Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[bwayne64]

And in theory, you could make a spin-off, like Steamboat Murder, where Mickey runs around on the boat, whistling while he slices other cartoon characters in two.

Now that's a good idea ! But I'd prefer if the Mouse was the one getting sliced and diced, ; )

 

[The Terminator]

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.”

and the fact that a lot of movies are ruined by audience members who can't tell the difference between a cinema complex and their own living room, causing disruptions like talking loudly, using bright mobile screens, and munching on noisy snacks during the film.

Over all I enjoyed it. It felt like an Indy movie enough for me.
Last Crusade has the best ending of riding off into the sunset, which is just hard to beat.
The one thing that was a annoying and was the theateda fault and not the movie, was once the trailers start, the lights dim a little, and then normally, once the actual film starts, they are suppose to dim almost all the way. These only dimmed the first time. During bright scenes, it was ok, but any dark scenes and was very noticeable.
I took this straight above me during the opening train part.
View attachment 1719580

The frak? In Sweden the lights dim when trailers are playing, and then the it's pitch black during the actual film.

 

[joberg]

Legally speaking, they don't get a say in it. Kinda.

From a copyright law perspective, you get (under American law) life of the author plus 70 years (this gets a little complicated for works that were copyrighted before 1976, as I recall, but that's a separate discussion). Once the author has been dead for 70 years, that's it. The original work is in the public domain, and you can do whatever the hell you want with that work. That includes making "derivative works", aka sequels, spinoffs, etc. It's not a question of "releasing" it to the public domain; you don't have any control over that work in the first place.

What you do have control over are other derivative works, as well as trademark if you can apply it.

So, in the case of, say, Steamboat Willie, come January 1, 2024, you'll be able to show that whenever you want without paying Disney a dime. You can reproduce it and distribute it all you want, too. And in theory, you could make a spin-off, like Steamboat Murder, where Mickey runs around on the boat, whistling while he slices other cartoon characters in two.

That last one could be complicated, though, because Disney has incredibly strong trademarks and aggressively protects them. Basically, without diving too deeply into trademark law (Which is its own minefield), Disney could argue that your new stuff doesn't violate copyright, but rather infringes upon their trademarks and that's the rubric under which they're stopping you.

This, however, is only an issue because of how woven into Disney's branding Mickey Mouse is. If we were talking about, say, Sherlock Holmes. ALL of Holmes' original stories are now in the public domain, meaning anyone can do an adaptation of any of the original stories. Anyone can tell any Sherlock Holmes story they want with the character, because the character itself isn't subject to copyright protection anymore. And the new story that you tell, or the specific re-telling of an old one that you do? That version is protectible under copyright law.

But you could do Sherlock Holmes vs. Godzilla, or Sherlock Holmes meets Jules Verne, or a Sherlock Holmes/Jazz Singer mashup where Holmes sings "Yes Sir, That's My Baby" because all three works (Holmes, Jazz singer, and the song) are in the public domain.

"Like all major Disney characters, Mickey Mouse is not only copyrighted but also trademarked, which lasts in perpetuity as long as it continues to be used commercially by its owner. So, whether or not a particular Disney cartoon goes into the public domain, the characters themselves may not be used as trademarks without authorization." (Wikipedia)

 

[Halliwax]

Let us know your thoughts.

Still haven’t had time to see it… my main job is killing me… the summer people are all here and it’s been nothing it emergency call after call…

 

[JediMichael]

The frak? In Sweden the lights dim when trailers are playing, and then the it's pitch black during the actual film.

They are suppose to pretty much. During a movie they might be on just a tad for anyone needing to leave, like to the bathroom, but not as bright as they were.

This theater was digital, like most now a days. Back when I worked at the theater, with actual film projects. Right when the first trailer was about to start, a thing silver strip was put across the film.
That tripped a laser, which signaled the lights to dim a little.
Another strip as the movie started for the lights 99% dim.
Credits had the next to brighten a bit, and end of reel for fully back on.
It worked for the most part, but a film that played for a while, the strip might get worm down and not work.
Not sure how they do it now a days, but it surely didn't work that night.

