It's just like they didn't even watch the previous movies before making this one. The premise is just so not true to the original. I hope this writers/actors strike is successful because I really...
It's just like they didn't even watch the previous movies before making this one. The premise is just so not true to the original.
I hope this writers/actors strike is successful because I really think that studios cutting costs is hurting scripts. Only allowing 6-8 weeks to write a script is causing a bunch of first drafts to be released in theaters.
Agreed. Everyone complained about the fourth movie being about aliens/inter-dimensional beings, but is that really so different than a magic box that contains the Ten Commandments? Or a cult that...
Agreed. Everyone complained about the fourth movie being about aliens/inter-dimensional beings, but is that really so different than a magic box that contains the Ten Commandments? Or a cult that sacrifices people to a god? Same with this one (not going in to specifics so I don't spoil the movie for people who haven't seen it).
The Indiana Jones series has always had a sci-fi/fantasy bent to it.
I'll avoid spoilers as well but since the holy grail and ark of the covenant exist in Indy's timeline, and also have magical properties, He can surmise that the Judean God exists in universe....
I'll avoid spoilers as well but since the holy grail and ark of the covenant exist in Indy's timeline, and also have magical properties, He can surmise that the Judean God exists in universe. Within that world, the Nazis and their love of the occult (I mean, they really did in real life too but perhaps not the Castle Wolfenstein level...) caused them to untold harm in searching out those artifacts and Indy was asking to witness the carnage in a technically similar world to our own in 1938.
The Temple of Doom had a cult worshipping their local deity. Human sacrifices and all that. Well, if one God can exist, maybe more than one god can!
It's been a long time since I rewatched those three movies though, so I forget if the Thuggee were secretly robots or if Kali ever came down on a spaceship, but I feel that nothing in those movies felt 'Sci-Fi'. Fantasy? Sure but more of an Action romp with fantastic elements. Nothing sci-fi about Nazi zeppelins or the Indy's gun.
That's where four loses the plot. Aliens. So, in this universe, God is real - and not an alien because he kept that Templar alive all that time - and yet, Aliens came to earth and all the other bullshit that goes along with the Crystal Skulls (and not Dan Akroyd's Vodka). That was finally the sci-fi element that fans hated.
I've never felt that Indy had any Sci-fi in him, just as much as National Treasure doesn't.
It's not a bad movie but I don't feel like it's the great return to form for Indy that everyone wanted it to be.
It could certainly be worse but Mutt's the word on that one.
Not necessarily. The way Indy himself puts it, he's "seen things [he] can't explain", but they do not convince him of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Indy is a scientist first and...
He can surmise that the Judean God exists in universe.
Not necessarily. The way Indy himself puts it, he's "seen things [he] can't explain", but they do not convince him of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.
Indy is a scientist first and foremost. To him, an inability to explain something is not evidence supporting any pre-existing superstitious beliefs, it just means more science needs to be done until we can explain it. Something I liked about Dial of Destiny is the fact that they really emphasized this aspect of the character.
Agreed. Some of it was a little eye-rolling, as someone who has read quite a bit about the mechanism (including a prominent academic paper where it was imaged and analyzed), due to the fact that...
Agreed. Some of it was a little eye-rolling, as someone who has read quite a bit about the mechanism (including a prominent academic paper where it was imaged and analyzed), due to the fact that it's a known artifact that was actually found, rather than something purely mythological. (Such as calling it "the" name of the place it was found, rather than the place-it-was-found mechanism.) Other than that, it's a solid Indy film and definitely better than the previous.
A mechanical gadget having some silly extraordinary power is no more silly than a fictitious box of sand shooting laser ghosts, a mythological cup healing someone or some religious sect pulling someone's heart out of their body (without immediately killing them). And it involves killing Nazis, which is a definite plus.
It doesn't have the classic cinema vibe that Raiders had, falling victim to contemporary hyperactive pacing a little bit, but what doesn't nowadays?
I thought this movie was bad and (the back half of) Crystal Skull was bad. But for me that was entirely because I thought the movies were executed very poorly and it had nothing whatsoever to do...
I thought this movie was bad and (the back half of) Crystal Skull was bad. But for me that was entirely because I thought the movies were executed very poorly and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the premise being too fantastical for a series in which multiple contradictory religions are true and magic exists.
I'm sure this isn't an original take but it's one I don't see talked about: It seemed pretty clear to me watching Crystal Skull the first time that the concept was that they'd updated the meta-premise of "let's draw inspiration from old swashbuckling action adventure serials about finding treasure and fighting foreigners in exotic locales like Africa and '''''''The Orient''''''''," to "let's draw inspiration from old science fiction action adventure serials about aliens and UFOs" in accordance with the time period the movie takes place in, and I think that's a good and cool idea.
