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

[Johnny Utah]

Same thing happens with most franchise discussions. A new film makes you rate and reevaluate the previous films.

Empire used to be my favourite, now it's Revenge of the Sith.

 

[Wor-Gar]

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

Well, at its core, that's what filmmaking does to tell a story.

 

[Khev]

So a lot of people here seem to be fond of the opening - for me, it was...meh.. (primarily because the digital aspects were just too fake so nothing looked or felt real or at stake in that opening).

Yeah I'm actually surprised that so many are giving the opening such high marks. As I said in my original comments I did think it was "fun," but a fun (and obvious) cartoon that my brain could never accept as a "real" Indiana Jones action sequence.

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.

I don't feel like I needed to see an adult Short Round running around (though who knows it might have been fun) but TLC proved that we didn't need to see Harrison himself opening a movie as Indy so I would have been fine if they had just used Anthony Ingruber for that entire sequence. Once you initially buy into another actor playing the character (like River Phoenix or Sean Patrick Flannery) then you can just sit back and enjoy whatever comes next. But the obvious CGI throughout was a *constant reminder* that I was watching something that wasn't real on any level and made it hard for me to invest any emotion into what was on screen. Not using Ingruber just makes no sense to me. The guy is a spitting image for young Ford and all he had to do was manage a convincing impression for a mere 20 minutes that was mostly darkly lit action.

 

[a-dev]

Yeah I'm actually surprised that so many are giving the opening such high marks. As I said in my original comments I did think it was "fun," but a fun (and obvious) cartoon that my brain could never accept as a "real" Indiana Jones action sequence.



I don't feel like I needed to see an adult Short Round running around (though who knows it might have been fun) but TLC proved that we didn't need to see Harrison himself opening a movie as Indy so I would have been fine if they had just used Anthony Ingruber for that entire sequence. Once you initially buy into another actor playing the character (like River Phoenix or Sean Patrick Flannery) then you can just sit back and enjoy whatever comes next. But the obvious CGI throughout was a *constant reminder* that I was watching something that wasn't real on any level and made it hard for me to invest any emotion into what was on screen. Not using Ingruber just makes no sense to me. The guy is a spitting image for young Ford and all he had to do was manage a convincing impression for a mere 20 minutes that was mostly darkly lit action.

I guess because they were portraying a post-TLC Indy it would have been weird going the recast route for that section of the film even if you do have a pretty good lookalike. Perhaps if it was a sequence set further back, say, a stage between River Phoenix and Ford, Ingruber could have been the perfect opton there.

 

[Khev]

I guess because they were portraying a post-TLC Indy it would have been weird going the recast route for that section of the film even if you do have a pretty good lookalike. Perhaps if it was a sequence set further back, say, a stage between River Phoenix and Ford......

A valid observation. It is indeed easier to accept another actor for a specific and compartmentalized portion of a chronological character's life as opposed to going:

1. River Phoenix (high school Indy)
2. Sean Patrick Flannery (20 something Indy)
3. Harrison Ford (30 something Indy)
4. Anthony Ingruber (40 something Indy)
5. Back to Harrison Ford (for 60's and 70 something Indy)

 

[a-dev]

Same thing happens with most franchise discussions. A new film makes you rate and reevaluate the previous films.

Empire used to be my favourite, now it's Revenge of the Sith.

I cannot be moved from TESB. No SW film will ever be as important as the (George Lucas) Episodic Saga films and yet, IMO, of those Episodic Saga films only the OT are actually good movies. Thus nothing will relegate Empire for me.

 

[Wor-Gar]

(just why???? Did Indy turn into a gambler and blow all his money and his inheritance?)

Indy was a gambler by night... a Bondian character aspect Spielberg wanted in Raiders but they never really had time to explore it, only hinted at in the ToD opening.

I kind of like your Short Round opening for the twist bit. He'd have to get to whatever artifact he's looking for, but Indy is already there.

Still, I agree with Khev, I don't need to see old Short Round on top of old Sallah and old Marion. Enough with the old. Bring in the new. Please...

 

[Khev]

I don't need to see old Short Round on top of old Sallah and old Marion. Enough with the old. Bring in the new. Please...

I'm reminded of the funny spoof that Toyfare Magazine did on all the callbacks in ROTS.

They re-enacted the scene where Yoda leaves Kashyyyk and before he gets in his ship he turns and says "Goodbye Tarfful, goodbye Chewbacca, and goodbye...young Millenium Falcon" (and then the next panel reveals a two foot high Millenium Falcon standing next to Chewie, lol.)

