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

18788909293196

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    Univex wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I loved when all of these things happened in those other Kathleen Kennedy productions like ET, Jurassic Park, Munich, The Sixth Sense etc. as well.

    ET was particularly bad in that department, I mean, the way Drew Barrymore just undermined ET's role and presence. And don't get me talking about how Dr. Sattler could battle velociraptors on her own, while Dr. Grant was left dealing with a brachiosaurus's giant sneeze. Or about that all women spy team in Munich. And Jeez, in The Sixth Sense, the men were portrayed as really dumb, particularly Bruce Willis character, not knowing about you know what till the very end. Damn it Kathleen Kennedy! Damn it! ;)

    These must have been the director's cuts! ;)
  • Posts: 6,677
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I really wanna get a glimpse of Shaunette Renée Wilson's character :)

    BTW, do we have any glimpse of Mad's character?
  • Posts: 1,314
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I find this sort of comment embarrassing. Han Solo was well handled. The only criteria for getting him back for Ford was probably if he was killed. Ford wanted him gone in 1980.

    Seriously, if Marion ravenwood was introduced now word for word as in 1981 insecure fraternities on the internet would crying woke. She’s kicks his ass in the opening scenes
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited September 2021 Posts: 17,691
    Matt007 wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I find this sort of comment embarrassing. Han Solo was well handled. The only criteria for getting him back for Ford was probably if he was killed. Ford wanted him gone in 1980.

    Seriously, if Marion ravenwood was introduced now word for word as in 1981 insecure fraternities on the internet would crying woke. She’s kicks his ass in the opening scenes
    Yep. But then a backlash against the "I was a child; I was in love" "Ah, you knew what you were doing" stuff...
    It's all art, art that you can love, hate or be indifferent to.
  • Posts: 1,571
    Statutory rape as art ? If so, it was a huge failure of writing. It could have been written so that she was young, just not a minor ! When I saw the film I understood her to mean that compared with Indy, she was younger and less mature. If she stated her age, I missed it. If somehow the math -- and, therefore, her age -- was evident or able to be figured out, I missed it.
  • Thankfully nothing definitive made it on screen, but in the script Marion is 25 which means she was 15 when she started seeing Indy. Not great. But in the story meetings Lucas was pushing for her to be as young as 11 when she started dating Indy…which uh, at least it wasn’t that.
  • Posts: 1,571
    Wow. Lucas certainly has shown an ability to be out of touch and obtuse, but usually it is not disgusting and repulsive, as well. When he bored audiences with too...much...time spent on parliamentary procedure in, what, the second Star Wars prequel, at least it was not as offensive as pedophilia. (BTW didn't anyone in the production team notice that failure of storytelling in the prequel ?) So, was there a negotiation to raise the number on younger Marion's age ? Whoever was urging Lucas to wise up should have held out for an even higher age, and/or a briefer amount of time gone by since she had seen Indy. In other words, had they seen each other, say, 5 years ago, she would have been 20 on the earlier occasion, not 15. Ugh, That helps, and a lot, really, but she still could have been older in their earlier days together, and older at the time of ROTLA. Even her character in Animal House was older than 20. She was close to graduating, so she was 21 or 22, assuming she graduated high school at 18 and was spending 4 years as an undergraduate...unlike Blutarsky who saw his 7 years of college going down the drain.
  • Spielberg himself pushed back at the idea of her being a literal child. But ultimately he was still fine with the idea of Indy having a relationship with a teenage girl.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,951
    Thankfully nothing definitive made it on screen, but in the script Marion is 25 which means she was 15 when she started seeing Indy. Not great. But in the story meetings Lucas was pushing for her to be as young as 11 when she started dating Indy…which uh, at least it wasn’t that.

    Yeah it’s really weird. Luckily it’s easily ignored, and it doesn’t really affect Indy as a character. If he were a real person it would be hard to look beyond, but he’s a fictional construct so it’s more easily forgiven as a misstep by the makers.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Yes that aspect is a bizarre and wrong choice.

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I loved when all of these things happened in those other Kathleen Kennedy productions like ET, Jurassic Park, Munich, The Sixth Sense etc. as well.

    You do know that KK wasn’t in charge of the studio for those right? Not that I’m agreeing with fear monger Over Indy 5, but some concerns aren’t misplaced given her agenda and track record of running things,
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    1458121477_This_clever_fan_theory_solves_one_of_the_biggest_problems_with_Indiana_Jones.jpg
    maxresdefault.jpg
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story. I find both sides of this argument, at their ends, so exhausting and lame.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,951
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story.

    Luckily that doesn't exist in this film, so it's pointless to complain about it.


    Can we start a 'woke' thread for these boring arguments to go into?

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story.

    Luckily that doesn't exist in this film, so it's pointless to complain about it.


    Can we start a 'woke' thread for these boring arguments to go into?

