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

1158159161163164196

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,071
    So the fears of PWB being Kathleen Kennedy’s woke trans lesbian feminist that beats up Indy and snips his balls off were unfounded? I’m shocked.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,423
    They all rescue and save each other over the course of it, like the other Indy movies. No one is helpless, no one is superhuman.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,071
    So, what the hell was up with that BBC review?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 15,423
    This one?
    https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230519-indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-review-gloomy-and-depressing-final-act

    Yeah I’m not sure what part they’re thinking of with that last sentence, I don’t recognise that. To be fair, I can see where they’re coming from generally with that review: some sequences are overlong, the flare of Spielberg is missed (but I would say that the complex action is very easy to follow: it’s well made, make no mistake) and there is a gloomy air to the thing where Skull at least aimed for sunny and fun. It feels like Mangold was aiming more for Raiders grittiness but arguably with even fewer gags ( a lot of people get murdered in this! Including some innocents), it works as an Indy film, but there is an air of slight sadness to it perhaps.
    It’s weird: I think it’s a better film than Skull, but there are elements to that film which are missed here- the goofiness, the gags, the Spielberg. If the two could be combined somehow (this has tension and danger and a more real-feeling human story, plus a more inventive plot that doesn’t just retread Raiders again) you’d end up with a pretty perfect Indy movie.
  • Posts: 15,928
    Holy crap! This makes me thrilled to see members on here so positive about the new movie.
    I'm sure I'm going to enjoy it as well. Hopefully I'll get time to see it next week.
  • Posts: 1,759
    Hard to beat the dialog call back in the final scene if you are an Indy fan. If you are not an Indy fan I could see you having a luke warm reception to it.
  • Posts: 3,291
    I'm seeing it on Friday, and feeling a bit more optimistic now after some of the reviews here.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,584
    Thanks for the reviews guys, I'm more excited about it now.
    One thing I love after seeing the trailers is it's not as bright as Indy 4, needed sunglasses on to watch that film
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,423
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Thanks for the reviews guys, I'm more excited about it now.
    One thing I love after seeing the trailers is it's not as bright as Indy 4, needed sunglasses on to watch that film

    Ha! Yes indeed. Although have you seen the new version on 4K, now on Disney+ and Paramount+? They’ve re-graded it and it looks so much better; the golden glows have been toned down to match the originals more.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 468
    An extremely mild spoiler about the first shot. There's no mountain, even if the Paramount logo appears, but Mangold did a different match cut (and no, it doesn't involve the Disney castle either).

    I'm wondering if the licence plate shown repeatedly in Italy (SR 14 1981) isn't a reference to the release year of Raiders.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,584
    mtm wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Thanks for the reviews guys, I'm more excited about it now.
    One thing I love after seeing the trailers is it's not as bright as Indy 4, needed sunglasses on to watch that film

    Ha! Yes indeed. Although have you seen the new version on 4K, now on Disney+ and Paramount+? They’ve re-graded it and it looks so much better; the golden glows have been toned down to match the originals more.

    Cheers mate, I'll have to give that a watch.
    I still remember watching it in the cinema thinking it looked to clean, the thing I love about Bond, Indy and Die Hard is they look beaten and bloodied by the end of the film, like they've been through an adventure
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    edited June 2023 Posts: 14,924
    I plan on seeing it this on the weekend. And after the reviews I'm reading, I'm hopeful I'll enjoy it more than I did with KOTCS.
    If it does surpass that film on an enjoyment level, then I'll be a happy man.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,423
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Thanks for the reviews guys, I'm more excited about it now.
    One thing I love after seeing the trailers is it's not as bright as Indy 4, needed sunglasses on to watch that film

    Ha! Yes indeed. Although have you seen the new version on 4K, now on Disney+ and Paramount+? They’ve re-graded it and it looks so much better; the golden glows have been toned down to match the originals more.

