Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

Saw it Thursday night and enjoyed it a lot.

It’s a great set up to go on one last ride. Indy has not been adventuring, he is retiring, divorced etc. He is not in a place we want to see a hero but the movie does a good job of setting the events in motion to get him back. Wombat actually says “Indiana Jones, back in the saddle for one last adventure!”. And for me and my family it was a fun ride.

A few nits that aren’t deal breakers were:

The early de-aged face without de aged voice was definitely jarring at first but seemed to go away- or the action was too loud to notice

The DOD didn’t seem to be built up to mythic status like the Ark or Grail.

Helenas character arc was weird. To batguy s point, until the very end I was still suspicious of her motives. I didn’t feel she was set up for a spin off, or maybe for me it wouldn't be interesting so it didn’t even register.

The problem with the action is it didn’t evolve within the scene or set piece like other Indy films. The horse/motorcycle chase just stayed a horse chase. The Tangiers Moto taxi chase just stayed a taxi/car chase with some minor throw away characters thrown in.

I will definitely re watch this one, unlike recent Marvel movies like Quantumania and Love and Thunder. Even though there is a lot of CGI it’s real world grounded not another realm or fantastic totally CGI world that has to be imagined to design.
This was refreshing and makes me want to revisit things like Pirates, and of course the original Indy entries.

Props to Mangold for the ending scene. Nice surprise and nice emotional throwback.
 
I saw this today with the family and enjoyed it. Better than CS (which I only ever saw once and won't ever watch again) and better than I was expecting to be honest. The reason for Indy being a grumpy old man is explained well, but you'll have to sit through about an hour of the movie before its explained, but it fills in a lot of gaps about where we find him in life.

There were some stretches where I feared the movie was more of a Helena Shaw movie than an Indiana Jones movie, but its no secret that she is driving the story here. It doesn't quiet have the same tone as Raiders or Last Crusade, but I don't think its meant to. All in all, I give it a 6.5\10

Only spoiler here... did anyone else see the Holy Hand Grenade on the train car with all the antiquities?
 
To quote a friend of mine, why not give the next generation the best quality story first? If you're intent on sharing what's so great about Indiana Jones, it only makes sense to show them the very best of the franchise and watch more (or don't) based on how they enjoy it.
Because there isnt a baseline for universal acceptance or likeability when it comes to films. What may seem like the "best quality story" to me and you may not be the same for someone else. My kids like the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy more than they enjoy the Original Trilogy. Im the opposite. I love the Original Star Trek and TNG. They like the newer films. I love the original planet of the apes, and they like the newer trilogy. My oldest daughter really loved this new Indy film, but can't sit through the entirety of another Indy film. While she likes certain parts, certain others just dont interest her, and that's okay.

While we may not enjoy every aspect of the newer films, we need to understand that someone out there does enjoy them and we can use that to reel newer generations of people in and teach them about our favorites if they are hooked by this newer style of film. If you can expose someone to Raiders, Temple, or Last Crusade, and they enjoy it then more power to you. But all I am stating is that the newer films should not be downplayed because some fans dont enjoy them. Instead we should look at them as tools to bring in newer spectators to our fandom and share our love of this character with others.
 
Saw it yesterday with the fam and some of the Colorado Joneses

View attachment 1714814

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.

“Small world, Dr. Jones…”

I believe that I recognize a couple of the Dr. Jones cosplayers in this pic as guys that I watched popping their whips in a park, literally right near my backyard, in Castle Rock.
 
Last edited:
The movie was okay. But what the hell is wrong with John Williams' effort to perform a really good score with unforgettable themes? The recycling of cues from the previous movies was so annoying, especially at the beginning of the movie. A great score lives from the scenes it delivers. You hear the tune and remember a specific scene immediately. That's so great about the first three movies. But the re-use of music in the first fifteen minutes was just lazy copy-and-paste-work... Come on John, you certainly could have done better.
 
The movie was okay. But what the hell is wrong with John Williams' effort to perform a really good score with unforgettable themes? The recycling of cues from the previous movies was so annoying, especially at the beginning of the movie. A great score lives from the scenes it delivers. You hear the tune and remember a specific scene immediately. That's so great about the first three movies. But the re-use of music in the first fifteen minutes was just lazy copy-and-paste-work... Come on John, you certainly could have done better.
Let’s see what kind of score you can manage when you're 91. Cut the guy some slack.
 