 

[VanHelscwing]

 

[Wor-Gar]

I don't know about this guy... I mean, when he tries to deride the audience B+ Cinema Score with a snicker as laughable, it just comes across as vengeful.

He's right, the film is a failure. Anyone with two-cents worth of brain saw that coming.

I do think Mangold should have kept his mouth shut. Sadly now, the "Hollywood insiders" on YouTube have red meat to display.

 

[Mandible]

He's right, the film is a failure. Anyone with two-cents worth of brain saw that coming.

I do think Mangold should have kept his mouth shut. Sadly now, the "Hollywood insiders" on YouTube have red meat to display.

Yeah, Mangold continually poking his head out really annoys me. People here can't stand the Youtube brigade, but when director's overtly go fans on Twitter etc, that to me is a whole other league of lame. And Mangold keeps doing it - he's even contradicted John Williams, Harrison, and now Karen Allen. Just so petty. Actions speak louder than words...

And on that note; it's going to be in a new realm of failure never before conceived of, after this weekends numbers have just dropped. Insidious was the nail in the coffin that no one was expecting. There's now speculation it could top out at only 300M

Half a billion dollars lost on one movie...

 

[Felinx]

Yeah I'm actually surprised that so many are giving the opening such high marks. As I said in my original comments I did think it was "fun," but a fun (and obvious) cartoon that my brain could never accept as a "real" Indiana Jones action sequence.



I don't feel like I needed to see an adult Short Round running around (though who knows it might have been fun) but TLC proved that we didn't need to see Harrison himself opening a movie as Indy so I would have been fine if they had just used Anthony Ingruber for that entire sequence. Once you initially buy into another actor playing the character (like River Phoenix or Sean Patrick Flannery) then you can just sit back and enjoy whatever comes next. But the obvious CGI throughout was a *constant reminder* that I was watching something that wasn't real on any level and made it hard for me to invest any emotion into what was on screen. Not using Ingruber just makes no sense to me. The guy is a spitting image for young Ford and all he had to do was manage a convincing impression for a mere 20 minutes that was mostly darkly lit action.

Yeah I don't know about all these comments about Shorty/KHQ playing a major role in DoD - he was fine in Everything Everywhere but tbh I thought he got a bit of sympathy/nostalgia Oscar and the EEAAO movie itself seemed to get disproportionate prominence due to the Asian cast/story more than it being an outstanding movie (i.e. backdrop of how Asian people were treated in the first couple years of the pandemic.)

I just don't know in reality how a 50 year old KHQ would have held up essentially on his own or even as partnered with Indy instead of Helena, as much as I like the abstract idea of it.

I guess because they were portraying a post-TLC Indy it would have been weird going the recast route for that section of the film even if you do have a pretty good lookalike. Perhaps if it was a sequence set further back, say, a stage between River Phoenix and Ford, Ingruber could have been the perfect opton there.

It's the funny thing you forget - the DoD train sequence takes place the better part of a decade after TLC, and TLC is where Indy is really starting to visually look more firmly his mid 40s than in his late 30s like in TOD.

In theory (given Indy was born around 1895/1896) Indy is about 50 in that 1945 DoD train sequence.

 

[Mandible]

Top Gun Maverick blows Mangold's idiotic comments out of the window. Maverick was well and truly flawed in that movie; still fighting his demons after all those years, and he rises above them by the end of the film. Nobody wants a 1 dimensional, infallible character.

And a good example of what this guy is saying about filmmakers "owning their failures" is GOT. I loved the first 5 seasons, then the last seasons (when they were off book, fell in a heap). I was really pissed by the end because it just turned into mundane fodder. But after the dust settled the 2 show runners came out and apologized, saying they knew they dropped the ball, that they were off book, that they were all really tired after being at it for 10 years, etc. And for that, I have no ill will toward them, and in fact, respect them.

But clowns like Ruin Johnson, and now Mangold (who I used to really like - based on his work), are just petulant children unable to take responsibly for their actions. Even Spielberg, back in the day, took onus for 1941.

 

[Felinx]

Indy was a gambler by night... a Bondian character aspect Spielberg wanted in Raiders but they never really had time to explore it, only hinted at in the ToD opening.

I kind of like your Short Round opening for the twist bit. He'd have to get to whatever artifact he's looking for, but Indy is already there.

Still, I agree with Khev, I don't need to see old Short Round on top of old Sallah and old Marion. Enough with the old. Bring in the new. Please...