    Cheers mate, I'll have to give that a watch.
    I still remember watching it in the cinema thinking it looked to clean, the thing I love about Bond, Indy and Die Hard is they look beaten and bloodied by the end of the film, like they've been through an adventure

    Yeah, it obviously doesn't make it into another film or anything, but it does bring it in line with the first three more visually, which does help. I would say have a look at the diner/bike chase especially- I think it looks pretty gorgeous now.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    edited June 2023 Posts: 8,788
    An extremely mild spoiler about the first shot. There's no mountain, ...
    No more phallic symbol. Akin to castration of the movie. Yet another example of KK, along with PWB, totally ruining the franchise with their woke lesbian agenda. This will be a disaster. :)

    By the way, I liked the gopher burrow as the first shot of KOTCS.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,423
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    An extremely mild spoiler about the first shot. There's no mountain, ...
    No more phallic symbol. Akin to castration of the movie. Yet another example of KK, along with PWB, totally ruining the franchise with their woke lesbian agenda. This will be a disaster. :)

    :))
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 468
    The best thing I had read about the stupid “leaked plot” was some guy writing (in jest) that the ending would indeed dabble with the multiverse with Indiana Jones swapping places with the Indiana Jones of a parallel universe played by Tom Selleck.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,423
    Isn't this gorgeous? From Tony Stella on twitter.

    Fzy9AFHagAMDS7k?format=webp&name=medium
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 617
    For those comments earlier querying the U boat scene in Raiders, Indy did attach himself to the boat with whip as u-boats didn't generally submerge all that often due to diesel fumes inside etc.
    A U-boat certainly would if it's entering a secret Mediterranean base -- during daylight hours --which the Germans want to keep hidden from the British (even pre-war).

    You know, the Brits -- with their recon planes and ships -- based in Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria.

    It's a dumb moment in the film, but not as dumb as the German truck convoy not simply stopping for a moment so one of the troops can casually shoot Indy like a helpless dog.

  • CraterGuns wrote: »
    For those comments earlier querying the U boat scene in Raiders, Indy did attach himself to the boat with whip as u-boats didn't generally submerge all that often due to diesel fumes inside etc.
    A U-boat certainly would if it's entering a secret Mediterranean base -- during daylight hours --which the Germans want to keep hidden from the British (even pre-war).

    You know, the Brits -- with their recon planes and ships -- based in Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria.

    It's a dumb moment in the film, but not as dumb as the German truck convoy not simply stopping for a moment so one of the troops can casually shoot Indy like a helpless dog.

    I think the idea was that Indy let go to avoid drowning just prior to arrival at the sub base.Also the truck convoy were in a race to get the ark to Berlin so no time to stop.
  • Posts: 669
    mtm wrote: »
    Isn't this gorgeous? From Tony Stella on twitter.

    Fzy9AFHagAMDS7k?format=webp&name=medium

    This is absolutely fantastic! I love seeing the artwork - both official and fan-created - coming out of this movie. Something about Indiana Jones lends itself to a rich palette of artwork.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,423
    I don't think he's quite explained what that one is, if it was submitted and rejected or what. It doesn't look quite finished to me, so maybe Lucasfilm asked him to move onto another.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,788
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    For those comments earlier querying the U boat scene in Raiders, Indy did attach himself to the boat with whip as u-boats didn't generally submerge all that often due to diesel fumes inside etc.
    A U-boat certainly would if it's entering a secret Mediterranean base -- during daylight hours --which the Germans want to keep hidden from the British (even pre-war).

    You know, the Brits -- with their recon planes and ships -- based in Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria.

    It's a dumb moment in the film, but not as dumb as the German truck convoy not simply stopping for a moment so one of the troops can casually shoot Indy like a helpless dog.