I'm not an Indy fan per se – I'm not sure I've even seen Temple of Doom all the way through – so consider my detachment from this franchise when I say: holy **** that was bad.

I'd read the leaks and knew some of the bonkers stuff that was in it, but I wasn't prepared for how pointless and frankly boring most of it was going to feel.

I liked the flashback opening okay, but it was dull for most of the 1960s stuff, from the horse chase through to the dive sequence with the eels. I don't know what the cause was, but I was bored and actually spent some time planning what I'll be doing at work next week, which was more engaging then the movie.

It did pick up once Indy and Helena were uncovering Archimedes tomb and doing detective work. Those elements were fun and actually felt like Indiana Jones.

Then the time travel hit and despite knowing it was coming it was weirder and dumber than I had expected. It doesn't help, I don't think, that there was a movie on MST3K called "Quest of the Delta Knights" about a group of adventurers looking for a space-time gizmo that Archimedes left behind in a tomb. I could not stop thinking about it during the last act, and that is not a comparison you want your audience to be making if you're Lucasfilm.

I know Mangold has denied that they reshot the ending and I can only say: I do not believe him. There's at least two spots where it obviously veered off whatever course they were on, first after Indy gets shot and again when Helena punches him out. I mean, Indu gets shot in the chest and then the movie forgets about it for twenty minutes before it becomes relevant again. That's not something that happens if the script and filming didn't undergo multiple changes.

The punch out and cut to Indy in his apartment, with Marion and Sallah there and also his marriage is back together, was also abrupt and unearned I can't even express what a waste it was. This offended me not as some Indy fan or franchise fan, but as a movie fan. You don't have the deuteragonist make the climactic character choice for the protagonist, you just don't. Terrible, terrible filmmaking.
 
Last edited:
Because there isnt a baseline for universal acceptance or likeability when it comes to films. What may seem like the "best quality story" to me and you may not be the same for someone else. My kids like the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy more than they enjoy the Original Trilogy. Im the opposite. I love the Original Star Trek and TNG. They like the newer films. I love the original planet of the apes, and they like the newer trilogy. My oldest daughter really loved this new Indy film, but can't sit through the entirety of another Indy film. While she likes certain parts, certain others just dont interest her, and that's okay.

While we may not enjoy every aspect of the newer films, we need to understand that someone out there does enjoy them and we can use that to reel newer generations of people in and teach them about our favorites if they are hooked by this newer style of film. If you can expose someone to Raiders, Temple, or Last Crusade, and they enjoy it then more power to you. But all I am stating is that the newer films should not be downplayed because some fans dont enjoy them. Instead we should look at them as tools to bring in newer spectators to our fandom and share our love of this character with others.
But there is a reason that Raiders stated an entire franchise. If that' isn't a "quality story", then the past 42 years of the franchise is inexplicable. As for "may not be the same for someone else", that applies to any movie with a given person, but there are generally appealing aspects to films, and since its' debut, Raiders has had that broad appeal to most everyone who's seen it.

Raiders
is a timeless classic, and is a fine starting point in the series that holds up very well. I promise: the 1920's/ 30's aren't goign to look any different no matter how many years passes sincr Raiders and now. :D
 
Obviously to each their own, but I'm not concerned with being a steward for the younger generation to learn about the movies I love. I'm open to new people enjoying these stories, but I'm under no obligation to convince anyone who doesn't already know. Time has deemed them classics already because here we are 42 years later. If someone new needs that much convincing then it's clearly not for them, and there's nothing wrong with that.

When I have a family I'm not sure I'll even sit them down and show them the films I love. I'll likely just watch the movies when I want and if my kids want to watch with me they'll be welcome to but I'm not going to foist my interests on them. My enjoyment isn't dependent on what a new generation of people thinks of Indy. By all means if you love Indy and want to share that experience with your kids? Great. More power to you. I personally don't feel beholden to that myself.
 
Sorry, I'll be responding to multiple posts. I know some of these are a few days old but if you all will indulge me (possible spoilers)...

The decent ones are, at least. Then there's a lot of modern-day Hollywood. I used to be the overnight manager at a Taco Bell, back in the mid 80s. Chuck Norris used to come through the drive-thru all the time and I used to sit there and talk to him if nobody was in line behind him. He was a really nice guy, not at all pretentious like a lot of people you see today.

