated to Indiana Jones, and what separates the character from Bond, is that he's brilliant at acting like he is on the back foot. That he’s vulnerable. That he’s not sure he’s going to succeed. That we know he’s the hero, but he doesn’t. That’s what Ford brings to the role, and makes Indiana Jones successful, and why it will be so very hard to replace him.

 

[Jay 37,497]

Yes! 

[ThePenitentMan1 793]

It's one of the things I love most about Indy: how he makes getting beaten to a pulp look cool.

[TolkienSS 409]

On 23/05/2023 at 1:51 PM, Brónach said:

I enjoy some of the descriptions on Indy's character here. let's not forget that he's also an academic, which is more fun than the endless Bond comparisons

 

You're right, movies about witty adventurers chasing supernatural artefacts through stunning locations are no fun.

It should have been about the academic adversities to get his book published.

[Brónach 1,302]

I don't think you understood what i meant

[Tom 4,688]

1 hour ago, TolkienSS said:

 

You're right, movies about witty adventurers chasing supernatural artefacts through stunning locations are no fun.

It should have been about the academic adversities to get his book published.

Indiana Jones and the Obstinate Acquisitions Editor 

[Chen G. 4,016]

On 23/05/2023 at 2:51 PM, Brónach said:

et's not forget that he's also an academic, which is more fun than the endless Bond comparisons.

 

At heart he's still an action hero.

 

Before anything else, that's what Indy is.

[Nick1Ø66 4,851]

12 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

Harrison Ford’s gift, which gets translated to Indiana Jones, and what separates the character from Bond, is that he's brilliant at acting like he is on the back foot. That he’s vulnerable. That he’s not sure he’s going to succeed. That we know he’s the hero, but he doesn’t. That’s what Ford brings to the role, and makes Indiana Jones successful, and why it will be so very hard to replace him.

 

You nailed it.
 

Chris Pratt has a similar quality. He lacks Ford’s “cool” factor, however. 

[Brónach 1,302]

5 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Chris Pratt has a similar quality. He lacks Ford’s “cool” factor, however. 

 

if he had the cool factor he'd been wrong for some of his roles

[Chen G. 4,016]

11 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Chris Pratt has a similar quality. He lacks Ford’s “cool” factor, however. 

 

And he's generally associated with films that land much more overtly on the comedy side of things like Marvel.

 

Indiana Jones films are knowingly-outrageous, but the characters themselves aren't privvy to this. There's certainly no winking at the camera to be had here, thank goodness.

[Schilkeman 1,003]

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

There's certainly no winking at the camera to be had here, thank goodness.

A quality Disney seems unable to duplicate. Real deal Lucasfilm productions have humor of themselves, not about themselves. The people in those movies have no idea they are in a movie. I long for it.

[Chen G. 4,016]

3 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

A quality Disney seems unable to duplicate.

 

That's not just Disney. Its a general feature of the 2010s in cinema, sadly.

 

I hate it with the utmost vehemence.

[Nick1Ø66 4,851]

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And he's generally associated with films that land much more overtly on the comedy side of things like Marvel.

Right. I’m more referring to the vulnerability & “always being on his back foot” quality that Pratt has. Again, he clearly lacks Ford’s cool factor, along with the latter’s movie-star charisma.

[Schilkeman 1,003]

He's a little too goofy for something like Indiana Jones. I'm not sure he has the range.

 

Just like Selleck would have been a much more low key and cooler (temperament-wise) Indiana Jones, I wouldn't want Harrison Ford as Magnum P.I., and I wouldn't want either of them as Andy. Some actors are born to play a certain role. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,851]

16 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

Real deal Lucasfilm productions have humor of themselves, not about themselves.

I hear you, but out of, what, 20 movies or so, and multiple TV shows, there are only a handful of LucasFilm projects that are genuinely exceptional. What, maybe 2-3 of the Star Wars films, 2-3 of the Indy films, both depending on how generous you’re feeling (and how much “franchise credit”you’re willing go give to the weaker entries) and…that’s it. The rest range from the merely good to downright awful. LucasFilm has actually pulled out quite the trick out of building a whole lot of comparatively little. 
 

That said, in general I agree in that I genuinely miss earnestness in cinema.

[Schilkeman 1,003]

1 minute ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

there are only a handful of LucasFilm projects that are genuinely exceptional. What, maybe 2-3 of the Star Wars films, 2-3 of the Indy films, both depending on how generous you’re feeling (and how much “franchise credit”you’re willing go give to the weaker entries) and…that’s it

I disagree with everything word of this lol.

[Chen G. 4,016]

10 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

Just like Selleck would have been a much more low key and cooler (temperament-wise) Indiana Jones

 

There are lots of alternate casting choices in the world of performance that elicit a reaction ranging from "what were they thinking?!" to "hmmm, interesting, but no thank you."

 

Tom Sellect as Indiana Jones isn't one of those. It would have been as solid a choice as anything, and I would have watched it just the same.

[Schilkeman 1,003]

Just now, Chen G. said:

 

There are lots of alternate casting choices in the world of performance that elicit a "what were they thinking?!" or a "hmmm, interesting, but no thank you."

 

Tom Sellect as Indiana Jones isn't one of those. It would have been as solid a choice as anything, and I would have watched it just the same.

I think he would have been fine, for sure. Better? Probably not. Now, Danny DeVito as Sallah...that would have been dubious even then, and completely unacceptable now. They dodged a bullet, there.