 

[batguy]

And in theory, you could make a spin-off, like Steamboat Murder, where Mickey runs around on the boat, whistling while he slices other cartoon characters in two.

Now that's a good idea ! But I'd prefer if the Mouse was the one getting sliced and diced, ; )

 

[Solo4114]

Top Gun Maverick pulled off the nearly impossible task of being not only exceptionally well made, but also by figuring out how to walk that thin nostalgia tightrope just right. If anything, it's the outlier here. But the other factor here is that by almost every metric, Maverick is a better crafted film than the original, which I also think is a critical ingredient when trying to revive an old franchise.

I gotta be honest here. I thought Maverick was...meh. Visually stunning, but felt very much like a rehash of the old plot, and with Cruise just kinda going through the motions. It felt oddly unbalanced to me, too. Like the action sequences weren't quite involved or weighty enough, and the stuff with Cruise and Jennifer Connolly was just...bloodless. It felt entirely positional. "Here are two attractive leads who therefore will have some kind of romance." But there was no real chemistry between them.

I watched it on Paramount Plus when it hit there and was glad I didn't pay to see it in a theater. It was fine. Entertaining enough. But not worth all the folderol.

Fury Road took the route of basically being a soft reboot that was also exceptionally well made. It's advantage was that it didn't feel like audiences had to have seen any prior Mad Max film to enjoy it, which was true...they didn't.

Right. And to be fair, you really don't need to see any of them before the next. They sort of function as standalone films that can be linked together. Fury Road was spectacular, though, and way more impressive to me visually than Maverick.

Blade Runner 2049 was well made and well received, but it also wasn't exactly a box office smash, pulling in "only" not much over $100,000,000 above its budget (which by current Hollywood standards is very disappointing). So while it may not have gotten dragged by hypercritical fans (and it could successfully argued that Blade Runner is way more niche than Indiana Jones), it also was just passed on by quite a large number of people during its theatrical release.

The point being, like you said, the bar for a lot of these films is really high, almost impossibly high.

I liked Blade Runner 2049, but it didn't feel as coherent to me as the original from a story perspective. Visually, it was stunning. Ryan Gosling's performance in it was terrific. Ford also handled his part really well. I liked it a lot, but I think the original works better.

The one other factor that I think contributes to the bar currently being almost impossibly high is places like this. While social media was certainly around when Crystal Skull came out, its influence over things like box office performance wasn't nearly as pervasive as it is today. I don't feel like the Internet had the cumulative effect that things like Facebook, YouTube, podcasts, fan forums, etc., have today at inching that bar ever higher.

I agree that the modern internet makes it really hard for films to break through. I've also found that I enjoy films and TV shows a lot more nowadays than I used to. Some of that is probably because I spend less time here and in other similar sites, but some of it is also because I rarely get overly invested in media these days. I don't know when exactly it changed for me, but I basically just hit a point where I decided that I was perfectly happy with what came before, and that if no further content for any of my favorite films/franchises ever surfaced again, well...I had the stuff I loved and that was enough. Everything after that was gravy.

There are still things that bother me, but I just don't have the investment to be so bothered by them the way I used to be. Plus, I kinda feel like I'm able to see the good in a lot of stuff, and the things that I just don't want to see at all...I just skip; I never feel obligated to see it or like I just gots ta know!! Nah. I'm good.

I also think that there really is a lot of good stuff out there. There's plenty of crap, sure, but there always has been in one form or another. And even when stuff isn't quite as good as I'd hope for...it still isn't bad. Like, Maverick may have been overblown, but it's not remotely a bad movie. The new Flash film may be another wasted opportunity, but I doubt it'll be truly bad. I didn't love The Book of Boba Fett the way I did some of the other Star Wars TV shows, but it wasn't bad. Hell, I liked it. I just didn't like it nearly as much as something like, say, Andor or Season 1 of The Mandalorian. Same story with Marvel's stuff. Is it reaching the heights of the grand old days of Endgame and The Winter Soldier? Nah, but so what? It's still fun for me. I still enjoy it. It's not bad. It's just not as good as it could be, and that's ok.

 

[HeartBlade]

Why don't they make-up their own stories/legends? I'm sure they have them as much as the European ones
The problem with any race-washing of a known story is that it works in only one direction. If you'd make a movie about Rosa Parks and portrayed her with any other actor of any other race, the noise would be deafening!!! That's my main problem.

