Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

I have yet to see a single positive review of this movie that has elaborated specifically how this fits in with the others in the series, or how it adds anything meaningful that elevatates Indy as a character. It's just a continuation and many cite it as being a partial retread thematically of Crystal Skull with an aging Indiana Jones. The major compliments I've seen repeated here and throughout the Rotten Tomatoes reviews have been very general and most are simply coming up with excuses about how the elements people are critical of are "not that bad" or "nowhere in the movie." Or they talk about Harrison looking good for his age. Just saying you loved a movie without explaining why isn't really saying much at all. I could just as easily say, "It sucked," but that's not really saying anything either.

Thus far I've seen only one substantive review of it and even that wasn't glowing, saying they didn't hate it, but also weren't sure it needed to exist, and that it was at the bottom of the rankings for how much they enjoyed it. As beautifully articulated as the take was, none of it sounded all that positive to me. :lol:

Look, I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion (as if that were possible on theRPF hahaha) but I'm just trying to understand the appeal of this story and what's compelling such glowing reactions from some. Can anyone explain it to me? I'd sincerely like to understand.
 
I have yet to see a single positive review of this movie that has elaborated specifically how this fits in with the others in the series, or how it adds anything meaningful that elevatates Indy as a character. It's just a continuation and many cite it as being a partial retread thematically of Crystal Skull with an aging Indiana Jones. The major compliments I've seen repeated here and throughout the Rotten Tomatoes reviews have been very general and most are simply coming up with excuses about how the elements people are critical of are "not that bad" or "nowhere in the movie." Or they talk about Harrison looking good for his age. Just saying you loved a movie without explaining why isn't really saying much at all. I could just as easily say, "It sucked," but that's not really saying anything either.

Thus far I've seen only one substantive review of it and even that wasn't glowing, saying they didn't hate it, but also weren't sure it needed to exist, and that it was at the bottom of the rankings for how much they enjoyed it. As beautifully articulated as the take was, none of it sounded all that positive to me. :lol:

Look, I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion (as if that were possible on theRPF hahaha) but I'm just trying to understand the appeal of this story and what's compelling such glowing reactions from some. Can anyone explain it to me? I'd sincerely like to understand.

I wasn’t going to post again, but I will because you asked someone to. My opinion below isn’t an attack on anyone. Nathan, you are ok in my book! :)

I would say that I get enjoyment by not having to dissect and nitpick every little piece of a movie. I go to see it and view the story presented as if I’m not a middle aged man. I feel you lose a sense of wonder if you have to analyze every aspect to defend your opinion, and then lose enjoyment. That’s my take on it and the reason my review is short. I went, I had a good time, my son enjoyed it and expressed interest in seeing a move from a franchise I adore, and an obvious current social narrative from either side wasn’t forced down my throat. I’m not likely to revisit this thread because I hate the endless debates on opinion and I don’t let other people’s opinions on entertainment sway mine. End of story.

I hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
Just saying you loved a movie without explaining why isn't really saying much at all. I could just as easily say, "It sucked," but that's not really saying anything either.
That's the rub though, you don't have to understand art to love/hate art, and you don't have to be able to explain art to love/hate art. You can love art without being able to explain why or give a reason, and you can hate art without being able to explain why or give a reason. Art isn't science, it's art. Art isn't facts or proof or math, art can't be verified through formula or process. Art is about how it makes you feel. Art is about how it makes you think about yourself, other people, and the world. Trying to quantify art never makes art better.

I rate movies on how they make me feel and I enjoyed watching this movie, I love how it made me feel. Being a life-long Indy fan who grew up watching the movies, playing with the toys, being inspired by the character, and role-playing 'Indy' as a kid, I loved this movie seeing it for the first time and I am looking forward to seeing it again.
 
That's fair. I hope it's clear that I'm genuinely trying to understand. I appreciate your response. It's never my intention to frustrate or annoy people. I'm just very passionate about stories and being a writer I can't help but dissect a narrative. That's just how I'm wired. Thank you both for your replies. I've got a better understanding now.
 
