Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

I'm trying real hard to understand your review even though i appreciate all the time you took to review it.
If you want to hear a positive, this film is easily one of the best ones Lucasfilm has produced under Disney
yet,
It just feels like a forgery, a less inventive, less accomplished imitation of something without any of the original spark, touch or cohesion. Kind of soulless and joyless.
To me, that describes everything Disney has made thus far and...
Right off the bat, Dial of Destiny is muddy, unfocused, lacking distinct direction, inspired shots or fun staging choices of any sort. Every single sequence drags, and badly. The pacing is quite terrible, and particularly for an Indiana Jones film. You can already sense it within the prologue when the film keeps cutting back and forth between an expository conversation among secondary characters and Indy walking from one train car to another without anything new or exciting happening in each one.
After all that, it may sound off if I say I didn't hate the movie. But I didn't. It was competent enough that it didn't feel like some Jurassic World or Rise of Skywalker. I appreciate the effort to try to add something to the character, even if in the end the whole thing ended up being just a redundant take on the exact same story Kingdom of the Crystal Skull tackled imperfectly, but ultimately better.
This lines up with what many of us are saying why we don't want to spend the money to go see this.
That's not saying much, but at least there's a story somewhere in there and an attempt to bring some sort of new closure to the character.
A sufficient closure was already reached in The Last Crusade.

I really thank you for being honest with your review...it sounds to me that it lines up with what we were all thinking it was going to be anyways...what any movie would be after the story ends yet tries to get stretched back to life again. Back to your first quote...if this is one of the best that Disney has produced under Lucasfilm and you made all these observations along the way, i have a tough time finding anything positive about this whatsoever.

I'm picturing Sleazebaggano (Disney) walking up to Obi-wan (fans) and soliciting him to buy some death sticks (Bad movies). Just waiting for Obi-wan to do some jedi mind trick on him and encourage him to rethink his life. lol
 
Well, looks like finally this thread can be turned into a proper conversation about the movie?

Spoilers will follow, so be warned.

If you want to hear a positive, this film is easily one of the best ones Lucasfilm has produced under Disney. It's not completely inept in the sense many of these late sequels stripped of their creative voices and authenticity usually are. That's not saying much, but at least there's a story somewhere in there and an attempt to bring some sort of new closure to the character. Unfortunately it can't quite get away from the curse that will unavoidably follow these type of movies from here to eternity for as long as they keep getting made. It just feels like a forgery, a less inventive, less accomplished imitation of something without any of the original spark, touch or cohesion. Kind of soulless and joyless.

I'll try to get into more detail.

The most obvious challenge this thing was gonna face is following up four films directed by Steven Spielberg. James Mangold is not a bad filmmaker, you could even say he's the best pick we've seen to handle the Lucasfilm legacy so far, he's just nowhere near as creative or creatively free to pull off the kind of visual ideas or story mechanics Spielberg crafted to define the Indiana Jones series. Right off the bat, Dial of Destiny is muddy, unfocused, lacking distinct direction, inspired shots or fun staging choices of any sort. Every single sequence drags, and badly. The pacing is quite terrible, and particularly for an Indiana Jones film. You can already sense it within the prologue when the film keeps cutting back and forth between an expository conversation among secondary characters and Indy walking from one train car to another without anything new or exciting happening in each one. You never find yourself smiling at the audacity of the character using a broken pole to take down a motorized Nazi as if they were in a Medieval joust, or finding a group of mannequins in a soon-to-be devastated nuclear test site mirroring the family unit he's been avoiding all his life. Every scene is mundane, serviceable and as a consequence kind of forgettable.

