Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (June 30th, 2023)

[Wor-Gar]

Guys, the tank trap is simple, when he fell the strap got caught as he struggled to get up, while being attacked...

View attachment 648888

He was trapped because the end of the turret was scraping along the wall....(and while all he had to do was cut the strap) that would have left him falling off the tank to be run over or at best left behind.
View attachment 648885
when the tank driver is shot the tank pulls away from the rock wall allowing Indy to climb up and move the strap over the end of the turret....
View attachment 648887

This one I have never heard people complain about. I always thought it was obvious what happened.

Go watch that scene and tell me again that's what happens. That theory is proven wrong by every shot in the film.

And he never unhooks himself -- in fact, the shot shows Indy angry and determined with a "I'm gonna get you" look as he starts to rise from the canon -- and you can still see his strap HOOKED around the barrel -- CUT TO Indy in the same motion standing and swinging a punch, free on any entanglements.

Your theory only works when NOT watching the film in real time. The film disproves it clearly. The filmmakers just didn't care.

I can't help that no one has ever brought up this logic to you. Hang out with sharper people. I mean, the entire premise of the "trap" hinges on getting caught by that strap -- yet it magically gets tangled and even more magically untangled.

What makes me crazy is when someone tries to cover for the filmmakers blatant mistakes. Why are you protecting them? They've done nothing for you. It's not like this is an opinion thing.

 

[jye4ever]

Go watch that scene and tell me again that's what happens. That theory is proven wrong by every shot in the film.

And he never unhooks himself -- in fact, the shot shows Indy angry and determined with a "I'm gonna get you" look as he starts to rise from the canon -- and you can still see his strap HOOKED around the barrel -- CUT TO Indy in the same motion standing and swinging a punch, free on any entanglements.

Your theory only works when NOT watching the film in real time. The film disproves it clearly. The filmmakers just didn't care.

I can't help that no one has ever brought up this logic to you. Hang out with sharper people. I mean, the entire premise of the "trap" hinges on getting caught by that strap -- yet it magically gets tangled and even more magically untangled.

What makes me crazy is when someone tries to cover for the filmmakers blatant mistakes. Why are you protecting them? They've done nothing for you. It's not like this is an opinion thing.

Raiders
TOD
DOD
TLC
KOTCS

 

[SwedishHeat]

Saw the movie with my mom today, she really enjoyed it, so that's probably what matters. She's basically Indy's age anyways. She commented that she really liked seeing "Karen Black" in the movie ... I don't know where she came up with that one, haha.

I thought the opening went on a bit too long, usually those opening sequences are pretty tight. It was kinda frustrating hearing Old Indy's voice coming out of OG Indy's face. I saw in the credits that Anthony Ingruber was on set as Harrison's double, so it's kinda silly they didn't have him doing the voice. But from what I understand, Harrison is pretty protective of the character, so he probably didn't want anybody else playing the role. I read an article in which he seemed pretty proud that the de-aged Indy was him doing all that stuff.

Overall the movie was just too long. I suspect that maybe studios are trying to give people more bang for their buck with these 2.5 hour run times. When they went back in time to the Roman battle, I was getting a big nervous with where the story was going, I thought that whole misdirect was a big waste of time. I think if they could've figured out a way to snip that whole section of going back in time (maybe just leave it open-ended if the Dial works at all), and maybe snip out the train battle from the opening, the movie would've been more enjoyable.

Also, I get that they needed to address Mutt, but the kid was a grown-*** man in KOTCS, it really seemed out of character for him to join the Army to piss off his dad. Seemed like the kid was already so rebellious, in order to rebel even further, he decided to conform and join the Army? Seems like they could've just as easily said he died in a motorcycle crash and it wouldn't have changed anything. Marion would've still been despondent and left Indy because of it. Mutt joining the Army just doesn't make sense, from what little we know of the character.

 

[Prime Clone]

Stumbled onto BR2049 on network TV last night and was reminded how impressive it is not only that Ford has reprised all three of his most iconic roles up to four decades later, but that they still warrant "action" figures.

 

[Felinx]

Actually, writing that last post made me realize what doesn't sit right with me with DUD.

The ark. The cup of christ. Shankara stones.

They are all based on religious beliefs, and although fantastical, felt like you could buy into their "powers" because of the world's understanding at that time. The original 3 movies were written in a time when we didn't have google and all the answers at our fingertips, so there was fear around the unknown. Did the ark hold some mysterious power? Could the cup of Jesus Christ also hold some power? etc..

It was a stretch, but one's that felt "plausible" when we live on a planet where 65% of people believe in God and religion - Jesus Christ rising from the dead as an example, and other such biblical type events that people truly believed have happened. So then the ark, etc, still feel in line with what we can accept and well and truly under the banner of archeology.