True true. Or actually take more unknown fairy tales from other cultures and give them a faithful adaptation which is what Disney basically did with Anderson and Grimm fairy tales.

I think the real reason Disney is remaking the various fairy tales is that (1) they want to make them appeal to new generations and they basically got rid of "The Vault" when they implemented D+ and can't feasibly go back, and (2) international markets that weren't really as exposed to this stuff before apparently eat this stuff up.

But I think maybe we're starting to see some issues with the "international markets" angle, given that China is subject to the whims of the government, and Russia is...well...unavailable for the foreseeable future. (Putting it mildly.)

I do think there's something larger going on, though, and it either has to do with the balance point between the price and the quality of the experience for going to theatrical showings (as compared to just staying home), and maybe fatigue with formulae. It's not even strictly "franchise fatigue" although I suspect that's part of it. It's formulae. It's movies where the experience is the same old experience you had before.

Then someone will do something different, it'll make a bunch of money, and the studios all shuffle over to that as "the new formula" because the people in charge aren't creative and are primarily reactive rather than proactive, and followers rather than leaders.

Like, the new Barbie movie is poised to make a ton of money. It's not going to be something that will easily boil down to formula, and it's not going to be something that I think will set it up for franchise/sequel treatment especially well (not that that will stop anyone from trying). I think Barbie is going to work because it's something pretty different from what people are used to seeing, and it's something that'll be fresh.

Meanwhile, studios will start grabbing up toy properties and making films about them because what they'll figure out is "Movies about toys sell, provided you're a bit cheeky in the film. Period." They won't have any real understanding of why Barbie ends up resonating with audiences, and they won't really care except insofar as they can disassemble it, study it, and repeat it until it's a withered husk of what it was and they can move on to the next thing.

I dont want to jinx the movie but agree that Barbie is poised to be a great film. Excited to see how that one turns out.

Also is a good barometer to see which youtubers actually criticize movies for their content vs those that are "wah feminism." Seriously saw a title saying the Barbie movie will fail because it has "feminism" concepts in it. Like, hello have you met Barbie? The most accomplished woman in a world where she has been in every qualified position and where the man is her accessory?

 

[Psab keel]

The wife and I saw an advanced screening of the Barbie movie. It was good! A bit uneven in places and some of it was "a little preachy" at times according to the Mrs. (which I agree with) but it was by no means irksome. For all the overt political/ social messaging in mainstream movies today, this one handled a lot of the topics with humor and sincerity much, much more deftly than most in Hollywood. Sure there were a few jabs here and there, but they were largely innocuous. One brief exchange at the beginning even caught me off guard with how self aware it was, doing something I haven't really seen in movies of late. It actually poked fun of itself which is something I assumed was impossible in our era of "unchallenged" virtue. Robbie herself even delivers the line and it was refreshing to hear her call a spade a spade. A true moment of bipartisan recognition that really won me over.

Honestly Ryan Gosling steals the show. He's absolutely hysterical in it and for such a serious actor, it was nice to see him go all out, almost like a cartoon character. His costumes alone are so over the top they could easily be part of a Saturday Night Live sketch. Truly bananas designs. His performance in the Nice Guys really sold me on his comedic talent, though tonally that was a different type of humor. In this, the character's logic and motivation are clear and he just ran with it. It's worth seeing this movie just to see his performance. Seriously I was laughing out loud in the theater.

Margot Robbie is fantastic too and proves once again that she's more than just a pretty face just like she did in I, Tonya. The writing managed to give Barbie some genuine laughs but also more depth and personality than one would have expected. They could have easily played her for a dumb blonde to cheap effect, but they really gave her a lot to work with, even mixing in some of Gerwig's arthouse sensibilities, but adapted well for a mainstream movie. There's some really interesting insights going on. Some are handled better than others, but Robbie's sincerity never once falters. You always believe her because she never cracks when given the circumstances she could have easily done so. She really impressed me. Even her physicality mimicked a lifesize Barbie at times, so much that it was sort of eerie. She absolutely crushed it!

