Movies: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny June 2023

[mrmovies779]

I enjoyed it,but I also went to see it without making the mistake of trying to compare it against the first 3.Simply can't be done,they were great for their time.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Top critics - the one's who matter the most - have this at a 57% approval rating which is considered rotten. Factor in the bad reviews from Cannes, the previous movie being mostly panned meaning less public goodwill going into this movie AND a release date 15 years after that movie, a boomer population (who were a significant portion of Indy's fanbase) aging out of attending theatres, and the Disney (possibly Kathleen Kennedy) signature of taking an iconic character and turning them into a broken down, out-of-touch, broken old man, alienating a significant portion of the fanbase and you end up with a movie that was doomed to be a box office bomb months before its release.

I would also add in Phoebe Waller-Bridge as part of the problem. Very few people know who she is. She has never been a box office draw and her biggest hit is Fleabag, which while critically acclaimed, was not seen by very many people. She also isn't a very versatile actress and certainly isn't capable of pulling off the female action star look. Contrast that to Shia Labeouf in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - a young actor who was a rising star and could draw in younger people back in 2008. Leading up to Indiana Jones, he had a big hit with Disturbia and the first Transformers movie. That casting made sense, PWB certainly does not.

To add to your point about Shia LaBeouf; it also made sense if they wanted to continue the franchise by appointing him as the next Indiana Jones. He played the son of the titular character and the ending of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull left the door open.

They apparently wanted to continue the franchise with Phoebe Waller-Bridge which is complete nonsense. Like you said, she is not a box office draw and as we can see with this movie; she is not a beloved character either. We can safely say that those plans are dead and buried.

 

[kihei]

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

To add to your point about Shia LaBeouf; it also made sense if they wanted to continue the franchise by appointing him as the next Indiana Jones. He played the son of the titular character and the ending of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull left the door open.

They apparently wanted to continue the franchise with Phoebe Waller-Bridge which is complete nonsense. Like you said, she is not a box office draw and as we can see with this movie; she is not a beloved character either. We can safely say that those plans are dead and buried.

Even Mangold said there’s no plans, nor were their ever plans, to have PWB take over the franchise.

 

[Osprey]

Even Mangold said there’s no plans, nor were their ever plans, to have PWB take over the franchise.

They did, though, put in an ending that leaves the door open to more adventures with Helena and Teddy, and Kennedy has said that a spinoff with Helena is "entirely possible." Whether it counts as "plans" or not, I think that she and Iger (who has made similar suggestions) were hoping for Dial of Destiny to be a success so that they could keep the franchise going, most likely with PWB, since it's not like it can be with Mutt anymore. It could've been with Short Round, but they chose to create Helena, which seems like a big mistake, since a movie re-uniting Indy and Shorty and a spin-off featuring Shorty following in Indy's footsteps likely would've been much more popular.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

If they were to do a spinoff (which considering they cancelled an Indy TV show well in advance of this release is doubtful) going the route of using Ke Huay Quan wouldn’t make any sense. He’s 51 and wouldn’t be able to helm a tent pole for very long before needing to be replaced, the whole thing they’d try to avoid in replacing Indy.

 

[Osprey]

If they were to do a spinoff (which considering they cancelled an Indy TV show well in advance of this release is doubtful) going the route of using Ke Huay Quan wouldn’t make any sense. He’s 51 and wouldn’t be able to helm a tent pole for very long before needing to be replaced, the whole thing they’d try to avoid in replacing Indy.

That's the nature of TV. Shows don't last very long... 3 seasons if you're lucky. Even a PWB show would likely be planned out for 3-5 seasons and then she'd need to be replaced, as well. Being in his early to mid 50s isn't too old, IMO, especially for a TV series that doesn't have to be quite as stunt filled as a movie. He'd still be younger when the show finished than Ford was in Crystal Skull and Cruise is in the new M:I movies.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Even Mangold said there’s no plans, nor were their ever plans, to have PWB take over the franchise.

Lucasfilm did not make a Willow TV sequel and an Indiana Jones movie sequel for fun. They were clearly trying to revive those franchises by transitioning to younger people.

Star Wars as a brand has taken a big hit in propularity and value so they went into the vault trying to see if they could find anything else to turn into a money maker.

 

[Ben Grimm]

Idk if this true but I read that Lucas convinced Spielberg to have a different woman in every film like the Bond films.

 

[x Tame Impala]

What was the last thing Kathleen Kennedy has done well?

 

[Osprey]

Lucasfilm did not make a Willow TV sequel and an Indiana Jones movie sequel for fun. They were clearly trying to revive those franchises by transitioning to younger people.

Star Wars as a brand has taken a big hit in propularity and value so they went into the vault trying to see if they could find anything else to turn into a money maker.

They claim that they wanted to give Indy a proper conclusion, but that obviously wasn't the reason, because he'd been given that twice already. The reason is that they wanted to use the franchise to promote a similar character that was younger and female. It's become a pattern in Lucasfilm's recent projects to bring down the male heroes and replace them with female ones. They seem less interested in celebrating established heroes for the sake of the fans than in promoting their own heroes for the sake of making new, younger fans.