I think people get tripped up in a few places here. Most importantly that they don't really understand the gimmick of Indiana Jones because they were raised with it so it just exists as its own thing to them, but Indiana Jones is and always was nothing more and nothing less than an homage to pulpy genre serials! That was the whole point! People understood the first three movies that way at the time because they had those serials to compare it against. It doesn't follow any rules, they just made the rules up in service of that end, drawing inspiration in style and premise from old TV, movies, comics, and dime novels.
Imagine only watching Raiders, then walking into a theater and watching Temple of Doom. Would you say that the premise "violates the laws of the original" or "isn't true to the original" because only Christianity is true in the original? They wanted to tell a story about the Ark of the Covenant, so Judaism was true. Now they want to tell a story about India, because (cartoonishly orientalist) portrayals of India were ubiquitous in the pulp adventure genre and they want to homage that, so Hinduism is true. Eventually George Lucas wants to homage pulp UFO sci fi, so aliens are real.
The rules and mystical forces in your universe are not the thing you write your story around, they're not invariant, and they're not real. A writer creates those rules and forces in service of whatever story they want to tell.
Time travel existing in the new one isn't inherently absurd as a premise for a movie franchise with aliens and multiple equally real but mutually contradictory pantheons of gods. The question is what is the time travel doing there, and in this one it's there for like thematic reasons that tie into what Mangold was trying to do cloning Logan into the setting of Indiana Jones and making it a meditation on the past and aging and feeling like you don't have a purpose or place anymore etc etc.
And that's an entirely fine reason, but I think it also exposes the fact that the new one does violate the premise of Indiana Jones, though on a higher level of abstraction than merely including time travel. The premise of Indiana Jones could easily handle time travel. What violates the premise of Indiana Jones is not really being a genre homage at all, and instead just being an action movie that takes place in the Indiana Jones universe using some of the characters. The first four movies, yes, including Crystal Skull, are still Indiana Jones movies, they still follow the formula, they use the same tropes, themes, and meta-premise.
When you watch Crystal Skull it's definitely an Indiana Jones movie, it's just a bad Indiana Jones movie for a lot of the run time. Dial of Destiny feels like the equivalent to "A Star Wars Story" for Indiana Jones; it's just another story that takes place in the setting, with some of the same characters.
That could ofc still be a good movie, though I don't think it is for other reasons that aren't really relevant.
Yeah, I appreciate that little chunk the most for sure! I felt like my text wall was getting too long as it was, but that part I think was definitely trying to do some of what I was talking about....
Yeah, I appreciate that little chunk the most for sure! I felt like my text wall was getting too long as it was, but that part I think was definitely trying to do some of what I was talking about. I guess the general thing with the new one for me is that you can tell the primary inspirations for the first four movies were that mishmash of genre influences, whereas for far too much of the run time you can tell the primary inspiration for the new Indiana Jones movie is... Indiana Jones.
It's a big part of the problem I have with the Star Wars sequels, too, honestly. Like, the original Star Wars trilogy was Lucas doing a very similar thing with Flash Gordon and its sphere of genre pulp serial content, though complicating it with his obsession with rigorously adhering to the formalities of the monomyth and drenching the visual palette of the movie in references to classic international cinema, with almost every shot directly ripped from some greatest-of-all-time movie. It's this crazy postmodern gambit to mix and blur the boundaries between low and high art: Flash Gordon as Odysseus. That's a really bold vision, and was even bolder at the time, but episodes 7 and 9 appear to think the universe or it's worldbuilding are the vision, so they don't try to do anything except be continuations of the story happening in the same universe, and give no regard to that other stuff. 8 is the closest the sequels get to trying to present any sort of counterpoint to what the original trilogy was up to, or even to wade in the same waters they swam in, regardless of how you feel about it. It's palpable in TFA that the only cultural reference the movie was built on (or even understands) was Star Wars itself -- "how can we continue this story???" Despite that, TFA is mostly an ok movie (TROS is definitely not lol), but I think it really loses something not seeming to understand what was actually cool on a filmmaking level about the originals.
Similarly with Dial you can watch the movie and very easily tell it was made by someone who was inspired primarily by Raiders, not by the things that inspired Raiders. It has a fan movie-ish quality to it in that way. Mangold got a little too caught up on how excited he was to be making an Indiana Jones movie. That almost sword-and-sandal-y part at the end is alright, though, I just wish it hadn't stuck out so much in a movie where the rest was nothing like it.
Indy 4 had problems other than the aliens (lots of poor CGI, the fridge scene, and Mutt), but I agree it got more hate than it deserves. Dial of Destiny has none of those problems. For me it's in...
Indy 4 had problems other than the aliens (lots of poor CGI, the fridge scene, and Mutt), but I agree it got more hate than it deserves.