The structure of these movies has been laid out four times already, and it's quite clear: a fast-paced action sequence mostly designed around clever visual beats preludes an expository early segment, following which we don't bother much with long dialogue again as we're launched into a series of unique set pieces that eventually take us to some big pyrotechnic finale with fantastical elements. Dial of Destiny respects all this, but it follows it awkwardly. This is the first time in the series a flashback is introduced mid-story, and to add absolutely nothing we hadn't already learned through previous dialogue. It's odd choices like this, or the journeyman feel of the many overlong action pieces that drags the whole thing down. An entire ticker-tape parade was recreated in Glasgow to finally amount to nothing, as the characters do nothing of consequence with the fact that they're in the middle of such thing. An endless chase through the streets of Tangier could be summed up with they turned here, then went there, eventually made a left and then it ended. Indiana Jones is supposed to be the opposite of this, with tightly cut sequences literally filled with narrative surprises and refreshing visual gags to the last frame. But that's the thing with this movie, even though it never really feels poorly made, it just always ends up being frustratingly insipid.

Although perhaps the one thing some people will react more negatively to is the tone. As uneven as the film is structurally, what I personally struggled the most with was the tone.

Indiana Jones films are supposed to be lighthearted adventure stories, and any downer beats have been carefully inserted in the past in ways that didn't mess with the overall feel of the movie. Spielberg is a master when it comes to walking these kind of tightropes, so we witnessed the potential death of Marion, Indy's descent into hell, or a moment of remembrance for those who passed in quick vignettes that never distracted from the main story or took over the tonal quality of the film. Dial of Destiny does not follow up on this. Indiana is stuck in a perpetual state of mental defeat and he literally needs to be punched in the face at the very end of the movie to snap out of it, without really having gone through any character transformation along the ride. Secondary characters are murdered in cold blood out of nowhere by the antagonists, in a way that makes you feel like you're watching Munich instead of an Indiana Jones film every now and then. In what was likely conceived as the "aha!" concept that motivates the entire character journey for Indy, Mutt is unceremoniously killed off screen and his death turned into an old trauma that ultimately broke Indy and Marion's marriage. In what world does this feel right within the context of these movies? The film just carries a weirdly somber vibe throughout its full length, and I for one cannot understand what made the filmmakers think this felt right for an Indiana Jones adventure at any point. If the goal was to make an older Indy look back at his life and reconsider things, there's plenty of questionable choices he made in the previous movies without having to resort to story ideas that belong in completely different genres, bringing down the mood to such an extent that you virtually blow the entire film.

Yet here we are.

After all that, it may sound off if I say I didn't hate the movie. But I didn't. It was competent enough that it didn't feel like some Jurassic World or Rise of Skywalker. I appreciate the effort to try to add something to the character, even if in the end the whole thing ended up being just a redundant take on the exact same story Kingdom of the Crystal Skull tackled imperfectly, but ultimately better. I suppose it's somewhat interesting to finally have seen Indy in World War II—despite the fact that, as Frank Marshall once said, that was avoided because it turns the segment into a war movie. There was something fun about seeing Indy woken up by partying youths, and his last lecture getting interrupted by a report on the Moon landing. And that last scene between him and Marion was a rather touching beat that took good advantage of the characters' history and brought their story to a close in a more elegant way than the Spielberg wedding ever did.

But that's about it. For me, it clearly sits at the very bottom of the series, and I'm not sure it really needed to exist. Hopefully others will enjoy it more. I'm sure some will.
Thanks for this review. I've seen several short "I liked it. Not that bad" reviews, a bunch of long screeds railing about how awful the film is, but this is the first in-depth "meh...could be worse, could be better" review I've seen.

I mean this seriously, by the way. I really do appreciate seeing this perspective. You go into clear detail about what did and didn't work for you, and the key point that you make is "This movie really didn't need to be made, but I guess since it's here it's, you know...fine."

For me, this solidifies my stance of "Gonna give this one a miss." I skipped KotCS because I didn't trust Lucas' chops anymore after the prequels. Everything I've heard about it suggests that was the right call for me. I'm skipping this one for many reasons, including that my brain simply cannot comprehend an octogenarian action hero (even if he's supposed to be a septuagenarian). Ford's a talented actor, but it's long past time for him to settle into dramatic roles where he doesn't have to do a ton of action.

