Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[joberg]

Ah, having not seen the film, I can't really speak to that. But I can see how it'd feel like a retread. Still, I'm not sure what else you do with characters like this at this stage of their lives and still have the story have stakes and an emotional journey for the character. And I'm not sure folks would be happy with NOT having an emotional journey for the character, and him (or rather CGI-ed stuntmen) just go through the motions one more time.

YES! Exactly! I mean, again, I can't speak to what's in the film in any detail. But I can say that if you're gonna stick an 80-something character into this situation, there's a core issue of "Where do they go? What are the stakes? What emotional journey do they take?"

One way or another, you're gonna bump up against the fact that for God's sake, he's 80 years old! There's just no way around it. And at that point...I think that's where you lose a bunch of fans.

And to be clear, that is totally understandable. I was very, very reluctant to see the Star Wars sequels when they were in development, mostly because I was (at least initially) uncomfortable with the idea of watching my childhood heroes die on screen, and I just friggin' KNEW they were gonna kill at least one of them (Surprise! They killed 3.). Like, it was just bound to happen. I ended up not being as bothered by it as I'd expected to be, but those films had other problems. Less said there the better.

I skipped Crystal Skull because I assumed it'd have Lucas' prequel style make it too ham fisted. I gather it's better than that, but still not great, and to this day I've just ignored it altogether. (It's the "free coaster" in my blu-ray set.) I skipped this film because initially I thought it was just pointless and would be incredibly hard to sell geriatric Ford as an ass-kicker, and then I was cautiously interested when Mangold came on board, and then I read enough negative reviews about issues I figured would bother me that I decided "Nah. I'm good with the original three."

All that said, I can accept why these stories keep playing out this way. There's only so much you can do in these kinds of franchises with these kinds of characters, and one of the main stories you do with someone who is approaching the end of their life is have them really come to grips with their own mortality, how to find meaning in their life, how to let go of the regrets they've accumulated over the years, you know the kind of stuff everyone does at the end of their life. While that can be done well, it's also just...not really something I'm interested in seeing with this character. Like, by the same token, I'm not really interested in seeing a Captain America movie about old Steve Rogers grappling with the loneliness of missing his wife Peggy. Hell, I'm not even really on board with some multiversaltimetravelmumbojumbo movie that somehow gives Chris Evans back the shield. He did his bit, and I'm fine with moving on.

I guess in the last 20 years, I've become more sanguine with, if not necessarily moving on from every setting I love, at least moving on from every character I loved, OR just being happy with what I've got. I don't need more just for the sake of having more, especially if having more means that I have to also take the bitter with the sweet in a way that I'm not really interested in doing.

At the same time, I accept that IF we are going to keep trying to squeeze more content out of these properties, we have to expect that it will play out this way again and again, assuming people insist upon bringing back actors in their 70s and 80s to do live action versions of the roles they played 30+ years ago.

One of the big problem in Hollywood (not just Disney), is not just to know when to stop...but how!!

 

[Cephus]

Lucas did it with ESB; everything is going badly for the rebels...and, at the end, Solo end-up in cryo! There's gotta be some "limits" to the "happy ending"...but we have to count on the hero's character to make it in the end. Now, the hero folds like a crouton at the first sight of stress/challenge/dire situation

That's not a happy ending because it isn't an ending. It's the middle movie in a trilogy. Lucas pretty much perfected the format.

 

[Bloop]

I didn't read the previous posts, but I thought they could've called this "Indiana Jones and the Final Countdown." The climax was basically the same as the 1980 film.

 

[pengbuzz]

I do wonder if the writers want to "destroy" the illusion of the character and the hero with the "there are no such thing as heroes” concept they push. Heroes/aspirational figures are important and while they may not exist in real life, that doesnt mean they cannot exist in fiction.

It has often made me wonder if heroes represent to the writers a standard that they either despise or feel they cannot live up to IRL?

 

[Psab keel]

It has often made me wonder if heroes represent to the writers a standard that they either despise or feel they cannot live up to IRL?

When societies abandon ideals like selflessness, sacrifice, patience, and humility it gets reflected in pop culture. Those timeless qualities of heroism get polluted into their polar opposite and what passes today as virtue is often not virtuous at all. As a result, writers create stories that celebrate the worst human traits and often mock or subvert optimistic narratives because they deem them unrealistic. I'm convinced a lot of them are miserable people so by extension their work reflects their bleak sensibilities.

