Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

BuilderPlumber · 30-12-2016 2:02pm

Watched Crystal Skull two times now and can conclude that it is much better than I expected it to be. There is a lot of the 1st and 3rd in it. It is recognisable as an Indiana Jones film. It deserves at least 7/10 anyway. Raiders, Crusade and Temple would get 10/10 from me.

The positives; good action setpieces worthy of the first 3 and Harrison looks well for his age and he looks the part still. Some good homages to the other films like the maps showing his journey, Marion's return and the scenes in the school teaching history.

The negatives; the conclusion was just too similar to Crusade. Almost the exact same. The bizarre scenes about 30 minutes in this bizarre town of plastic dummys and empty houses. What type of a town was this? What was its purpose? Indy then goes into a fridge and a nuclear bomb goes off. This film was ironically less humorous than the others but this scene uninentionally made me laugh. Did not really see where it fitted in with the rest of the story.

Avatar MIA · 30-12-2016 2:06pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Did not really see where it fitted in with the rest of the story.

The same as the boulder scene in Raiders, the same as the diamond sale in Temple and the boy scout scene in Crusade. It was just an opening set piece.

I'd agree with a 7 score btw, but only in Richter scale terms. As in 8 is significantly higher than 7 etc...

xper · 30-12-2016 2:41pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Watched Crystal Skull two times now ...

...The bizarre scenes about 30 minutes in this bizarre town of plastic dummys and empty houses. What type of a town was this? What was its purpose? Indy then goes into a fridge and a nuclear bomb goes off. This film was ironically less humorous than the others but this scene uninentionally made me laugh. Did not really see where it fitted in with the rest of the story.

Ah, you just don't know your cold war history. When the Americans were testing nukes above ground in Nevada in the 50's/60's, they built whole dummy towns within the test site to observe the effects of the nuclear detonations on American cities. Ref: Wikipedia.
The whole place is truly bizarre but it is also real and, in the film, serves to place Indy in a true historical context, much like his quick visit to Berlin in Last Crusade.

And I think laughing was part of the desired response. Part of the enjoyment of the Indy films is the laugh-out-loud ridiculousness of how he gets out of some of the scrapes he finds himself in just in the nick of time. The tumbling lead-lined fridge is one of the few moments I enjoyed of that film.

Though this post and the earlier one up thread with the still shot of Indy facing the mushroom cloud has prompted me to think of a horrific pitch for the forthcoming 2018/19 film - Indy gains superpowers after his radiation exposure!!!:eek:

Avatar MIA · 30-12-2016 2:43pm

xper wrote: »

Though this post and the earlier one up thread with the still shot of Indy facing the mushroom cloud has prompted me to think of a horrific pitch for the forthcoming 2018/19 film - Indy gains superpowers after his radiation exposure!!!:eek:

And regenerates into the second [Younger] Doctor Jones at the end :pac:

Feck sake, we've the script half written.

Jawgap · 30-12-2016 2:50pm

I think it's like the Star Trek movies......only in inverse terms......where the odd numbered ones are superior

.....so I'm optimistic about Indy 5......

.....it could be as bad as Temple of Doom, but no way they could plumb the depths of Crystal Skull.......could they?

EDIT: I'd love to see a prequel......Henry Jones Senior in his pomp, with junior in tow!

FunLover18 · 30-12-2016 3:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd love to see a prequel......Henry Jones Senior in his pomp, with junior in tow!

Careful what you wish for

pinksoir · 30-12-2016 4:13pm

I watched the four back to back over the last two days.

I'm convinced there's a decent film somewhere in Indy 4. The pacing is bad - far too many talking scenes explaining what's going on which serve to break up the flow of the film. I was bored quite a lot whereas the previous three films zip along at a great pace from location to location with very little in the way of explanatory dialog - the action and narrative does all the explaining needed. I thought the use of the crystal skulls/ancient aliens was a good angle to take with the story, but did we really need to see the cruddy CGI alien snarling at the end? A little bit of mystery goes a long way - Raiders and Crusade of course show a lot, but there's more left to wonder about what precisely gives those relics their power. God doesn't appear at the end and Indy remains a sceptic despite seeing what he does. There's no scepticism possible after the end of Crystal Skull.

I also found the use of locations in Crystal Skull fairly weak. What's great about the previous films (not Doom, admittedly) is the variety of locations exploited so we really feel like we've travelled a distance in the films. Not so in CS. Instead we're in the US, then Peru. Nearly half the film takes place in nondescript jungle. It could really have done with one more unique location to expand things.