Everything you've described makes this film sound sort of...unnecessary. It's a film with Indiana Jones the character in it, but it doesn't sound like an Indiana Jones film in terms of style. And that's probably by necessity because actually sticking 70-something Indy played by 80-something Ford into an actual Indiana Jones movie might highlight even more the "Uh...this really isn't believable" angle. At least with a lugubrious tone of reflection on past regrets, you can provide a counterweight to the action sequences. It probably still doesn't work as well as one would hope, but...that's the problem with trying to tell a story about a 70/80-something action hero.

For me, Indy is best experienced as a trilogy with a literal "Ride off into the sunset" ending. "What happened next"? Well, either "they lived happily ever after" or "nothing. They got old and died. Now, go to bed."

One thing I'll confess I'm curious about, though, is how it ends. Does Indy truly retire and is the suggestion that Helena will be featured in future films, or is there some hint of "Oh, well, now we're gonna do a younger Indy, but it's the same character" or what?
 
Saw it yesterday with the fam and some of the Colorado Joneses

IMG_3451.jpeg


In general, I liked it. It wasn’t great, but it was miles above KotCS…

If I were to rank the movies in order that I prefer them:
  1. Raiders
  2. Last Crusade
  3. DoD
  4. ToD
  5. KotCS
I liked the overall story although I could have used less of Helena stepping in as the hero…

I really enjoyed the older and bitter take on Indy as a character. The story of Mutt and the divorce had me fighting back tears. Ford’s monologue in that scene was Oscar-worthy, IMHO…

The DoD has a maguffin was good but underutilized, I think. So many possibilities…

Mads is just a great villian in everything he’s in.

Probably my biggest critique was the CGI… the first few scenes, the de-aging effects were pretty amazing, but they seemed to get worse as the movie went out (kept hoping they’d fix the horseback riding scene we saw in the trailer, but it looked as bad in the final movie as in the trailer)… Some of the chase scenes were clearly shot in front of a green screen…was hoping for some more practical stunts as we saw in the OT…

In general, I think it wrapped things up nicely. Again, I would argue the trilogy should have ended with LC, but after KotCS, this was a nice way to cleanse the pallet and wrap up the franchise.
 
I really thank you for being honest with your review...it sounds to me that it lines up with what we were all thinking it was going to be anyways...what any movie would be after the story ends yet tries to get stretched back to life again. Back to your first quote...if this is one of the best that Lucasfilm has produced under Disney and you made all these observations along the way, i have a tough time finding anything positive about this whatsoever.

All I'm saying is that it's not Jurassic World 3 or Pirates of the Caribbean 5 level of disastrous, which honestly could've been when it comes to these kind of movies. But saying that doesn't really mean it's a very good movie either. For some people, that may be fine, so it could be interpreted as a positive. I personally think it was a very weak film, not horrible, but it feels completely out of place in the series. Hope that clears it up.

It's a film with Indiana Jones the character in it, but it doesn't sound like an Indiana Jones film in terms of style. And that's probably by necessity because actually sticking 70-something Indy played by 80-something Ford into an actual Indiana Jones movie might highlight even more the "Uh...this really isn't believable" angle. At least with a lugubrious tone of reflection on past regrets, you can provide a counterweight to the action sequences. It probably still doesn't work as well as one would hope, but...that's the problem with trying to tell a story about a 70/80-something action hero.

Not sure about this, because I think it works in Crystal Skull. That film is the Spielbergian way of telling the story of an older Indy that Dial of Destiny attempts. Indy is introduced having been kidnapped by the bad guys and thrown into the trunk of a car. He misses the mark with his whip and crashes into a truck. He's left facing his own mortality in an empty 1950s family house and trying to cheat death by hiding clumsily inside a refrigerator before a nuclear bomb goes off. Mangold, by contrast, just shows him... sleeping on a chair in an unkempt apartment. He doesn't even try to make it all feel like an Indiana Jones film, he just plays it straight without an ounce of imagination.

Crystal Skull loses the plot halfway through and breaks its momentum, it's mostly a scriptwriting issue, but conceptually, stylistically and tonally it's right there. An old Indy can exist in the same type of movie as middle-age Indy, just like a teenage Indy existed. Dial of Destiny doesn't get this, and instead goes for some kind of weird Sydney Pollack melodrama angle with generic action bits mixed in between.

