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

1102103105107108135

Comments

  • Posts: 3,063
    Sounds so much Indy to me:

    "Almost like a science fiction tale of archaeologists finding a wristwatch buried deep in an Egyptian pyramid or motorcar under the foundations of Stonehenge, we do have an example of a scientific computer that was built between 150 and 100 BC. It was so advanced, nothing as complex would be developed again until the 14th century.

    The Antikythera mechanism was lost to the world for centuries. The device was salvaged in 1900 from a ship that sank en route to Rome, in the 1st century BC, between Crete and the island of Antikythera in the Mediterranean. When one of the fragments was discovered to contain a bronze gear wheel, the idea that this was some kind of astronomical clock was dismissed as too fantastic an anachronism. It was not until 1951 that the investigation was picked up by a British science historian Derek J. de Solla Price."
  • Posts: 1,314
    I think if it’s time travel I’m out.

    Indy is supernatural. Not convenient science tropes
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,115
    He's a bit sci-fi. Even that plane in Raiders is a bit more tech than the Nazis actually had at the time.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,584
    It would have to be grounded and done exceptionally well, but I think time travel would be a very interesting approach for Indy. We’ve seen ghosts, melting faces, aliens. I don’t think this would be too far fetched as long as it’s based in real historical information.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,929
    I had no problems with the premise of Crystal Skulls, on the contrary, I found it very exciting and firmly rooted in archeology; it was the execution that dropped the ball. I look forward to seeing what Mangold has to offer.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 12,115
    jake24 wrote: »
    It would have to be grounded and done exceptionally well, but I think time travel would be a very interesting approach for Indy. We’ve seen ghosts, melting faces, aliens. I don’t think this would be too far fetched as long as it’s based in real historical information.

    Yeah I'm not turned off by the idea at all, it depends on how it would be done. I want to see something new.
    talos7 wrote: »
    I had no problems with the premise of Crystal Skulls, on the contrary, I found it very exciting and firmly rooted in archeology; it was the execution that dropped the ball. I look forward to seeing what Mangold has to offer.

    I agree, I thought it was a really logical path for a story about a comic-book archeologist who investigates all-powerful treasures to go down: ancient astronauts and 'Chariots of the Gods' ideas have been around so long, and to tie it in with the flying saucer craze of the 50s just makes too much sense not to do. I never had a problem with it.
  • Posts: 1,480
    mtm wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    It would have to be grounded and done exceptionally well, but I think time travel would be a very interesting approach for Indy. We’ve seen ghosts, melting faces, aliens. I don’t think this would be too far fetched as long as it’s based in real historical information.

    Yeah I'm not turned off by the idea at all, it depends on how it would be done. I want to see something new.
    talos7 wrote: »
    I had no problems with the premise of Crystal Skulls, on the contrary, I found it very exciting and firmly rooted in archeology; it was the execution that dropped the ball. I look forward to seeing what Mangold has to offer.

    I agree, I thought it was a really logical path for a story about a comic-book archeologist who investigates all-powerful treasures to go down: ancient astronauts and 'Chariots of the Gods' ideas have been around so long, and to tie it in with the flying saucer craze of the 50s just makes too much sense not to do. I never had a problem with it.

    Yes, particularly since the prior Indy films were set in the 1930s and 1940s. It was appropriate to move it up to - Soviets instead of Nazis, 1950s, as time had gone by, and the aliens craze was in full swing by the 50s. Similarly, it makes sense that the new one (apparently ?) be set in the 1960s, though it might have portions relating back to prior years or timeframes, time-travel or no.
  • Posts: 1,314
    For the first three the macguffins were rooted in culture and the heritage of our civilisations. Christianity, Hinduism, religion. Subjects that a professor might study. I think that helped to ground the more fantastical elements. There’s a general acceptance among believers that it was all possible.

    Borderline Conspiracy theories like aliens and time travel don’t have the same gravitas imo
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 418
    Since62 wrote: »
    Yes, particularly since the prior Indy films were set in the 1930s and 1940s. It was appropriate to move it up to - Soviets instead of Nazis, 1950s, as time had gone by, and the aliens craze was in full swing by the 50s. Similarly, it makes sense that the new one (apparently ?) be set in the 1960s, though it might have portions relating back to prior years or timeframes, time-travel or no.

    There were Soviets in the fourth film, because Spielberg, since he directed Schindler's List, doesn't want to caricature Nazis anymore or to use them for fun. However, while the Nazis do have some mystical element at heart, some idea of blind obedience to evil, Soviets, with their materialist ideology, aren't that fascinating for what is mostly a fantasy movie.
  • Posts: 1,480
    Since62 wrote: »
    Yes, particularly since the prior Indy films were set in the 1930s and 1940s. It was appropriate to move it up to - Soviets instead of Nazis, 1950s, as time had gone by, and the aliens craze was in full swing by the 50s. Similarly, it makes sense that the new one (apparently ?) be set in the 1960s, though it might have portions relating back to prior years or timeframes, time-travel or no.