Some of the people who handle these cherished IP's have an axe to grind and they make these stories about themselves rather than bring their talents to the existing structure. In the past you used to see people who had no prior experience with the property who added a new take to the story with their unique perspective, but they didn't throw away everything that came before in order to do it. They enhanced what was there to great affect by moving the story forward in inventive ways.

Ultimately it all comes down to story. What best serves the story and the characters. Anyone who isn't willing to do that has no business writing.

 

[HeartBlade]

When societies abandon ideals like selflessness, sacrifice, patience, and humility it gets reflected in pop culture. Those timeless qualities of heroism get polluted into their polar opposite and what passes today as virtue is often not virtuous at all. As a result, writers create stories that celebrate the worst human traits and often mock or subvert optimistic narratives because they deem them unrealistic. I'm convinced a lot of them are miserable people so by extension their work reflects their bleak sensibilities.

Some of the people who handle these cherished IP's have an axe to grind and they make these stories about themselves rather than bring their talents to the existing structure. In the past you used to see people who had no prior experience with the property who added a new take to the story with their unique perspective, but they didn't throw away everything that came before in order to do it. They enhanced what was there to great affect by moving the story forward in inventive ways.

Ultimately it all comes down to story. What best serves the story and the characters. Anyone who isn't willing to do that has no business writing.

Although I hate the term, I do think the “woke virus” rampaging in Hollywood is a cause of alot of this strife.

While I dont think “woke” concepts are inherently bad and actually do enjoy some shows that would be considered “woke” (some Japanese shows like Old man’s love which is a coming out story and Single Again wasnt bad); there is an insidious interpretation of woke that is ruining storytelling: women being perfect and flawless.

Its definitely a noticeable trend in a ton of media that ruins stories and is probably why the term “mary sue” has become more prominent, even if it is not always applicable. Female characters are given much more of a “pass” for their toxic and downright bad actions even getting painted in a positive light.

I was watching an analysis of Yennifer from the Netflix Witcher series which broke down why Netflix’s Yennifer was a poor adaptation and not accurate to the books. Book Yen is a toxic, cold-hearted character in the books as well but her backstory reveals why she is that way and has her recognize her own flaws and grow to become a better person. Netflix’s Yen is also toxic and selfish but the story encourages this, basically having the media and cast call her a “girl boss” for being toxic to men and not seeking help and rewarding her for her selfishness and toxicity in-universe by rewarding her with victories, stronger powers, being exceptional, etc.

Modern writers seem to love to have their strong female protagonists fight “the patriarchy” in whatever form it appears. Since the heroes of old tend to be straight white males, having the new female protagonist take them down a peg and “undermine” the patriarchy in the process seems to be the core message of these new stories even if they make the main female protagonist unlikable and toxic as a result. Thats just reinterpreted to them being “girl bosses.”

Regardless, like the bad movies of old that had generic guys beat the bad guys without any opposition; these stories wont age well and will be recognized as the fad they were at the time.

 

[Lightning]

Although I hate the term, I do think the “woke virus” rampaging in Hollywood is a cause of alot of this strife.

I dislike using term woke because of how difficult it is to define, and it's general overuse. But regardless of how you define it, its an expression of the effect postmodernism has had on our society. The real issue is postmodernism.

Here's Wikipedia's first paragraph on postmodernism, and tell me if that doesn't cover pretty much everything we are currently fighting about in society

Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse[1][2] characterized by skepticism toward the "grand narratives" of modernism; rejection of epistemic certainty or the stability of meaning; and sensitivity to the role of ideology in maintaining political power.[3][4] Claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism,[5] with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses.[4] The postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism;[4] it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.[6][7]

 

[AJTaliesen]

But the problem is, Scriptwriting 101 doesn't deal with how to continue existing franchises with beloved old characters. That's more like a 400-level issue and Hollywood has been a very slow learner lately.

You're being too generous. It's the second week of 101.

Here's the thing missing: People always defend them saying that time passes and people change, which is true. BUT you have to SHOW that.

In Cobra Kai we see Daniel, Johnny, Chosen, AND Mike Barnes together. Yes it's logical that this could happen over time, but if we didn't see HOW it happened it wouldn't make any sense. It would be jarring. You wouldn't write a character that out of tune with itself in a Saturday morning cartoon, let alone a movie that is supposed to have professional writers on staff.

