INDIANA JONES & THE DIAL OF DESTINY To Rival "John Carter" As Disney's Biggest Bomb

[AndyDursin]

Even though the Cinemascore audience rating isn't very good (only a B+, a hair ahead of Crystal Skull's B), there seem to be a group of older people who like the film. And most of them are on the FSM board!

There's no way Steven Spielberg ever would've made that film. Not in his DNA. Agree MJ Mutt's "death" and the "Vietnam" lines really didn't belong in this movie. Like I wrote above, should RAIDERS have made us feel like we were watching SCHINDLER'S LIST in order to believe that Nazis were bad? There's a certain distance from reality that marks these movies for being the escapist entertainments that they are. They could've just written Mutt out -- why kill him off? Why make the world so miserable for Indy? I mean they even make it out that he staged a "workplace shooting" in the campus office!

It's so clear they were building up to Indy dying. Marion was gone, Mutt was dead -- seriously can you believe THIS was the story they wanted to make for audiences?

Good on Spielberg for saying "no way" but BOO to Harrison Ford for not at least making them rewrite this garbage. This movie got made because of him, and he didn't need another paycheck at this point. He could've held out to get changes implemented at least.

Again, just shows how out of touch Kathleen Kennedy was -- not only in casting Waller-Bridge (who simply SUCKED, woke lines or not) but deciding THIS was the "good o'l fashioned Indiana Jones sequel" she wanted to make. Really!??

[Paul MacLean]

I just wonder what kids and people in their twenties who didn't "grow up" with Indy are gonna think about this movie. The action is lame, the F/X suck, the leading man is ancient and his fashionably female sidekick is a drag.

I think what appeals to kids today is the "rock concert" aesthetic of these action movies. Like rock concerts, they are flashy sensory overloads. Characterization, interesting plotting (and good scores!) are secondary to the slick, frenetic, deafening presentation.

Star Wars, Superman, Raiders, Aliens, etc. kept pace with audience expectations (and attention spans) of their eras -- but they were better-paced than movies today, and their action sequences alternated with moments of character development and introspection (this was true of even Heavy Metal!).

I can't see Dial of Destiny being remembered in 42 years the way Raiders is today.

Like I wrote above, should RAIDERS have made us feel like we were watching SCHINDLER'S LIST in order to believe that Nazis were bad?

Last Crusade actually addressed the Holocaust, but in a very surreptitious way -- in the scene where the Nazis present the sheik with the large chest of gold, and tell him "These belonged to some of the wealthiest families in Germany". But that was as far as it went -- it was a clever, subtle reference that didn't hit you over the head (in fact I didn't even catch it until my dad pointed it out!).

[AndyDursin]

The pacing, the action scenes -- it's all what they think sells today. Certainly on an international level, the lack of dialogue is a major advantage to these films -- makes them easier to market if it's all FX and not drama. The fewer elements that mark a movie as part of a country or culture -- things like humor, dialogue, human engagement -- the better.

This is why I'm always struck when you go back to a movie from the '80s, they almost feel like arthouse cinema at times. There are scenes where -- SHOCK -- people talk to one another! And -- HORROR -- sometimes even relate to each other! Or there's romance, or humor...all elements that are markedly diminished, if not at times outright absent, in 21st century blockbusters, which care less about domestic audiences than they do going for some $1 billion foreign in-take.

As I've often said, look at how many words were spoken from an average "genre" studio release in, I dunno, 1985. Compare it to an equivalent type of theatrical film in 2023. There's far less dialogue in these movies, less human engagement.

THE IRONY is that -- even with the "contemporary" element of its action scenes -- INDY is bombing everywhere. The Chinese gross is virtually non-existent, they had to pull it from half of the theaters there over the weekend.

I can't see Dial of Destiny being remembered in 42 years the way Raiders is today.

Nobody cares about it now, so I doubt it will be remembered in any way even 6 months from now the way RAIDERS is today.