    I’m glad you know what’s in this film, but how about you stop trying to control the thread and other people’s points.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I loved when all of these things happened in those other Kathleen Kennedy productions like ET, Jurassic Park, Munich, The Sixth Sense etc. as well.

    You do know that KK wasn’t in charge of the studio for those right? Not that I’m agreeing with fear monger Over Indy 5, but some concerns aren’t misplaced given her agenda and track record of running things,

    I was being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek, admittedly. Although, the use of the word "agenda" there raised a curious eyebrow! What agenda does she have, other than to obviously make films?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 14,951
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story.

    Luckily that doesn't exist in this film, so it's pointless to complain about it.


    Can we start a 'woke' thread for these boring arguments to go into?

    I’m glad you know what’s in this film, but how about you stop trying to control the thread and other people’s points.

    You'll notice I don't know what's in this film, but neither do you, so complaining about 'woke caricatures' has no relevance to it. I'm merely suggesting that complaining about something that you have no evidence for even happening is a colossal waste of time.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I loved when all of these things happened in those other Kathleen Kennedy productions like ET, Jurassic Park, Munich, The Sixth Sense etc. as well.

    You do know that KK wasn’t in charge of the studio for those right? Not that I’m agreeing with fear monger Over Indy 5, but some concerns aren’t misplaced given her agenda and track record of running things,

    I was being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek, admittedly. Although, the use of the word "agenda" there raised a curious eyebrow! What agenda does she have, other than to obviously make films?

    Oh please don't, you know what the answer will be. Just leave these people (well, men) to it.
    But I will say how it's funny how films that she was actually the producer on she supposedly had less power and influence over than the ones where she was studio head, despite that being a much more removed role from the direct production process. Just like how Barbara Broccoli has little influence over the Bond films: it's all about the 'agenda' that the current MGM boss wants, obviously.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Fandom Menace: the true snowflakes of geekdom.
  • Posts: 1,571
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story.

    Luckily that doesn't exist in this film, so it's pointless to complain about it.


    Woowwwwww...is it "woke" to find sexual abuse of an underage person abhorrent ?
    Can we start a 'woke' thread for these boring arguments to go into?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,951
    Since62 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story.

    Luckily that doesn't exist in this film, so it's pointless to complain about it.


    Woowwwwww...is it "woke" to find sexual abuse of an underage person abhorrent ?
    Can we start a 'woke' thread for these boring arguments to go into?

    Eh? I don't think you're quite following.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Lucas originally wanted Indy to have a dark side to him, and sleeping with a 16 year old Marion was part of that. He was also supposed to sleep with that student that we saw eyeing him in class. That conceit of him regularly sleeping with students was the kind of stuff Spielberg convinced Lucas to drop.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 14,951
    Lucas originally wanted Indy to have a dark side to him, and sleeping with a 16 year old Marion was part of that. He was also supposed to sleep with that student that we saw eyeing him in class. That conceit of him regularly sleeping with students was the kind of stuff Spielberg convinced Lucas to drop.

    Sounds wise! I guess that maybe comes slightly from him being a Bond alternative.
    I'm sad we didn't see more of the playboy side of Indy they intended: I think I remember they originally wanted him to be three characters in one- the adventurer/the professor/the playboy. In the end we only saw playboy once, but I guess it was probably just too many angles to juggle.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    We do get a bit more of the playboy side of him the way he courted Willie and Elsa. It wasn’t there for Marion, obviously because they already had a history and that it was a point of contention.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,976
    I’ve always pictured Marion being 18 or 19ish when she first met Indy, and her referring to herself as a “child” was figurative. I’ve never thought, or will ever think that he was involved with a minor.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,951
    We do get a bit more of the playboy side of him the way he courted Willie and Elsa. It wasn’t there for Marion, obviously because they already had a history and that it was a point of contention.

    Yeah that's a fair point. I like those flirty moments with Elsa especially because they're so well written.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story.

    Luckily that doesn't exist in this film, so it's pointless to complain about it.


    Can we start a 'woke' thread for these boring arguments to go into?

    I’m glad you know what’s in this film, but how about you stop trying to control the thread and other people’s points.

    You'll notice I don't know what's in this film, but neither do you, so complaining about 'woke caricatures' has no relevance to it. I'm merely suggesting that complaining about something that you have no evidence for even happening is a colossal waste of time.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I loved when all of these things happened in those other Kathleen Kennedy productions like ET, Jurassic Park, Munich, The Sixth Sense etc. as well.

    You do know that KK wasn’t in charge of the studio for those right? Not that I’m agreeing with fear monger Over Indy 5, but some concerns aren’t misplaced given her agenda and track record of running things,

    I was being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek, admittedly. Although, the use of the word "agenda" there raised a curious eyebrow! What agenda does she have, other than to obviously make films?