The default state of an audience is that characters paused: Years have passed between Godfather and Godfather 2, but Michael at the start is like you put the character on auto pilot and just let him run a strait line from the first movie. His relationship with Fredo changes in the movie and we SEE it. We see why, we see how. If we just showed up and the movie was like "between 1 and two Michael got mad and had Fredo killed off" it would feel jarring and lazy. Bad writing.

And it makes the audience wonder "Why arent we getting to see that? That sounds like a better story that what were watching!"

Last Jedi is the quintessential example of this: Watching Luke's school get ripped apart by an insidious outside force sounds WAY more interesting than watching Mary Sue bicker with angry old guy.

The sad part with Indy is that it actually could've been done with a prologue and taken even LESS time than the prologue we actually got. Things were fine when we last saw him? So take 30 seconds to show what happened that made it not fine.

and the 400 level: how those events actually relate to this story which is going to bring him back to fine!

 

[asalaw]

The default state of an audience is that characters paused: Years have passed between Godfather and Godfather 2, but Michael at the start is like you put the character on auto pilot and just let him run a strait line from the first movie. His relationship with Fredo changes in the movie and we SEE it. We see why, we see how. If we just showed up and the movie was like "between 1 and two Michael got mad and had Fredo killed off" it would feel jarring and lazy. Bad writing.

It's no accident that Godfather 1 & 2 are the only film and sequel to both win Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay Oscars.

 

[batguy]

The default state of an audience is that characters paused: Years have passed between Godfather and Godfather 2, but Michael at the start is like you put the character on auto pilot and just let him run a strait line from the first movie. His relationship with Fredo changes in the movie and we SEE it. We see why, we see how. If we just showed up and the movie was like "between 1 and two Michael got mad and had Fredo killed off" it would feel jarring and lazy. Bad writing.

Sarah Connor is a lot different in T2 than at the end of T1. Han Solo & princess Leia were clearly playing footsie between ANH and ESB. Luke Skywalker enters ROTJ in a different place than he exited ESB.

These kinds of offscreen character changes work best when they are logical progressions of what we saw before. But still, plenty of big stuff can happen offscreen if it's handled well.

 

[pengbuzz]

When societies abandon ideals like selflessness, sacrifice, patience, and humility it gets reflected in pop culture. Those timeless qualities of heroism get polluted into their polar opposite and what passes today as virtue is often not virtuous at all. As a result, writers create stories that celebrate the worst human traits and often mock or subvert optimistic narratives because they deem them unrealistic. I'm convinced a lot of them are miserable people so by extension their work reflects their bleak sensibilities.

Some of the people who handle these cherished IP's have an axe to grind and they make these stories about themselves rather than bring their talents to the existing structure. In the past you used to see people who had no prior experience with the property who added a new take to the story with their unique perspective, but they didn't throw away everything that came before in order to do it. They enhanced what was there to great affect by moving the story forward in inventive ways.

Ultimately it all comes down to story. What best serves the story and the characters. Anyone who isn't willing to do that has no business writing.

Although I hate the term, I do think the “woke virus” rampaging in Hollywood is a cause of alot of this strife.

While I dont think “woke” concepts are inherently bad and actually do enjoy some shows that would be considered “woke” (some Japanese shows like Old man’s love which is a coming out story and Single Again wasnt bad); there is an insidious interpretation of woke that is ruining storytelling: women being perfect and flawless.

Its definitely a noticeable trend in a ton of media that ruins stories and is probably why the term “mary sue” has become more prominent, even if it is not always applicable. Female characters are given much more of a “pass” for their toxic and downright bad actions even getting painted in a positive light.

I was watching an analysis of Yennifer from the Netflix Witcher series which broke down why Netflix’s Yennifer was a poor adaptation and not accurate to the books. Book Yen is a toxic, cold-hearted character in the books as well but her backstory reveals why she is that way and has her recognize her own flaws and grow to become a better person. Netflix’s Yen is also toxic and selfish but the story encourages this, basically having the media and cast call her a “girl boss” for being toxic to men and not seeking help and rewarding her for her selfishness and toxicity in-universe by rewarding her with victories, stronger powers, being exceptional, etc.

Modern writers seem to love to have their strong female protagonists fight “the patriarchy” in whatever form it appears. Since the heroes of old tend to be straight white males, having the new female protagonist take them down a peg and “undermine” the patriarchy in the process seems to be the core message of these new stories even if they make the main female protagonist unlikable and toxic as a result. Thats just reinterpreted to them being “girl bosses.”