One thing I'll confess I'm curious about, though, is how it ends. Does Indy truly retire and is the suggestion that Helena will be featured in future films, or is there some hint of "Oh, well, now we're gonna do a younger Indy, but it's the same character" or what?

It's never suggested that Helena will replace him. That's just fan drama and, for all we know, it probably always was. The film even repeats the Crystal Skull joke of Indy grabbing his hat in the last shot as a way of saying that Ford will always be the one.
 
Not everything is a conspiracy

It's not a conspiracy so much as time being the judge of a movie. I'm sure upon further reflection people saw what an absolute mess that movie was and reassessed their opinion once they got past the hype and flash. I changed some of the book reviews I wrote several years prior when I revisited those same books. Plus those initial reactions don't always accurately reflect the long term opinion of a movie, especially when put into the context of the two films that preceeded it to make up the trilogy.

It's quite telling that the general consensus on Indy 5 being,

"Well, I didn't hate it."

That never bodes well. Just like with every other movie, time will be the ultimate judge. If it's as good as some claim it will stand the test of time.

It's astounding to me that we live in a time when IPs like Star Wars and Indiana Jones aren't generating the frenetic hype and excitement they once were. It seems the collective feeling by most is, meh. More of the same. Or at worst, total indifference.

Most people don't want to see their fictional heroes reduced to sad, pathetic shells. What a shocker!
 
It's never suggested that Helena will replace him. That's just fan drama and, for all we know, it probably always was. The film even repeats the Crystal Skull joke of Indy grabbing his hat in the last shot as a way of saying that Ford will always be the one.
I know you've actually viewed the film and i respect your take on this but the very fact that Phoebe Waller Bridge is in here at all (many others that have seen the film have stated she overtakes everything and is utterly annoying), suggests she's already replaced the protagonist in his own titled film. (which is not unlike every other thing Disney/Lucasfilm has done). The key words i hear over and over again in the DWO (Disney World Order) are "replace" and "Repeat" . Again...can they do anything new...even at all? As much as i get tired saying it and people hearing it, it would all go away if they would simply move the heck on and stop trying to replace and stop repeating. Tell new stories with new characters and we all would have legitimate discussions on new topics.

As far as Rotten Tomatoes and Audience Score, i put no credence in them whatsoever, good or bad. Many fans of Indy are fans of Harrison Ford and Hollywood has done its best to bleed the farewell of Indiana Jones in all the attention and accolades of Harrison Ford of late. "If Harrison says to go see it and it's his farewell tour then we must give him his due right?" This sentiment alone can affect those scores which doesn't mean it's a good film and if it had horrible scores it doesn't mean it's that horrible. Humanity will always have a problem fighting off curiosity and many spend money in the hopes that things will be different. I understand this. How many times do i need to get burned to figure out that the same thing i keep touching is hot though?

Am i the only one that sees a bigger issue here?(being rhetorical)

Let's think about the budget of this film..$295 Million dollars not including all the other stuff. These writers and producers etc. and everyone that is getting paid under this corporate umbrella you will see clamoring for this humanitarian cause or that...Yet, they feel ok taking your money after they've already spent this much to try to recoup, at the very least, their costs and giving you a product in return that is just a repeat...a beat down of a protagonists, nothing new...a degredation...mediocre at best product that ultimately is just one more giant slap in the face "aha! we've robbed you again to bask in our gold and silver and receive endless accolades and praise of men with all your hard earned dollars while we use our platform to raise "awareness" for world hunger after spending $295 million plus". It honestly just gets sickening after a while and how some can defend them as if it's their own personal work being condemned is confusing to me.
 
I know you've actually viewed the film and i respect your take on this but the very fact that Phoebe Waller Bridge is in here at all (many others that have seen the film have stated she overtakes everything and is utterly annoying), suggests she's already replaced the protagonist in his own titled film. (which is not unlike every other thing Disney/Lucasfilm has done). The key words i hear over and over again in the DWO (Disney World Order) are "replace" and "Repeat" . Again...can they do anything new...even at all? As much as i get tired saying it and people hearing it, it would all go away if they would simply move the heck on and stop trying to replace and stop repeating. Tell new stories with new characters and we all would have legitimate discussions on new topics.