There's some great cameos I had no idea about until the opening credits, but I won't spoil those!

As a kid I was never comfortable even walking through the "pink" aisle at the toy store to get to my G.I.Joes because I would be too embarassed. Who would have thought that at a time when there's a brand new Indiana Jones movie and several live action TV shows, all they elicit from me is an eye roll, but a movie about Barbie? Yeah, I'm game!

Seriously, I recommend this. Don't take it too seriously and enjoy the absurdity of it. In a time with lots of crappy content and regurgitated nonsense this is one movie that's fun but not made in a way to build a franchise the way other toy brand films have done. This was very entertaining with some pretty good character arcs. Who would have guessed! We had fun at the theater this afternoon. lol

 

[Ron]

The wife and I saw an advanced screening of the Barbie movie. It was good! A bit uneven in places and some of it was "a little preachy" at times according to the Mrs. (which I agree with) but it was by no means irksome. For all the overt political/ social messaging in mainstream movies today, this one handled a lot of the topics with humor and sincerity much, much more deftly than most in Hollywood. Sure there were a few jabs here and there, but they were largely innocuous. One brief exchange at the beginning even caught me off guard with how self aware it was, doing something I haven't really seen in movies of late. It actually poked fun of itself which is something I assumed was impossible in our era of "unchallenged" virtue. Robbie herself even delivers the line and it was refreshing to hear her call a spade a spade. A true moment of bipartisan recognition that really won me over.

Honestly Ryan Gosling steals the show. He's absolutely hysterical in it and for such a serious actor, it was nice to see him go all out, almost like a cartoon character. His costumes alone are so over the top they could easily be part of a Saturday Night Live sketch. Truly bananas designs. His performance in the Nice Guys really sold me on his comedic talent, though tonally that was a different type of humor. In this, the character's logic and motivation are clear and he just ran with it. It's worth seeing this movie just to see his performance. Seriously I was laughing out loud in the theater.

Margot Robbie is fantastic too and proves once again that she's more than just a pretty face just like she did in I, Tonya. The writing managed to give Barbie some genuine laughs but also more depth and personality than one would have expected. They could have easily played her for a dumb blonde to cheap effect, but they really gave her a lot to work with, even mixing in some of Gerwig's arthouse sensibilities, but adapted well for a mainstream movie. There's some really interesting insights going on. Some are handled better than others, but Robbie's sincerity never once falters. You always believe her because she never cracks when given the circumstances she could have easily done so. She really impressed me. Even her physicality mimicked a lifesize Barbie at times, so much that it was sort of eerie. She absolutely crushed it!

Who would have thought that at a time when there's a brand new Indiana Jones movie and several live action TV shows, all they elicit from me is an eye roll, but a movie about Barbie? Yeah, I'm game!

Seriously, I recommend this. Don't take it too seriously and enjoy the absurdity of it. In a time with lots of crappy content and regurgitated nonsense this is one movie that's fun but not made in a way to build a franchise the way other toy brand films have done. This was very entertaining with some pretty good character arcs. Who would have guessed! We had fun at the theater this afternoon. lol

I was at the theater last night (for a different movie) and they had an advanced screening that I wasn't aware of. The theater was packed! A line out the door. A lot of girls dressing up as Barbie which was funny. It's their Star Wars I guess lol (or would it be their G.I. Joe?) There were even a few guys in line. I have a feeling this movie is going to be a hit.

 

[Psab keel]

I was at the theater last night (for a different movie) and they had an advanced screening that I wasn't aware of. The theater was packed! A line out the door. A lot of girls dressing up as Barbie which was funny. It's their Star Wars I guess lol (or would it be their G.I. Joe?) There were even a few guys in line. I have a feeling this movie is going to be a hit.

The Mrs. did wear some sporty pink clothing in honor of the movie and she was pretty pumped to get to the theater. It was fun seeing her get amped about it a few hours before we left because she usually doesn't get that outwardly excited for a movie. She'll geek out in front of me when it's just the two of us, but she had a blast with this one. Crowds be damned! She cracked up right along with me.

You see, guys and gals! I'm really not a bitter, cynical old man who hates everything! When I say I want to watch new stories, I mean literally, new stories. Not some watered down Indiana Jones knockoff.