Last Crusade actually addressed the Holocaust, but in a very surreptitious way -- in the scene where the Nazis present the sheik with the large chest of gold, and tell him "These belonged to some of the wealthiest families in Germany". But that was as far as it went -- it was a clever, subtle reference that didn't hit you over the head (in fact I didn't even catch it until my dad pointed it out!).

Exactly. There's no scene where Indy breaks down talking about his Uncle who ended up in Auschwitz.

[Eric W.]

I can pretty much co-sign everything you all have said.

[Monterey Jack]

Like I wrote above, should RAIDERS have made us feel like we were watching SCHINDLER'S LIST in order to believe that Nazis were bad?

Last Crusade actually addressed the Holocaust, but in a very surreptitious way -- in the scene where the Nazis present the sheik with the large chest of gold, and tell him "These belonged to some of the wealthiest families in Germany". But that was as far as it went -- it was a clever, subtle reference that didn't hit you over the head (in fact I didn't even catch it until my dad pointed it out!).

Supposedly, the line in theaters read, "Some of the finest Jewish families in Germany", but it got shortened for the VHS and all subsequent home versions of the movie. I don't recall this myself from when I saw it in theaters in 1989, but, then again, I was fifteen.

There's also the Nazi commander who expresses misgiving over "This...Jewish ritual" in Raiders when Belloq is preparing to open the Ark. I remember when my brother and I saw a screening of all three Indy films somewhere in Boston in January or February of 1994 (John Rhys-Davies was there to introduce the films), that audiences "noticed" that line a lot more coming in the immediate wake of the release of Schindler's List. There was also a hushed, respectful silence when River Phoenix was introduced as Young Indy in Last Crusade, as he had died of an overdose only a few months earlier.

I can't see Dial of Destiny being remembered in 42 years the way Raiders is today.

Nobody cares about it now, so I doubt it will be remembered in any way even 6 months from now the way RAIDERS is today.

Dial Of Destiny is destined to be the A Good Day To Die Hard or Rambo: Last Blood of the Indy films...a belated, miserable fifth movie in a franchise that most people will forget even exists, and those who do will just think, "Oh yeah, that piece of sh!t."

[Monterey Jack]

[AndyDursin]

Adjusted for inflation:

[AndyDursin]

Lukas weighs in, agrees with many of my points.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... tid=Nif5oz

[Monterey Jack]

Sure thing, Joe...

[AndyDursin]

He should be posting on the fsm board

I have more respect if someone liked CRYSTAL SKULL as opposed to this. I was surprised to see Jeff Bond calling this a "pallet cleanser" after that movie -- but with all due respect, CRYSTAL SKULL is lifeless, but at least it's bad in a respectful way to the character and the previous films. The actual script wasn't horrendous (or at least the concept wasn't), and might've been better executed years before when Spielberg was in his prime. On the other hand, there's no way DIAL OF DESTINY was ever going to be good.

I'm just surprised Disney wanting their branding on this movie. The closer you look at it, it's a thoroughly downbeat premise and a "down" story right from the get-go. Kids aren't going to be into it, and most (discriminating) adults ought to be put off also. The sheer premise of it is something that likely repelled Spielberg -- and should've forced Ford to stay away also.

[Monterey Jack]

I'm just surprised Disney wanting their branding on this movie. The closer you look at it, it's a thoroughly downbeat premise and a "down" story right from the get-go. Kids aren't going to be into it, and most (discriminating) adults ought to be put off also. The sheer premise of it is something that likely repelled Spielberg -- and should've forced Ford to stay away also.

Crystal Skull certainly didn't shy away from Ford's advanced age, but it still portrayed him as physically and mentally capable, and the movie ended with him marrying his on-again, off-again sweetheart and learning he was a father for the first time. Dial Of Destiny shows him as a haggard old wreck who lost his son in Vietnam and is in the midst of a divorce.

Fun, huh...?

