Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[Solo4114]

You do realize that critics have been confirmed to lie about their reviews in order to be able to keep access to new films and that studios also use bots to bump up audience scores, don't you? RT shouldn't be trusted for anything.

Nor should it necessarily be looked to for any kind of validation of anyone's position on either side of whether a film is good or bad.

I mean, I dunno about anyone else, but my instinct when deciding on whether to see a film is not to stop and say "Hold on. What did Rotten Tomatoes have to say about this?" It only ever seems to get brought up as proof that a film is/isn't liked or good.

 

[teecrooz]

Didn’t I say something to the effect that it was the first time I had looked at it? Bots are probably more objective than “fans” these days.

I’m still seeing arguments in multiple threads from people who haven't even seen the movie.

 

[CB2001]

Nor should it necessarily be looked to for any kind of validation of anyone's position on either side of whether a film is good or bad.

I mean, I dunno about anyone else, but my instinct when deciding on whether to see a film is not to stop and say "Hold on. What did Rotten Tomatoes have to say about this?" It only ever seems to get brought up as proof that a film is/isn't liked or good.

I agree. It's best to make your own opinion. Hell, I realized something was up with RT was when I saw reviews to a movie not too long ago that fans were giving negative word of mouth reviews for while somehow, it had a positive Audience review score. When I checked them, they were either from accounts that did not have any previous reviews (not even one), but some of them weren't even talking about the movie, but about how great it was going to the theater and it being clean, or bashing on "toxic fans."

 

[Solo4114]

I agree. It's best to make your own opinion. Hell, I realized something was up with RT was when I saw reviews to a movie not too long ago that fans were giving negative word of mouth reviews for while somehow, it had a positive Audience review score. When I checked them, they were either from accounts that did not have any previous reviews (not even one), but some of them weren't even talking about the movie, but about how great it was going to the theater and it being clean, or bashing on "toxic fans."

Sadly, I actually think the content of reviews like that is entirely plausible as having been written by regular people. I mean, yeah, if you only have one review and it JUST SO HAPPENS to be for a film that's getting crummy word of mouth, that could be bots. But writing a review that's about crappy fans or a great theater experience seems entirely on point. Then again, maybe we're just getting conditioned to reviewing bot farms writing crappy reviews generally across all mediums (e.g., Amazon product reviews).

To the extent that I look at reviews of a product or film (and I do it much more for products or services), I tend to look at longer reviews that provide clearer detail and that are on point about what's good/bad/meh about the product/service. A lot of reviews I see online are more about stuff like "The box was damaged when it got here." Like, great, sorry you had a bad experience, but that doesn't have anything to do with the product itself. Same thing with reviews for films that are like "There was a guy in front of me who kept texting." Sorry, that sucks, but...what's it got to do with the film?

 

[CB2001]

Sadly, I actually think the content of reviews like that is entirely plausible as having been written by regular people. I mean, yeah, if you only have one review and it JUST SO HAPPENS to be for a film that's getting crummy word of mouth, that could be bots. But writing a review that's about crappy fans or a great theater experience seems entirely on point. Then again, maybe we're just getting conditioned to reviewing bot farms writing crappy reviews generally across all mediums (e.g., Amazon product reviews).

To the extent that I look at reviews of a product or film (and I do it much more for products or services), I tend to look at longer reviews that provide clearer detail and that are on point about what's good/bad/meh about the product/service. A lot of reviews I see online are more about stuff like "The box was damaged when it got here." Like, great, sorry you had a bad experience, but that doesn't have anything to do with the product itself. Same thing with reviews for films that are like "There was a guy in front of me who kept texting." Sorry, that sucks, but...what's it got to do with the film?

I'm glad you look for longer reviews. But honestly, if I ask someone if they saw a film and ask for their opinion on it, they don't break out into describing how clean the theater was and not mention a damn thing about the film. Nor, a group repeating the same line about "toxic fans" verbatim to a previous account. XD

 

[teecrooz]

I don’t typically read reviews. If it comes up in a news feed I might glance at it, but it’s not a habit of mine. I tend to find that I don’t care what other people think about a movie, show, book, or music. I watch, read or listen to things if they are something I like.

 

[userd1402]

-.-

 

[teecrooz]

Hell, as embarrassing as it is, my screen name is derived from Tom Cruise (T. Cruise) because I saw Mission Impossible many many years ago and then drove around town being an idiot with friends and one of them called me Tom Cruise. I had it on AIM, and used it online.

I don’t like the guy, but I enjoy many of his movies. I actually don’t like this screen name, but I’m stuck with it because after 20+ years, it’s how people know me here.

 

[CB2001]

You never get any part of your life back mate. That’s not how time works.

I think this is a more, "I want to waste my time on good stories and characters, not poorly written stories and characters who are one note" kind of thing. XD

But I agree with him. No one wants to waste their time on poorly executed stories and characters.

 

[Solo4114]

I'm glad you look for longer reviews. But honestly, if I ask someone if they saw a film and ask for their opinion on it, they don't break out into describing how clean the theater was and not mention a damn thing about the film. Nor, a group repeating the same line about "toxic fans" verbatim to a previous account. XD

Yeah, to be clear, I'm talking about if I read online reviews at all. And then just to suss out which is a real review, and which is just meaningless BS.

When I talk to my friends, I ask them for their opinion and I might ask a few additional questions if they're like "Oh, I didn't like it." "Really? Why's that?" "Well..." and then they describe what they didn't like. If I'm curious, I might follow up with more, but that's just, you know, conversations with friends where I already respect their opinion.

If it's some random ass stranger on the intarwebz, if I'm reading a review at all, I want to see that there's actual thought put in, not just irrelevant nonsense. I don't just look at some star rating or tomatometer rating or whatever. Although with films, I basically never read reviews.