    I think we just have to extend our Bond-proven ability to suspend disbelief to these scenes. All those German troops getting on board of the freighter would not have fit into the U-boat in the first place. And most of all, there is no way they could have put the ark into the U-boat afterwards, just like it wouldn't have fit into the flying wing aircraft. But hey, both make a great setting. And if Indy was on deck of the U-boat, he either would have drowned (since the boat wouldn't always dive at periscope depth) or have been discovered if it was on the surface. But ok, forgiven, and I promise not to be as critical of DOD when I see it tomorrow.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,317
    Hey @j_w_pepper , enjoy it tomorrow, my wife and I have tickets for Saturday. When you are a child of the 80ies, there is just no way around a new Indiana Jones movie. And I am completely in the camp of tolerated disbelief, as long as in the end it is hugely entertaining.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,788
    zebrafish wrote: »
    Hey @j_w_pepper , enjoy it tomorrow, my wife and I have tickets for Saturday. When you are a child of the 80ies, there is just no way around a new Indiana Jones movie. And I am completely in the camp of tolerated disbelief, as long as in the end it is hugely entertaining.

    Hi, Zeb (@zebrafish)...thanks for the good wishes, and the same to you and your wife. I sort of resent being called a child of the eighties, since I was already 24 or so when seeing ROTLA for the first time (in the U.S.). But yes, it still has a formative influence, and I wouldn't want to miss this movie even if I only intended to complain about it (I certainly won't).

    But in your neck of the woods, do you have a chance to see the original version, or only the dubbed one?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 15,423
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    For those comments earlier querying the U boat scene in Raiders, Indy did attach himself to the boat with whip as u-boats didn't generally submerge all that often due to diesel fumes inside etc.
    A U-boat certainly would if it's entering a secret Mediterranean base -- during daylight hours --which the Germans want to keep hidden from the British (even pre-war).

    You know, the Brits -- with their recon planes and ships -- based in Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria.

    It's a dumb moment in the film, but not as dumb as the German truck convoy not simply stopping for a moment so one of the troops can casually shoot Indy like a helpless dog.

    I think we just have to extend our Bond-proven ability to suspend disbelief to these scenes. All those German troops getting on board of the freighter would not have fit into the U-boat in the first place.

    Ha! That's a good point. I've always wondered how they planned to fly it out on the Flying Wing: to my mind there's nowhere it would have fitted in there either!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,788
    mtm wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    For those comments earlier querying the U boat scene in Raiders, Indy did attach himself to the boat with whip as u-boats didn't generally submerge all that often due to diesel fumes inside etc.
    A U-boat certainly would if it's entering a secret Mediterranean base -- during daylight hours --which the Germans want to keep hidden from the British (even pre-war).

    You know, the Brits -- with their recon planes and ships -- based in Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria.

    It's a dumb moment in the film, but not as dumb as the German truck convoy not simply stopping for a moment so one of the troops can casually shoot Indy like a helpless dog.

    I think we just have to extend our Bond-proven ability to suspend disbelief to these scenes. All those German troops getting on board of the freighter would not have fit into the U-boat in the first place.

    Ha! That's a good point. I've always wondered how they planned to fly it out on the Flying Wing: to my mind there's nowhere it would have fitted in there either!

    This is not exactly my original idea. The entire thing has been discussed on the IMDb "goofs" page for ROTLA for quite some time...just to give adequate credit. Did you know that the U-boat they used for ROTLA was the replica that they had built before for "Das Boot" as "U-96"? Trouble is, it's a "VIIc" type (IIRC) which was only built in reality after 1940 and not the earlier type that "U-26" should have been. But hey, as I said, suspension of disbelief is what counts.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 15,423
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    For those comments earlier querying the U boat scene in Raiders, Indy did attach himself to the boat with whip as u-boats didn't generally submerge all that often due to diesel fumes inside etc.
    A U-boat certainly would if it's entering a secret Mediterranean base -- during daylight hours --which the Germans want to keep hidden from the British (even pre-war).

    You know, the Brits -- with their recon planes and ships -- based in Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria.