I think what a lot of people need to do when it comes to this is sit back and breathe. Not saying you in particular, but certainly a sizable segment of the fandom.

Phoebe Waller Bridge is a fine actress and good writer, unfortunately Hollywood has seized her as this trendy feminist token and keeps throwing her into established franchises as a magic spell of sorts to counter any possible postmodern criticism that hysterical social media kids might come up with. Let's put her in James Bond! Let's bring her into Indiana Jones! Wait, she'd be great for Tomb Raider! Perhaps it's genuine interest both on the studio and her part, but it certainly feels like a marketing maneuver not much more sophisticated than hiring Jonathan Kasdan on Lucasfilm projects just because of his last name. However, at worst, that's all it is. A hip headline.

Her character isn't particularly well written. She's uninteresting and does come off a bit irritating. You don't quite know what her deal is through most of the film. The closest character in the franchise to whatever she is would be Mac from Crystal Skull, so you get the picture. But at no point does it feel like she's taking over from Indy unless one really wants to look at it that way.

I think the reason this reading is happening, other than because of the baggage associated with Waller Bridge, is because of how Indiana Jones is written. Not her. Indiana Jones is an extremely passive character in Dial of Destiny. His whole thing is "I screwed up in life so bad I may as well just sit down and die". I mean, at the end of the film, he literally just wants to commit suicide, and it's Helena who has to snap him out of it by punching him unconscious and dragging him back home. But I don't see that as an attempt to write Helena as the resourceful one. Any character from Sallah to Short Round would've done the same. It's Indiana Jones who is given such an awful character base that anyone around him in the picture ends up looking like a shinier thing. So I see it as less of a conspiracy and more like a very unfortunate writing angle.
 
...His whole thing is "I screwed up in life so bad I may as well just sit down and die"...
It's Indiana Jones who is given such an awful character base that anyone around him in the picture ends up looking like a shinier thing. So I see it as less of a conspiracy and more like a very unfortunate writing angle.

That--unexpectedly--really stung me to read.
 
I think the reason this reading is happening, other than because of the baggage associated with Waller Bridge, is because of how Indiana Jones is written. Not her. Indiana Jones is an extremely passive character in Dial of Destiny. His whole thing is "I ****** up in life so bad I may as well just sit down and die". I mean, at the end of the film, he literally just wants to commit suicide, and it's Helena who has to snap him out of it by punching him unconscious and dragging him back home. But I don't see that as an attempt to write Helena as the resourceful one. Any character from Sallah to Short Round would've done the same. It's Indiana Jones who is given such an awful character base that anyone around him in the picture ends up looking like a shinier thing. So I see it as less of a conspiracy and more like a very unfortunate writing angle.
Please don't think i'm being argumentative...i'm simply asking this question...
If Indiana Jones is written so poorly...so depressing and passive etc.(Like Luke Skywalker in the ST) and it takes a super irritating female character with an agenda behind her or anyone for that matter, to steal the spotlight or be "shinier" , then how is this not a conspiracy and just an unfortunate writing angle? Hasn't this been the banner of Disney/Lucasfilm?

I'm serious in saying, please enlighten me...if i'm wrong about my thoughts i'll admit it but i mean, come on...At no time whatsoever would any of this be said or even thought about back in the generation of Karen Allens' Marion or Carrie Fishers' Princess Leia who, in my opinion, was the single greatest strong female lead character of all time in a Sci-fi/fantasy/Adventure movie. Ok, Marion punched Indy in the face...so "repeat" it? Disney's Leia slapped Poe in the face...what is this obsession of emasculation and double standard going on here? Man, i bet they really love writing that stuff in there too but, it's just an unfortunate writing angle? To me it's too coincidental to not be purposeful. When Marion punched Indy it was believable...it was her character, how it was written. She was hurt..she had to be tough surrounded by brutal men and drunks...it makes sense. But here comes Disney to remind us, as if we've forgotten and they've proved that they just cannot get away from their agenda to debase men and especially, male based characters that were childhood heroes at a time and just recycle and repeat stuff continually...so lazy and disrespectful. By the way, my wife, who is her own person and is so much like Princess Leia says the exact same thing as i do and she actually noticed it first starting back at the ST.