Dial of Destiny has none of those problems. For me it's in the top 3, above Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull. It was pretty much all I wanted from a finale for the character.
I honestly liked the fridge scene tbh. It was wacky but it felt wacky in the same way as a lot of the other camp in the older movies. For me it's the fact that I can barely remember the second two...
I honestly liked the fridge scene tbh. It was wacky but it felt wacky in the same way as a lot of the other camp in the older movies. For me it's the fact that I can barely remember the second two thirds of the movie that really sinks Crystal Skull. At least I remember the fridge.
I haven't seen Dial of Destiny though, so can't weigh in there.
aliens/inter-dimensional beings, but is that really so different than a magic box that contains the Ten Commandments? Or a cult that sacrifices people to a god?
How are the gods and other supernatural entities described in these ancient stories fundamentally different than any sci-fi alien/inter-dimensional being described in modern stories? The key...
How are the gods and other supernatural entities described in these ancient stories fundamentally different than any sci-fi alien/inter-dimensional being described in modern stories?
The key difference to me is simply time. Stories about aliens are a more modern take on stories of angels and demons and vengeful gods destroying civilizations. They are all myths built to try and comprehend that which we still lack the evidence or understanding to rationally explain.
I really don't like the Indiana Jones movies in general, and I thought this was a really well made film (if not really fitting for my tastes). I thought that Harrison was too old for the action...
I really don't like the Indiana Jones movies in general, and I thought this was a really well made film (if not really fitting for my tastes). I thought that Harrison was too old for the action this movie was promising but it turned out really well and was pretty exciting. I found myself willing to suspend a lot more disbelief on this movie than any of the others.
I haven’t seen any of the other Indiana jones moves but went with some friends to see this one. I loved it and am looking forward to having the time to go back and watch the others for the first...
I haven’t seen any of the other Indiana jones moves but went with some friends to see this one. I loved it and am looking forward to having the time to go back and watch the others for the first time!
It feels like people are more critical these days. Maybe streaming services have allowed movie buffs to watch more movies and now they are critics. I don’t know. I thought it was a fun movie.
I think they should have made more Indiana Jones movies and just used a different actor after Harrison Ford was too old. They could have had done it like James Bond with a new guy every 10 years....
I think they should have made more Indiana Jones movies and just used a different actor after Harrison Ford was too old. They could have had done it like James Bond with a new guy every 10 years.
The new movie is ok but it has to expend too much effort making a CG Harrison or limit him because he’s an old man. Harrison Ford is not irreplaceable, and frankly I don’t enjoy thinking about how we all get old and feeble when I’m trying to watch an action movie.
If Harrison Ford wants to make movies about being an old man he could do different projects like Clint Eastwood does.
By the way, it’s weird how the culture sort of froze a few decades ago and they keep trotting out remakes where half the plot is explaining why Rambo or Jean Luc Picard or Han Solo is still trying to live the life of someone under 30.
This is because studios are unwilling to invest large sums into new ideas. Nearly every big movie these days must be tied to existing IP with a successful track record. E.g. Mario Brothers,...
By the way, it’s weird how the culture sort of froze a few decades ago and they keep trotting out remakes where half the plot is explaining why Rambo or Jean Luc Picard or Han Solo is still trying to live the life of someone under 30.
This is because studios are unwilling to invest large sums into new ideas. Nearly every big movie these days must be tied to existing IP with a successful track record. E.g. Mario Brothers, Barbie, Marvel, DC, Disney live action remakes, etc. Reusing the same actors decade after decade just strengthens that tie-in.
Not every potential franchise starter needs to have a $100-300 million budget. (Honestly, I don't think ANY movie needs a $300 million budget) Is there any particular reason more movies can't be...
Not every potential franchise starter needs to have a $100-300 million budget. (Honestly, I don't think ANY movie needs a $300 million budget)
Is there any particular reason more movies can't be made for $30-40 million? I know horror movies are cheap to make ("Get Out" was 4.5 million, "Us" was $20) so why can't a modern "Raiders of the Lost Ark/Indiana Jones" type movie be made for $30 million? Is it the stunts? Set pieces? Practical effects? Inflation?
At some point, you'd think an executive or a bean counter would realize that putting all their eggs in one basket isn't working for them. One, let alone multiple, $300 million dollar bombs are a worse return on investment than 5-10 $30-40 million dollar movies. You're doing something horribly wrong if you picked that 7-10 duds where NONE of them would make any money.
One hit like "Get out" ($255 million gross on $4.5 million budget) would make seemingly make it worthwhile even if the other movies of that 5-10 batch barely broke even or even lost a little money..
I think they should have made more Indiana Jones movies and just used a different actor after Harrison Ford was too old. They could have had done it like James Bond with a new guy every 10 years.
