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.