Spoilers Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny grade and discussion

[jaime]

I'm sorry, but I didn't like having the main villain as another Nazi (or sympathizer). It just smacks of unoriginality. I could barely tolerate this in The Last Crusade. I really wish Disney had not made this fifth film.

I guess that’s a different question xD
But they have, so for me it’s about whether they can make that story work — it looks like it will tbh. In ‘69 it’s either gonna be the Soviets or the US, and they’ve done one of those in the last film, and the other just really wouldn’t fly beyond the shady McCarthyite groups in the last film, and the hints of similar in this.
By the looks of things, it’s less ‘The Nazis’ and ‘one leftover Nazi and his group’ which is a different thing, and suits the time period. Men out of their age. If Raiders was ‘Thirties Serial’ and ‘James Bond style’ (which Indy always was conceived as) then what does that look like? What’s taking the place of Thirties Serials in the late sixties, as the Franchise is brushing up on the pretty much seventies era of filmmaking that first birthed it? CS touched on Fifties B-Movies and SF, whereas this is going Bond and character action-dramas. It’s ‘man out of time ‘cos he’s got old’ and ‘man reliving his youth’ taken to fairly literal extremes.

I’ll know more when I see it, but a lot of the stuff naysaying it before it was even on release, is desperate to ignore the context of Cinema, and the context of the Franchise itself, and particularly a romanticised ideal of the character himself. (There is not a *single Indy movie* where at some point he hasn’t made mistakes, or been undercut by another smart character. Including women. Again. Thirties serials. Hepburn et al, old, pre-code Hollywood.)
The context of ‘21st Century Disney’ just fades next to the other context. If Raiders was new, and made now, the same people would *hate* that story, because of the things they are bringing to it.
Which isn’t to say sometimes that criticism applied to films today is fair — I think TLJ was an utter waste of a Star Wars film slot, that didn’t get what underlies those films — but it’s onto a loser when the same arguments are applied to Indiana Jones.

In much the same way, people can’t use criticisms they usually use for Brie Larson as criticism for PWB. Her work on Fleabag alone makes a mockery of it, and when you see her in interviews with Harrison for this, it’s quite apparent she’s *not* the boogeyman people are making out. Even in terms of the film itself — again, think of thirties serials. Even think of the kind of characters we are getting in 1969. Then look again at that character.

Some of the criticisms of this film, particularly on YouTube, are selling a line for clicks. And those criticisms are not valid here. Same as when what might be called the opposite side of the debate misapplied their hobby horse criticisms to Ghost In The Shell in some respects. But that’s a very different film, in other ways, that was killed off by a hate campaign.

 

[Dee1891]

I guess that’s a different question xD
But they have, so for me it’s about whether they can make that story work — it looks like it will tbh. In ‘69 it’s either gonna be the Soviets or the US, and they’ve done one of those in the last film, and the other just really wouldn’t fly beyond the shady McCarthyite groups in the last film, and the hints of similar in this.
By the looks of things, it’s less ‘The Nazis’ and ‘one leftover Nazi and his group’ which is a different thing, and suits the time period. Men out of their age. If Raiders was ‘Thirties Serial’ and ‘James Bond style’ (which Indy always was conceived as) then what does that look like? What’s taking the place of Thirties Serials in the late sixties, as the Franchise is brushing up on the pretty much seventies era of filmmaking that first birthed it? CS touched on Fifties B-Movies and SF, whereas this is going Bond and character action-dramas. It’s ‘man out of time ‘cos he’s got old’ and ‘man reliving his youth’ taken to fairly literal extremes.

I’ll know more when I see it, but a lot of the stuff naysaying it before it was even on release, is desperate to ignore the context of Cinema, and the context of the Franchise itself, and particularly a romanticised ideal of the character himself. (There is not a *single Indy movie* where at some point he hasn’t made mistakes, or been undercut by another smart character. Including women. Again. Thirties serials. Hepburn et al, old, pre-code Hollywood.)
The context of ‘21st Century Disney’ just fades next to the other context. If Raiders was new, and made now, the same people would *hate* that story, because of the things they are bringing to it.
Which isn’t to say sometimes that criticism applied to films today is fair — I think TLJ was an utter waste of a Star Wars film slot, that didn’t get what underlies those films — but it’s onto a loser when the same arguments are applied to Indiana Jones.