This is a trend...this is their trend...we know how they work because they've proven to repeat behaviors over and over again no matter who is directing, no matter the writers...it's all coming from the top down...it's clear...and it has to stop.
 
Cowardice, even in fiction, is nothing to celebrate. If we can't even be afforded to see our iconic fictional heroes make the right choices in the end, then they aren't worthy of our admiration. These stories didn't become classics because the protagonists gave up. They became icons because they made the hard decisions in the critical moment where most of us would fold under the pressure. That's why we root for them. That's why we dress up like them when we go to their movies and why we replicate the props they used. That's why we discuss them at length. They inspire us to learn new skills and make new friends in the process.

People underestimate the positive impact an icon can have on a person's life. The way it can inform their choices, or motivate them to accomplish great things. Even if they don't literally worship the hero, what they symbolize is far more important. These films make us feel good because believing in a hero inspires us to have the courage to do the right thing in the face of uncertainty or evil. Life is hard enough. Without hope, it's not worth living. I could use some hope in my life. I don't think that's a lot to ask.
 
Last edited:
This is a trend...this is their trend...we know how they work because they've proven to repeat behaviors over and over again no matter who is directing, no matter the writers...it's all coming from the top down...it's clear...and it has to stop.

The pattern was clear enough a while back. Tear down the legacy male heroes as an easy route to elevate new female ones.

I don't think a serious political agenda is even necessary to explain it. Plain old indulgent un-creative corporate filmmaking is adequate.


Q. Why make the new heroes female?

A. Because it's an easy way to make it "different" and it hopefully broadens the customer base.

If Rey in 'Force Awakens' had been male, the public reaction would have been "He's a total carbon-copy of Luke & Anakin!" FFS, she even dressed like them and fixed machinery and lived on a desert planet. They could have put a male in her role without changing the script.

. . . But you didn't really hear that complaint about Rey when TFA came out.
Why? Umm . . . she was female. The gender swap was just enough of a distraction.


And yes, Disney is always willing to piss off 10 older fans in pursuit of 1 new one from a different demographic. That's a factor. With SW I'm sure they assumed the male fans woud be fish in a barrel so they could take them for granted. It's overconfidence.

For some reason the whole corporate state is afflicted by that particular urge. I don't get it. You see it everwhere from Harley-Davidson to NASCAR to Bud Light . . . Disney has a lot of company. And it's been around a lot longer than Wokeness.


Q. Why tear down the old male heroes?

A. Because it served their new story. Easy source of drama. They were using the old heroes as assets to help bolster their new heroes.


For the most part, I doubt the new Disney crowd HATES Han & Luke & Indy. I think they just don't love them. They see them as corporate IP assets to be used, no more or less. "Hey audience, remember how great you thought ______ was back in the day? Well look how our new hero is so much better!"

IMO lazy corporate storytelling & lack of concern for the legacy fans is enough to produce these outcomes.
 
Last edited:
Please don't think i'm being argumentative...i'm simply asking this question...
If Indiana Jones is written so poorly...so depressing and passive etc.(Like Luke Skywalker in the ST) and it takes a super irritating female character with an agenda behind her or anyone for that matter, to steal the spotlight or be "shinier" , then how is this not a conspiracy and just an unfortunate writing angle? Hasn't this been the banner of Disney/Lucasfilm?

Yeah, I think it's not what you're thinking.

Mangold has mentioned in several interviews that he felt Crystal Skull didn't address Indy's age, even though it did, he just didn't seem to respond to it because of the pulp action adventure lens that Spielberg and Lucas used. He also has stated that he changed the original David Koepp script and brought in the Antikythera dial as the new MacGuffin because he wanted a time-travel related object driving the plot mechanics. In other words, he wanted the story to be about an aging man looking back at his life and being troubled by his choices, possibly wishing he could undo certain things.

