Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Jesus, is that thing 15 years old now.

Fkn 'ell. 😪

When I first came across him on youtube a few years ago I thought he was decent enough. Okay, I disagreed with some of what he had to say about films, but that's okay: hearing views you disagree with articulated coherently and knowledgably is a good thing. I knew he was a bit pre-occupied with seeing things from a culture wars perspective, but I thought, on balance, he was still a perceptive enough presence.

But, he's really become a parody of himself since then. Everything is utterly caked in this culture wars anti-woke shiite. It's pure pandering nonsense. He was spamming youtube for weeks there with click bait about how much of failure the new Indiana Jones movie was. A film that hadn't yet been released and that he hadn't seen. The new Indiana Jones was okay, that's it, it's not terrible: the world continues to spin on its axis. He's a joke basically, but there's plenty out there that'll eat his schtick up.

Even I have to admit that 'humour' really is Spielberg's Achilles heel.

People often forget that his first legitimate bomb was '1941' (1979) which nobody really talks about these days, and you can see why.

Clearly, like Sam Raimi, Spielberg has a love of the screwball and slapstick comedies of the 30's and '1941' is full of that kind of juvenile, absurd and often over the top visual humour, and Spielberg is just not good at it. The problem is that kind of humour doesn't belong in an Indiana Jones film. While those movies have fantastical elements, those elements work because they are anchored by grounded, realistic characters that react to the fantastical the same way the audience does.

So, when Marion uses a boa constrictor as a rope to pull Indy out of quicksand, it comes across as utterly stupid. Same when Willie Scott mistakes a boa constrictor (again!) for a bothersome elephant's trunk and throws it at Indy. The one time in that sequence that Willie Scott should have been legitimately delivering ear piercing shrieks, is when she realises that she has grabbed a snake instead of a trunk. Instead, you get an eye rolling line for a comedic effect in a scene that belongs in loony tunes cartoon. The one thing Spielberg can’t seem to resist is the impulse to shoe-horn in a gag he thinks ‘is just hi-larious!’, but is in fact just tonally jarring, juvenile and immersion breaking and when he does it the audiences suspension of disbelief gets nuked harder than a fridge.

you have to admit there is a certain frame to Disney movies lately , what alternate frame do you put on it that get you to the same place?

But isn't that exactly what is happening....you're getting angry at a youtuber for correctly articulating exactly what is happening. Both Disney and Hollywood are struggling to produce hits. Isn't that also what Todd Philips said years ago, that you can't make a decent comedy anymore because of woke idiots....and we haven't seen a funny movie in a decade. Should we get angry at Todd Philips?

We are on a thread about an Indiana Jones movie that has flopped!

@conorhal

Both Spielberg AND Lucas.

Two people who I have great respect for, because they are responsible for some of the greatest times at a cinema that I've had during my childhood. But, yes, they are just not funny people to put it simply.

Of course, humour is HIGHLY subjective and just like horror it can be the hardest thing to achieve in a film, AFAIC. Everyone's opinion of what is funny and horrific is an absolute minefield. But, again AFAIC, neither film maker has the chops to make a truly funny scene, especially one that's required to go beyond a momentary gag.

I don't know what you mean by frames and I'm not trying to get to any place, but regardless, you may have missed my original point.

You are giving praise and credit to the Drinker for predicting this would be a flop, and saying he knows better than Disney because of it.

But the real truth is that he always says they are going to flop. And its always because of the evil women.

There is a reason he calls it the worst film in history while everybody else just thinks its is middle of the road mediocre. There is a reason he says it has failed because of PWB and that she ruined Indiana Jones, when everybody else just thinks it was a shoddy plot and overlong action scenes. What do you think those reasons are?

By the way, realising that the Critical Drinker is playing to an audience does not mean I have an allegiance to Disney, or whatever the hell that was supposed to mean.

Im not saying he has special powers of prediction, it looked like a car crash from a long way off. The question for Disney and others is their project selection, there are good examples of female led movies that were popular and wouldnt generate ire , Kill Bill , the Hunger Games etc. and I think Tom Cruise has shown that you can take an 80's movie and generate hype because of the sheer effort and love he put in. Its really on these companies why they dont think women can lead new movies but instead use the crutch of inserting them into old properties that tend to have to disrespect the old characters.

I enjoyed it. Indy was a reluctant hero this time and I think it worked well him coming from a place of being fed up and bitter. Indy has never been slick and he wasn't assigned the doddery old man role in this!I thought the de-aging was the best I've seen but it's not perfect.

I've seen people giving out about the magic element but sure in raiders the ark is opened and spirits kill the nazis, in last crusade there's a thousand year old man and a chap who turns to dust in minutes and in temple of doom there's magic potions.

It has been pointed out to me that much like with raiders would the situation have been the same had indy not been involved at all?

I'll watch it again when it makes it to the tv and I thought it was a fun few hours overall.

Ha ha come on now.... do you think I waste time listening to a guy state the obvious over and over, the dogs on the street know why Disney and Hollywood are in decline, don't get yourself into knots just because a youtuber says something you don't like. Life is too short!

Good post.

It's hard to know what the future is for cinema at the moment. It's pretty clear that the one-two punch of Covid and the ubiquity of streaming services have done serious damage to box-office returns. I know there's exceptions - Top Gun - but even looking casually at box office numbers it appears that films just make less and that the theatrical window isn't anywhere as important as it used to be, not just for tent-pole blockbusters, even the Oscar nominees received a fairly paltry bump this year.

I think it's a bit of a depressing vista at the moment. I can't remember the last time I was at screening of anything that was more than half full and a great majority of the time it's been far less than that. Watching a film in a packed out auditorium feels like something from another age. And anecdotally I know friends of mine who are serious movie buffs, who'd have previously gone constantly to the cinema, who now barely go at all, preferring instead to watch things at home. I'm a bit of an outlier among the people that I know in that I always try to catch a film in the cinema if I can. I still think there's no substitute if you want to really experience a film and it's practically rejuvenating in that you can take your head out of your phone for a couple of hours and sit in the dark and let something wash over you.

I know cinema as an art-form isn't dead, that there's still loads of good films being made, but I feel like the audience for these films is becoming more specialised and niche - and is that just the way it's going: smaller indie films or huge, largely dumb, blockbusters. I do wonder what the overall picture will look like in five or ten years.

A film would have to be exceptional for people to swap the comfort of watching it cheaply or free at home to go to the cinema.

Last couple of times I've been to the cinema it's been constant noise and phones and even people threatening to start fights. Honestly, just a **** show. Not sure if that's post Covid hangups and/or tiktok culture.

You criticise Disney as being “creatively bankrupt” and not making new stuff and yet your idea for an Indiana Jones movie is bring back previous characters, cast Chris Pratt in another big budget movie franchise and have the object of the adventure as Atlantis rather than something original?

people in glass houses shouldn’t throw hard stuff

Saw the movie today and absolutely loved it.

a very worthy entry in the series and a very nice way to end Indy’s story.

Phoebe Waller-Bridge did a great job and there none of that “strong woman/girl power” crap.

i saw on Google that this is being called a box office flop but as far as I can tell all the websites claiming this are not mentioning the international box office.

Is $150 million really a “flop” or is it just a slow start?