Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

pixelburp

Ah the comedy sometimes laid it on a bit thick (was Spielberg ever that deft at comedy?), but I'll always guffaw at No Ticket.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119889651#Comment_119889651

The new shtty emotional James Bond happened long before Waller-Bridge. He has been like that all through the Craig run. He loves M because she is like his mammy because he has abandonment issues from being an orphan.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119999874#Comment_119999874

In a Monty Python movie that would be fine.

Not that Indiana Jones should be as po faced as Tarkovsky or anything. But I have my limits...and Crusade over stepped them on too many occasions. To the point where it just became stupid, which is often a departure from "funny".

And no, neither Spielberg or Lucas are very good comedians that's for sure. They're waaaay too try hard and they fail nearly every time.

buried

There'll probably be a scene in this new thing with another "no ticket" routine.

SuperBowserWorld

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120000108#Comment_120000108

Peter Jackson suffers from the same problem as well.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001258#Comment_120001258

I think Peter Jackson just has a weird sense of humour that doesn't always suit his bigger projects... but Braindead (Dead Alive) is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen!

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120001258#Comment_120001258

Oh absolutely. There are moments in his Rings movies that are just awfully flat.

pixelburp

Peter Jackson clearly had a very dark sense of humour that was front & centre in his early work; and even in Rings there was a degree of that, as opposed to the Merry & Pippin material that perhaps grated a tad too hard in places. There was also no escaping the originating material, with its twee Little England sensabilities.

silverharp

the story seems to have entered the food chain, will be interesting to see the story bubble up, by implication it means Mangold has been caught in a lie.

https://movieweb.com/indiana-jones-5-is-currently-shooting-a-new-ending-according-to-composer-john-williams/

SuperBowserWorld

The thing that keeps these movies and the Star Wars movies alive is John Williams music. Bloody timeless. It's never dated by technology, politics or culture.

MisterAnarchy

That test screening ending sounds horrific.

Sacrilege.

The Butterworth brothers are pretty decent writers, how much free reign will they be allowed by Disney though is the question.

pixelburp

In what must surely be a definition of futility, James Mangold has been engaging with the trolls inevitably ranting about Waller-Bridge and Kathleen Kennedy. Good luck to you Mangold but you're on a fool's errand there.

Of actual note though was his pushback that there was any reshoots of the ending. As before, if one simply listens to the source, it turns out to be clickbait, stirring the pot of the perpetually triggered.

Glad to hear the FX is still being worked on though, cos some of the trailer material was rough.

https://twitter.com/mang0ld/status/1604718058144411648

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016899#Comment_120016899

you wouldnt bet your house he is telling the truth? directors have lied in the past, JJ for instance about Khan and there are other instances. In this case Mangold is then saying that John Williams "lied"

ArmaniJeanss

I guess everyone could be telling the truth as a 'new ending' doesn't have to mean a change of story.

e.g., imagine The Last Crusade had originally ended with them leaving the Temple and the knight bidding them farewell. Begin credits. And then they came back 3 months after filming to shoot the scene with them riding off on horses into the sunset. It would technically be a new ending.

So it could just be a fun scene, or an exposition scene, anything really. It would be at the end, likely need John Williams to score it, but not change anything.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016979#Comment_120016979

Look, you wanna believe some random websites that's your prerogative. But there's the director, a fairly open and transparent one by all accounts, on record saying the ending-reshoots rumour is bullshít - and then practically getting into fights with trolls, if you read the full thread (A hiding to nothing). Would have been easiest to say nothing at all rather than expose yourself to later ridicule. Why does it have to be Williams "lied"? That's being over-dramatic. Maybe he misspoke, maybe he got his wires crossed; maybe he himself read those websites!

The JJ comparison doesn't track because in that case it was a limp attempt to hide a big plot twist nobody believed for a second. Sure JJ, it's brand-new villain, "John Harrison" in your Trek film. Here, it's external, clickbait outlets trying to drum up controversy and anger for easy clicks because they know there's an audience salivating for a pile-on. One passing comment by Williams isn't a silver bullet. Sometimes the internet lies.

shrug

https://twitter.com/mang0ld/status/1604724064823652353

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017043#Comment_120017043

I watched a video of John Williams saying it during a performance recently, not an overheard rumor twice removed so there are questions

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017012#Comment_120017012

Return of the King is notorious for its abundance of endings. Williams did say there's "another ending" to shoot not a *new* ending. Also even if they are shooting a new ending that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be bad, Die Hard 3 had an alternative ending and I'm sure there are other examples. It really is just trolls looking for any excuse to rag on this film before they've even seen it.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017065#Comment_120017065

I've seen the same video, never said it was a passing rumour and again, I still think you're being overly dramatic. If it quacks like a duck etc. "there are questions"? Maybe, but Mangold gave you an answer too - sounds like you want a different conclusion 😁

But the internet's flair for the dramatic, or taking something trivial and exploding it into monetised outrage, is certainly on full show. As @FunLover18 notes, even Williams' language can be noted to simply mean "another ending". Which could be annnnnnything - Christ it could be a Shia LeBeouf cameo, considering the latest news is that Mutt Williams will be addressed in the story in some fashion. It doesn't automatically mean Waller-Bridge's character is going to high-five a walk-on cameo from Kathleen Kennedy as they both pelt Indy's grave with pússyhats.