I think that's the problem. When you spend that much on a movie, it has to be a hit on the order of Avatar or Avengers to justify its budget. Massive films like this are such a big gamble and eat...
As I've discussed quite a bit, Disney and Lucasfilm ended up spending far too much on "Dial of Destiny," in no small part thanks to the pandemic. But still, $300 million is almost too big a number to manage, as you would be looking at needing to make somewhere close to $800 million — if not more — just to break even.
I think that's the problem. When you spend that much on a movie, it has to be a hit on the order of Avatar or Avengers to justify its budget.
Massive films like this are such a big gamble and eat up so much of a studios resources that they need that kind of high return to be worthwhile.
I can't wrap my head around the Hollywood accounting of a $300 million budget somehow requiring $800 million to break even. It genuinely sounds like an editing mistake in the article.
I can't wrap my head around the Hollywood accounting of a $300 million budget somehow requiring $800 million to break even.
It genuinely sounds like an editing mistake in the article.
The article says that the theatres keep about half of the takings. So $800m would become $400m which makes a bit more sense to be the number re (edit) quired to break even. Sorry I didnt realise...
The article says that the theatres keep about half of the takings. So $800m would become $400m which makes a bit more sense to be the number re (edit) quired to break even. Sorry I didnt realise this had posted, Im still getting used to (but loving) Tildes.
I've always read and been told that theaters make almost zero off of ticket sales - little more than breaking even - and make their entire profit off of drinks/snacks/etc.
I've always read and been told that theaters make almost zero off of ticket sales - little more than breaking even - and make their entire profit off of drinks/snacks/etc.
IIRC it's usually a sliding scale. So the first week the theater will get close to 0% of the ticket price, but their take increases each week they run the movie. Which is part of why studios care...
IIRC it's usually a sliding scale. So the first week the theater will get close to 0% of the ticket price, but their take increases each week they run the movie. Which is part of why studios care so much about opening week box office, it's the highest percentage of the ticket price they'll get and presumably peak interest in the movie.
The general rule of thumb is that a film's production budget usually comes with an equivalent marketing budget, though in this case I wouldn't be surprised if marketing was closer to half simply...
The general rule of thumb is that a film's production budget usually comes with an equivalent marketing budget, though in this case I wouldn't be surprised if marketing was closer to half simply because the production was heavily inflated by COVID and other problems. So $300m plus $150-$200m for marketing already brings you to a $500m break even point. Then there's the fact that box office reporting typically includes gross receipts, not the studios income after the theaters take their cut.
It is a lot harder for a big budget movie to break even than people realize.
I'm hoping the projected success of Barbenheimer helps tell studios that smaller scale mid budget flicks are perfectly viable, as they had been becoming increasingly rare before the pandemic.
If they spent that much on marketing they didn't get their money's worth, IMO.. Maybe I'm in the minority but I rarely saw any ads/previews for it anywhere. Not on any of my freemium streaming...
If they spent that much on marketing they didn't get their money's worth, IMO..
Maybe I'm in the minority but I rarely saw any ads/previews for it anywhere. Not on any of my freemium streaming platforms that have ads, not during our 2 different weekly watch parties with family/friends, not online. I think I saw a small number of trailers in the movie theater for it. The only thing I really saw about it was articles shown on my "Discover" landing page in Chrome on my phone.
Because the studios are interested in big returns on their investments. It doesn't matter if they make $10mil of profit off of $300mil investment (profit which, if divided equally among all the...
Because the studios are interested in big returns on their investments. It doesn't matter if they make $10mil of profit off of $300mil investment (profit which, if divided equally among all the production crew, would undoubtedly be a life changing amount for each and everyone). It's a failure and they might as well not make it.
I hate that a product can't just make some money. It has to make all the money. Like, if everyone gets paid and a movie still clears $50 million over its total cost to create, what's wrong with...
I hate that a product can't just make some money. It has to make all the money. Like, if everyone gets paid and a movie still clears $50 million over its total cost to create, what's wrong with that, whether it costs $100 million or a billion?
Like, I get that 47 Ronin lost a bunch of money and that sucks to a lot of investors, but why the hell is Black Adam considered a box-office bomb when it made almost $400 million on a budget of $190-260 million?
Why isn't marketing rolled into the listed budget on all of these goddamn movies? Obviously marketing is a significant part, but at a glance that info isn't freely available, and like...
I don't know. If everyone is getting paid, why do some production company CEOs need to still clear $50 million each in order to consider the movie a "success"?
"Investors" is the keyword. To an investor, putting money into a movie is an opportunity cost. The returns from the movie have to be as good or better than the returns from a different project.
"Investors" is the keyword. To an investor, putting money into a movie is an opportunity cost. The returns from the movie have to be as good or better than the returns from a different project.
Which brings up a whole other can of worms as to why the fuck - when marketing is so goddamn huge - it's not rolled into the production budget when it's listed places?