There's quite a lot of good stuff in there though. It just feels quite like a missed opportunity.

Edit: I'm kinda sad to hear the Beef so down on himself about the film. I thought he did a good job. Just a victim of internet backlash I guess.

LastLagoon · 30-12-2016 8:13pm

pinksoir wrote: »

I watched the four back to back over the last two days.

I'm convinced there's a decent film somewhere in Indy 4. The pacing is bad - far too many talking scenes explaining what's going on which serve to break up the flow of the film. I was bored quite a lot whereas the previous three films zip along at a great pace from location to location with very little in the way of explanatory dialog - the action and narrative does all the explaining needed. I thought the use of the crystal skulls/ancient aliens was a good angle to take with the story, but did we really need to see the cruddy CGI alien snarling at the end? A little bit of mystery goes a long way - Raiders and Crusade of course show a lot, but there's more left to wonder about what precisely gives those relics their power. God doesn't appear at the end and Indy remains a sceptic despite seeing what he does. There's no scepticism possible after the end of Crystal Skull.

I also found the use of locations in Crystal Skull fairly weak. What's great about the previous films (not Doom, admittedly) is the variety of locations exploited so we really feel like we've travelled a distance in the films. Not so in CS. Instead we're in the US, then Peru. Nearly half the film takes place in nondescript jungle. It could really have done with one more unique location to expand things.

There's quite a lot of good stuff in there though. It just feels quite like a missed opportunity.

Edit: I'm kinda sad to hear the Beef so down on himself about the film. I thought he did a good job. Just a victim of internet backlash I guess.

The aliens were all Lucas's doing apparently,Spielberg and others wanted nothing to do with it but he won't out,the man knows how to ruin great franchises

BuilderPlumber · 02-01-2017 1:48pm

pinksoir wrote: »

I watched the four back to back over the last two days.

I'm convinced there's a decent film somewhere in Indy 4. The pacing is bad - far too many talking scenes explaining what's going on which serve to break up the flow of the film. I was bored quite a lot whereas the previous three films zip along at a great pace from location to location with very little in the way of explanatory dialog - the action and narrative does all the explaining needed. I thought the use of the crystal skulls/ancient aliens was a good angle to take with the story, but did we really need to see the cruddy CGI alien snarling at the end? A little bit of mystery goes a long way - Raiders and Crusade of course show a lot, but there's more left to wonder about what precisely gives those relics their power. God doesn't appear at the end and Indy remains a sceptic despite seeing what he does. There's no scepticism possible after the end of Crystal Skull.

I also found the use of locations in Crystal Skull fairly weak. What's great about the previous films (not Doom, admittedly) is the variety of locations exploited so we really feel like we've travelled a distance in the films. Not so in CS. Instead we're in the US, then Peru. Nearly half the film takes place in nondescript jungle. It could really have done with one more unique location to expand things.

There's quite a lot of good stuff in there though. It just feels quite like a missed opportunity.

Edit: I'm kinda sad to hear the Beef so down on himself about the film. I thought he did a good job. Just a victim of internet backlash I guess.

The pacing is definitely poor compared to the original three. But overall it is a good film. Not the best of the series but still a good way to pass a couple of hours.

Settings for each varied. Raiders was set in South America (I am guessing Colombia or Venezuela) at the very start and then moved to America, Nepal, Egypt and Greece. Temple started in China and then the rest of it was in India. Crusade started in America and then moved on to feature Portugal (or at least the sea near it), Italy, Austria, Germany and a fictitious Middle Eastern country. Crystal Skull was set in America, Peru and Brazil it would seem.

The main 'problem' with the film for me is that it revisited too much from the 1st and 3rd films. This I feel was the intention. The start was rather different but after that they played it safe by recreating scenes from the older films. The chase near the end is similar to the one from Crusade as is the ending. The whole South American mission seems like an expanded version of the one from Raiders.

trashcan · 02-01-2017 2:07pm

MfMan wrote: »

As iconic as Indiana Jones is, 'Raiders' was the only really very good one of the series, the rest for my money are exponentially inferior. As someone said, Kate 'constantly screaming' Capshaw and token cute kid nearly sank 'Temple', not even Roshan Seth could redeem them. The interplay between Ford and Connery was lively in 'Crusade' and Julian Glover is always worth a look but the plot was nearly throwaway, Denholm Elliot's character changed from gravitas in 'Raiders' to stupidly comedic and there's a massive onscreen vacuum whenever our Alison appears. As for the other one...