That's fair. I hope it's clear that I'm genuinely trying to understand. I appreciate your response. It's never my intention to frustrate or annoy people. I'm just very passionate about stories and being a writer I can't help but dissect a narrative. That's just how I'm wired. Thank you both for your replies. I've got a better understanding now.
I think much has to do with your baselines and what you're looking for from a film (really, any film) when you go in.

For me, I haven't seen any reason to watch additional Indy films since Last Crusade. I thought it was dumb to do KotCS back when it came out, I think it's dumb to do DoD now. So, at a baseline, I'm just...opposed to the movie. I start from a position of feeling negative about it. But that's just me.

Other people, I think, are more open in this case to seeing the film. What the hell? It's another adventure with Indy, at least in some form or other. So, they start out at a neutral baseline at least, maybe even positive. "Yeah! I'd love to see another Indy film!" Maybe they aren't as picky as I am (and that's neither a bad thing, nor a good thing, just a difference between us). Maybe they're just looking for a popcorn ride. Maybe they really want to see a film where Indy grapples with aging and his mortality and the mistakes he made in his life, so they like the tone of the film. I dunno.

So they go, they see it, and they say "Hey, that was pretty good!" It's also possible their attitudes will shift, or...maybe not.

I was lukewarm on the idea of Rise of Skywalker when it came out. JJ coming back, Palpatine coming back (sOmEhOw...), Carrie dying either when they'd started filming or just before, it just left me feeling very "meh" about it. When I came out of the theater, I said to my wife "That was great! I hated it!" (jokingly). But it was actually pretty accurate. I think I posted about it here. It was a solid roller-coaster ride and it hit a lot of emotional buttons, but when you look at it even a little bit, the whole thing falls apart and is built around nostalgia and self-reference, and a lot of unearned moments that happen because "that's what happens in a Star Wars movie." It's a great rollercoaster ride. Truly terrific. It's not at all what I wanted, though.

By contrast, I went in lukewarm to Solo: a Star Wars Story, thinking "Nobody asked for this movie, including me." I came out thinking "That was pretty fun!" And now, thinking back on it, I think "Man, that was a really great adventure film in the Star Wars universe, and I really liked it!" My regard for the film has grown over time. I could explain why (if you care, although I'd do that over PM so as not to derail), but I think a big part of it was that (1) the film exceeded my expectations, and (2) the film gave me something I wanted and enjoyed.
 
Wife and I loved it.
I fail to understand all the hate, but I also fail to understand all the hate for everything Disney/Star Wars as well. Is it because it‘s Disney? Lucas crapped all over Star Wars with the prequels and his Crystal Skull Macguffin was idiotic. I’d rather have something new than to live with just the originals, new IJ, new Star Wars movies and tv shows, I am not going to cry because it’s not how I would have written it.
You can like or not like something because the enjoyment of something is entirely subjective, there are things I do like and don’t like about all the Indiana Jones movies, but I thought it was a fine send off for Ford.
Blade Runner 2049 was fantastic (again, to me, it’s subjective) and it was a huge box office flop, but boy am I glad it’s there for my enjoyment, same with this IJ movie. Whether or not Dial makes its money back doesn’t stop any sequels, because there weren’t any banking on this movie anyway. The shareholders won’t be happy, but I am glad it exists.
Well, it would be nice to suffer from some sort of a brain/mind problem that allows us to discover everything for the first time...every time;)
Alas; only a few can claim to do so because of accident/operation, etc. Wouldn't it be fun to see that movie for "the first time", that is to have forgotten the previous ones? Same with SW and other franchises. :):)

And another 2 cents worth of opinion: they had ONE JOB TO DO with those franchise: love them, take care of them and water them...but noooo!
Till that bountiful world until you end up with a desert:(
 