Regardless, like the bad movies of old that had generic guys beat the bad guys without any opposition; these stories wont age well and will be recognized as the fad they were at the time.

I think you both made some pretty good and pertinent points here! Thanks for helping me understand this better, and assisting me with clarifying my thoughts on this!

 

[Solo4114]

I dislike using term woke because of how difficult it is to define, and it's general overuse. But regardless of how you define it, its an expression of the effect postmodernism has had on our society. The real issue is postmodernism.

Here's Wikipedia's first paragraph on postmodernism, and tell me if that doesn't cover pretty much everything we are currently fighting about in society

Not to get too philosophical here, but the issue isn't "postmodernism," per se.

Postmodernism is simply a method by which one examines and critiques the existing "accepted" narratives. The "that's just how it is" attitude towards certain "universal truths" about the world, society, etc. It challenges the notion that such truths are, indeed, universal or that things need be the way they are.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, either...unless (1) you have a vested interest in maintaining the authority of your worldview, and (2) you are either unprepared or unwilling to defend that position.

Where postmodernism becomes a problem is when (A) you strip away the structures that society provided before (be they good or bad) and, (B) you replace them with...nothing. And there are definitely actors within society and the world at large that want that, because it promotes their ability to accrete power to themselves for its own sake or, worse, to subjugate other people.

What we're seeing right now, and it's reflected to some degree in Hollywood and popular culture writ large, is not "the woke virus," but rather a combination of a contest of different sets of values and different groups vying for power (or a share thereof) within society. We are living through a demographic and cultural turning point, a period of great upheaval, and it remains unclear which side of the debate will take control in the short term (although I have a pretty good sense of where things will go in the long term).

Last Jedi is the quintessential example of this: Watching Luke's school get ripped apart by an insidious outside force sounds WAY more interesting than watching Mary Sue bicker with angry old guy.

Minor point, but that actually happened in TFA. When Rey has her force-flashback thingy at Maz's cantina, that's where she sees the first glimpse of "Sad Luke" and the destruction of the academy.

The sad part with Indy is that it actually could've been done with a prologue and taken even LESS time than the prologue we actually got. Things were fine when we last saw him? So take 30 seconds to show what happened that made it not fine.

and the 400 level: how those events actually relate to this story which is going to bring him back to fine!

Two points here. First, I suspect that even if you showed what went wrong, people would still be pissed because, once again, it's undoing "happily ever after" for the sake of milking just one more film out of the franchise. (Until the next one when Ford is 98 or whatever.) Second, because of that first point, 30 seconds or even 15 minutes is not really long enough to sell that "Here's why Indy's sad" thing.

The real issue here is that, as you noted, audiences basically view their favorite films' heroes as living in stasis in between films when there has been a long gap between the films. They can accept some degree of evolution, but it has to be evolution along the same line as what they saw where things left off. So, if Indy left off happily married to Marion and with Mutt as his slowly-reforming son, an audience could absolutely accept that in another 8 years or whatever, Marion's retired, maybe bugging Indy to retire but otherwise generally they're happy together, Mutt still tinkers with his motorcycle on the weekends but is married and has a kid on the way, and Indy's still lecturing at the university, but hasn't really been in the field since that whole Crystal Skull event. In other words, it projects the vibe from the ending of the last film into the future, allowing for change but only change that fits that same vibe.

What audiences get pissed about (when they care at all -- and I think most really don't care because they aren't emotionally invested in the character the way superfans are) is when you get a hard right turn for the character and calamity strikes. On screen or off, they do not like when the narrative craps on their hero. The New Republic has failed, Luke's academy is destroyed, Han and Leia are divorced, and their son is the new Darth Vader! Neo is a disaffected programmer and thinks the last trilogy was just a game he designed! Mutt died in 'Nam and Indy and Marion divorced and now he's a bitter old man who can't see the point in life! The Ghostbusters broke up and became distant from each other! Blah blah blah, you get the idea.

You can lessen the impact by, for example, showing it in an intro sequence, but only insofar as "Well, I guess that explains what happens...but I still don't like it." Like, you could have Mutt die on an expedition with Indy. They're off adventuring together and Mutt dies in a trap and Indy can't save him. We watch it happen, then do a musical montage of him and Marion fighting, her packing and leaving, and him sitting in the dark with a half-full glass and a 3/4 empty bottle of whisky next to him. Sure, it'd make more sense narratively and would sell the legitimacy of his starting point in the film, but...the fans? They'd still be pissed about it.