Which brings up a whole other can of worms as to why the fuck - when marketing is so goddamn huge - it's not rolled into the production budget when it's listed places?
Because of Hollywood Accounting. Keeping it separate allows them so much creative math opportunities. One of the reasons we never got a Forrest Gump sequal was because the studio claimed that a...
Because of Hollywood Accounting. Keeping it separate allows them so much creative math opportunities.
One of the reasons we never got a Forrest Gump sequal was because the studio claimed that a movie that $55 million to make and made $678 million at the box office somehow still LOST over $60 million. source
Dunno if Franchise Fatigue is a thing, but I have it. Feels like most new entertainment content these days is another sequel/prequel/TV adaptation. Disney especially are busy at work draining...
Dunno if Franchise Fatigue is a thing, but I have it. Feels like most new entertainment content these days is another sequel/prequel/TV adaptation.
Disney especially are busy at work draining everything they can out of the Marvel and Star Wars universes. Not very surprising they're going through the backlog of other loved franchises too.
It's exhausting. So when this movie came out I just wasn't interested enough to check it out.
This is the reason why I have no plans to see the movie in theaters.. Maybe if it comes out on Redbox and I have a free credit.. Look at the timeline of releases: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)...
Exemplary
This is the reason why I have no plans to see the movie in theaters.. Maybe if it comes out on Redbox and I have a free credit..
Look at the timeline of releases:
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) ...
(Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) ...
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) ...
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Dial of Destiny (2023)
It was 8 yeras between the release of the 1st and 3rd movies but it was 34 years between the 3rd and 5th. Thirty-four years
Why, exactly, did the last 2 movies HAVE to be "Indiana Jones" movies and not "The Adventures of Henry Williams" (Mutt) if they absolutely had to tie it to Indiana Jones or potentially an entirely new franchise? Throw in a cameo or mild plot device for Harrison Ford and let Indy's son carry on the franchise. I'm not saying it would have been any different/better but it would take so much effort to be worse.
I feel like Hollywood is willingly bankrupting itself, creatively. It has to be willingly at this rate. Look at all the Disney live action remakes. While I don't keep track, it seems like each one is doing worse than the previous one did at the box office. Same with every other franchise or "shared universe" (Star Wars, Harry Potter, Aliens, Predator, etc etc)
I'm on the edge of my seat awaiting the inevitable "Jaws" prequel where (twist) Ahab was really hunting a great white shark who happened to be Jaws' great uncle or something.
I personally hate prequels involving known characters since they have no sense of tension at all for me (looking at you, "Solo") so I avoid them. Even "Rogue One", which I watched and mostly enjoyed, was a tough sell to me since I knew none of the characters would be important since none of them ever showed up again (it also undid one of the points of movie--and pre-merger book-- canon for no apparent reason?)
I will avoid the inevitable Fast and Furious prequel series of movies you know they'll release eventually showing a young Vin Diesel and John Cena with a whole crew of boy band member tropes (the moody one, the geeky one, the silent one). There will be sense of agency or danger for the main characters and no one will really care about the "nobodies" that never made an appearance later in the timeline.
It's just like they didn't even watch the previous movies before making this one. The premise is just so not true to the original.
I hope this writers/actors strike is successful because I really think that studios cutting costs is hurting scripts. Only allowing 6-8 weeks to write a script is causing a bunch of first drafts to be released in theaters.
How so? I thought it was great
Agreed. Everyone complained about the fourth movie being about aliens/inter-dimensional beings, but is that really so different than a magic box that contains the Ten Commandments? Or a cult that sacrifices people to a god? Same with this one (not going in to specifics so I don't spoil the movie for people who haven't seen it).
The Indiana Jones series has always had a sci-fi/fantasy bent to it.
I'll avoid spoilers as well but since the holy grail and ark of the covenant exist in Indy's timeline, and also have magical properties, He can surmise that the Judean God exists in universe. Within that world, the Nazis and their love of the occult (I mean, they really did in real life too but perhaps not the Castle Wolfenstein level...) caused them to untold harm in searching out those artifacts and Indy was asking to witness the carnage in a technically similar world to our own in 1938.
The Temple of Doom had a cult worshipping their local deity. Human sacrifices and all that. Well, if one God can exist, maybe more than one god can!
It's been a long time since I rewatched those three movies though, so I forget if the Thuggee were secretly robots or if Kali ever came down on a spaceship, but I feel that nothing in those movies felt 'Sci-Fi'. Fantasy? Sure but more of an Action romp with fantastic elements. Nothing sci-fi about Nazi zeppelins or the Indy's gun.