With DUD, time travel pushes things to a whole other realm.

Don't know why, it just felt off.

The Christian/belief aspects of TLC were actually fascinating to see - I mean that they still played in 1989.

Like when Connery slaps Indy - "that's for blasphemy" - when Indy offhandedly says "Jesus Christ" in frustration.

Yeah, it's very interesting that both later movies deal with more mundane sci-fi macguffins at the heart of the Indy movie rather than belief based aspects.

 

[davejames]

He's a fantastic actor, but it's kinda funny to realize that he plays all three of those characters exactly the same in those movies. Lol

 

[Mandible]

So a lot of people here seem to be fond of the opening - for me, it was , just like the rest of the film, meh.. (primarily because the digital aspects were just too fake so nothing looked or felt real or at stake in that opening). And as much as people have said they like it, I haven't read or heard anywhere that people were cheering in the cinema.

So saying that, what would have been a good opening then?

I've seen so many comments saying they should have brought back Short Round.

With that in mind, do a Raiders style opening where they're on the way to somewhere, the main person is not revealed, then it turns out to be Short Round - now as an adult (obviously) and on some kind of adventure. I've no doubt, people would have cheered when he was revealed, particularly if he was doing some crazy Raiders level opening.

Beyond that, you could take the story anywhere you wanted. Easily could have had Mutt in it, Salah, etc. Indy could have been retired and bored out of his head, but still living with Marion lamenting his past - in his, or his Dad's house - not in a ******* apartment in NYC (just why???? Did Indy turn into a gambler and blow all his money and his inheritance?) Indy and Marion find out Mutt and Short Round are in trouble and Indy has to go on one last adventure (Marion also gets roped in somehow).

Not saying this is great or the answer to anything, but like the SW ST, they could have taken the stories anywhere, given audiences a far more satisfying story, and it would have been a million times better that just a mediocre film that most people are putting in 4th place out of 5.

They made Top Gun work. They made even silly Cobra Kai work. It's just lazy, unimaginative writing.

 

[Mr.E]

Saw the movie with my mom today, she really enjoyed it, so that's probably what matters. She's basically Indy's age anyways. She commented that she really liked seeing "Karen Black" in the movie ... I don't know where she came up with that one, haha.

I thought the opening went on a bit too long, usually those opening sequences are pretty tight. It was kinda frustrating hearing Old Indy's voice coming out of OG Indy's face. I saw in the credits that Anthony Ingruber was on set as Harrison's double, so it's kinda silly they didn't have him doing the voice. But from what I understand, Harrison is pretty protective of the character, so he probably didn't want anybody else playing the role. I read an article in which he seemed pretty proud that the de-aged Indy was him doing all that stuff.

Overall the movie was just too long. I suspect that maybe studios are trying to give people more bang for their buck with these 2.5 hour run times. When they went back in time to the Roman battle, I was getting a big nervous with where the story was going, I thought that whole misdirect was a big waste of time. I think if they could've figured out a way to snip that whole section of going back in time (maybe just leave it open-ended if the Dial works at all), and maybe snip out the train battle from the opening, the movie would've been more enjoyable.

Also, I get that they needed to address Mutt, but the kid was a grown-*** man in KOTCS, it really seemed out of character for him to join the Army to piss off his dad. Seemed like the kid was already so rebellious, in order to rebel even further, he decided to conform and join the Army? Seems like they could've just as easily said he died in a motorcycle crash and it wouldn't have changed anything. Marion would've still been despondent and left Indy because of it. Mutt joining the Army just doesn't make sense, from what little we know of the character.

^All valid points^
Personally, Mutt enlisting didn't make sense, age-wise or character wise, but it was clearly an easy way to write off the character. Which by the way is fine, good riddance! As presented, it would have made more sense if they made him a photojournalist who went missing like Sean Flynn did in real life. I can't believe an adult punk like Mutt would volunteer but that's just me. Maybe he would have been better suited as a draft dodger. That motorcycle accident idea is honestly much better.

As a sidenote, that Ingruber fella played one of the black market auction bidders at the table who pulls a gun on Indy. It wouldn't surprise me if he was also used as a body double for the de-aged Jones. There were several moments in that opening sequence where I knew the body was definitely not Harrison, based on movement, etc. The opening seemed more akin to a video game in my opinion. I will say, when "The Monuments Men" came out a few years ago, I thought to myself, "This would've been a perfect setting for an Indiana Jones adventure. Oh well.

 

[Johnny Utah]

His work in all three was great. The bridge scene in TFA, the scene with Leto in 2049 and seeing Rachael and that last shot with his daughter.

 

[Mondragon]

.