Last edited:
I saw it over the weekend. It's better than Crystal Skull, but that's not saying much.
Still, I just didn't care about the characters all that much. I'm also baffled by several plot points.
ARRRGH, HERE THERE BE SPOILERS, SAYS I:
  • So, the doctor has apparently US government agents with him who have no issues throwing Marines out of a helicopter, and the one guy is totally fine with the plan to allow the Germans to win WW2???
  • Where the heck did they find that HE-111-looking bomber and how did nobody notice it taking up a hangar in 1960s Italy? And for that matter, what was that plane? No HE-111 had twin rudders
  • How did the remains of that HE-111 (or the pistols and such, anything other than the one guy's wristwatch) not wind up somewhere to be found before WW2? It would have been worshipped and talked about for centuries after crashing where it wound up
  • Jones winds up teaching at some 'diploma mill' at the tail end of his career? He would have had quite the reputation by then; how did his peers not know more about him?
 
I just got home from seeing it and I LOVED IT. It isn’t Raiders- nothing is Raiders- but honestly in my personal rankings this one is #2 on my list (Raiders, Dial, Temple, Crusade, Skull).

I might post more later but for tonight I wanted to say I loved it.
I'm right there with you brother. I don't understand why it got so low marks.
 
  • Jones winds up teaching at some 'diploma mill' at the tail end of his career? He would have had quite the reputation by then; how did his peers not know more about him?
Yeah, that struck me as strange as well. I would have thought at this point in his career he would have been highly revered and extremely respected landing him a position at Yale or Harvard, at the very least Brown.
 
And another 2 cents worth of opinion: they had ONE JOB TO DO with those franchise: love them, take care of them and water them...but noooo!

TBH, that's an awfully big (perhaps impossible) job when you have $$billion dollar companies with echelons of executive VPs for this and that, and the original story "creators" are now >40 years older themselves and are at a much different place in their life.

Lucasfilm tried initially with the Ewoks and Droid cartoon series, the two made for TV Ewok adventures, and a decade later with the Shadows of the Empire campaign (hey, let's make more Star Wars WITHOUT film or TV), but to how much success I don't know.

The Star Wars Special Editions in 1997 were JUST ENOUGH to get OT fans like me back into theaters, many of whom now had young children and wanted to show them the OT on the big screen.

As for Indy? Well, Lucasfilm did the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles TV series, to ?? level of success. Used it (and Radioland Murders) to experiment with digital production. Wen so far as to bring Ford back as Indy "one last time" in a totally wasted cameo IMHO.

Rabbit Trail.... specifically speaking to the Indy and SW trilogies... home video was just coming into its own in the mid to late 1980s. There was no online presence or instant social media. Films were more of an "event" and the hype could be controlled through magazines, movie trailers, and TV interviews. Studios could show you the response they wanted you to see. But now there is a plethora of media competing for our short attention spans, and the instantaneous Social Media hyperbole accessibility to the average citizen (I hated it/it sucked/the CG was garbage/movie was too long/Disney is rolling over in his grave/can't believe they ruined my childhood hero/why are they deconstructing all the classic male figures to replace them with female characters that just act like the men?/etc. ad nauseum). I think it's much MORE DIFFICULT for a good film to shine through and make $$$ at the same time. Avatar 2, SMB, Spider-Verse have shown it's still possible, but remember those are big and expensive films that took a lot of time to produce.

May I proffer a modification to the traditional "good-fast-cheap" Iron Triangle business trope?

For feature length films:
1) You can have it good, but slow and expensive to produce, with no guarantee of a return on your investment
2) You can have it bad, done quickly but still expensive to produce, with no guarantee of a return on your investment
3) You can have it good and cheap, done quickly but without the resources to market the product appropriately
4) You can have it bad, done quickly and cheap, and are guaranteed a place of honor at the $5 Wal-Mart DVD bin
 
Yeah, that struck me as strange as well. I would have thought at this point in his career he would have been highly revered and extremely respected landing him a position at Yale or Harvard, at the very least Brown.

Gonna guess it has something to do with what happened in Crystal Skull, remember he almost lost his job because the FBI was snooping around.

Also seems he sold his house he had in Crystal Skull.
 