Sarah Connor is a lot different in T2 than at the end of T1. Han Solo & princess Leia were clearly playing footsie between ANH and ESB. Luke Skywalker enters ROTJ in a different place than he exited ESB.

These kinds of offscreen character changes work best when they are logical progressions of what we saw before. But still, plenty of big stuff can happen offscreen if it's handled well.

Exactly. It's the "logical progression" thing. But also, there's far less time lost between the films. ESB arrives 3 years after Star Wars/ANH. T2 arrives only 7 years after T1. Dial is showing up 15 years after Crystal Skull, and Crystal Skull showed up 19 years after Last Crusade! TFA shows up 32 years after ROTJ. That's a looooooooong time to be projecting "logical progressions". And it also doesn't leave you a lot of room to maneuver if you want to do things "in media res," which I gather JJ did with TFA, and which has always kinda been a staple of the Indy series. But the impact is that audiences, who've had their heroes frozen in time at the moment of their greatest triumph, suddenly have to navigate "EVERYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE HAS BEEN DESTROYED." For casual fans, eh, whatever, tell me the next chapter. But for the hardcore fans, that's....hard to accept.

It's a big part of why I'm increasingly against "legacy sequels" about the same characters.

 

[joberg]

I dislike using term woke because of how difficult it is to define, and it's general overuse. But regardless of how you define it, its an expression of the effect postmodernism has had on our society. The real issue is postmodernism.

Here's Wikipedia's first paragraph on postmodernism, and tell me if that doesn't cover pretty much everything we are currently fighting about in society

The four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:

1: Critical Theory (not to mix with Critical Thinking; another beast altogether!)
2: Postmodernism
3: Critical Social Justice
4: Critical Race Theory

Hang-on to your socks for the next Disney Industrial Accident: "Snow White" (Pics of the principal photography):
yes, those are the "small people" Remember that Peter Dinklage protested Disney's decision to use small people for the
movie! At the time, small people actors were against him since his comments were mainly personal and making these actors afraid of not getting a job in movies/T.V. series. Well, we see the results now!!

 

[Ron]

The four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:

1: Critical Theory (not to mix with Critical Thinking; another beast altogether!)
2: Postmodernism
3: Critical Social Justice
4: Critical Race Theory

Hang-on to your socks for the next Disney Industrial Accident: "Snow White" (Pics of the principal photography):
yes, those are the "small people" Remember that Peter Dinklage protested Disney's decision to use small people for the
movie! At the time, small people actors were against him since his comments were mainly personal and making these actors afraid of not getting a job in movies/T.V. series. Well, we see the results now!!

View attachment 1719468

They're all playing Dopey I guess.

 

[cboath]

Well, in Indy's case, the hero is 80, so yeah, he can be old and cranky and he can still be married and his kid could be off doing his own thing. There wasn't a real need for either of those things in this. And frankly, it didn't bother me with indy on this one. No one liked Mutt. Marian, on the other hand, that different. wasn't a huge fan of the part, but whatever.

Could you have done the same Indy 5 without either of those things? yes. Much like you cite the ST. Could all of that been done without intentionally destroying the OT? Absolutely. Both are cases of doing what came before solely to undo it. The was no real narrative benefit to it. I'm not going to sit here and say those things are untouchable. Maybe the should be, but i won't say they shouldn't be. However, IF (big if) you're going to do that, you better have a damn good reason for it and execute it pretty damn well as well. The ST failed miserably on that front. Indy, to me anyhow, less so. In Indy's case, he simply couldn've been fired from his prior job for some stupid reason and it pissed him off. The school could have sold some of his finds off to private collector's which would definitely piss him off. Just saying there plenty of other ways to piss him off with out undoing the happy ending of the last one. And not to dump on the ST, but Indy didn't undo it til well into the flick as I recall and then the put it back at the end. The ST, undid it, stomped all over it, rubbed it in your face, and then proceeded to kill them all off rather unceremoniously. Mangold at least had the class to restore it in the end.

 

[batguy]

Hang-on to your socks for the next Disney Industrial Accident: "Snow White" (Pics of the principal photography):
yes, those are the "small people" Remember that Peter Dinklage protested Disney's decision to use small people for the
movie! At the time, small people actors were against him since his comments were mainly personal and making these actors afraid of not getting a job in movies/T.V. series. Well, we see the results now!!