Personally, Mutt enlisting didn't make sense, age-wise or character wise, but it was clearly an easy way to write off the character. Which by the way is fine, good riddance! As presented, it would have made more sense if they made him a photojournalist who went missing like Sean Flynn did in real life. I can't believe an adult punk like Mutt would volunteer but that's just me. Maybe he would have been better suited as a draft dodger. That motorcycle accident idea is honestly much better.

I was still hoping for the (Ke Huy Quan) Short Round cameo, where he's racing to help Jones, and accidentally/(on purpose) runs some lame Brando wild-one-wannabe on a motorcycle off the rode.

 

[jye4ever]

I quite liked Mutt especially his introduction he looked like a great 50’s teen with the Brando harley hat.



Him swinging on vines was not the actors fault he did the best with what he was given.

“Part time” was also not his fault lol

 

[xipotec]

Go watch that scene and tell me again that's what happens. That theory is proven wrong by every shot in the film.

And he never unhooks himself -- in fact, the shot shows Indy angry and determined with a "I'm gonna get you" look as he starts to rise from the canon -- and you can still see his strap HOOKED around the barrel -- CUT TO Indy in the same motion standing and swinging a punch, free on any entanglements.

Your theory only works when NOT watching the film in real time. The film disproves it clearly. The filmmakers just didn't care.

I can't help that no one has ever brought up this logic to you. Hang out with sharper people. I mean, the entire premise of the "trap" hinges on getting caught by that strap -- yet it magically gets tangled and even more magically untangled.

What makes me crazy is when someone tries to cover for the filmmakers blatant mistakes. Why are you protecting them? They've done nothing for you. It's not like this is an opinion thing.

Go watch that scene and tell me again that's what happens. That theory is proven wrong by every shot in the film.

And he never unhooks himself -- in fact, the shot shows Indy angry and determined with a "I'm gonna get you" look as he starts to rise from the canon -- and you can still see his strap HOOKED around the barrel -- CUT TO Indy in the same motion standing and swinging a punch, free on any entanglements.

Your theory only works when NOT watching the film in real time. The film disproves it clearly. The filmmakers just didn't care.

I can't help that no one has ever brought up this logic to you. Hang out with sharper people. I mean, the entire premise of the "trap" hinges on getting caught by that strap -- yet it magically gets tangled and even more magically untangled.

What makes me crazy is when someone tries to cover for the filmmakers blatant mistakes. Why are you protecting them? They've done nothing for you. It's not like this is an opinion thing.

So you wanted a single shot showing the strap slipping over the cannon, and another single shot showing it being taken off?

 

[Prime Clone]

He's a fantastic actor, but it's kinda funny to realize that he plays all three of those characters exactly the same in those movies. Lol

Like Hackman said, he plays himself, it's up to the script to give him his character traits, motivation etc.

I quite liked Mutt especially his introduction he looked like a great 50’s teen with the Brando harley hat.



Him swinging on vines was not the actors fault he did the best with what he was given.

“Part time” was also not his fault lol

I concur. Having him killed off has left a sour taste for me.

 

[Felinx]

LOL the by design; gratingly overzealous, incompetent "got lost in his own museum" Marcus Brody, was one of my favorite parts of Last Crusade.

Don't know why (maybe a rumor) I thought the new Helena character was going to be Marcus Brody's daughter?

He was knowledgable, stern, savvy, even wise in Raiders. In TLC he's mostly the butt of (nearly all pretty cheap) jokes, and depicted as almost early-stage dementia: unaware of his surroundings, unable to pick up on even basic cues from others, often shown with a strange glazed look. No one in the Raiders world would have said that Brody got lost in his own museum.

It was nice to see him again in TLC, but to me it was almost mean-spirited the way he was depicted, and unnecessarily so.

 

[Felinx]

Yes. Silly Brody. Silly action beats. It constantly looks for the comedic angle in everything. Like having Indy fall down the steps because Pops solved the mystery by sitting in a chair. The gags are non-stop. Evil Hitler -- Hitler! -- ends up doing a gag. The only serious note is when Dad gets shot -- an epic moment.

Also, the lazy logic of many of the chases that undermines the reality, as if the filmmakers couldn't be bothered to solve very simple problems -- for instance, how Indy's bag strap ends up wrapped around the tank canon during his "deadly trap" moment, and then how he untangles himself from that diabolical trap once he climbs up. It is just ignored. Also, how the burning plane fuselage has room to pass Indy's car without even singeing the running board after showing how the burning wreck "filled the tunnel" in the previous shot. Also, the X marks the spot in the library but then that X is mysteriously gone when they start cracking marble (and then top it off by adding a joke about a librarian who thinks his hand-stamp is awfully loud). It goes on and on...