That's where four loses the plot. Aliens. So, in this universe, God is real - and not an alien because he kept that Templar alive all that time - and yet, Aliens came to earth and all the other bullshit that goes along with the Crystal Skulls (and not Dan Akroyd's Vodka). That was finally the sci-fi element that fans hated.
I've never felt that Indy had any Sci-fi in him, just as much as National Treasure doesn't.
It's not a bad movie but I don't feel like it's the great return to form for Indy that everyone wanted it to be.
It could certainly be worse but Mutt's the word on that one.
Indiana Jones has held proof of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, aliens and the ability to time travel, and apparently brought none of that to light.
Well, if you'd just bought an annual membership to your local museum you'd of seen it all!
Not necessarily. The way Indy himself puts it, he's "seen things [he] can't explain", but they do not convince him of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.
Indy is a scientist first and foremost. To him, an inability to explain something is not evidence supporting any pre-existing superstitious beliefs, it just means more science needs to be done until we can explain it. Something I liked about Dial of Destiny is the fact that they really emphasized this aspect of the character.
Agreed. Some of it was a little eye-rolling, as someone who has read quite a bit about the mechanism (including a prominent academic paper where it was imaged and analyzed), due to the fact that it's a known artifact that was actually found, rather than something purely mythological. (Such as calling it "the" name of the place it was found, rather than the place-it-was-found mechanism.) Other than that, it's a solid Indy film and definitely better than the previous.
A mechanical gadget having some silly extraordinary power is no more silly than a fictitious box of sand shooting laser ghosts, a mythological cup healing someone or some religious sect pulling someone's heart out of their body (without immediately killing them). And it involves killing Nazis, which is a definite plus.
It doesn't have the classic cinema vibe that Raiders had, falling victim to contemporary hyperactive pacing a little bit, but what doesn't nowadays?
I thought this movie was bad and (the back half of) Crystal Skull was bad. But for me that was entirely because I thought the movies were executed very poorly and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the premise being too fantastical for a series in which multiple contradictory religions are true and magic exists.
I'm sure this isn't an original take but it's one I don't see talked about: It seemed pretty clear to me watching Crystal Skull the first time that the concept was that they'd updated the meta-premise of "let's draw inspiration from old swashbuckling action adventure serials about finding treasure and fighting foreigners in exotic locales like Africa and '''''''The Orient''''''''," to "let's draw inspiration from old science fiction action adventure serials about aliens and UFOs" in accordance with the time period the movie takes place in, and I think that's a good and cool idea.
I think people get tripped up in a few places here. Most importantly that they don't really understand the gimmick of Indiana Jones because they were raised with it so it just exists as its own thing to them, but Indiana Jones is and always was nothing more and nothing less than an homage to pulpy genre serials! That was the whole point! People understood the first three movies that way at the time because they had those serials to compare it against. It doesn't follow any rules, they just made the rules up in service of that end, drawing inspiration in style and premise from old TV, movies, comics, and dime novels.
Imagine only watching Raiders, then walking into a theater and watching Temple of Doom. Would you say that the premise "violates the laws of the original" or "isn't true to the original" because only Christianity is true in the original? They wanted to tell a story about the Ark of the Covenant, so Judaism was true. Now they want to tell a story about India, because (cartoonishly orientalist) portrayals of India were ubiquitous in the pulp adventure genre and they want to homage that, so Hinduism is true. Eventually George Lucas wants to homage pulp UFO sci fi, so aliens are real.
The rules and mystical forces in your universe are not the thing you write your story around, they're not invariant, and they're not real. A writer creates those rules and forces in service of whatever story they want to tell.
Time travel existing in the new one isn't inherently absurd as a premise for a movie franchise with aliens and multiple equally real but mutually contradictory pantheons of gods. The question is what is the time travel doing there, and in this one it's there for like thematic reasons that tie into what Mangold was trying to do cloning Logan into the setting of Indiana Jones and making it a meditation on the past and aging and feeling like you don't have a purpose or place anymore etc etc.
And that's an entirely fine reason, but I think it also exposes the fact that the new one does violate the premise of Indiana Jones, though on a higher level of abstraction than merely including time travel. The premise of Indiana Jones could easily handle time travel. What violates the premise of Indiana Jones is not really being a genre homage at all, and instead just being an action movie that takes place in the Indiana Jones universe using some of the characters. The first four movies, yes, including Crystal Skull, are still Indiana Jones movies, they still follow the formula, they use the same tropes, themes, and meta-premise.
When you watch Crystal Skull it's definitely an Indiana Jones movie, it's just a bad Indiana Jones movie for a lot of the run time. Dial of Destiny feels like the equivalent to "A Star Wars Story" for Indiana Jones; it's just another story that takes place in the setting, with some of the same characters.
That could ofc still be a good movie, though I don't think it is for other reasons that aren't really relevant.