It was great being a fan back in the 70s and 80s, before conventions became absurdly security conscious. A friend and I were at a Star Trek con in LA and DeForest Kelley was sitting at a table so we just went up and talked to him. This was before the Star Trek movies started coming out. He was the sweetest guy in the world. We took him out to lunch. Through him, I got to know a lot of the other Star Trek cast. Some were great, some were not.

It's also how I got to know a lot of the classic sci-fi writers. My wife and I used to run into Ray Bradbury every single year at San Diego Comicon, at the same spot on the convention floor. We'd pull off to the side and catch up, both when he was on his feet and in a wheelchair. We did that for more than a decade before he died.

I met Harlan Ellison at a Westercon in the mid-80s. When there was that giant earthquake a couple of years later, I and a couple of others went to his house and helped him to clean up his library, that had fallen apart.

I was Jerry Pournelle's beer caddy for a long time for local conventions. He'd get up on stage and I'd sit in the front row with a cooler of beer under my chair. When he went dry, I delivered.

The number of people that I've known over the years is absurd, but you can't do that anymore. It's just not the same fannish culture. It's gone from a guy at a table trying to sell their wares to someone at the end of a long line, surrounded by security, and you get 10 seconds while they scribble their name on something for a buck.

I miss the old days.

I've never been a celebrity chaser. If I should see one in public, I'll never ask for a picture or an autograph or even approach them. I don't care. That doesn't mean there aren't some I'd love to meet and talk to but unless it happens naturally or at least in an accommodating situation, it would be like a random stranger walking up to me and I don't want to do that to them. Cons? Not really my thing. 1. I hate waiting in lines. 2. I hate crowds. 3. The idea of waiting to, like you said, spend 10 seconds with them and then be shuffled off doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. An autograph and picture is supposed to be a memento and a capture of a special memory. I saw Ian McDiarmid was taking pictures with fans with a wall in-between at the last big con. Yeah, I don't care how much I love ROTJ, that's not an experience I want. Maybe he had a reason but I couldn't figure it out.

A signed poster or book here and there would be cool to have but it's nothing I'll scrounge for.

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.

As much as I've enjoyed Mangold's previous movies, he'll never completely understand Indiana Jones the way Lucas and Spielberg do and nor could anyone really. They conceived the character and molded him to their adventure serial inspired sensibilities. Mangold sought to bring cynicism into that character which I'm sure he found compelling. However, as was discussed earlier in the thread, despair is a fairly counter-productive theme to inject into these pulp hero stories. Add to that the attempt to mimic the styles of, imho, the greatest film director ever and the resulting sense of imitation rather than continuation was inevitable.

I've basically reiterated your point here but that's fine because it deserved reiteration :).

Mangold could've given Indy a personal struggle without it having to be a debilitating one. I have various thoughts on how that could've been done but they'll be time to discuss that later in-depth.

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.

I'm not so sure honestly. I mean it keeps happening again and again. Do I think there's an order that comes down from the top brass that specifically demands Indy, or Han, or Luke get torn down to help prop up the new characters? No BUT, I do think there is an order that the new characters are made to unequivocally shine in the spotlight and many of these filmmakers seem to think the best way (or perhaps easiest way) to do that is to regress our original heroes to a decrepit state thereby facilitating the opportunity for the new heroes to "step up" and pick up their slack. One might say that's simply incompetent, lazy film-making rather than deliberate character assassination but the result is the same. A lack of reverence as opposed to outright disrespect is still an insult.

As for an agenda-driven plan to have female heroes tear down the manly ones, I'll say this without getting bogged down into any kind of political discussion...It seems like for every new project tied to a legacy IP, there's always a quote from an actor or writer or producer that makes mention of some sociopolitical cause inspiring some aspect of that new project. It's only fair that if people make statements, others will take those statements seriously and respond. I'd rather not wish to believe in the "conspiratorial" but man, they really love to throw fuel on that fire. I do agree a lot of it is PR and execs trying to appease representation quotas. It's all exhausting.

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?

I haven't watched the movie but I've listened to and read breakdowns of it. As I understand it, Helena drives the plot forward and Indy just gets pulled along. It's a hard sell to buy the old hero getting back in the saddle when it's the sidekick that has the agency. Indy needs a greater purpose than "Well, I'm here now. Might as well look for the thing." Again, I can't speak extensively as I haven't seen the movie but that's the sense I get.