In much the same way, people can’t use criticisms they usually use for Brie Larson as criticism for PWB. Her work on Fleabag alone makes a mockery of it, and when you see her in interviews with Harrison for this, it’s quite apparent she’s *not* the boogeyman people are making out. Even in terms of the film itself — again, think of thirties serials. Even think of the kind of characters we are getting in 1969. Then look again at that character.

Some of the criticisms of this film, particularly on YouTube, are selling a line for clicks. And those criticisms are not valid here. Same as when what might be called the opposite side of the debate misapplied their hobby horse criticisms to Ghost In The Shell in some respects. But that’s a very different film, in other ways, that was killed off by a hate campaign.

Why not have an individual as the mainvillain? A wealthy corporate type? And I wasn't thrilled by how the movie handled the franchise's first major character who happened to be a woman of color.

 

[jaime]

Why not have an individual as the mainvillain? A wealthy corporate type? And I wasn't thrilled by how the movie handled the franchise's first major character who happened to be a woman of color.

Haven’t seen the film so can’t comment on that specific character yet — as to individual main villain, corporate type, that’s moving fully into Bond territory, and while Indy was in part created as a response to Bond, it kind of goes away from the character. Usually there is an individual villain, but they are usually a reflection of Indy and are partnered up with some larger group. (Much like earlier Bond) Corporate villains don’t really work unless we are back in another fifteen twenty years, and Indy is having an adventure in the 80s. The decade, not his age.
The closest we will get is something like what occurred with TOD and TLC, but notice they are always in the employ of some greater evil.

 

[No Grave Marked]

Uh . . . yeah. Because it does.

Unfortunately for this film, it also included fridging another character with contrived writing and using an old adversary - namely the Nazis - for the third time.

Haranguing a Indiana Jones film for including Nazis as the villains is like complaining about Star Trek using Klingons in a TOS era feature film.

Nazis were still talked about and very much remembered in 1969.

 

[Dee1891]

Haven’t seen the film so can’t comment on that specific character yet — as to individual main villain, corporate type, that’s moving fully into Bond territory . . .

What? Why does Indy have to battle either Nazis or Soviets? He didn't battle either in "Temple of Doom". If his main antagonist could be a murderous and fanatical priest in one movie, why not a murderous and wealthy CEO? Why on earth does Indy's antagonists have to be limited to Nazis or Soviets? Or people who collaborate with them? This is so limiting to me. What is this need to limit franchises for movies and TV shows to some kind of formula?

 

[bdub76]

Haranguing a Indiana Jones film for including Nazis as the villains is like complaining about Star Trek using Klingons in a TOS era feature film.

Nazis were still talked about and very much remembered in 1969.

Watched Marathon Man last night. It came out in the 70s, and it was about Nazis.

 

[jaime]

Watched Marathon Man last night. It came out in the 70s, and it was about Nazis.

Watched a little known film called Raiders of the Lost Ark, the bad guys were Nazis. Came out in 81.

 

[bdub76]

Watched a little known film called Raiders of the Lost Ark, the bad guys were Nazis. Came out in 81.

This last one was set in the 60s. I don’t think many other alternatives would have worked as well.

 

[jaime]

What? Why does Indy have to battle either Nazis or Soviets? He didn't battle either in "Temple of Doom". If his main antagonist could be a murderous and fanatical priest in one movie, why not a murderous and wealthy CEO? Why on earth does Indy's antagonists have to be limited to Nazis or Soviets? Or people who collaborate with them? This is so limiting to me. What is this need to limit franchises for movies and TV shows to some kind of formula?

Franchises have certain… what you would call ‘limits’ built into them. It isn’t even directly about ‘formula’ though that is part of it. There’s a point where once you ‘subvert expectations’ or ‘stretch the formula’ enough, it stops being one thing and becomes something else.
An action hero against some dodgy CEO trying to take over the world? Bond territory since the seventies, and once you put in a magical/arcane Artifact, you’re basically in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider territory. (Which people should have supported more back in the day, but I digress.) Fitting Dr.Jones in that, isn’t a natural fit.

TOD was still in that ‘thirties to forties serial’ right down to its slightly strange ‘yellow peril’ tribute in Club Obi Wan. Some of it works better than others.