Yeah I noticed that bag strap thing again too.

But overall I saw things in TLC I had never seen before, and appreciated it far more after so many years. The ending sequence resonated to me in a way it didn't before - maybe being older?

There were certainly some aspects that stuck out as not playing anymore. The Hitler gag I was uncomfortable with even back in the day but it really jumped at me as being inappropriate (even the whole book burning scene.)

And the River Phoenix opener I never liked much but stuff like the breathless red-faced "fat kid" (falling off his horse....) and Indy cracking the whip at this poor circus lion in its tiny train car enclosure, even the native American/"Indian"-style chanting over the opening title - just left me feeling a bit queasy.

 

[Lordscum]

Actually, writing that last post made me realize what doesn't sit right with me with DUD.

The ark. The cup of christ. Shankara stones.

They are all based on religious beliefs, and although fantastical, felt like you could buy into their "powers" because of the world's understanding at that time. The original 3 movies were written in a time when we didn't have google and all the answers at our fingertips, so there was fear around the unknown. Did the ark hold some mysterious power? Could the cup of Jesus Christ also hold some power? etc..

It was a stretch, but one's that felt "plausible" when we live on a planet where 65% of people believe in God and religion - Jesus Christ rising from the dead as an example, and other such biblical type events that people truly believed have happened. So then the ark, etc, still feel in line with what we can accept and well and truly under the banner of archeology.

With DUD, time travel pushes things to a whole other realm.

Don't know why, it just felt off.

I am being dragged to it today, wish I could sneak some booze into to help but my son and dad are going to be with me. Ugh! Wish me luck!

 

[davejames]

Yeah I noticed that bag strap thing again too.

But overall I saw things in TLC I had never seen before, and appreciated it far more after so many years. The ending sequence resonated to me in a way it didn't before - maybe being older?

There were certainly some aspects that stuck out as not playing anymore. The Hitler gag I was uncomfortable with even back in the day but it really jumped at me as being inappropriate (even the whole book burning scene.)

And the River Phoenix opener I never liked much but stuff like the breathless red-faced "fat kid" (falling off his horse....) and Indy cracking the whip at this poor circus lion in its tiny train car enclosure, even the native American/"Indian"-style chanting over the opening title - just left me feeling a bit queasy.

The Hitler scene is the only one that really goes too far for me, but I can definitely understand why Spielberg felt uncomfortable later with how much the Nazis got turned into cartoon villains by the end of the trilogy.

 

[davejames]

He was knowledgable, stern, savvy, even wise in Raiders. In TLC he's mostly the butt of (nearly all pretty cheap) jokes, and depicted as almost early-stage dementia: unaware of his surroundings, unable to pick up on even basic cues from others, often shown with a strange glazed look. No one in the Raiders world would have said that Brody got lost in his own museum.

It was nice to see him again in TLC, but to me it was almost mean-spirited the way he was depicted, and unnecessarily so.

Yeah the Raiders Brody is clearly the best, but we only see him in a handful of scenes where he's very much in his element, so I never had a problem buying the much more hapless TLC version with him out in the field (plus the fact he's a bit older by that point). And Indy himself is a much lighter character than we saw in the first two movies as well, which just fits the tone of the movie.

I know many would have preferred if all three movies had kept the serious tone and style of Raiders, but personally I liked that they tried to change things up a bit for each one. And I think each one works brilliantly because of it and feels like its own unique thing.

 

[Mike86]

Saw it last night with my fiancée and some friends. I thought it was decent. I didn’t have a lot of expectations for it really. I’m still of the mindset that the series should have ended with The Last Crusade.

The opening scene was enjoyable. The deep fake stuff is still hit or miss but the idea behind it worked well enough.

The movie made Ford believable enough as an older Indiana Jones. Not a ton of action but enough. I was a bit disappointed that he barely uses his whip and he doesn’t have his own gun (assuming Disney didn’t want to show him having his own but it was okay if he got a hold of one occasionally?).

Helena and Teddy were fine characters I suppose. Not my favorites of the franchise but neither outright annoyed me. I was a little surprised with the Mutt reveal but I guess that’s a way to write him out of the franchise.

The time travel aspect surprisingly worked for me. Could have been way more ridiculous. We’ve seen aliens in the franchise so we’re already in the realm of science fiction with the franchise.

The ending was fine. I liked how Indy and Marion reunited. Not sure if I liked that the last person we saw on screen was Helena. Could have just ended with Indy and Marion and then had him grab the hat.

I think overall it’s a fine ending for the character but if I was ranking them this would still probably be the fourth best with a considerable gap between the first three films and the last two.

 

[a-dev]

I've never seen some of these criticisms of TLC at all before, not even during KOTCS's run....well, least not that I remember.