Also, Karen Allen has come out and said that she was originally supposed to have a big part throughout the film. It sounds like it was going to be Indy and Marion having one last adventure. Something changed, though, and she was mostly written out. I bet that what changed is that Kathleen Kennedy insisted that she be replaced with a younger actress who would appeal to younger generations and provide spinoff potential.

Next up for Disney is the Alien franchise. Their first Alien movie is due out next Summer and features a cast of young people. They're reviving seemingly every popular franchise that they own and seeing what sticks. So far, only Star Wars has, and that (along with Marvel) has seen declining returns, so they could use a hit out of something else. Indy was their best chance, though.

 

[Osprey]

 

[PeteWorrell]

What was the last thing Kathleen Kennedy has done well?

She is a good example of the Peter Principle. Someone who became the head of a succesful studio and given creative control out of seniority and a succesful career as a producer.

She has proven multiple times that she is not cut out for the job but for some reason Disney refuses to hold her accountable and they are just bleeding money.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

What was the last thing Kathleen Kennedy has done well?

The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi were really enjoyable.
Rogue One was very good.
The Mandalorian and Obi Wan have been or were quite entertaining.
Andor is excellent.
This Indy movie was really, really fun and stacks up with the originals.

Solo was middling.

The only real disappointments are Willow and Rise of Skywalker.

Her track record is pretty good, I’d say.

 

[Osprey]

The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi were really enjoyable.
Rogue One was very good.
The Mandalorian and Obi Wan have been or were quite entertaining.
Andor is excellent.
This Indy movie was really, really fun and stacks up with the originals.

Solo was middling.

The only real disappointments are Willow and Rise of Skywalker.

Her track record is pretty good, I’d say.

I don't think that how much those projects appealed to you is a good way to judge her track record. It's purely subjective and anecdotal. Someone else could just as easily say that most of those were disappointing and, therefore, her track record is poor.

I think that she needs to be judged by how fans in general feel and how successful her projects have been, and they've been progressively dividing the fans, making less money and even losing money. Two of the three franchise revivals that she's attempted (Willow and Indy) were failures, putting future projects in doubt. Even the one that's been successful (Star Wars) has been rather hit or miss, with projects that divided the fans outnumbering the ones that didn't. Also, merchandise is not selling and her expensive Galactic Starcruiser hotel is being closed before even its two year anniversary. That's not a good track record, IMO. Creating a lot of expensive stuff just to have half of it be successful isn't doing her job. Her job is to understand and make what appeals to the most fans, not just some, and especially not just those who need to set their expectations low in order to enjoy them.

Look at what Tom Cruise is doing, making movies that everyone wants and somehow exceeding even the highest of expectations each time. Mission: Impossible should've run out of steam a decade ago, yet it keeps getting better, and he managed to very successfully revive Top Gun, as well. Meanwhile, Star Wars is losing steam and arguably no longer a sure money maker for Disney/Lucasfilm and, again, Kennedy failed at successfully reviving Willow and Indy. Cruise and Kennedy illustrate the difference between having a passion to produce the best entertainment for the fans and just pumping out content that suits a corporate strategy.

 

[Roo Returns]

She is a good example of the Peter Principle. Someone who became the head of a succesful studio and given creative control out of seniority and a succesful career as a producer.

She has proven multiple times that she is not cut out for the job but for some reason Disney refuses to hold her accountable and they are just bleeding money.

She's also 70 and doesn't give AF. She's made her money. She's going to do the films she wants to do and will keep riding the momentum until a change is made, or she "steps away" (for PR purposes because Disney is not going to can her anytime soon it's terrible press).

It's very similar to when an older GM comes in and goes for it not caring about draft picks or pipeline.

 

[johnjm22]

Not that I think she's done a good job, but in Kennedy's defense, it was always going to be hard to rekindle the magic of these franchises.

Diminishing returns were probably inevitable regardless of who was in charge.

 

[Osprey]

Not that I think she's done a good job, but in Kennedy's defense, it was always going to be hard to rekindle the magic of these franchises.

Diminishing returns were probably inevitable regardless of who was in charge.

That's what I thought when a Top Gun sequel and a 4th Mission: Impossible were announced. I imagine that a lot of other people were equally skeptical and prepared to be disappointed. If they had been, some would likely be defending Cruise on the same grounds that you mentioned, that it would've been hard to make those successful. Instead, they weren't disappointing in the least and Cruise made it look almost easy. Perhaps it takes a lot of work, but he's shown that it's possible and not exactly a mystery. Take an existing hero, don't change him in order to subvert expectations or put your own spin on the character (ex. don't break him), make him someone that other characters respect and admire, don't sideline him to push other characters (i.e. no bait and switch) and just give him a good story in which he's allowed to be the hero (not that companions can't help him). It's really not that hard. If Lucasfilm followed that formula, as Cruise has been doing, their projects would be much more popular with the fans.