The main character of the movie is named & famed for her white skin. Her co-stars are an assortment of human little people. The wicked witch hates her for being more physically beautiful than her. She gets saved when a rando prince comes along and necro-kisses her body.

That movie is not remake-able for Disney in 2023. They would need to change too much of it for PC reasons. They should have accepted the obvious and saved themselves half a billion dollars.


But then again, what's the difference? Take away all those PC issues and Disney would still probably find a way to screw up this remake. (The Star Wars sequels were almost a total blank slate when they bought LFL.) They just don't seem capable of doing a movie well these days, period.

 

[blewis17]

$263 million USD global box office. I wonder if it will even hit $300 million now.

 

[Wolfsburg]

It's been out for weeks now so beware potential spoilers below if you're still avoiding them

So I finally saw Indy 5 the other day and I liked it fine. It wasn't amazing but could've been far worse, as far as I'm concerned. I certainly didn't think it was nearly as cringy as Crystal Skull but I don't think I would rank it above any of the first three movies.

I didn't have a problem with the opener and de-aged Indy. It didn't look quite right in a few places but overall it didn't bother me enough to pull me out of it. It still makes me lament that we didn't get any more Indy films in the '90s when Harrison Ford was still in his prime. I was amazed that Voller somehow survived without lasting injuries after being clotheslined by a water tank arm and falling from a speeding train? I had thought that might be fodder for a twist of some sort but I guess not.

I generally liked the first act and the set up of Indy being past his prime and wouldn't have minded if there had been more of a focus on his getting older and his own mortality.

The second act sagged somewhat, being a bit repetitive and action set pieces consisting largely of car chases of some variety or another. I wonder if that was their solution to believably having an 70+ year old man doing actiony things.

The third act was kinda fun and poignant in some ways (though TLC still has the best ending). I really thought for a moment that we were gonna get Indy trying to protect a deepfaked Hitler from Voller so the war would be lost! Lol! I always liked Marion and was glad to see her again though there's a part of me that would've been fine if Indy had stayed behind, possibly to die in 212BC Syracuse. That might've been too depressing, I dunno. Marion's and Indy's "where doesn't it hurt" routine plucked at my heartstrings, I will admit. However, Indy grabbing his hat at the last second kinda undermined the finality of this really being the end though? Call it sappy and the circumstances would've had to be reworked but I almost thought it would've been more effective if the final shot had been him literally hanging his hat up and perhaps joining his friends gathered in the apartment.

I'm also dumbstruck that Short-Round didn't have a cameo!

I read a lot about how Phoebe Waller-Bridge was annoying but I honestly didn't have an issue with her in this. Sure she plays a huckster but I thought she did a serviceable, if not noteworthy job. I didn't think she was offensive in any particular regard.

I thought Harrison Ford was generally great and the movie overall was fine. I did think the movie felt more "dry" and less fun than existing Indy films with a somewhat downbeat undercurrent. What humor there was mostly didn't quite hit on all cylinders for me. I feel like they attempted some middle ground between the fun, breezy adventure of the typical Indy film and a darker exploration of aging and grief but didn't quite reach a happy median. I kinda wish they had chosen one or the other. It had some twinges of emotion but I would've liked more. I think the film could've more justified itself if it had gone a more morose route, studying the pathos of an aging adventurer barreling toward the end of his life and struggling with personal trauma. However, I fully acknowledge that this would be quite a departure for an Indy film and understand why they wouldn't have wanted to fully commit to that angle. Overall, the film wasn't a slamdunk for me but I didn't hate it either.

 

[JediMichael]

Was just looking at times for the closest theater to me. There down to only 3 showings a day and last one at 7:30pm.
Another pretty close theater has more on 3 screens, but I have a feeling by next week, that will dramatically drop.
Just looked at the 10:30 showing. Only 4 seats sold....it really is sad.
Maybe I'll just go to hurry up and get it out of the way.
I don't have anyone to even go with.

 

[Moviefreak]

I think it's going to get buried under once Cruise's movie arrives

Perhaps theater fatigue is a bigger contributor than people want to admit. It seems no movie is doing extremely well at the moment.

“The Mission: Impossible 7 box office has fallen far short of the original $90 million domestic projections for its opening weekend. Its current projections land it at a three-day total of $54.2 million and a five-day of $78 million, falling behind the total of the lukewarm Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.”