    There were Soviets in the fourth film, because Spielberg, since he directed Schindler's List, doesn't want to caricature Nazis anymore or to use them for fun. However, while the Nazis do have some mystical element at heart, some idea of blind obedience to evil, Soviets, with their materialist ideology, aren't that fascinating for what is mostly a fantasy movie.

    OK, good points, but for a villain in the 50s, the Soviets were the way to go. Everyone has their line, and while time travel is over the line for me, perhaps not for others. Aliens I thought were OK for Indy 4, but the execution was not up to their higher earlier standards. Time-travel crosses the line for me - like when dead people can somehow be brought back and it reduces the drama and impact of a loss of a character. With time travel, well, then so many things could be changed by going back and "fixing" something. But that does not seem to happen. I can see it being a macguffin for Indy 5, but not one that actually works out. Problem is - in every Indy movie, the things which Indy finds not credible or possible DO work out...
  • LucknFateLucknFate Arkhangelsk
    Posts: 565
    jake24 wrote: »
    It would have to be grounded and done exceptionally well, but I think time travel would be a very interesting approach for Indy. We’ve seen ghosts, melting faces, aliens. I don’t think this would be too far fetched as long as it’s based in real historical information.

    But what if the film ends with a time travel "accident" and a recast young indy?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,929
    LucknFate wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    It would have to be grounded and done exceptionally well, but I think time travel would be a very interesting approach for Indy. We’ve seen ghosts, melting faces, aliens. I don’t think this would be too far fetched as long as it’s based in real historical information.

    But what if the film ends with a time travel "accident" and a recast young indy?

    Of course I could be wrong but I don’t see that happening; this will be the Harrison Ford show.
  • Posts: 12,436
    Hopefully this one will be better than KOTCS?!!!
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 418
    Harrison Ford has definitely carefully worked out his contract on this. Apparently, Disney bought out the distribution rights from Paramount (the initial contract with Lucasfilm was for five films) and gave him quite a bit of control in exchange for returning to Star Wars (he was getting bored with Han Solo and famously asked Lucas to kill him off for RotJ). He stuck with the project even after Lucas wasn't involved and Spielberg decided to leave, so he's basically the only member of the original team for Raiders still involved, apart from John Williams.

    Besides, Kathleen Kennedy has lately been vocal about not recasting lightly some major parts for Star Wars anymore. As Indy (outside of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles) never had any actor recast with a younger version, it would make even less sense to bring a new actor for sequels.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    I seriously doubt that the Indiana Jones character will be permanently retired when Ford is done. Disney paid a lot of money for LucasFilm. Why would they buy it and just let Indiana Jones sit on a shelf never to be used again? That makes no sense.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 12,115
    Ms Kennedy did outright state that no-one else will play Indiana Jones, which I can kind of respect but it does feel a bit silly. If Bond could be recast so incredibly well then why rule out another Indy? I'd love a youngish Indy Disney+ show.

    On the other hand I can kind of see the logic: Indy is a kind of a spoof of classic pulp adventure characters, who got dropped into films which kind of aped the Bond movies in tone- there's little in there which is actually very original. But he was made iconic by the meeting of the three huge talents of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford (and Williams too). If you take all of them away, is it even Indy any more?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,050
    mtm wrote: »
    Ms Kennedy did outright state that no-one else will play Indiana Jones, which I can kind of respect but it does feel a bit silly. If Bond could be recast so incredibly well then why rule out another Indy? I'd love a youngish Indy Disney+ show.

    On the other hand I can kind of see the logic: Indy is a kind of a spoof of classic pulp adventure characters, who got dropped into films which kind of aped the Bond movies in tone- there's little in there which is actually very original. But he was made iconic by the meeting of the three huge talents of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford (and Williams too). If you take all of them away, is it even Indy any more?

    You could say the same thing about Bond. He survived while slowly losing Fleming, Hunt, Connery, Saltzman, Moore, Cubby and ton of talent post LTK. Indy is a fun character like him. It should be able to survive without its creators, like Bond. They aren’t all that different. Take care of him, be careful of Kathleen Kennedy and her unique style of filming and Indy can easily survive.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    I guarantee whoever takes over LucasFilm will change that directive.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,115
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ms Kennedy did outright state that no-one else will play Indiana Jones, which I can kind of respect but it does feel a bit silly. If Bond could be recast so incredibly well then why rule out another Indy? I'd love a youngish Indy Disney+ show.