[Chen G. 4,016]

4 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

Better? Probably not.

 

We don't have a Tom Selleck Indiana Jones to compare to, so its really an impossible question to answer. I certainly don't presume to say whether it would be better or worst, but I do think it could have been very good.

[Brónach 1,302]

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

That said, in general I agree in that I genuinely miss earnestness in cinema.

 

I actually think James Gunn's writing has this quality more often than not these days.

[Edmilson 7,611]

17 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

I wouldn't want Harrison Ford as Magnum P.I., and I wouldn't want either of them as Andy.

For the Toy Story live-action remake? Aren't both Ford and Selleck a little too old to play a 6-year-old boy? 

[Chen G. 4,016]

3 minutes ago, Brónach said:

I actually think James Gunn's writing has this quality more often than not these days.

 

I think we've gotten so used to this farcical style of filmmaking, that when it gets the least-bit dialed-back, it registers for us as much more earnest than it actually is.

 

Its like how people talk about the second Captain America as being "gritty." Well, yeah, compared to Cutesie Kiddie Crap^TM that surrounds it, sure. Compared to other movies that actually deserve that moniker? Hell no!

[Schilkeman 1,003]

2 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

For the Toy Story live-action remake? Aren't both Ford and Selleck a little too old to play a 6-year-old boy? 

No, the upcoming Andy Dick biopic simply titled "Andy"

 

Tom Selleck is Andy Dick. I can see it all now

[Jurassic Shark 12,232]

1 minute ago, Edmilson said:

For the Toy Story live-action remake? Aren't both Ford and Selleck a little too old to play a 6-year-old boy? 

 

Digital de-aging! Finally, imagination has caught up with technology.

[Brónach 1,302]

48 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I think we've gotten so used to this farcical style of filmmaking, that when it gets the least-bit dialed-back, it registers for us as much more earnest than it actually is.

 

Its like how people talk about the second Captain America as being "gritty." Well, yeah, compared to Cutesie Kiddie Crap that surrounds it, sure. Compared to other movies that actually deserve that moniker? Hell no!

 

it's gritty because it's gray and it has too many explosions and a lot of the dialogue doesn't suck as much. it'd be helpful to describe it with the later things instead. other than that, i'd forgotten it entirely... (in those movies James Gunn insists on doing this thing where something that is presented as a gag is ultimately to be taken seriously somehow, and this is constantly happening at the short and long term on several levels, although some of these things were probably set up by Nicole Perlman instead. arguably, the second captain america lacks both one extreme, the other extreme, and this middle. it's really hard to connect genuinely to it in any of those three ways.)

 

but i'm unable to get out of my mind the trailer for Barbie in this conversation...

 

(i'd probably have a better range if i could introduce farcical elements into things but the "i'm being dead serious" will have to do)

[JTN 2,224]

13 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

it will be so very hard to replace him.

It’s impossible to replace him. 

[Brónach 1,302]

44 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I hear you, but out of, what, 20 movies or so, and multiple TV shows, there are only a handful of LucasFilm projects that are genuinely exceptional. What, maybe 2-3 of the Star Wars films, 2-3 of the Indy films, both depending on how generous you’re feeling (and how much “franchise credit”you’re willing go give to the weaker entries) and…that’s it. The rest range from the merely good to downright awful. LucasFilm has actually pulled out quite the trick out of building a whole lot of comparatively little.

 

this is kind of sad

[Nick1Ø66 4,851]

1 hour ago, Brónach said:

 

I actually think James Gunn's writing has this quality more often than not these days.

 

Hmmmm. Well let's not confuse earnestness with rank sentimentality. Guardians of the Galaxy, like all James Gunn movies, has a certain degree of sentimentality, but I'm not sure I'd call them earnest. In fact they're full of irony, which is in many ways the antithesis of earnestness.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with sentimentality of course, I love it as much as the next sentimental fool.

 

 

[Not Mr. Big 4,655]

Guardians 2 is a great film

[Nick1Ø66 4,851]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

We don't have a Tom Selleck Indiana Jones to compare to, so its really an impossible question to answer. I certainly don't presume to say whether it would be better or worst, but I do think it could have been very good.

 

Well, we sort of do. Selleck ended up doing an Indiana Jones-ish film called High Road to China, which was actually a pretty good movie. So I agree he would have been serviceable as Indiana Jones...but only just. Selleck, well, he's a charming guy but...he's not Harrison Ford, let's put that way. And, while I'm sure a Selleck Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been a good movie, even a hit, I don't think Indiana Jones would be the iconic character he is today had Selleck played him, and I certainly don't think we'd have four sequels.

[Romão 2,276]

I must say, although many of the most memorable scenes from the Indiana Jones movies are action scenes, some of my very favorite scenes are when the featured relic is first introduced and explained. It generally also is when the theme for the relic is introduced and the sense of mystery of unknown is usually quite enticing.

 

In Raiders, for example, not only is the scene much more interesting and gripping than it has any right to be (for a scene that is pretty much exposition) but it simultaneously suggests quite effectively the danger of the Ark and gives some great glimpses into the character of Indiana Jones (I particularly love when Indy asks the agents if they didn't go to Sunday School):

 

 

 

 

 

I think I value these sort of scenes more highly that I do the action sequences. Both musically and in the movie itself