The Soviets *almost* don’t work as Indy protagonists — unless like in CS, it’s couched in that real world parapsychology angle that worked so well. In that sense, as well as one or two others, they then make natural successors once Indy’s timeline is jumping forwards.

Nazis? They aren’t just there because of the serials, or because for a man of Jones age they are symbolically the ultimate expression of evil, they are there because they *really were into the arcane shit* which is why they have already been in two films.

It’s ‘real world’ that causes these things to be in the formula in the first place. Big Bad Corporate is a later thing in Cinema, for the most part. It’s also what Raiders was — to a certain extent — a reaction *against* when George said Steve shouldn’t bother going to do a Roger Moore Bond, and gave him Jones instead. Who, it should be noted, has *always* been a pastiche/comedy character as much as a serious action/drama character.
Move him too much out of his time and place, he stops working — which is, I believe, part of the point in this film.

 

[UssGlenn]

I'd say Donovan in Last Crusade fits in to the "wealthy CEO villain" mold, only they were called industrialists, not CEOs at the time. He allies with the Nazis to further his goals but doesn't actually believe in their cause.

 

[bdub76]

I'd say Donovan in Last Crusade fits in to the "wealthy CEO villain" mold, only they were called industrialists, not CEOs at the time. He allies with the Nazis to further his goals but doesn't actually believe in their cause.

The evil CEO wasn’t really a thing back then unless you get into labor laws and unions. I don’t see how this would make good Indy. This would fit better in the Uncharted universe.

 

[fireproof78]

The evil CEO wasn’t really a thing back then unless you get into labor laws and unions. I don’t see how this would make good Indy. This would fit better in the Uncharted universe.

Indy vs. the mob? I'd watch it.

Also, some of the books had Indy vs. Soviets and such and I thought it was quite good.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Haranguing a Indiana Jones film for including Nazis as the villains is like complaining about Star Trek using Klingons in a TOS era feature film.

Nazis were still talked about and very much remembered in 1969.

Indeed. I think there were still stories not long removed from 1969 about former Nazis that were being discovered around the world, along with the Judgment at Nuremberg release in 1961.

 

[bdub76]

Indy vs. the mob? I'd watch it.

Also, some of the books had Indy vs. Soviets and such and I thought it was quite good.

The villain is usually after the same treasure. This works with the Nazis interest in the occult and treasures. This isn’t really the case with Cold War Soviets. Much different period.

And no idea how Indy would ever run into the Mob.

 

[fireproof78]

The villain is usually after the same treasure. This works with the Nazis interest in the occult and treasures. This isn’t really the case with Cold War Soviets. Much different period.

And no idea how Indy would ever run into the Mob.

As I said it worked in a book. I enjoyed it.

That's the extent of my experience with Indiana Jones beyond the films.

 

[bdub76]

As I said it worked in a book. I enjoyed it.

That's the extent of my experience with Indiana Jones beyond the films.

I like Young Indians Jones. The movie length episodes are a bit challenging to binge. Easier to watch the broadcast length eps when it originally aired.

 

[UssGlenn]

And no idea how Indy would ever run into the Mob.

Are you kidding? He went to college in Chicago in the 1920s. In fact Indy meets a young Capone in the Young Indy series.

 

[jaime]

I'd say Donovan in Last Crusade fits in to the "wealthy CEO villain" mold, only they were called industrialists, not CEOs at the time. He allies with the Nazis to further his goals but doesn't actually believe in their cause.

Exactly — as I said elsewhere, the closest Indy gets to it. Still in that thirties mould. Thirties industrialists, in America, were very close to the Nazi regime.

 

[fireproof78]

Are you kidding? He went to college in Chicago in the 1920s. In fact Indy meets a young Capone in the Young Indy series.

I figured he had. It's the 20s after all. There's a way to do it if one is feeling creative.

 

[jaime]

The villain is usually after the same treasure. This works with the Nazis interest in the occult and treasures. This isn’t really the case with Cold War Soviets. Much different period.

And no idea how Indy would ever run into the Mob.

KC shows how it works — occult into parapsychology and all the stuff being researched in the sixties. But there’s a fairly limited palette for all that Von Daniken, Telekinetic weapons stuff. It worked in that one film really well, but pretty soon the ancient aliens stuff would get too repetitive.