    On the other hand I can kind of see the logic: Indy is a kind of a spoof of classic pulp adventure characters, who got dropped into films which kind of aped the Bond movies in tone- there's little in there which is actually very original. But he was made iconic by the meeting of the three huge talents of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford (and Williams too). If you take all of them away, is it even Indy any more?

    You could say the same thing about Bond. He survived while slowly losing Fleming, Hunt, Connery, Saltzman, Moore, Cubby and ton of talent post LTK. Indy is a fun character like him. It should be able to survive without its creators, like Bond. They aren’t all that different. Take care of him, be careful of Kathleen Kennedy and her unique style of filming and Indy can easily survive.

    I’m not sure: Bond was never a director’s vision like Indy was. And right from the start the key roles like writers, composer etc were established as being interchangeable into the second movie. The producers were the key talent there really, along with Connery too; but even that changes within a few years.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,929
    Right or wrong, I have faith in Mangold. I’m actually glad that Spielberg stepped away ; there is no doubt that he is one of the all time greatest directors but I think his sensibilities have changed in a way that do not fit Indiana Jones. The new blood of a talented director like Mangold is the best hope for a film that is respectful to the character and the franchise but brings a fresh perspective. Fingers crossed.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,929
    From producer Frank Marshal

    "It's a great story, it's a great character, and I think you're going to be very happy with this movie. It's everything I think that everybody wants out of an Indiana Jones movie."

    https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-5-frank-marshall-movie-quality-response/

  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited June 2022 Posts: 418
    You should compare this to what he said before Crystal Skulls was released. He called it "pretty amazing" or said before production started that it would be done old school without much CGI.
    The best way to describe the movie is that it's an Indiana Jones movie. It's got all the style and elements of the old movies, and we're not really trying to do anything different.

    https://www.moviefanatic.com/2007/12/producer-comments-on-indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/
    https://movieweb.com/producer-frank-marshall-talks-indiana-jones-4-details/

    Anyway, the poor reception to this film may be a huge factor in Ford and other people wanting to close the franchise on an high note. Whether they have the skills to achieve this (Ford had never really played a big role behind the scenes on an Indy film or any other project) or to equal the skills of Spielberg in his prime is a different issue.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,115
    talos7 wrote: »
    Right or wrong, I have faith in Mangold. I’m actually glad that Spielberg stepped away ; there is no doubt that he is one of the all time greatest directors but I think his sensibilities have changed in a way that do not fit Indiana Jones. The new blood of a talented director like Mangold is the best hope for a film that is respectful to the character and the franchise but brings a fresh perspective. Fingers crossed.

    Yes, given that Ford vs Ferrari was one of the most perfectly-judged big movies of recent years, I do think this film stands a decent chance of actually being pretty good.
  • Posts: 5,863
    I wish Harrison Ford had appeared in Ford v Ferrari.

    With Harrison Ferrari.

    Okay, okay, I'm leaving!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,078
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I wish Harrison Ford had appeared in Ford v Ferrari.

    With Harrison Ferrari.

    Okay, okay, I'm leaving!
    Ugh.

    "Get outta my car!"
  • Posts: 618
    "I hate Lee Iacocca, Jock! I hate him!"

    All right, I'm done now too.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 3,063
    mtm wrote: »
    Indy is a kind of a spoof of classic pulp adventure characters, who got dropped into films which kind of aped the Bond movies in tone- there's little in there which is actually very original. But he was made iconic by the meeting of the three huge talents of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford (and Williams too). If you take all of them away, is it even Indy any more?
    This is an excellent point! Likewise Kill Bill 3 wouldn't be Kill Bill 3, if they took away Thurman and Tarantino! Or how about a Rambo/Rocky movie without Stallone?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,115
    I guess that's kind of what Creed 3 will be.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 418
    I'd say that the first Creed made the Michael B. Jordan character the clear lead, even if there were parallels to Rocky and it used a lot of the Rocky mythology, just as a Rocky spin-off carrying a different title was supposed to.
    For Creed 2, Stallone basically assumed again creative control, as he was back in charge of the script, and Creed became a supporting character in some kind of follow-up to Rocky IV focused on the Rocky-Drago backstory. It made for a less effective movie.

    It will be interesting to see how much this fifth Indy film gets accepted by the audiences and fans. Will it be regarded as a heartless cash grab that adds nothing to the 80s trilogy, a more satisfying conclusion to the entire series than Crystal Skulls, an harmless retread of brighter glories, an entry distinctive and divisive with a tone of its own?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,115
    I think probably all of those except for the first one. It's James Mangold, I think he's too good to be doing anything heartless.
Sign In or Register to comment.