Plus, Crystal Skull (despite its CGI sheen) still had SPIELBERG and his eye for roving, dynamic camerawork (I love the opening with the joyriding teens engaging the military trucks in a drag race, with its rhythmic shot selections and editing perfectly molded to Elvis' "Hound Dog" on the soundtrack) and talent for blocking actors in an aesthetically-pleasing manner across the frame. Dial Of Destiny had none of that, the action being chaotic, horrendously fake-looking and lacking Spielberg's snap and improvisatory wit (which even CS had in fits and spurts). Watching CS again a few weeks back, I still found it gravely flawed (especially in the second half, when it entered the patently phony-looking "jungle"), but the good parts are still MILES better than what's unspooling in theaters right now.

Seriously, look at this, and compare it to anything in DOD...it's so CLEAN, so CRISP, so well-edited. And witty! Granted, the movie never lives up to this, but even when half-assing something, there's a level of careful craftsmanship in Spielberg's filmmaking that's wholly absent in the new movie.

[Paul MacLean]

Last Crusade actually addressed the Holocaust, but in a very surreptitious way -- in the scene where the Nazis present the sheik with the large chest of gold, and tell him "These belonged to some of the wealthiest families in Germany". But that was as far as it went -- it was a clever, subtle reference that didn't hit you over the head (in fact I didn't even catch it until my dad pointed it out!).

Supposedly, the line in theaters read, "Some of the finest Jewish families in Germany", but it got shortened for the VHS and all subsequent home versions of the movie. I don't recall this myself from when I saw it in theaters in 1989, but, then again, I was fifteen.

I saw it in the theater in 1989, I am 99% sure he did not say "Jewish". I would have picked up on the reference immediately if he had.

Anyway, as far as this new movie, the divided opinions make for fascinating reading.

It seems to me that this movie appeals to people who are, to some extent, living in the past. For them, the mere sight of Indiana Jones (even a geriatric Indiana Jones), along with quotes of John Williams' theme, bring back "the good old days".

Doesn't work for me though. Raiders is still one of my favorite movies -- but I'd rather explore and enjoy new, different types of films, opposed to sequels that only cosmetically resemble the originals.

Of course when a worthy sequel (i.e. Last Crusade, Top Gun: Maverick, any good Bond picture) comes along, I'm totally on board. But I have no use for retreads of the same old stuff (like The Force Awakens) or sequels that distort or "re-imagine" the tropes of the originals (the 2016 Ghostbusters, Alien Covenant, No Time to Die,), or spinoffs which have nothing to do with the original characters (Fantastic Beasts).

[AndyDursin]

$82 million 5 DAY evoking comparisons of SUPERMAN RETURNS and unlikely to even match that gross.

https://deadline.com/2023/07/box-office ... 235429932/

Mangold's take tells you all about where this sequel was supposed to end:

“That seemed to me to be right emotionally,” Mangold told Variety, “that a disillusioned hero could end up at this wonderful tumultuous moment in world history and — with his son gone and his wife gone — that he’d picture himself staying in the place he loves best, which is this imagining these worlds.”

[Paul MacLean]

“That seemed to me to be right emotionally,” Mangold told Variety, “that a disillusioned hero could end up at this wonderful tumultuous moment in world history and — with his son gone and his wife gone — that he’d picture himself staying in the place he loves best, which is this imagining these worlds.”

That's actually where I thought the film was headed -- in fact I was hoping he'd stay behind. To me, that would have been the most satisfying (and interesting) way to end it.

[AndyDursin]

Would've made more sense given where the film was going -- though the sheer notion of a movie that takes a classic hero, kills off/disposes of his family, and leaves him literally buried in the past so a younger female lead can take over is...well, who WANTS to see that? What's the point of even making that story?

It is fascinating looking at the reaction to this movie from FSM writers and message board posters, especially since it seems this movie specifically appeals to the older demographic that contributes there. It's nearly like it's down political/ideological lines, with the further left you are, seems to be the more likely you are to overlook the movie's abundant issues and praise it.