I am Kenough.

 

[batguy]

I gotta be honest here. I thought Maverick was...meh. Visually stunning, but felt very much like a rehash of the old plot, and with Cruise just kinda going through the motions. It felt oddly unbalanced to me, too. Like the action sequences weren't quite involved or weighty enough, and the stuff with Cruise and Jennifer Connolly was just...bloodless. It felt entirely positional. "Here are two attractive leads who therefore will have some kind of romance." But there was no real chemistry between them.

I watched it on Paramount Plus when it hit there and was glad I didn't pay to see it in a theater. It was fine. Entertaining enough. But not worth all the folderol.

I didn't think it was mind-blowing either.
But my expectations were in the toilet. I was aware of what that movie had to live up to.

- Maverick must be cool and show no age-related decline
- there must be a danger zone, accessible from a highway
- Mav must have a love interest
- she must start off with that lovin' feeling, only to lose it later

- Mav must somehow still be an active Navy pilot at 140 years old
- he must do a shirtless sports scene at 140yo without looking embarrassing
- he must ride his motorcycle on a taxiway like a dork, but not look like a dork
- Slider must still stink

- there must be at least 3 major flying action setpieces spaced evenly throughout the movie
- Mav must show the young whippersnappers how it's done, and plausibly
- he must save the day at the end
- somebody must die
- he must have a relationship with Goose Jr
- Goose Jr cannot get killed

- the action/missions must feel remotely plausible in the 2020s
- there must be a military enemy that somehow doesn't upset any foreign markets
- Mav must do all this and still be sort of himself, not completely turn into Ethan Hunt or Tom Cruise
- the "America, Fugg Yeah!" nationalism must be there
- but the nationalism must not be too clumsy & heavy-handed

Etc.

I figured it was an achievement if they covered half of these bases well. They covered almost all of them. And the tone felt right, which is such an intangible immeasurable thing.

 

[Bloop]

Is this still a thread about Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny? Seems like it's wandered off course...

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

Nope. I'd like to hear more about the Barbie movie.

 

[Apollo]

Is this still a thread about Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny? Seems like it's wandered off course...

Just like its box office

 

[Zuiun]

I figured it was an achievement if they covered half of these bases well. They covered almost all of them. And the tone felt right, which is such an intangible immeasurable thing.

So regarding the age thing with Cruise...

The first thing they had going for them was the fact that Cruise can essentially do most of his action sitting down in a cockpit (although they still just had to insert a "Tom Cruise Running" gag). That right there makes his action scenes more plausible than, say, an 80-year old man jumping from vehicle-to-vehicle in a high speed rickshaw chase.

But, really, his age as a test pilot isn't an issue at all.

Consider:

In the original Top Gun, Viper (Tom Skerritt) was 53 and still flying simulated combat missions as an instructor and even told Maverick that he'd come fly with him. So the Top Gun world already set a precedent for older pilots still actively flying even into combat.

The real world average age of a military pilot in the US is 45.

There are some / have been real world test pilots in their 50's and 60's.

So of all of the things in Maverick, Cruise's age is probably the least of a stretch.

 

[The Goon]

Nope. I'd like to hear more about the Barbie movie.

Well, throw some shrimp on the barbie, and there you have it.

Getting back on topic--Top Gun: Maverick, that is--if you've seen Top Gun you've seen Maverick because it's nothing more than a weak remake of the first movie.

 

[Jaitea]

Well, throw some shrimp on the barbie, and there you have it.

Getting back on topic--Top Gun: Maverick, that is--if you've seen Top Gun you've seen Maverick because it's nothing more than a weak remake of the first movie.

Ha yeah PLUS the attack on the Death Star from Star Wars ‘77

J

 

[Paul Andrew]

Finally got around to seeing it.

Perfectly fun, and as good a send off as one could hope for nowadays. I don't know if I will care enough to add it to my disc collection, or even to watch it again any time soon, but not every movie has to be a timeless classic to be fun.

 

[asalaw]

Ha yeah PLUS the attack on the Death Star from Star Wars ‘77

J

Which was itself a replay of the bombing run from The Dam Busters (1955).