Spoilers Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny grade and discussion

[UssGlenn]

In other Indy news, the new documentary on Disney had new behind the scenes footage from all the films. There's a short clip from Raiders where Ford is rehearsing the Raven Bar fight, revealing for the first time, that Indy is wearing a shoulder holster. It's for the Browning Hi-Power Automatic he suddenly produces during the firefight. A 40 year mystery solved. The costuming community is super excited to have a new piece of gear to analyze and reproduce.

 

[marillion]

Just watched the movie. Really enjoyed it, it felt very Indiana Jones to me. Some of the effects weren't the greatest (it felt at times like the majority of the movie was filmed in front of a blue screen exclusively, yet not a very good one), but it wasn't enough to distract too much from the story.

I almost regret not seeing it on the big screen, but the convenience of streaming is just too tough to ignore sometimes.

I'm really glad I saw this in the theater. Even though I have a fairly large TV, some of the effects didn't look quite right. Kind of the reverse of Tron: Legacy, where the CGI Flynn looked much better at home than it did in the theater. Also, I noticed that with some lights on in the room, the movie looked REALLY dark during the cave scenes and scenes at night. I didn't notice that in the theater.

 

[Anwar]

So basically, as suspected, most folks just preferred to stay and watch this at home on D+ than go out to the Theater. It wasn't the quality of the movie that kept folks away, just the idea of saving money.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Chris Pratt has said he won't do it because he's afraid of Harrison Ford's ghost.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/variet...ones-harrison-ford-scared-him-1235317700/amp/

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Good. I don't want him doing it either.

 

[Gaith]

I recommend watching the movie at home the way movies are meant to be seen: projected, in an otherwise dark room. Any other experience, no matter the brightness and/or resolution of the TV, is suboptimal.

 

[Mage]

So basically, as suspected, most folks just preferred to stay and watch this at home on D+ than go out to the Theater. It wasn't the quality of the movie that kept folks away, just the idea of saving money.

You mean, the entire concept of 'going out' in general?
I've cooked steaks and lamb at home as good as many restaurants. I make a mean a burger. I cook a good vegan stew.
I save time and money by doing these things at home without the most hateful factor of going out: people. I hate people. And the more my 41 year old person talks to other persons, it seems a lot feel the same. People suck.

So why send a shit ton of money at a theater when patience (something people USED to have), gives you the experience of watching a movie at home in your sweatpants and hoodie and snacks that don't cost as much as next month's rent AND you can drink a beer that doesn't cost 10 bucks.....?

"But it's so much nicer on the big screen!!!" No it's not. It's the same friggin movie. If it only works on a huge projection screen, it failed.

Now.... that was my monthly rant. See you guys in 4 weeks.

 

[Tosk]

But Lucasfilm, or any other studio, might be just as well-advised to make Idaho Smith and the Whooseywhatsit of Atlantis, starring, say, Adam Driver.

Disney already have a Not-Indiana Jones franchise to mine. National Treasure.

 

[STEPhon IT]

It's a Phoebe Bridge movie, not my cup of tea. Indiana Jones deserves a better send off than that.

 

[JD]

You mean, the entire concept of 'going out' in general?
I've cooked steaks and lamb at home as good as many restaurants. I make a mean a burger. I cook a good vegan stew.
I save time and money by doing these things at home without the most hateful factor of going out: people. I hate people. And the more my 41 year old person talks to other persons, it seems a lot feel the same. People suck.

So why send a shit ton of money at a theater when patience (something people USED to have), gives you the experience of watching a movie at home in your sweatpants and hoodie and snacks that don't cost as much as next month's rent AND you can drink a beer that doesn't cost 10 bucks.....?

"But it's so much nicer on the big screen!!!" No it's not. It's the same friggin movie. If it only works on a huge projection screen, it failed.

Now.... that was my monthly rant. See you guys in 4 weeks.

For me there are some movies that really do need to be seen on the biggest screen possible to really get the full impact.

 

[FreezeC77]

Disney already have a Not-Indiana Jones franchise to mine. National Treasure.

The tv show was cancelled after 1 year and a third movie remains unconfirmed.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

It's a Phoebe Bridge movie, not my cup of tea. Indiana Jones deserves a better send off than that.

It's her movie as much as Raiders was a Karen Allen movie. Or Doom was a Mrs. Spielberg movie.

As in, it's totally an Indiana Jones movie.

 

[fireproof78]

Disney already have a Not-Indiana Jones franchise to mine. National Treasure.

I wish.

 

[STEPhon IT]

It's her movie as much as Raiders was a Karen Allen movie. Or Doom was a Mrs. Spielberg movie.

As in, it's totally an Indiana Jones movie.

In name only. It didn't share the same great storylines nor the box office like the movies which were Indiana Jones centric.

 

[Starkers]

It's her movie as much as Raiders was a Karen Allen movie. Or Doom was a Mrs. Spielberg movie.

As in, it's totally an Indiana Jones movie.

Exactly. Indy is most assuredly the POV character and I'm pretty sure if you worked out how long each person was on screen Ford would lead the way by a comfortable distance. Heck the film completely blanks out while Indy's unconscious at the end!

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

In name only. It didn't share the same great storylines nor the box office like the movies which were Indiana Jones centric.

Box office has nothing to do with it being Indy or not. Young Indiana Jones Chronicles made $0 at the box office and was still Indiana Jones.

The story, an archeologist racing to beat nazis to an ancient potential weapon... that's as Indy as it gets when you take the sexist glasses off and watch the movie properly.

 

[Anwar]

In name only. It didn't share the same great storylines nor the box office like the movies which were Indiana Jones centric.

How was it "In Name Only", exactly?

 

[marillion]

I love going to the movies. We just don't very often because my wife isn't a big fan. But once in a while, for a big movie, we go. I love theater popcorn so I don't mind paying the price for it. Some movies do work better on a big screen. It's really just a matter of opinion.

 

[Tuskin38]

In name only. It didn't share the same great storylines nor the box office like the movies which were Indiana Jones centric.

I think you need to re-watch the old movies, because you're pretty wrong about that.

There's as much screen time for Indy in this one as there were for previous ones.

 

[Gaith]

It's a Phoebe Bridge movie

Well, unlike No Time to Die, it at least didn't introduce a new character who had a fraction of the protagonist's muscle mass and almost no prior fighting experience, but who proved themselves to be as badass as the hero through sheer gumption and cheerfulness. (Ana de Armas' Paloma exited that movie quickly enough for it to more or less recover its dignity, but, yikes.) Helena Shaw was no slouch, abilities-wise, but she wasn't so competent without experience as to break the movie's framework. (And Helena was established to have years' worth of experience.)

Disney already have a Not-Indiana Jones franchise to mine. National Treasure.

It may be a subtle/subjective distinction, but to me, there's an inherent and vast difference separating archeology-themed adventure stories in the age of computers and tech and the period before that. Once the world is fully mapped, flashlights render torches obsolete, fedoras go out of style, and satellite technology lets you call/video call people around the world with ease, you can retain all the other tropes and trappings of the genre, but it's still fundamentally different. Dial of Destiny's late-60s setting might just be the farthest in time one can go without crossing that line.

I do give the first National Treasure (haven't seen the second) some uniqueness points in that the hero never once holds a gun or gets into a protracted fistfight, which gives it something of a different flavor to other mere modern-day Indy knockoffs like Tomb Raider, Relic Hunter (remember Relic Hunter?!) and Uncharted. But that movie was also so generally over-the-top silly from a historical perspective that attempting to franchise it just seems to ruin the joke, much like making sequels to the first Austin Powers.