Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny trailer

[Liu Bei]

With any luck, this might hasten KK's exit.

The rumors have long been that Indy had to make money or she was out the door. With Disney having lost nearly a billion dollars on their last 10 movies, Indy is looking to keep that streak alive. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that this will finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Though at this point I think the damage is done. Disney is a toxic brand now to everyone but their most ardent shills, and they’ve burned too many bridges with families as well as fandom. They’ve butchered most, if not all, of their major IPs with their hair-brained buffoonery. Even the Mandalorian, which was the closest they’ve come to sniffing success in years, had a terrible third season as far as ratings go. Marvel, like Star Wars, is another dead brand, as the Marvels will soon prove.

I honestly don’t know what Disney will do at this point, even if they do fire Kathleen Kennedy. Tap Kevin Fiege to run Lucasfilm? LOL.

[Bruce Banner]

With any luck, this might hasten KK's exit.

[Liu Bei]

For what it’s worth, Indiana Jones finished its Thursday night preview with seven million dollars, a full two million behind the Flash. And the Flash has (rightly) been an unmitigated disaster at the box office.

I don’t know if this will hold throughout the weekend, but certainly not a good start so far, especially for the most expensive movie ever made.

[Bruce Banner]

Some non-spoiler thoughts:

We've all heard the reports of revisions and reshot endings. What we finally ended up with is a very hit and miss movie (more miss than hit).
One or two pretty good moments, and a lot of mediocre and truly bad ones.

The first twenty minutes are certainly the best of the film. The de-ageing is mostly consistent and pretty effective.

Phoebe Waller-Bridges's character is thoroughly unlikeable, and gets way too much screen time.
Indy often seems like a secondary/supporting character in his own movie.

As with Lucasfilm's other efforts at continuing beloved franchises, it does a great disservice to the legacy characters.

The film also has some pacing problems and it could have been tightened up somewhat in the editing room.

[TrekStar]

I can’t believe he’ll be 81 in July, and still going strong.

[Bruce Banner]

New clip:

[Nostalgiabuff]

while TOD is my least favorite of the original trilogy, i love it. Yes, it is dark and some of it is disturbing, but it's a rollicking, crazy adventure. which of course is what makes it a great movie. I also loved KOTCS, goofy parts and all

[libby 1957dog]

The Thuggee were a real cult of bandits and murderers in India, active for many hundreds of years. However, they did not rip the hearts from sacrificial victims or induce the Black Sleep of Kali. (Well, at least not that we know of).




Of course there is... (well, maybe more sexism than outright misogyny). But that's been a part of Indy's character from the outset. He's a rogue, an adventurer and a womanizer who lives by his own two-fisted code of honour.
Don't forget, he was romantically involved with Marion Ravenwood when she was 15 and he was 25 (although Lucasfilm have since attempted to retcon the ages in an attempt to make it less unsavoury). The novelization of Raiders also suggests that he's having an affair with one of his students from Marshall College. He's no saint!


Temple of Doom problematic? Nah. Not so much for a movie set in the 1930s during the last years of the British Raj. But viewed through the fragile lens of today's modern sensibilities however, I suppose I can see how there may be a fair few delicate souls out there who might have a problem with the movie's themes and overall premise.

As for the Pankot Palace feast, there's a similar scene in Octopussy, also set in India. But of course, James Bond is also considered a misogynistic, sexist, imperialist oppressor these days, isn't he?

I think Temple has some good parts, too. I don’t hate the movie. I just don’t like it. I like the opening, Short Round and the mine ride scene is fun, though ridiculous.

i would worry India got its own back by remaking the film for them selves lol

and heres the opening part lol

[Liu Bei]

That is fair. But "Last Crusade" shows Indy as a boy facing down the Cross of Coronado grave robber and declaring "It belongs in a museum." So if that was the intent, they seemed to change their mind for the third movie.

I'd also argue that in "Raiders" Indy and Belloq are supposed to be viewed as foils. Both are treasure hunters and on the surface, not altogether different. But Indy wants the discovery and to share the find with the world; while Belloq is in it for the fortune and willing to work with anyone that can further his goals. Which again, that moral high horse seems misplaced if Indy was doing the same thing as Belloq just a year prior.

Again, my original point being that "Temple of Doom" just feels a little off. Lucas had just gotten divorced. Spielberg was coming off a breakup with his longtime girlfriend. It has been well reported how that influenced the darker tone. For me, it feels just a bit too cynical and cruel. It doesn't quite work for me.

But hey... if you don't have issue with it, I'm not trying to change your mind.

Using Crusade as evidence for Temple’s characterization being off doesn’t work because it is a sequel to both Raiders and Temple.

I think, chronologically, (Temple/Raiders/Crusade) we see a pretty clear progression of the Indy character. That said, Indy was obviously always more of a treasure hunter than traditional archaeologist. After all, his tools are a pistol and a bull whip, not a shovel and sifter. Marcis Brody telling Indy that the museum would buy his pieces “as usual, no questions asked” reinforces what we’d already learned about Indy at the beginning of Raiders.