Bang on. Raiders is a classic, and the sequels have only served to sully it's memory, to varying degrees. Left as a standalone great adventure film it would be just about perfect. Look at a film like ET for example. A classic not lessened by being revisited. (Can you imagine the horror of ET Returns - actually, best whisper that, someone somewhere will start getting ideas,)

Same goes for Die Hard in my opinion. Classic first film with sequels that didn't live up to it. Sadly, Hollywood doesn't seem to know when to leave well enough alone.

BuilderPlumber · 02-01-2017 3:30pm

trashcan wrote: »

Bang on. Raiders is a classic, and the sequels have only served to sully it's memory, to varying degrees. Left as a standalone great adventure film it would be just about perfect. Look at a film like ET for example. A classic not lessened by being revisited. (Can you imagine the horror of ET Returns - actually, best whisper that, someone somewhere will start getting ideas,)

Same goes for Die Hard in my opinion. Classic first film with sequels that didn't live up to it. Sadly, Hollywood doesn't seem to know when to leave well enough alone.

I enjoyed the sequels but of course they all would have forgive the pun raided the elements used so successfully in Raiders. I think Temple and Crusade were excellent and that Crystal Skull is decent. It is a series with among the better sequels. Die Hard was excellent and the first sequel nearly was as good as the original but later sequels while decent were just formulaic action thrillers.

Sequels for other franchises have become desperate. Jaws comes to mind. A great standalone classic. The sequels were poor to downright awful. Superman then has had some good sequels and one downright awful sequel.

I am surprised we did not get an ET sequel. It could still happen of course.

Wedwood · 02-01-2017 3:56pm

ET was originally meant to have a sequel called Dark Skies, where hostile aliens arrive. Spielberg later repurposed it into War of the Worlds, thus completing his loose trilogy of alien movies he started with Close Encounters.

I'm optimistic enough about another Harrison Ford Indy movie given the way Disney handled Han Solo's return in Force Awakens. He deserves a better swan song, in much the same way Rocky Balboa did for Stallone after the debacle that was Rocky V.

After that, I hope they recast the role and place Indy back in the 1930's where he really belongs.

BuilderPlumber · 02-01-2017 9:37pm

Wedwood wrote: »

ET was originally meant to have a sequel called Dark Skies, where hostile aliens arrive. Spielberg later repurposed it into War of the Worlds, thus completing his loose trilogy of alien movies he started with Close Encounters.

I'm optimistic enough about another Harrison Ford Indy movie given the way Disney handled Han Solo's return in Force Awakens. He deserves a better swan song, in much the same way Rocky Balboa did for Stallone after the debacle that was Rocky V.

After that, I hope they recast the role and place Indy back in the 1930's where he really belongs.

I would feel the same. Harrison can still do a great portrayal of Indy and a good film 5 would be ideal to close off his portrayal. Who then could take over and fulfill the role in a faithful yet innovative way?

I think a good idea for film 5 is to have Indy battling against an old Nazi rival now operating between Brazil and the Middle East. Have a Crusade-like start with a young Indy (from the 1930s) in some adventure akin to the start of Raiders with this Nazi. That portrayal would be done by Harrison's successor and would be an ideal way to introduce him. Then jump 20 years later to the late 1950s for the rest of the film with Harrison doing battle again with this rival.

Agent Coulson · 07-03-2017 6:42pm

Disney confirm it will be released on July 19, 2019.

Sad Professor · 08-03-2017 9:33am

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Disney confirm it will be released on July 19, 2019.

This is year old news, which unless they start shooting very soon is unlikely to happen.

Wheety · 08-03-2017 10:04am

OU812 wrote: »

That's work for me, put Pratt in it & have ford bookend them... telling stories to his grandkids type thing... Film three sets of bookends so if he dies they've got it in the can...

You're mad about Pratt

I actually think he would make a good Indy. His character in Guardians and Jurassic World were quite like Indy but that could go against him?

08-03-2017 10:51am

Wheety wrote: »

You're mad about Pratt

I actually think he would make a good Indy. His character in Guardians and Jurassic World were quite like Indy but that could go against him?

Pratt as adventurer? Yeah

Pratt as an Ivy League archeology professor Indy too? Hmmmm

brevity · 08-03-2017 1:51pm

I don't mind Pratt but he is no Indiana Jones.

