Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

This started well, and then it gets worse as it goes on, and in the end they fly a plane back in time to meet Archimedes (and not in a good way) and I kind of want to broadcast that 24 hours a day on all media, "Dumbledore killed Snape"-style.

That's not so out of line with things that happen in any of the other four installments

assume the viewer is stirringly instructed to FIND A PLACE TO STAND... AND MOVE YOUR WORLD

Indiana Jones and the Jordan Peterson Audiobook

Walter Chaw: https://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2023/06/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny.html

Worse than nonsense, it's boring nonsense--and, even worse than boring and nonsensical, it all carries with it a mild but pervasive taint of pettiness. So many civilians are casually assassinated. Two of Indy's academic colleagues are gunned down like cattle for no discernible reason but to make the bad guys look worse. A Black FBI (or CIA? It's not clear) agent, Mason (Shaunette Renée Wilson), gets a truly gross closeup on her face as she dies betrayed, which is just one of many examples of dire bullshit you shouldn't do in this age of representation without any sort of understanding of representational issues. Meanwhile, the underwater death of one henchman is so cold it makes the hero responsible more irredeemable than he already was. (Then the picture doesn't have the balls to show the bastard drown.) What I'm trying to say is, there is somehow not one single cheer-worthy moment in this film where Nazis are routinely punched. That's the only surprising trick Indy 5 manages to pull off. John Williams's epoch-defining "Indiana Jones Theme" first swells beneath a 25mph tuk-tuk chase, reducing it to self-parody. It's like using that music to score a video of snails porking. I think about how the Apollo 11 astronauts cameo during a ticker-tape parade that has so little iconographic impact it's offensive to the memory of their deed, and again how this massive boner functions as a microcosm of how irretrievably broken this disasterpiece is--how completely its appeals to our collective childhood have missed what made these movies special in the first place. It's easily the worst film of a series that has been maddening before, scattershot before, even bad before, but never so facile (including the jungle swinging in Crystal Skull). Never so pathetic. I wish I could dial back time a few hours. I wish I didn't have to watch Indiana Jones dodder into dust as Phoebe Waller-Bridge looks on, self-satisfied and knowing. Luckily, most of it's already faded away.

watched the one from 15 years ago on TV last week (first time) and it's a perfectly Fine no-expectations nineteen-years-later george-lucas sequel EXCEPT for LaBoeuf, and especially how his presence defines Marion - Allen brings so much juice, but has nothing to do.

walter chaw making me want to see it more tbh

there aren't really so bad they are good movies anymore especially at this scale, this shit will just be tedious attempted fan service

i feel like the intelligence and care required to make good films or tv within a world full of demanding fanbases has totally evaporated. sometimes you get little miracles like Andor but usually it's just embarrassing to watch.

the problem is also that studios have directly or indirectly kowtowed to these fanbases which signals these toxic assholes that it's ok to impose their will over franchises.

like I remember everybody sharing that stupid Lisa Simpson meme "we should see Sonic the Hedgehog because the studio listened to our concerns", and yeah, if Sonic had been made with the terrible original visual design, it would have been dogshit, so the fans weren't wrong, but I don't see "lol we got the studio to bend the movie purely to the desires of us very obnoxious assholes" as a thing to celebrate in general

i feel like the intelligence and care required to make good films or tv within a world full of demanding fanbases has totally evaporated.

I mean, this movie is by the same guy that did "Logan," and that was great, and just a few months ago we got "Guardians of the Galaxy 3," and it was good, and we just got the new "Spiderverse" movie, and it was good, too. So I think people with the necessary fandom/skillsets do exist. The bigger question is what causes movies like this (I assume), or , I dunno, "The Flash" to flail/fail. Is it a misunderstanding of the fanbase? Is it an overestimation? Is it over-caution? Is it bad marketing? Bad editing? This one's got four credited screenwriters, one a brother team, one A-list lifer David Koepp, one the director, and I've got to assume others had their hands on this as well, each with their own vision/mandate. Is that the problem? Probably all of the above.

Definitely a conundrum, though, when you get into the habit of playing it safe *and* spending $300 million plus a movie. Not that I care if H-wood goes all franchise all the time, but there's probably a better ROI on making 10 $30 million movies that do OK or better than one $300 million movie that underperforms. But that's not as flashy, I guess.