    Oh please don't, you know what the answer will be. Just leave these people (well, men) to it.
    But I will say how it's funny how films that she was actually the producer on she supposedly had less power and influence over than the ones where she was studio head, despite that being a much more removed role from the direct production process. Just like how Barbara Broccoli has little influence over the Bond films: it's all about the 'agenda' that the current MGM boss wants, obviously.
    Dude, if you see my name on here, do not respond to my statements. I don’t want to hear your opinion on mine (or anyone else’s statements for that matter).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,951
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story.

    Luckily that doesn't exist in this film, so it's pointless to complain about it.


    Can we start a 'woke' thread for these boring arguments to go into?

    I’m glad you know what’s in this film, but how about you stop trying to control the thread and other people’s points.

    You'll notice I don't know what's in this film, but neither do you, so complaining about 'woke caricatures' has no relevance to it. I'm merely suggesting that complaining about something that you have no evidence for even happening is a colossal waste of time.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I loved when all of these things happened in those other Kathleen Kennedy productions like ET, Jurassic Park, Munich, The Sixth Sense etc. as well.

    You do know that KK wasn’t in charge of the studio for those right? Not that I’m agreeing with fear monger Over Indy 5, but some concerns aren’t misplaced given her agenda and track record of running things,

    I was being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek, admittedly. Although, the use of the word "agenda" there raised a curious eyebrow! What agenda does she have, other than to obviously make films?

    Oh please don't, you know what the answer will be. Just leave these people (well, men) to it.
    But I will say how it's funny how films that she was actually the producer on she supposedly had less power and influence over than the ones where she was studio head, despite that being a much more removed role from the direct production process. Just like how Barbara Broccoli has little influence over the Bond films: it's all about the 'agenda' that the current MGM boss wants, obviously.
    Dude, if you see my name on here, do not respond to my statements. I don’t want to hear your opinion on mine (or anyone else’s statements for that matter).

    I would say it's tricky to hear things you read, but anyway; I think it's a bit of a shame you can't accept certain views being challenged.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    But i mean purely in terms of character - Marion is feisty, independent, tough, resourceful. Everything that some people seem to dislike in female characters today

    That’s not the same thing as a woke caricature that isn’t an actual character and/or undercuts or appropriates a male/story.

    Luckily that doesn't exist in this film, so it's pointless to complain about it.


    Can we start a 'woke' thread for these boring arguments to go into?

    I’m glad you know what’s in this film, but how about you stop trying to control the thread and other people’s points.

    You'll notice I don't know what's in this film, but neither do you, so complaining about 'woke caricatures' has no relevance to it. I'm merely suggesting that complaining about something that you have no evidence for even happening is a colossal waste of time.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is a Kathleen Kennedy production.So most likely,Indy will be humiliated by the young female star who will know everything and be better than him at everything.He will also most likely die at the end in a horrible way and the young female star will carry on after him.

    Basically pretty much how they humiliated Han Solo in The Force Awakens.

    I loved when all of these things happened in those other Kathleen Kennedy productions like ET, Jurassic Park, Munich, The Sixth Sense etc. as well.

    You do know that KK wasn’t in charge of the studio for those right? Not that I’m agreeing with fear monger Over Indy 5, but some concerns aren’t misplaced given her agenda and track record of running things,

    I was being more than a bit tongue-in-cheek, admittedly. Although, the use of the word "agenda" there raised a curious eyebrow! What agenda does she have, other than to obviously make films?

    Oh please don't, you know what the answer will be. Just leave these people (well, men) to it.
    But I will say how it's funny how films that she was actually the producer on she supposedly had less power and influence over than the ones where she was studio head, despite that being a much more removed role from the direct production process. Just like how Barbara Broccoli has little influence over the Bond films: it's all about the 'agenda' that the current MGM boss wants, obviously.
    Dude, if you see my name on here, do not respond to my statements. I don’t want to hear your opinion on mine (or anyone else’s statements for that matter).

    I would say it's tricky to hear things you read, but anyway; I think it's a bit of a shame you can't accept certain views being challenged.

    I’m not the one being unaccepting of “views being challenged.” I think you’re spamming the thread, you’re not in control, and shouldn’t manipulate other people’s words. You don’t need to comment on everyone’s comments, particularly if you disagree.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’ve always pictured Marion being 18 or 19ish when she first met Indy, and her referring to herself as a “child” was figurative. I’ve never thought, or will ever think that he was involved with a minor.

    Say she's 28 in Raiders & it happened a decade ago. Then you're right!
  • Posts: 6,677
    Of course it was figurative. But people nowadays don't know the difference between figurative and literal, and use both words out of context. Personally, and just the other day, I was referring to a 20-something year old me as a child. I knew nothing back then. Ups, did that just read as me being ignorant at the time? lol Of course it was figurative. And she really was 28 at the time, so, as @chrisisall said, it all makes perfect sense. Also, this thread as gone haywire.
Sign In or Register to comment.