TBH, that's an awfully big (perhaps impossible) job when you have $$billion dollar companies with echelons of executive VPs for this and that, and the original story "creators" are now >40 years older themselves and are at a much different place in their life.
Which is really why big corporations are not the best caretakers for these things. They only care about making money (and apparently, Disney is really bad at that). George Lucas cared deeply about Star Wars, which is what made it special. Lucas and Spielberg cared about Indy, which is what made the first trilogy special. After that, when it started being only about corporate profits, it fell apart. That love went away and became "how can we market the hell out of this?"

Disney is just really bad at pretty much everything.
 
TBH, that's an awfully big (perhaps impossible) job when you have $$billion dollar companies with echelons of executive VPs for this and that, and the original story "creators" are now >40 years older themselves and are at a much different place in their life.

Lucasfilm tried initially with the Ewoks and Droid cartoon series, the two made for TV Ewok adventures, and a decade later with the Shadows of the Empire campaign (hey, let's make more Star Wars WITHOUT film or TV), but to how much success I don't know.

The Star Wars Special Editions in 1997 were JUST ENOUGH to get OT fans like me back into theaters, many of whom now had young children and wanted to show them the OT on the big screen.

As for Indy? Well, Lucasfilm did the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles TV series, to ?? level of success. Used it (and Radioland Murders) to experiment with digital production. Wen so far as to bring Ford back as Indy "one last time" in a totally wasted cameo IMHO.

Rabbit Trail.... specifically speaking to the Indy and SW trilogies... home video was just coming into its own in the mid to late 1980s. There was no online presence or instant social media. Films were more of an "event" and the hype could be controlled through magazines, movie trailers, and TV interviews. Studios could show you the response they wanted you to see. But now there is a plethora of media competing for our short attention spans, and the instantaneous Social Media hyperbole accessibility to the average citizen (I hated it/it sucked/the CG was garbage/movie was too long/Disney is rolling over in his grave/can't believe they ruined my childhood hero/why are they deconstructing all the classic male figures to replace them with female characters that just act like the men?/etc. ad nauseum). I think it's much MORE DIFFICULT for a good film to shine through and make $$$ at the same time. Avatar 2, SMB, Spider-Verse have shown it's still possible, but remember those are big and expensive films that took a lot of time to produce.

May I proffer a modification to the traditional "good-fast-cheap" Iron Triangle business trope?

For feature length films:
1) You can have it good, but slow and expensive to produce, with no guarantee of a return on your investment
2) You can have it bad, done quickly but still expensive to produce, with no guarantee of a return on your investment
3) You can have it good and cheap, done quickly but without the resources to market the product appropriately
4) You can have it bad, done quickly and cheap, and are guaranteed a place of honor at the $5 Wal-Mart DVD bin
Bingo.

Actually making a film that is (1) a legacy sequel to a beloved franchise that is long in the tooth, that (2) doesn't fundamentally change what people liked about the old version, and (3) also has sufficiently modern sensibilities to appeal to younger and much more profitable viewers, which (4) tells a compelling, engaging story instead of just a roller-coaster ride or bunch-a-sploshuns, and (5) makes a boatload of money...

...Is not easy to do.

And it doesn't help that you have not merely legions of execs, but legions of investors who demand constant, increasing profit. A steady profit isn't enough. Coming out marginally ahead (i.e., turning a profit) alone isn't enough. You have to always be making more than you did before. That means that a $60m opening isn't enough IF the expectation was closer to $120m.

And you're trying to do all that in a fragmented marketplace where information moves faster than wider than you can control, and you are ALWAYS having to fight back against negative information for EVERY franchise picture.

The big takeaway that I've seen from Indy's "disappointing" opening is: "STOP MAKING $100M+ FILMS." Make smaller films that can make money.

You know what genre's done well in recent years? Horror. Why? Because it's far less reliant on franchises, for
Why do all of the legacy characters who've already had their happy ending end up old, alone, and miserable? When did this become a trope?

The first part answers the second part. There's no story left, so they need to force one.
Exactly.

Stop asking "And then what happened." Because here are your answers:

1. "They lived happily ever after."

2. "They grew old and died, as did most of the people they knew."

3. "Nothing. The story's over. Go to sleep."
 
Back
Top