Yeah, I appreciate that little chunk the most for sure! I felt like my text wall was getting too long as it was, but that part I think was definitely trying to do some of what I was talking about. I guess the general thing with the new one for me is that you can tell the primary inspirations for the first four movies were that mishmash of genre influences, whereas for far too much of the run time you can tell the primary inspiration for the new Indiana Jones movie is... Indiana Jones.
It's a big part of the problem I have with the Star Wars sequels, too, honestly. Like, the original Star Wars trilogy was Lucas doing a very similar thing with Flash Gordon and its sphere of genre pulp serial content, though complicating it with his obsession with rigorously adhering to the formalities of the monomyth and drenching the visual palette of the movie in references to classic international cinema, with almost every shot directly ripped from some greatest-of-all-time movie. It's this crazy postmodern gambit to mix and blur the boundaries between low and high art: Flash Gordon as Odysseus. That's a really bold vision, and was even bolder at the time, but episodes 7 and 9 appear to think the universe or it's worldbuilding are the vision, so they don't try to do anything except be continuations of the story happening in the same universe, and give no regard to that other stuff. 8 is the closest the sequels get to trying to present any sort of counterpoint to what the original trilogy was up to, or even to wade in the same waters they swam in, regardless of how you feel about it. It's palpable in TFA that the only cultural reference the movie was built on (or even understands) was Star Wars itself -- "how can we continue this story???" Despite that, TFA is mostly an ok movie (TROS is definitely not lol), but I think it really loses something not seeming to understand what was actually cool on a filmmaking level about the originals.
Similarly with Dial you can watch the movie and very easily tell it was made by someone who was inspired primarily by Raiders, not by the things that inspired Raiders. It has a fan movie-ish quality to it in that way. Mangold got a little too caught up on how excited he was to be making an Indiana Jones movie. That almost sword-and-sandal-y part at the end is alright, though, I just wish it hadn't stuck out so much in a movie where the rest was nothing like it.
Indy 4 had problems other than the aliens (lots of poor CGI, the fridge scene, and Mutt), but I agree it got more hate than it deserves.
Dial of Destiny has none of those problems. For me it's in the top 3, above Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull. It was pretty much all I wanted from a finale for the character.
I honestly liked the fridge scene tbh. It was wacky but it felt wacky in the same way as a lot of the other camp in the older movies. For me it's the fact that I can barely remember the second two thirds of the movie that really sinks Crystal Skull. At least I remember the fridge.
I haven't seen Dial of Destiny though, so can't weigh in there.
...Yes? How is it not?
How are the gods and other supernatural entities described in these ancient stories fundamentally different than any sci-fi alien/inter-dimensional being described in modern stories?
The key difference to me is simply time. Stories about aliens are a more modern take on stories of angels and demons and vengeful gods destroying civilizations. They are all myths built to try and comprehend that which we still lack the evidence or understanding to rationally explain.
I really don't like the Indiana Jones movies in general, and I thought this was a really well made film (if not really fitting for my tastes). I thought that Harrison was too old for the action this movie was promising but it turned out really well and was pretty exciting. I found myself willing to suspend a lot more disbelief on this movie than any of the others.
I haven’t seen any of the other Indiana jones moves but went with some friends to see this one. I loved it and am looking forward to having the time to go back and watch the others for the first time!
It feels like people are more critical these days. Maybe streaming services have allowed movie buffs to watch more movies and now they are critics. I don’t know. I thought it was a fun movie.
I think they should have made more Indiana Jones movies and just used a different actor after Harrison Ford was too old. They could have had done it like James Bond with a new guy every 10 years.
The new movie is ok but it has to expend too much effort making a CG Harrison or limit him because he’s an old man. Harrison Ford is not irreplaceable, and frankly I don’t enjoy thinking about how we all get old and feeble when I’m trying to watch an action movie.
If Harrison Ford wants to make movies about being an old man he could do different projects like Clint Eastwood does.
By the way, it’s weird how the culture sort of froze a few decades ago and they keep trotting out remakes where half the plot is explaining why Rambo or Jean Luc Picard or Han Solo is still trying to live the life of someone under 30.
This is because studios are unwilling to invest large sums into new ideas. Nearly every big movie these days must be tied to existing IP with a successful track record. E.g. Mario Brothers, Barbie, Marvel, DC, Disney live action remakes, etc. Reusing the same actors decade after decade just strengthens that tie-in.
Not every potential franchise starter needs to have a $100-300 million budget. (Honestly, I don't think ANY movie needs a $300 million budget)
Is there any particular reason more movies can't be made for $30-40 million? I know horror movies are cheap to make ("Get Out" was 4.5 million, "Us" was $20) so why can't a modern "Raiders of the Lost Ark/Indiana Jones" type movie be made for $30 million? Is it the stunts? Set pieces? Practical effects? Inflation?