I have seen all the Star Wars films in the Cinema (including Ewok Movie & The Clone Wars Movie) EXCEPT 'The Rise of Skywalker',....I watched it at a friends house, where he had got a download of it,...(a cam version of it)

Today my I saw 'Dial of Destiny' at my friends house

I had heard that the De-Aged part at the beginning was the best part of it, well it was,...BUT....it was terrible, Indy's voice sounded like todays Harrison, all shots of Indy walking through the train, his head was the wrong shape, looked like his face was too big for the head,...like the actor was wearing a mask,....De-aged Indy didn't have Harrisons posture or way of walking/running

Skipping through the film,...Harrison acting as Indy, was very good, he's still got it,...the sneaking about the tomb part felt great....but the film as a whole just felt flat,....too much obvious CG

The ending with Marion was touching, but a retread of 'The Crystal Skull'


I'm glad I didn't waste money to see this in the cinema

J

Absolutely. Harrison's body is doing much of the acting. Any stuntman you deepfake for him is going to stand out as an 'imposter'. Then there's the issue of Harrison himself. He moves and sounds like an older man now and that comes through as well. Reminds me of Deniro in the Irishman when he's kicking the guy in the street. They have him deepfaked to look like he's in his 30's but he's still moving like a guy in his 70's and it's comical as hell.

Obviously to each their own, but I'm not concerned with being a steward for the younger generation to learn about the movies I love. I'm open to new people enjoying these stories, but I'm under no obligation to convince anyone who doesn't already know. Time has deemed them classics already because here we are 42 years later. If someone new needs that much convincing then it's clearly not for them, and there's nothing wrong with that.

When I have a family I'm not sure I'll even sit them down and show them the films I love. I'll likely just watch the movies when I want and if my kids want to watch with me they'll be welcome to but I'm not going to foist my interests on them. My enjoyment isn't dependent on what a new generation of people thinks of Indy. By all means if you love Indy and want to share that experience with your kids? Great. More power to you. I personally don't feel beholden to that myself.

Yeah, I always think about this. I'd love if my kids could be into the movies I'm into and we could enjoy them together but I want them to discover them naturally the way I did. Of course catching a random movie on TV isn't really a thing anymore which is a shame. Well, maybe a nudge here or there isn't too bad.:unsure:

Anyway, sorry for the drawn out post. I was getting caught up and wanted respond to all the interesting observations so I pulled a Solo4114 and did it all in one shot:cool:
 
I thought I’d totally hate it but I actually enjoyed it a lot. It had its many flaws but was not an abomination like Skull was.

1. This film is about time, and changing time/ times they are a’changing.

2. Indy is old and it’s handled very well I think.

3. Indy is a moral relic from another era.

4. Helena is a purposefully unlikeable character from a new selfish era (youth culture/ globalisation etc)

5. She gets schooled by Indy in old school self sacrifice, for the common good.

6. If you want a whip swinging Indy of 80 years old then YOU are living in the past.

7. Helena doesn’t let him live in the past but makes him face the present like a true hero should.

8. Indy can rest now.
 
I didn't watch the trailers
I limited my time on threads
I avoided the Bright Young things on YouTube..
I went in with an open mind.

I was going to go deep but instead will say this...

It's an enjoyable romp and allowed to breath.
From the classic Raiders opening font title to the end I really enjoyed it and will certainly watch it again.
I watched it at our local Cineworld 4DX and got buffeted watered and smoked and really enjoyed it!
 
I'm not so sure honestly. I mean it keeps happening again and again. Do I think there's an order that comes down from the top brass that specifically demands Indy, or Han, or Luke get torn down to help prop up the new characters? No BUT, I do think there is an order that the new characters are made to unequivocally shine in the spotlight and many of these filmmakers seem to think the best way (or perhaps easiest way) to do that is to regress our original heroes to a decrepit state thereby facilitating the opportunity for the new heroes to "step up" and pick up their slack. One might say that's simply incompetent, lazy film-making rather than deliberate character assassination but the result is the same. A lack of reverence as opposed to outright disrespect is still an insult.
I don't think it's anything to do with that. I think it's much more that the people making the films believe that there's just no credible way to make these old guys the ass-kickers they once were. Even in a cinematic world where we can kinda sorta cheat and act as if the limits of reality and aging don't apply to characters, audiences will still know. It'll come across as unbelievable.

