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

[Monterey Jack]

Lukas defends the movie against the "incel loser fans"...in the same article where he chastises the visual effects.

https://www.lukaskendall.com/post/india ... KjK9AoiUAw

This is the same man who thinks the dreadfully dull Andor is brilliantly-written "Star Wars for adults".

[AndyDursin]

"incel loser fans"

[Paul MacLean]

Incel Loser Fan: Someone who prefers believable character arcs, original ideas, and takes exception to Kathleen Kennedy doing away with much-loved classic characters to satiate her penis envy.

[Monterey Jack]

Couldn't indy have afforded some Irish Spring...?

[Chris Shaneyfelt]

Robert Knaus posted a response on Lukas's website that draws an important distinction. He said the complaint isn't about whether there is a female character in the film. The complaint is about the rumored ending - that Indy may be erased from existence and his original heroic exploits be replaced by this female character (as Paul noted in his post above about "doing away with much-loved classic characters").

I enjoy seeing both male and female heroic characters in movies. I couldn't imagine "Aliens" without Ripley any more than I can imagine "Raiders of the Lost Ark" without Indiana Jones. Moreover, Sigourney Weaver and Harrison Ford are superb in their respective roles, and when I watch those films (and I'm sure I must have watched both a hundred times), I continue to cheer both heroes on. It's the modern-day subtext of erasing the male gender that is profoundly disconcerting.

And incidentally, I equally dislike films that treat the female gender with distain. Last night I watched "48 Hrs." which I hadn't seen since I was a teenager. I was surprised by what I didn't "see" when I was much younger. In that film, men treat women like objects to be used. The women are discarded and literally pushed aside when the men don't need them. You might expect this behavior of the villains, but the "good guys" don't have much respect for women either beyond making them a means to an end. At least Annette O'Toole got to put in a good, albeit brief, performance as a girlfriend trying to reach the heart of Nolte's Jack character about the need for a deeper, meaningful relationship of mutual respect. But I have to say the movie's overall tone left a bad taste in my mouth with respect to the way women were treated.

[Monterey Jack]

I enjoy seeing both male and female heroic characters in movies. I couldn't imagine "Aliens" without Ripley any more than I can imagine "Raiders of the Lost Ark" without Indiana Jones. Moreover, Sigourney Weaver and Harrison Ford are superb in their respective roles, and when I watch those films (and I'm sure I must have watched both a hundred times), I continue to cheer both heroes on. It's the modern-day subtext of erasing the male gender that is profoundly disconcerting.

It's this, exactly. It's not so much the "I can do anything better than you / No you can't / Yes, I cannnnn...!" stuff, but the fact that the straight, white male heroes of yesteryear are being trotted onscreen for Nostalgia Porn...only to be systematically emasculated, chided for the DEPLORABLE behavior of their youths and being killed off literally so that a woman, POC or handicapped person (preferably all three!) can assume their mantle and carry on in their stead. Imagine if an iconic FEMALE character from the past was treated this way, only to be replaced with a male surrogate. Women would have a problem with this, and they'd be RIGHT to be upset, so why can't we stinky males be allowed to air our legitimate grievances without being labeled as knuckle-dragging cavemen? No one would have the balls to make a LARRY Croft movie, so why do we have to accept seeing our cinematic hero replaced with a scowling woman who's only there to fulfil the loathsome, man-hating agenda of Kathleen Kennedy? I'm all for more female action heroes in cinema, but, for God's sake, MAKE YOUR OWN, and stop co-opting ours just to push your reverse-misogyny.

[AndyDursin]

It's not so much the "I can do anything better than you / No you can't / Yes, I cannnnn...!" stuff, but the fact that the straight, white male heroes of yesteryear are being trotted onscreen for Nostalgia Porn...only to be systematically emasculated, chided for the DEPLORABLE behavior of their youths and being killed off literally so that a woman, POC or handicapped person (preferably all three!) can assume their mantle and carry on in their stead.