I’d say what feels most odd about the character is young Indy saying “it belongs in a museum!” in a Crusade, which is at odds with the character in the first two films. But we do get some hint about Indy’s future, as he dons the hat and general dress of the thief who stole the cross of Coronado from him. I read originally that character was supposed to be Abner Ravenwood, which would make a lot of sense and explain how Indy went from traditional archaeologist to two-fisted treasure hunter.

Anyway, I agree the tone of Temple is different from that of Raiders (as it was designed to be), but not that the tone of Indy is off. Nor do I agree that the film was “mean” or “ugly” or whatever. It’s a great adventure film.

[Bruce Banner]

The Thuggee existed as a historical entity. Whether or not they were a cult or just a criminal organization is under some debate. Modern scholarship now knows that many of the British stories of the Thuggees were largely exaggerated or invented.
It is sort of like how the Freemasons are a real group... but probably not secretly the Illuminati.

Yeah, over the years I've read some of the research presented by the historians who are skeptical of the Thuggee's cult status, claiming that it was largely a British fabrication.
A.L. Macafie's work is perhaps the most well presented speculation.
But I've seen nothing that could be considered particularly convincing that these "findings" are much more than exercises to vilify colonialism and further villainize the British Raj.
But who knows, eh?

[sprytel]

The Thuggee were a real cult of bandits and murderers in India, active for many hundreds of years. However, they did not rip the hearts from sacrificial victims or induce the Black Sleep of Kali. (Well, at least not that we know of).

The Thuggee existed as a historical entity. Whether or not they were a cult or just a criminal organization is under some debate. Modern scholarship now knows that many of the British stories of the Thuggees were largely exaggerated or invented.

It is sort of like how the Freemasons are a real group... but probably not secretly the Illuminati.

[sprytel]

Technically, Temple is a prequel to Raiders and obviously a prequel to Crusade. The comment about him being a grave robber rather than an archaeologist carries over into Raiders, where Indy steals the golden idol from the natives. Indy’s depiction as a treasure hunter was pretty consistent with the first two films. While Temple’s darker story might feel different in tone from Raiders, the character’s tone isn’t. He’s just younger, and rougher around the edges.

That is fair. But "Last Crusade" shows Indy as a boy facing down the Cross of Coronado grave robber and declaring "It belongs in a museum." So if that was the intent, they seemed to change their mind for the third movie.

I'd also argue that in "Raiders" Indy and Belloq are supposed to be viewed as foils. Both are treasure hunters and on the surface, not altogether different. But Indy wants the discovery and to share the find with the world; while Belloq is in it for the fortune and willing to work with anyone that can further his goals. Which again, that moral high horse seems misplaced if Indy was doing the same thing as Belloq just a year prior.

Again, my original point being that "Temple of Doom" just feels a little off. Lucas had just gotten divorced. Spielberg was coming off a breakup with his longtime girlfriend. It has been well reported how that influenced the darker tone. For me, it feels just a bit too cynical and cruel. It doesn't quite work for me.

But hey... if you don't have issue with it, I'm not trying to change your mind.

[Goblin19]

I think Temple has some good parts, too. I don’t hate the movie. I just don’t like it. I like the opening, Short Round and the mine ride scene is fun, though ridiculous.

[Bruce Banner]

Of course, now we know the whole Thuggee concept itself was likely an invention of the British... out of that same demonization of the "other".

The Thuggee were a real cult of bandits and murderers in India, active for many hundreds of years. However, they did not rip the hearts from sacrificial victims or induce the Black Sleep of Kali. (Well, at least not that we know of).

There is a lot of misogyny in how Indy interacts with Willie.

Of course there is... (well, maybe more sexism than outright misogyny). But that's been a part of Indy's character from the outset. He's a rogue, an adventurer and a womanizer who lives by his own two-fisted code of honour.
Don't forget, he was romantically involved with Marion Ravenwood when she was 15 and he was 25 (although Lucasfilm have since attempted to retcon the ages in an attempt to make it less unsavoury). The novelization of Raiders also suggests that he's having an affair with one of his students from Marshall College. He's no saint!


Temple of Doom problematic? Nah. Not so much for a movie set in the 1930s during the last years of the British Raj. But viewed through the fragile lens of today's modern sensibilities however, I suppose I can see how there may be a fair few delicate souls out there who might have a problem with the movie's themes and overall premise.

As for the Pankot Palace feast, there's a similar scene in Octopussy, also set in India. But of course, James Bond is also considered a misogynistic, sexist, imperialist oppressor these days, isn't he?

[Liu Bei]

I rewatched Temple of Doom earlier this year, and I agree with most of your complaints. The tone is just off.

I mean, Indy starts the movie selling his archaeological find off to Chinese gangsters for a giant diamond. It is a far cry from "It belongs in a museum."

Technically, Temple is a prequel to Raiders and obviously a prequel to Crusade. The comment about him being a grave robber rather than an archaeologist carries over into Raiders, where Indy steals the golden idol from the natives. Indy’s depiction as a treasure hunter was pretty consistent with the first two films. While Temple’s darker story might feel different in tone from Raiders, the character’s tone isn’t. He’s just younger, and rougher around the edges.

I’m not going to touch the political stuff. It’ll only get deleted anyway.