 

[joberg]

I never read reviews either...ever! But, I must say that the video deconstructing the last Indy iteration was a pleasure to watch
I just saw the movie at a friend's house this week-end (since I cancelled my Disney + sub.) and I have to agree that movies nowadays (with a few exceptions) don't excite me like they use to.

I'm not an Indy fan by any stretch of the imagination; I'm a Sci-Fi fan first and foremost...and a fan of the 7th Art Form: cinema/movies as a whole.
I wasn't impressed by Indy 5 in terms of story and other problems many have raised in this thread. Too many scenes cobbled together and trying to make sense at the end...not the way you should put a story together in the first place.

The new and, to a certain extend, the old generation have a tendency to have committed 2 major crimes:

1: Forgetting History with a capital H and concocting another narrative out of their asses.
The latest Napoleon is an example; RS derided French historians pointing out the blatant mistakes in his film and him saying, as a way to defend it, "you weren't there were you? So how do you know?" With this type of philosophical/historical reductionism, then what's true and what's not true??!!

2: Never read History in the first place and still concocting another narrative out of their asses. We saw it with many franchises/classics lately (the list is too long here) but it's in line with the present zeitgeist that either check the DIE boxes or change the race of historical figures altogether (Isaac Newton as a black man in the latest Dr. Who)

The PC revisions of many movies (Han shot first; get over it!) and yes, the Government agents had guns in their hand in E.T. is tiring and frankly unnecessary! It's a trend that is going to get worse before it gets better and we see this in many movies to make sure the left is not triggered.

I'm not an innocent child anymore and cannot see/appreciate a movie with the same eyes; therefore, Indy 5 and many others is considered mindless entertainment. No need to chew or swallow; someone will do that for you

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Hell, as embarrassing as it is, my screen name is derived from Tom Cruise (T. Cruise) because I saw Mission Impossible many many years ago and then drove around town being an idiot with friends and one of them called me Tom Cruise. I had it on AIM, and used it online.

I don’t like the guy, but I enjoy many of his movies. I actually don’t like this screen name, but I’m stuck with it because after 20+ years, it’s how people know me here.

Imagine 20 years ago thinking a naked mole rat would be relevant 20 years later.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Rotten Tomatoes reviews:

A movie that I have no interest in seeing, but have a strong desire to see fail and talk about how horrible it is, see a score of 33% fresh and add it as fuel to my fire.

A movie that I loved and am vested in, telling everyone to see it, see a score of 33% fresh and call RT underlings to “the industry” anti-woke, or worse yet, ‘woke’ corporate sell-outs!

 

[drusselmeyer]

Now that I've seen this, I'm so sorry I missed the film.

With merchandising like this, it must be a great film!

 

[blewis17]

If it were, say, an actual in-depth study of the film's background, production process, etc., that'd actually be interesting, but...that's not what these videos were. They were just "ALLOW ME TO READ YOU MY LITANY OF COMPLAINTS!!" like a Festivus airing of grievances. (There were no feats of strength.)

 

[blewis17]

Now that I've seen this, I'm so sorry I missed the film.
View attachment 1767467

With merchandising like this, it must be a great film!

Indy's satchel strap is all wrong... can they not take this SERIOUSLY?!

 

[blewis17]

In almost every facet of life, quality generally shines through. While some quality may NOT be recognized and rise to the occasion (and schlock often does), the overall trend is for human beings to RECOGNIZE quality when they experience it. While people might disagree for various reasons of taste, there have to be some immutable standards that define to the human brain what a "good" movie is.

Is Raiders of the Lost Ark a "good" movie? Or Jaws? 2001: A Space Odyssey? Gone with the Wind? Citizen Kane? Star Wars? Alien/Aliens? Terminator 2? Snow White and the 7 Dwarves? Back to the Future? Psycho? One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? The Shining?

Some would say they don't LIKE those films, but the ineffable qualities of story/production values/acting/scoring/effects/etc. make the "whole" product arguably of the highest standards, i.e. quality, and that tends to make a "good" film viewing experience. These few examples EXUDE quality, and arguably have the gestalt of what helps to make a "good" film.

Non-good films can be enjoyable (The Room, Trolls 2, Leonard Part 6, etc) by just how far they MISS the quality bar.

Is Indy 5 a "good" film? I would personally say not, but it can still be enjoyable in its own right.

 

[Ron]

Man, I don't care how many problems a film has. I'm still not watching a review that's almost 2x the length of the movie itself. If someone wants me to listen to them kvetch about a movie for 4 hours, they can open a tab at a bar and start buying for me.

Says the guy who writes essay-long posts on a regular basis

Seriously, it's not for everybody. I love these long-form breakdowns myself. The video is more than just a review of the movie. He gets into the history of the franchise, its cultural impact, his own personal fondness for the character, Disney's appoach vs Lucas/Spielberg etc. It's a dissertation on the state of the franchise as well as the quality of the movie. It might be fair to call it an analysis more than a review.

 

[Psab keel]

Indiana Jones is a hero. The loser who shows up in Dial of Destiny is simply not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Apathy is not a virtue.

 

[CopperRevan]

ANCESTRY/DNA
(GODDAUGHTER EDITION) by Disney

...because every hero needs one ...even if you've forgotten you had one

*This test does not guarantee any results( probability is much higher for British females). Even though you cannot technically DNA match a Goddaughter successful, it is important to realize that anyone can identify as your Goddaughter, especially if you are famous for let's say, finding the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail and have given up on life and need one to save you. We recuse ourselves from any and all liability due to cognitive decline. Dignity is non-returnable and time lost cannot be redeemed.