But this is Film Discourse 2022: it can't simply be "Big Studio Releases [Probably] Mediocre Movie". No, there has to be something factional about it all. Will all be somewhat embarrassing when this film comes out, it's aggressively forgettable like most blockbusters now, and everyone moves on after its initial weekend

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017113#Comment_120017113

if i want to poke fun and second guess a mutibillion corporate trying to sweat its assets by taking on desperate film ideas, thats my right godamit. Thinking like them it seems obvious they "would want" to spin off a tv series, so the rumours would fit in with all that, it fits a pattern is all.

I would be curious to know if a brewing fan backlash is something they are aware of, or they enjoy the controversy as it creates energy or they feel forced to edit their movie to tone it down due to a mild case of hubris on their part.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017256#Comment_120017256

Given the furore over the last Indy movie, I imagine Disney are acutely aware of the resting, oversized reaction to Indy sequels. Going double for that other former Lucasarts property.

Which is why I'd imagine this film will be utterly milquetoast for that reason, when all the hubbub has died down and the reality is the film wasn't worth the energy.

As to spin offs, we'll see. The property doesn't lend itself to one as like Bond there's basically only one character of note in its whole universe. I'm sure Disney want to churn out more - it's basically why Disney+ exists - they may struggle to find a way. Bar maybe another go at Young Indiana Jones.

Agent Coulson

Crystal Skull killed all the anticipation I had for the return of Indiana Jones if I'm being totally honest and I'll happily wait for this to pop up on Disney+ or whatever streaming serive has it I won't be hurry to watch it and all this nonsense especially  with Mangold replying on Twitter to trolling accounts isn't doing it any favours

pixelburp

On the spin-off it looks like as to be expected, it'll not involve the primary cast from Indy 5; so maybe that previous rumour about it "starring" the Ravenwoods had some legs. I suppose to indulge in prior examination of Things Actually Said, technically it could be argued that it won't star Harrison Ford still could mean it'll star a recast Indy.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120004042#Comment_120004042

Disney and free reign for creators doesn't exist. They have to tow the line.

The trailer is not as horrific as I thought it would be but hard not to realise that Indy will be surely getting the full Disney policy on male lead actors here so hope the fans are prepared 😅

silverharp

there are some production numbers floating around from a Forbes article that the production budget is around 300m, that turns into a box office requirement of a billion to breakeven , cant see Top Gun levels of nostalgia for this film

pixelburp

Superbowl TV spot appeared last night; it was too brief to linger on, but that de-aged, smiling Indy remains quite impressive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQpwONzpcy4

MisterAnarchy

The De-aged scene looks like a flashback.

johnny_ultimate

I'm pretty sure people involved have repeatedly said the de-aging is primarily used in the opening scene, which is a flashback. That may be misdirection to obscure an alleged time-travel element, but that's what has been publicly claimed.

On a different note, I'm not sure why the YouTube versions of the trailers for this film have been so poor. Even by the standards of 1080p YouTube compression, the video quality is pretty terrible in the official versions of both the main trailer and the TV shot. Not sure why they wouldn't go 4K or at least a higher bit rate to do their big, expensive film more justice TBH.

FortuneChip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120227157#Comment_120227157

Yeah, Top Gun this isn't! 300m is a serious bet.

There's a few things Top Gun had in it's favour.

Firstly, it's not Indy's first attempt at a comeback. And the last one was lacklustre at best.

Secondly, Tom Cruise vs Harrison Ford. One has just stayed better (that's no knock to a decent looking Ford at 80). Tom Cruise has kept himself in great shape, and has been acting in mega blockbusters all the while and what he brings to those blockbusters is different to what Ford brought to his respective franchises, with some of the best moments being quirky one-liners as opposed to some central spectacle that "must be watched on a big screen". Maverick was billed as more of the same high octane action, whereas Indy 5 looks to be just going for that lazy "too old for this sh*t" humour.

And maybe a third - budget attribution. I think Harrison Ford is getting roughly twice what Tom Cruise got (up front) for their respective movies. After that, I assume a lot of Mavericks' budget went into practical effects, whereas if Crystal Skull is anything to go by, we're gonna have a lot of CGI coming our way for Indy.

FunLover18

Just comparing the scene of Indy and PWB falling out of the plane to the Temple of Doom scene with the raft. I know CGI is cheaper and way less risky but the ToD scene looks so much better even if the people in the raft are clearly mannequins.

Falthyron

I'll be going in with cautious optimism. Flashback Indy looks great and I reckon we will only see him for the start of the film (similar to the introduction to The Last Crusade). I really want this to be a success, but Disney have ruined a lot of Lucasfilm content with Andor being the only highlight in a decade of ownership.