But they reeeeeeeaaaalllly wanna cash in on that franchise one...more....time, so they end up recognizing that they have to address the elephant in the room, and that, in turn, leads them to showing these characters in their decline.

It's not like "Ha! This'll really piss off those whiny internet fans!" It's probably more like "We cannot seriously try to make this 80-year-old guy into an action hero without at least acknowledging that he's much older." Certainly they can't ignore the whole thing and pretend like it isn't there. You touch on this yourself later in your post (I'll note it then as well).
As for an agenda-driven plan to have female heroes tear down the manly ones, I'll say this without getting bogged down into any kind of political discussion...It seems like for every new project tied to a legacy IP, there's always a quote from an actor or writer or producer that makes mention of some sociopolitical cause inspiring some aspect of that new project. It's only fair that if people make statements, others will take those statements seriously and respond. I'd rather not wish to believe in the "conspiratorial" but man, they really love to throw fuel on that fire. I do agree a lot of it is PR and execs trying to appease representation quotas. It's all exhausting.
Eh, the world's changing and people want a seat at the table. I think Hollywood recognizes this, and so they sell to it. Some people involved in the creative process also genuinely believe it. But mostly I just think it's part of the zeitgeist. The entertainment industry is always something like 10 years ahead of the bulk of society, and the law is something like 10 years behind (or more). I see this sort of thing as just part of that. Representation matters and means a lot for people who haven't been represented and are starting to be. It impacts them in real, meaningful ways.

All that said, it doesn't sound like including a character like Helena is meant to serve an "agenda." It's more just meant to create an interesting character. (Although, whether that worked, I cannot say since I haven't seen the film.)
Absolutely. Harrison's body is doing much of the acting. Any stuntman you deepfake for him is going to stand out as an 'imposter'. Then there's the issue of Harrison himself. He moves and sounds like an older man now and that comes through as well. Reminds me of Deniro in the Irishman when he's kicking the guy in the street. They have him deepfaked to look like he's in his 30's but he's still moving like a guy in his 70's and it's comical as hell.
EXACTLY.

THIS is a huge part of the problem with your legacy sequels bringing back actors who originated roles something like 40-ish years ago. You can CGI the hell out of things, but either (A) people will know it's just a stuntman/body double who's been deepfaked, or (B) they'll know it's some geriatric guy with a bad back and a knee replacement pretending to kick the crap out of another character. Either way, they're well on their way to a vacation in the Uncanny Valley.

In a way, I think a lot of fans are also kind of having trouble coming to grips with the cognitive dissonance produced by having watched and re-watched and re-re-re-re-re-re......etc....-watched their cinematic heroes over the years...and then along comes withered old [character], looking older, sounding older, but still trying to shuffle along and be that same hero they were some 20-40 years ago...and it just isn't landing.

It doesn't feel like the old days, because the filmmakers feel forced to really address the character's age and structure some elegiacal story around that. Or it's just not believable when they try to take the old guy and make them a badass, or de-age him and make him his old badass self. Either way you go, any way you slice it, it just feels...off.

Folks say "Well, there's gotta be a way to do this so it doesn't make a mockery of the character," while filmmakers simply don't believe that (rightly so, I think) and think the only way to make a film with these old guys is to tackle them being old head-on and in an "Oh, no, he's old, and now that's kind of sad, so let's deal with that" way.

Honestly, the more this happens -- and it does seem to keep happening -- it reinforces for me one simple truth: you can't go home again, so maybe we should stop trying so damn hard. Instead of repeatedly trying to force these older characters and actors into unbelievable situations, or to make out-of-character films that lampshade their age, maybe...we should just move on. Tell new stories with new characters about new things. You don't want to watch your favorite character as a decrepit old man? You don't want to see your childhood hero die? Then maybe they should stop making movies where the only interesting thing left to do is deal with all of that.

Remember, kids: more is not always better.
Anyway, sorry for the drawn out post. I was getting caught up and wanted respond to all the interesting observations so I pulled a Solo4114 and did it all in one shot:cool:
Eh, you did ok. If you really wanna go for it, it needs to be another 30-40% longer, and you need to reply to somewhere between 2 and 5 more people at once. :)
 
As much as I've enjoyed Mangold's previous movies, he'll never completely understand Indiana Jones the way Lucas and Spielberg do and nor could anyone really. They conceived the character and molded him to their adventure serial inspired sensibilities. Mangold sought to bring cynicism into that character which I'm sure he found compelling. However, as was discussed earlier in the thread, despair is a fairly counter-productive theme to inject into these pulp hero stories. Add to that the attempt to mimic the styles of, imho, the greatest film director ever and the resulting sense of imitation rather than continuation was inevitable.