So far, this is okay! It's a storytelling choice. It has nothing to do with agendas or whatever. It's a valid take on how to bring something new to a series that has virtually exhausted all narrative avenues with its lead character.

But it also has major pitfalls.

The final film shows its cards plain and clear when they reveal Mutt's death—Helena asks Indy what he would do if he could go back in time, and he says he'd try to change Mutt's fate in Vietnam. This is the one incident that shapes Indiana's whole character nature in 1969. The problem is that the minute you go for that, you throw the joyful nature of Indiana Jones movies out the window and dive straight in for a completely different tone. Your main character becomes a depressed bore consumed by pain and guilt, and you begin to project a certain type of feelings in your audience that are not really what Indiana Jones movies are all about. At least, not framed like that. But it seems clear that James Mangold doesn't see any issue with it, probably because he isn't Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, he's the guy who made Cop Land.

So that's where all this most likely comes from. A genuine attempt to push the character beyond retirement age and do something with him, then failing to understand where the line is if you're making an action-adventure movie with Roman soldiers shooting lances at a German war plane at the end. It's almost surely not some evil multi-studio coordinated plan to chastise a manly hero by deliberately making him look less appealing than a female sidekick. That's, like, nuts. No offense to anyone, but it really is.
 
The pattern was clear enough a while back. Tear down the legacy male heroes as an easy route to elevate new female ones.

I don't think a serious political agenda is even necessary to explain it. Plain old indulgent un-creative corporate filmmaking is adequate.


Q. Why make the new heroes female?

A. Because it's an easy way to make it "different" and it hopefully broadens the customer base.

If Rey in 'Force Awakens' had been male, the public reaction would have been "He's a total carbon-copy of Luke & Anakin!" FFS, she even dressed like them and fixed machinery and lived on a desert planet. They could have put a male in her role without changing the script.

. . . But you didn't really hear that complaint about Rey when TFA came out.
Why? Umm . . . she was female. The gender swap was just enough of a distraction.


And yes, Disney is always willing to piss off 10 older fans in pursuit of 1 new one from a different demographic. That's a factor. With SW I'm sure they assumed the male fans woud be fish in a barrel so they could take them for granted. It's overconfidence.

For some reason the whole corporate state is afflicted by that particular urge. I don't get it. You see it everwhere from Harley-Davidson to NASCAR to Bud Light . . . Disney has a lot of company. And it's been around a lot longer than Wokeness.


Q. Why tear down the old male heroes?

A. Because it served their new story. Easy source of drama. They were using the old heroes as assets to help bolster their new heroes.


For the most part, I doubt the new Disney crowd HATES Han & Luke & Indy. I think they just don't love them. They see them as corporate IP assets to be used, no more or less. "Hey audience, remember how great you thought ______ was back in the day? Well look how our new hero is so much better!"
so true...
 
Yeah, I think it's not what you're thinking.

Mangold has mentioned in several interviews that he felt Crystal Skull didn't address Indy's age, even though it did, he just didn't seem to respond to it because of the pulp action adventure lens that Spielberg and Lucas used. He also has stated that he changed the original David Koepp script and brought in the Antikythera dial as the new MacGuffin because he wanted a time-travel related object driving the plot mechanics. In other words, he wanted the story to be about an aging man looking back at his life and being troubled by his choices, possibly wishing he could undo certain things.

So far, this is okay! It's a storytelling choice. It has nothing to do with agendas or whatever. It's a valid take on how to bring something new to a series that has virtually exhausted all narrative avenues with its lead character.

But it also has major pitfalls.

The final film shows its cards plain and clear when they reveal Mutt's death—Helena asks Indy what he would do if he could go back in time, and he says he'd try to change Mutt's fate in Vietnam. This is the one incident that shapes Indiana's whole character nature in 1969. The problem is that the minute you go for that, you throw the joyful nature of Indiana Jones movies out the window and dive straight in for a completely different tone. Your main character becomes a depressed bore consumed by pain and guilt, and you begin to project a certain type of feelings in your audience that are not really what Indiana Jones movies are all about. At least, not framed like that. But it seems clear that James Mangold doesn't see any issue with it, probably because he isn't Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, he's the guy who made Cop Land.