Of course, maybe this movie will be a huge hit, and H'wood will learn nothing and double (triple?) down on bullshit.

they will either way

there's probably a better ROI on making 10 $30 million movies that do OK or better than one $300 million movie that underperforms

it doesn't actually seem like this is the case. there's a good book about this called Blockbusters from about 10 years ago. interview with the author here - https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/10/15/blockbuster-strategy-why-star-power-works/

That's not so out of line with things that happen in any of the other four installments

Well, on the one hand, one of the things that I know some disliked about the Crystal Skull was that it crossed a (sometimes-muddy) line from fantasy to sci-fi. I'm not that attached to this point of view, you can do all sorts of stuff if it's good.

But (and this next hidden tag is a huge chunk of the plot of a film that's been released today, don't come crying to me) the idea is that the 'Antikythera' (a real device that actually exists) was actually made by Archimedes and can be used to find 'fissures in time' in a Curse of the Black Pearl compass style - There's a list of when these fissures are, and Mads Mikkelsen's Paperclipped Nazi wants to go back to 1944 (this is the one good idea in the film, that the Nazi wants to win the war by going back to kill Hitler) but Indy figures out that Archimedes hadn't factored in continental drift, which somehow means that the fissure does exists but just drags them back to the Siege of Syracuse. I think my position is that I'm simultaneously offended on behalf of the actual Antikythera Machine for being associated with imaginary objects and offended on behalf of the religious imaginary objects for being associated with the Antikythera Machine as a 'magic' object.

Maybe even weak blockbusters have a longer and more lucrative shelf life, especially in overseas markets.. like I don't imagine Lady Bird blew the Chinese market

errm, blew 'up'

Lady Blew Bird

xps But for real, if anyone comes at this series with the notion that any one of these films is in any way serious … sorry, not on that train

Ugh that review kind of confirms my fears. It's Crystal Skull but likely worse. Shame this is lower than CG monkeys fist fighting Russians (literally the phrase I use to summarize KotCK). Looks like I've saved time and money this summer.

The bigger question is what causes movies like this (I assume), or , I dunno, "The Flash" to flail/fail. Is it a misunderstanding of the fanbase? Is it an overestimation? Is it over-caution?

I remember in the run up to the Force Awakens, JJ Abrams mentioning how he hadn't been a really big fan of Star Trek but he was a huge Star wars fan, but you sure as hell couldn't see that anywhere in the trilogy. Of course it doesn't matter how passionate you are if you're simply a bad filmmaker. I think, to go back a few posts, marvel is another animal entirely where there's such an authoritarian quality control over everything that nothing is truly awful or really truly great. It's the ultimate safe bet. Sure, Logan was excellent though. And Mad Max: Fury Road. And somehow the mission impossible films got better once they hit the 2010s. But I just think there's way too many filmmakers who are trying to recapture some magic that was unexplainable in the first place. Like Bill Murray trying to artificially recreate that perfect night in groundhog Day over and over again and it never works until he stops trying so hard.

Like I have genuine respect for George Lucas more so these days for what he attempted in the prequel trilogy, he wasn't trying to recreate the magic of the first Star wars trilogy, he was trying to do something else entirely different and it was an eminently respectable endeavor. And in retrospect definitely a pure expression than the very mercenary and empty storytelling of the sequels.

Related, the most vocal fans of a thing online tend not to know what made them fans in the first place(which is understandable, as you need more than a bit of perspective and understanding of this shit) and just glom onto the most simplistically/superficially kinda distinct aspects of the thing and trumpet that.

The RedLetterMedia guys have good impulses in what makes franchise fans tick, or at least, what marketers rely on to sell shit to these fanbases. “They love their logos,” to quote Rich Evans.

They just covered Temple of Doom, which they both really like, not least because it's not just packed with callbacks, like most sequels these days.

did they copy over the racism too

https://64.media.tumblr.com/a2832cc61f43e6fe258e4892d9c3e058/4a01adfb56406366-0f/s540x810/877694a03676215b80d906e5857778dea1f4cd67.gif

Like I have genuine respect for George Lucas more so these days for what he attempted in the prequel trilogy, he wasn't trying to recreate the magic of the first Star wars trilogy, he was trying to do something else entirely different and it was an eminently respectable endeavor. And in retrospect definitely a pure expression than the very mercenary and empty storytelling of the sequels.