 

[Bowski]

Up to this point, tapping into the nostalgia vein has mostly yielded great box office results.
When done right, plenty of blood to draw from it (Top Gun).

This (outside of the opening scene) was more Disney hammering how pathetic our now old heroes have become.

But the main thing is the $.
Woke/Patriarchy/Diversity/Inclusivity/etc. don't meant squat unless people go out to see these movies.
With these recent ones, seems like folks on the fence are opting top wait a whole month to stream/DL these things into their home movie theatre.
So you have enthusiast giving their money and 8+ reviews, while everyone that's not a hater waiting for a freebie to make a move.

 

[johnjm22]

That's what I thought when a Top Gun sequel and a 4th Mission: Impossible were announced. I imagine that a lot of other people were equally skeptical and prepared to be disappointed. If they had been, some would likely be defending Cruise on the same grounds that you mentioned, that it would've been hard to make those successful. Instead, they weren't disappointing in the least and Cruise made it look almost easy. Perhaps it takes a lot of work, but he's shown that it's possible and not exactly a mystery. Take an existing hero, don't change him in order to subvert expectations or put your own spin on the character (ex. don't break him), make him someone that other characters respect and admire, don't sideline him to push other characters (i.e. no bait and switch) and just give him a good story in which he's allowed to be the hero (not that companions can't help him). It's really not that hard. If Lucasfilm followed that formula, as Cruise has been doing, their projects would be much more popular with the fans.

I think you can compare/contrast Harrison Ford and Indiana Jones with Tom Cruise and MI/TG, but Star Wars is a different animal.

I think for any creative project, whether it's a movie, TV Show, Book, whatever, you need someone behind it who's actually passionate about it and cares deeply for it. For MI and TG, that person is clearly Tom Cruise. For the first Creed movie (which was also an extension of an old franchise), that person was Ryan Coogler and Stallone. For Guardians of the Galaxy it's James Gunn. I could go on and on.

There's no one with any driving passion behind this new Indiana Jones film. Nor was there with Willow. That's why they suck. Kathleen Kennedy can't force grumpy irreverent philistine Harrison Ford to actually care; no one can. She has to acquiesce to him. This is just a cash grab for Harrison.

Star Wars is tough because you'll never be able to match the magic of the originals. It was lightning in a bottle. Lucas himself couldn't rekindle the magic.

This doesn't mean Kennedy doesn't deserve criticism. She clearly does. Not having a set story for the new SW trilogy is a fireable offense. She doesn't seem to understand the extended universe. Allowing the script for TFA to get made (which put SW on a path to quick burnout) is unforgiveable. But Disney itself deserves a lot of the blame. They're forcing LucasFilm to constantly churn out SW content. Star Wars is supposed to be special. If the studio is forcing you to constantly make more of it, eventually it's going to be ground down into mediocrity. It's IP mismanagement in favor of short term profit.

 

[Osprey]

In its 2nd weekend, it fell to #2 at the box office, beaten out by a horror film with a $16M budget, hardly any marketing and 1,500 fewer theaters.

Weekend projections: Insidious lands in first with projected $32.65 million - The Numbers

Insidious: The Red Door will top the box office chart this weekend with a robust $32.65-million opening, according to Sony’s Sunday-morning projection.

www.the-numbers.com

 

[PeteWorrell]

Predictable drop. People that are mildly interested are waiting to watch this on Disney+.

 

[I am not exposed]

Predictable drop. People that are mildly interested are waiting to watch this on Disney+.

This impact isn't emphasised enough imo.

A lot of people have large screen TVs, and releases come onto streaming devices about a couple of months after they hit the big screen.

You can watch the film in the comfort of your own home vs. shedding a decent amount of money to watch with a group of loud popcorn eating people. Yeah, I know which one I choose. Hence why I rarely go to the cinema.

Before it would be months until it was released for home entertainment. And then you would either have to rent, then buy. Now you barely have to wait at all, and you already paying for the streaming service anyway.

 

[Beau Knows]

There's very few movies that I would go to the theatre to see these days. Dune: Part Two might convince me to go, but otherwise I'm probably not gonna bother with any this year.

I'll likely give this movie a shot at some point, but I'm certainly not going out of my way to see it.

 

[StreetHawk]

This impact isn't emphasised enough imo.

A lot of people have large screen TVs, and releases come onto streaming devices about a couple of months after they hit the big screen.

You can watch the film in the comfort of your own home vs. shedding a decent amount of money to watch with a group of loud popcorn eating people. Yeah, I know which one I choose. Hence why I rarely go to the cinema.

Before it would be months until it was released for home entertainment. And then you would either have to rent, then buy. Now you barely have to wait at all, and you already paying for the streaming service anyway.

The turnaround time is the big key IMO. John Wick 4 hit theatres on March 24. Blu Ray came out on June 12. That's just 10 weeks from the theatrical release. Pre-Covid and these streaming services, it was what like closer to 6 months or longer between theatre release to blu-ray release? So, if you don't watch it in theatres in the first 4 weeks, probably just better to wait another 6 weeks to catch it at home.