Maybe they will change the ending of this so Indy "retires" gracefully instead of DIES but if he does he'd join the club that's managed to kill off Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and James Bond (ANYONE ELSE NOTICE A TREND) in recent years. That's quite a feat! And don't forget Black Panther too. Disney killed the character off so a bunch of "strong females" can take over that franchise as well.

Emily Blunt was interviewed recently and said she rolls her eyes when she gets a script that describes her potential role as a "strong woman." At this point there's just no other kind in a genre film, and it's boring. It's worn out. It's predictable.

When Sigourney Weaver's Ripley became the heroine in ALIEN it was fresh and exciting at the time-- but now it's just so worn out...and to bring up the example we've used before, there's nothing exciting about Rey's journey in STAR WARS because she never learns anything. She has all the answers, she pilots the Millennium Falcon, she beats Kylo Ren every time they meet -- what's interesting about that dramatic arc? It's not even an arc really, it's a flat line. There's no sense of triumph there when she's got it in the bag.

So much of what we see now is like that, especially in a Disney product. They have their social mandates which trump storytelling, and can't see that it's turning off viewers.

[Monterey Jack]

Maybe they will change the ending of this so Indy "retires" gracefully instead of DIES but if he does he'd join the club that's managed to kill off Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and James Bond (ANYONE ELSE NOTICE A TREND) in recent years. That's quite a feat! And don't forget Black Panther too. Disney killed the character off so a bunch of "strong females" can take over that franchise as well.

At least with Black Panther, they had the excuse of Chadwick Boseman's literal death to fall back on, but the fact that the resulting movie became a "Girl Powah!" fetish piece was annoying. The funny thing is, Disney hedged their bets by throwing in a mid-credits sequence revealing...well, a spoiler, but one that indicates they're planning for a post-woke future where male heroes will be allowed again.

If they want to make a female super-spy character, make a new one, don't drop a hundred bombs on Daniel Craig's head so they can set up a Bond, JANE Bond for the future.

[AndyDursin]

This NEVER ends well for a director who decides to "take on" their IP's fanbase. Paul Feig tried it with Ghostbusters in 2016, Kennedy/Disney has done it repeatedly with Star Wars -- attacking the very people you need to support your film is just outright stupid and makes you look bad. But it's right out of the playbook of the 21st century social media game.

It also means the movie is likely everything that it's claimed to be too. They can't let it go because they know what's going to happen once it actually comes out, so they will turn it around and say you are racist/sexist/horrendous, making it YOUR fault their movie is terrible.

[Monterey Jack]

Using the "You're a sexist/racist/homophobic manchild crybaby if you don't kneel down and blow this latest bastardization of a beloved franchise!" thing to hide behind is the equivalent of this...



...and we all know how it played out for Greg Stillson.

[AndyDursin]

Talking about this movie is going to be more fun than watching it.

[Monterey Jack]

The Indy fanbase come next summer...

[AndyDursin]

The sad thing is even if this 4chan plot summary is a plant, it's just too believable to think dialogue exchanges like Waller-Bridge telling Indy "they're indigenous people, not Indians" and being a lesbian (and that he's "behind the times") would be a part of this screenplay.

That 4chan post even included screengrabs of the ending montage where Waller-Bridge is inserted into classic original trilogy moments, erasing the actual Indiana Jones from existence.

Maybe it's just a fun fan plant -- but my money is on where there's smoke, there's fire. Even so, I still think they will reshoot this ending one more time and we're never going to see it. They'd be INSANE to keep that unless they have a woke death wish and want to drive the audience insane.

[BobaMike]

According to a report on jwfan.net, where there is a review of the concert Williams just did in Italy- Williams said there is a new ending, which he has not scored yet.

[AndyDursin]

That does not surprise me in the least -- great scoop BM

Very clearly this Waller-Bridge "replacement ending" is real. A film that's been shooting now for literally YEARS shouldn't need another ending this late in the game either unless there's a problem. Mangold can say whatever he wants but we all know what's going on here.