― omar little, Wednesday, June 28, 2023 11:52 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

totally, I mean the sequels were totally better movies than the prequels in a lot of ways but also I don't remember shit about them, whereas with the prequels I remember a lot of random shit. something to be said about how bad movies are often more memorable and interesting than good ones. which makes you wonder which one is really the bad one. oh well.

I only think those comments really apply to TFA and RoS - Last Jedi actually turned many long-standing assumptions on their head and challenged the idea of a Jedi, and also wasn't directed by Abrams

(I also did like TFA even if it was a bit retread, and enjoyed RoS despite recognizing what a lazy, unimaginative screenplay it was)

The last Jedi is one I was gonna step in and defend from my own comments but ultimately with its story memory wiped and it floating in between the other two, it's just a meaningless film. Even though it's a pretty good one. TFA benefits from Abrams having that ability to hook you in the opening of a story (see: Alias), though it feels empty upon subsequent watches. ROS I was forced to watch a second time w my son for completist reasons and he was even more appalled than me. It underscores dramatically Abrams' inability to ever conclude a story (see: Alias) That film is the reason he'll never want to watch mission impossible 3. Anyway, that dude sucks. I've said it a couple times here before but him being given the keys to the kingdom for so many major franchises is an indictment of hollywood.

I mean I hope they've learned their lesson by now though.

i liked them all fuiud

but i’m on record as loving solo so yknow

They just covered Temple of Doom, which they both really like, not least because it's not just packed with callbacks, like most sequels these days.

I still remember going to see Temple of Doom when it came out and being absolutely appalled. I couldn't believe this was supposed to be the successor to Raiders.

https://i.imgur.com/ohbJTk4.gif

^why you gotta floss, folks

I made my uneasy peace with Temple of Doom a long time ago; it's in many ways a better film than the first film. And politically I prefer Capshaw's airhead '30s-era loony tune to teasing a good actress like Karen Allen with a hint of strength before stripping it reel by reel.

Surprisingly, if anything I've made less peace with Temple of Doom over the last decade. But it's still the one I'll defend against the other three Spielberg himself directed, at least.

I don't hate it as much as I did at first, but it still pretty much sucks.

https://i.imgur.com/ebhJLnI.gif

I don't hate it as much as I did at first, but it still pretty much sucks.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Thursday, June 29, 2023 3:05 PM (twenty-two seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

RIP Morbs.

I had similar reactions to The Goonies and Popeye.

Oh, I'd sooner sit strapped to a chair watching Last Crusade (which I hate) and Crystal Skull (which I don't) for six months on end than submit myself to five minutes of The Goonies again

I like The Goonies, sorry. Mine is a high and lonely destiny.

xxpost personally i gotta disagree on that

Temple was a fave as a kid for memorable “bits” like “chilllled monkey brrrains” & KALIMAAAAA heart grabbing & minecart rollercoaster

But now watching it now again recently the vibes are SO dark and grimdark in so many unnecessary ways and even at the time really unsupportable racism … it just feels so far away from what the first movie brought & was not a pleasant experience at all

First movie to me is better on almost every level, script, pacing, cinematography action & performance

The only thing enjoyable or qualitatively good for me now is the Short-Round/Indy relationship & genuinely heartfelt interaction which hold up beautifully & add a lot to both characters

Yeah, as with The Goonies your reaction may be at least in part a function of where you were in your life at the time. I was almost 19 when Temple of Doom came out.

yeah Mr Veg was about the same age, 19 or 20 and he has never liked it

I was 10.

But now watching it now again recently the vibes are SO dark and grimdark in so many unnecessary ways and even at the time really unsupportable racism … it just feels so far away from what the first movie brought & was not a pleasant experience at all

You're right -- I saw it again in January and thought, wow, THIS was a blockbuster in 1984? It probably didn't need Molo Ram wresting hearts out of chests and Short Round getting whipped.