So that's where all this most likely comes from. A genuine attempt to push the character beyond retirement age and do something with him, then failing to understand where the line is if you're making an action-adventure movie with Roman soldiers shooting lances at a German war plane at the end. It's almost surely not some evil multi-studio coordinated plan to chastise a manly hero by deliberately making him look less appealing than a female sidekick. That's, like, nuts. No offense to anyone, but it really is.


Though isn't that evidence that there's nothing of substance to do with the character other than break him down? That the story is over and the creative options exhausted. If you have to resort to using something as tonally drastic as that to tell your story, doesn't that fundamentally shift the story from heroic adventurer to old cranky sad guy with nothing to live for?

No one wants to see that. I watched a family member drink themselves to death. I don't need to see Indiana Jones do it. I already lived through that hell. I'm not going to pay to see one of my heroes do it.
 
Yeah, I think it's not what you're thinking.

Mangold has mentioned in several interviews that he felt Crystal Skull didn't address Indy's age, even though it did, he just didn't seem to respond to it because of the pulp action adventure lens that Spielberg and Lucas used. He also has stated that he changed the original David Koepp script and brought in the Antikythera dial as the new MacGuffin because he wanted a time-travel related object driving the plot mechanics. In other words, he wanted the story to be about an aging man looking back at his life and being troubled by his choices, possibly wishing he could undo certain things.

So far, this is okay! It's a storytelling choice. It has nothing to do with agendas or whatever. It's a valid take on how to bring something new to a series that has virtually exhausted all narrative avenues with its lead character.

But it also has major pitfalls.

The final film shows its cards plain and clear when they reveal Mutt's death—Helena asks Indy what he would do if he could go back in time, and he says he'd try to change Mutt's fate in Vietnam. This is the one incident that shapes Indiana's whole character nature in 1969. The problem is that the minute you go for that, you throw the joyful nature of Indiana Jones movies out the window and dive straight in for a completely different tone. Your main character becomes a depressed bore consumed by pain and guilt, and you begin to project a certain type of feelings in your audience that are not really what Indiana Jones movies are all about. At least, not framed like that. But it seems clear that James Mangold doesn't see any issue with it, probably because he isn't Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, he's the guy who made Cop Land.

So that's where all this most likely comes from. A genuine attempt to push the character beyond retirement age and do something with him, then failing to understand where the line is if you're making an action-adventure movie with Roman soldiers shooting lances at a German war plane at the end. It's almost surely not some evil multi-studio coordinated plan to chastise a manly hero by deliberately making him look less appealing than a female sidekick. That's, like, nuts. No offense to anyone, but it really is.
so it's all just coincidence? Whether it's Rian Johnson, Mangold, Abrahms...Rogue One, Solo, The ST, Indy 5( four British, Protagonist, female actresses) , Mandalorian (Bo Katan)...the list goes on and on...Luke, Indy, Han just happen to get bad scripts under one common denominator..Kathleen Kennedy. If that makes me nuts to see it like that then i don't want to know what it's like to be "sane" because just like everything else, there is a reversal of truth happening out there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ron
I thought the movie was....fine. I had a good time watching it. I thought the plot hung together better than Crystal Skull, well except at the end where, just like Crystal Skull, when they get back from the adventure all the problems Indy had with the Authorities (suspected communist and murder suspect respectively) have disappeared without explanation.

on a different note, the usual idea with "elder hero" movies is, back in the saddle for one last adventure, and they don't know if they still have what it takes. Then over the course of the movie they level up and show that they've still got it. (Then usually die at the end). I don't feel like Dial of Destiny really did that.

But it did get me wondering about movies that have pulled off the "one last adventure" formula successfully. any thoughts?
 
Never mind.

I had posted Drinker's review of this film. I just wish that he didn't have to go so over the top with the language. It is really off-putting. To me anyway.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top