The authorities finally caught up to Indy with that statutory **** allegation filed by Abner Ravenwood in regards to his daughter (she was 16 if you go by the movie, 11 if you go by that notorious Lucas/Spielberg/Kasdan story meeting recording), even though Indy tried a trick he learned in Afghanistan where you later marry your **** victim and everything's forgiven.

 

[Wor-Gar]

In theory (given Indy was born around 1895/1896) Indy is about 50 in that 1945 DoD train sequence.

Wait, where did you get 50 in 1944?

In Raiders, Indy is supposed to be about 35 and its 1936. He'd be born in 1901. And 43 in 1944. And 68 in 1969. Wouldn't that seem closer to correct?

 

[Khev]

Yeah, Mangold continually poking his head out really annoys me. People here can't stand the Youtube brigade, but when director's overtly go fans on Twitter etc, that to me is a whole other league of lame. And Mangold keeps doing it - he's even contradicted John Williams, Harrison, and now Karen Allen. Just so petty. Actions speak louder than words...

And on that note; it's going to be in a new realm of failure never before conceived of, after this weekends numbers have just dropped. Insidious was the nail in the coffin that no one was expecting. There's now speculation it could top out at only 300M

Half a billion dollars lost on one movie...

Yep I was telling ajp a few months back how stupid I thought Mangold was being by attacking fans online because as LFL knows full well from Rian Johnson once you make it personal then those fans that you voluntarily drive away are absolutely never coming back. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[Asta]

Wait, where did you get 50 in 1944?

In Raiders, Indy is supposed to be about 35 and its 1936. He'd be born in 1901. And 43 in 1944. And 68 in 1969. Wouldn't that seem closer to correct?

It was established in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles that Indy was born 1st July 1899.

So he was only around 70 in DoD, with plenty of time for him to lose his right eye by the time of the 1993 bookends.

 

[Khev]

Top Gun Maverick blows Mangold's idiotic comments out of the window. Maverick was well and truly flawed in that movie; still fighting his demons after all those years, and he rises above them by the end of the film. Nobody wants a 1 dimensional, infallible character.

Yep. I enjoyed DOD but Mangold's comments were just stupid. Never in a million years did I think that a new Top Gun film could be successful or even watchable outside of the 80's and not only did TGM prove me wrong it somehow surpassed the absolutely iconic original all while doing the very things that Mangold claims audiences don't like.

 

[Felinx]

Wait, where did you get 50 in 1944?

In Raiders, Indy is supposed to be about 35 and its 1936. He'd be born in 1901. And 43 in 1944. And 68 in 1969. Wouldn't that seem closer to correct?

They don't think they specifically state Indy's age in the LC opener, only the year it takes place, but Phoenix was about 18 when they filmed TLC, but I'm willing to say maybe he's meant to be 16 (I mean he is shown as a boy scout, but looks closer to 18 than he does 14 - he's clearly not cast as a "child" actor...)

If he's 16 there, then he was born 1896, which would make him 40 in 1936/ROTLA, so nearly 50 (48) in 1944.

 

[davejames]

Yeah I'm actually surprised that so many are giving the opening such high marks. As I said in my original comments I did think it was "fun," but a fun (and obvious) cartoon that my brain could never accept as a "real" Indiana Jones action sequence.



I don't feel like I needed to see an adult Short Round running around (though who knows it might have been fun) but TLC proved that we didn't need to see Harrison himself opening a movie as Indy so I would have been fine if they had just used Anthony Ingruber for that entire sequence. Once you initially buy into another actor playing the character (like River Phoenix or Sean Patrick Flannery) then you can just sit back and enjoy whatever comes next. But the obvious CGI throughout was a *constant reminder* that I was watching something that wasn't real on any level and made it hard for me to invest any emotion into what was on screen. Not using Ingruber just makes no sense to me. The guy is a spitting image for young Ford and all he had to do was manage a convincing impression for a mere 20 minutes that was mostly darkly lit action.

Well this wasn't meant to be just a standard prologue like at the start of TLC, but another "classic Indy adventure" in the same style as the original trilogy, and a chance to see a younger Ford as the character again. Which I think they came as close to capturing as anyone ever could.

Sure the CG was a bit iffy and distracting at times and maybe kept the sequence from being as engrossing as it could be, but I'd still rather spend those opening 20 minutes with a de-aged Ford (and get to see all his classic and unique reactions to the situation he's in) than some no name actor who we'd still be distracted by the entire time anyway (just like with Ehrenreich in Solo).

It's one thing to bring in another actor to play a teenage Indy, but I don't think there's any way you could pull that off with a 40-something, TLC-era Indy.