I've basically reiterated your point here but that's fine because it deserved reiteration :).

Mangold could've given Indy a personal struggle without it having to be a debilitating one. I have various thoughts on how that could've been done but they'll be time to discuss that later in-depth.

It can be very tempting for filmmakers to start aging up the tone & emotional complexity in a "pulp" movie. Because when it does work, it REALLY works. The Godfather series. Empire Strikes Back. Terminator 2. Casino Royale. The Unforgiven. Etc.

I think this Indy#5 did an iffy job of mixing the two mojos. I'm sure it didn't help being a typical Disney-LFL-KK production (where they try to film the movie before they finish writing it). The circumstances of this show probably doomed it to failure no matter what Mangold did.



IMO there was probably a very good 'Unforgiven' type of final Indiana Jones movie to be made. Like, one where it's not offically an Indiana Jones movie but rather they fictionalize it into a similar standalone character. "Harrison Ford plays a 70yo former treasure hunter coming to grips with the ghosts of his past." That removes all the pressure to live up to the old franchise and gives the new movie some room to be its own thing. It doesn't have to deliver $300m action, it doesn't have to stay as un-serious & pulpy as the original Indy movies, etc. When Harrison gets frustrated & punches out a bad guy the audience grins and thinks "Yep, there's Indy peeking through!" instead of judging it poorly compared to 'Raiders'.
 
An Archaeologist on a quest
A female who furthers plot
A Faithful side kicks
Foot soldiers and Megalomaniac protagonist
Period serial/matinee drama

Sound familiar?

I wonder how today's audience would take to Marion and other sidekicks if it was made today or even Indy ?
 
I'm not so sure honestly. I mean it keeps happening again and again. Do I think there's an order that comes down from the top brass that specifically demands Indy, or Han, or Luke get torn down to help prop up the new characters? No BUT, I do think there is an order that the new characters are made to unequivocally shine in the spotlight and many of these filmmakers seem to think the best way (or perhaps easiest way) to do that is to regress our original heroes to a decrepit state thereby facilitating the opportunity for the new heroes to "step up" and pick up their slack. One might say that's simply incompetent, lazy film-making rather than deliberate character assassination but the result is the same. A lack of reverence as opposed to outright disrespect is still an insult.

As for an agenda-driven plan to have female heroes tear down the manly ones, I'll say this without getting bogged down into any kind of political discussion...It seems like for every new project tied to a legacy IP, there's always a quote from an actor or writer or producer that makes mention of some sociopolitical cause inspiring some aspect of that new project. It's only fair that if people make statements, others will take those statements seriously and respond. I'd rather not wish to believe in the "conspiratorial" but man, they really love to throw fuel on that fire. I do agree a lot of it is PR and execs trying to appease representation quotas. It's all exhausting.

They do throw fuel on that fire, whether for personal convictions or because it's good PR. That said, I think people should be above this stuff. On one side, because leaning on the type of discourse shared by Youtube nutjobs is not good for anybody's mental health. But also because it cheapens film conversations.

It's hard to say if the broken old man archetype comes before or after conversations about the development of other characters. A female Force sensitive lead and an outcast Luke Skywalker were conceptualized by George Lucas for Episode VII before the Disney acquisition or these modern social awareness movements were a thing. Again, to me, it's probably a creative approach issue. Obi Wan Kenobi could've been written similar to this new Indiana Jones back in 1977, but he wasn't. He was a man on the run, who had lost some of the best years of his life hiding in a godforsaken place, completely alone, essentially defeated by his enemies. But it didn't come off that way. The movie was first and foremost a fairytale. As I said earlier, if you compare the opening of Crystal Skull with the very first scenes set in 1969 in Dial of Destiny, you're watching basically the same story, but approached in totally different ways. One is playful with a heightened sense of reality, while the other plays it straight. Once you've chosen that path, you're gonna end up with a character that's too much of a departure from the spirit of these movies and feels like a shadow of himself. This can happen independently from other factors and it's probably the root cause, rather than some kind of reverse engineering to make some supporting character more appealing. In the end it's there affecting the whole picture, and not just two people in it.
 
Back
Top