We need a young Sam Neill...

Tony EH · 08-03-2017 2:32pm

There's only one Indiana Jones.

There's no point in even discussing an Indy reboot. It'll suck balls, like 99% of them and what's likely to happen will be that people who go to it will be disappointed because it isn't Ford and we'll be left with this half-assed effort and a dead franchise anyway, al la 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' or 'Robocop' and loads of others.

brevity · 08-03-2017 10:20pm

I don't think it will be bad movie as such it will just be weird not having Harrison Ford as Jones.

Also, I think I'll finally understand my father when he always used to say Sean Connery was the best bond.

Zubeneschamali · 09-03-2017 10:04am

brevity wrote: »

I don't think it will be bad movie as such

Yes, we all know Hollywood never makes crappy sequels in moneymaking franchises.

brevity · 09-03-2017 1:41pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, we all know Hollywood never makes crappy sequels in moneymaking franchises.

There are also some good sequels. With Disney in charge and seeing how they are handling the Marvel and Star Wars universes, two of the biggest worlds with the most insane fan bases, I could see them doing a good job.

Tony EH · 09-03-2017 1:50pm

The Marvel films are very factory. They're really not that good when looked at objectively and they suffer from lack of story, drama, tension and weight. They're the cinematic equivalent of a Big Mac. Semi enjoyable, once in a blue moon, if you don't actually look too hard at what you're consuming.

Disney have made one very good Star Wars film and one that was just ok...but JUST ok. So, the jury is still very much out on them.

The problem here is that Indiana Jones is very much based and fixated on a character in a way that Marvel films (masked superheroes than anyone can play) and Star Wars isn't.

Filling Ford's shoes will be a pretty impossible task, because he is so much of the character of Jones. Either way, even Ford can't do Indy any more. He sucked in the last one.

Sometimes it's just better to leave the old stuff alone and, oh I don't know...make some new stuff?

brevity · 09-03-2017 2:06pm

Tony EH wrote: »

The Marvel films are very factory. They're really not that good when looked at objectively and they suffer from lack of story, drama, tension and weight. They're the cinematic equivalent of a Big Mac. Semi enjoyable, once in a blue moon, if you don't actually look too hard at what you're consuming.

Disney have made one very good Star Wars film and one that was just ok...but JUST ok. So, the jury is still very much out on them.

The problem here is that Indiana Jones is very much based and fixated on a character in a way that Marvel films (masked superheroes than anyone can play) and Star Wars isn't.

Filling Ford's shoes will be a pretty impossible task, because he is so much of the character of Jones. Either way, even Ford can't do Indy any more. He sucked in the last one.

Sometimes it's just better to leave the old stuff alone and, oh I don't know...make some new stuff?

I suppose when I look at the Marvel movies, they are fast food but well made fast food. The casting, the writing (for the most part) and production values have been of high quality. They haven't taken the piss IMO.

Indiana Jones was Spielberg and Lucas's attempt to make a bond type movie so it stands to reason that there will probably be a heap of them released.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that they didn't make another Indiana Jones movie and I agree that Ford was perfect as Jones but money is there to be made and they are sitting on a very profitable franchise.

The problem that they have is scripts and replacing Ford. There is a huge amount of material for bond/marvel/star wars. I'm not sure of anything like that for Indiana Jones.

Wedwood · 25-04-2017 10:51pm

Well, Indiana Jones 5 now slated in for summer 2020. This has to be the slowest and most drawn out movie franchise.

Ironically, this will make Harrison Ford older than when George Hall portrayed the character on The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

Slydice · 25-04-2017 11:37pm

Oh, the eye patch.

I wonder will something happen..

BuilderPlumber · 03-01-2018 8:08pm

Indiana Jones 5 may have Mark Hamill playing the bad guy.

trashcan · 03-01-2018 8:56pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Indiana Jones 5 may have Mark Hamill playing the bad guy.

And Indy on a zimmerframe. :cool:

Seriously, it needs to be left alone.

Avatar MIA · 03-01-2018 8:59pm

trashcan wrote: »

And Indy on a zimmerframe. :cool:

Seriously, it needs to be left alone.

As long as Shia's not in it - it'd already be better than the last effort

pixelburp · 03-01-2018 9:29pm

Clicking into this thread, unexpected news of either a new Harrison Ford helmed sequel, or a reboot. Both possibilities depress me.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Comments