    It's a dumb moment in the film, but not as dumb as the German truck convoy not simply stopping for a moment so one of the troops can casually shoot Indy like a helpless dog.

    I think we just have to extend our Bond-proven ability to suspend disbelief to these scenes. All those German troops getting on board of the freighter would not have fit into the U-boat in the first place.

    Ha! That's a good point. I've always wondered how they planned to fly it out on the Flying Wing: to my mind there's nowhere it would have fitted in there either!

    This is not exactly my original idea. The entire thing has been discussed on the IMDb "goofs" page for ROTLA for quite some time...just to give adequate credit. Did you know that the U-boat they used for ROTLA was the replica that they had built before for "Das Boot" as "U-96"? Trouble is, it's a "VIIc" type (IIRC) which was only built in reality after 1940 and not the earlier type that "U-26" should have been. But hey, as I said, suspension of disbelief is what counts.

    I did know that, it's a fun bit of trivia! But as you say, it's just a movie so the inaccuracy is easily ignored. Indy's famous satchel is a WW2 gasmask bag from the UK, which he obviously can't have owned in the 30s, but it doesn't really matter :D
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Variety says that Disney+ are eyeing up an Indiana Jones TV series, sounds like early days though.

    https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/indiana-jones-series-disney-plus-1235416179/

    Some possible ideas of where the show could go. I’d say honestly reboot Indy as a whole.

    I don't know who's working today that I'd trust to deliver on the level of 80s Spielberg. There's just no modern equivalent. Perhaps the directors of The Lego Movie, Phil Lord and Chris Miller, have the right sensibility and humor to get some of it right. Would love to give it to Quentin Tarantino and see what happens.

    Lucasfilm would NOT rehire them. After the SOLO troubles (both duos, the directors and Kathleen Kennedy and Lawrence Kasdan) are too blame, neither side wants to work together again. As for QT, he only wants to work on his own material it seems.

    Yeah, precisely. My only favorites are out of the picture. I haven't been at all impressed with what Marvel has been doing with its streaming, so I have little faith in a recasted Indy show.

    Some rumors, believe what you want.

    https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/11/09/rumor-indiana-jones-5-test-screenings-are-abysmal-disney-in-a-panic/

    This is not aimed at Max at all as he was just sharing it with us, but I think it's important to remember what an absolute shower of lies these YouTuber liars were peddling at the end of last year.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 468
    I've spotted at least one shocking goof. During the puppet show in Sicily, there's a theme from Nino Rota, which was composed for Fellini's Amarcord in 1973, four years after the events of the film. It breaks the suspension of disbelief, and at my screening there was a massive walkout of people complaining about the feminist agenda and the lack of research on diegetic music.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,788
    I've spotted at least one shocking goof. During the puppet show in Sicily, there's a theme from Nino Rota, which was composed for Fellini's Amarcord in 1973, four years after the events of the film. It breaks the suspension of disbelief, and at my screening there was a massive walkout of people complaining about the feminist agenda and the lack of research on diegetic music.

    With all due respect to Nino Rota, one may suppose that he has reused a theme from far earlier, as he doubtless did several times, and so it may have been known well enough in 1969. Rota has been famous for recycling earlier compositions, even if they were his own, as I recall. Doesn't take away any glory from him, he was one of the greatest.

    But remember that Rota's Academy Award nomination for The Godfather was rescinded because he used much of his earlier score for 1958's Fortunatella. And if I'm not wrong, I find quite a few other pieces from his earlier work he recycled here and there, so I wouldn't be surprised if that Amarcord piece might have been available in 1969...especially if it's Sicilian, which may just be a traditional tune.

    That being said, I acknowledge the fact that your message was meant to be facetious, especially regarding the feminist agenda etc.
  • Posts: 12,316
    Sadly I found KOTCS even worse than I remembered when I tried it again last night. I’ll go into detail later; I’m going to post a full semi-detailed ranking later after my showing of DOD tonight!
Sign In or Register to comment.