At some point, you'd think an executive or a bean counter would realize that putting all their eggs in one basket isn't working for them. One, let alone multiple, $300 million dollar bombs are a worse return on investment than 5-10 $30-40 million dollar movies. You're doing something horribly wrong if you picked that 7-10 duds where NONE of them would make any money.
One hit like "Get out" ($255 million gross on $4.5 million budget) would make seemingly make it worthwhile even if the other movies of that 5-10 batch barely broke even or even lost a little money..
My favorite example is Skinamarink. $15,000 budget, $2,100,000 in the box office. That's a 140% ROI.
They did and it’s called called The Mummy
I think that's the problem. When you spend that much on a movie, it has to be a hit on the order of Avatar or Avengers to justify its budget.
Massive films like this are such a big gamble and eat up so much of a studios resources that they need that kind of high return to be worthwhile.
I can't wrap my head around the Hollywood accounting of a $300 million budget somehow requiring $800 million to break even.
It genuinely sounds like an editing mistake in the article.
Or Hollywood accounting.
The article says that the theatres keep about half of the takings. So $800m would become $400m which makes a bit more sense to be the number re (edit) quired to break even. Sorry I didnt realise this had posted, Im still getting used to (but loving) Tildes.
I've always read and been told that theaters make almost zero off of ticket sales - little more than breaking even - and make their entire profit off of drinks/snacks/etc.
IIRC it's usually a sliding scale. So the first week the theater will get close to 0% of the ticket price, but their take increases each week they run the movie. Which is part of why studios care so much about opening week box office, it's the highest percentage of the ticket price they'll get and presumably peak interest in the movie.
The general rule of thumb is that a film's production budget usually comes with an equivalent marketing budget, though in this case I wouldn't be surprised if marketing was closer to half simply because the production was heavily inflated by COVID and other problems. So $300m plus $150-$200m for marketing already brings you to a $500m break even point. Then there's the fact that box office reporting typically includes gross receipts, not the studios income after the theaters take their cut.
It is a lot harder for a big budget movie to break even than people realize.
I'm hoping the projected success of Barbenheimer helps tell studios that smaller scale mid budget flicks are perfectly viable, as they had been becoming increasingly rare before the pandemic.
If they spent that much on marketing they didn't get their money's worth, IMO..
Maybe I'm in the minority but I rarely saw any ads/previews for it anywhere. Not on any of my freemium streaming platforms that have ads, not during our 2 different weekly watch parties with family/friends, not online. I think I saw a small number of trailers in the movie theater for it. The only thing I really saw about it was articles shown on my "Discover" landing page in Chrome on my phone.
Because the studios are interested in big returns on their investments. It doesn't matter if they make $10mil of profit off of $300mil investment (profit which, if divided equally among all the production crew, would undoubtedly be a life changing amount for each and everyone). It's a failure and they might as well not make it.
I hate that a product can't just make some money. It has to make all the money. Like, if everyone gets paid and a movie still clears $50 million over its total cost to create, what's wrong with that, whether it costs $100 million or a billion?
Like, I get that 47 Ronin lost a bunch of money and that sucks to a lot of investors, but why the hell is Black Adam considered a box-office bomb when it made almost $400 million on a budget of $190-260 million?
Why isn't marketing rolled into the listed budget on all of these goddamn movies? Obviously marketing is a significant part, but at a glance that info isn't freely available, and like...
I don't know. If everyone is getting paid, why do some production company CEOs need to still clear $50 million each in order to consider the movie a "success"?
"Investors" is the keyword. To an investor, putting money into a movie is an opportunity cost. The returns from the movie have to be as good or better than the returns from a different project.
$300M to make, 500 to market etc.
OK I'm lost, too...
Which brings up a whole other can of worms as to why the fuck - when marketing is so goddamn huge - it's not rolled into the production budget when it's listed places?
Because of Hollywood Accounting. Keeping it separate allows them so much creative math opportunities.
One of the reasons we never got a Forrest Gump sequal was because the studio claimed that a movie that $55 million to make and made $678 million at the box office somehow still LOST over $60 million. source
Dunno if Franchise Fatigue is a thing, but I have it. Feels like most new entertainment content these days is another sequel/prequel/TV adaptation.
Disney especially are busy at work draining everything they can out of the Marvel and Star Wars universes. Not very surprising they're going through the backlog of other loved franchises too.
It's exhausting. So when this movie came out I just wasn't interested enough to check it out.
This is the reason why I have no plans to see the movie in theaters.. Maybe if it comes out on Redbox and I have a free credit..
Look at the timeline of releases:
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) ...
(Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) ...
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) ...
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Dial of Destiny (2023)
It was 8 yeras between the release of the 1st and 3rd movies but it was 34 years between the 3rd and 5th. Thirty-four years
Why, exactly, did the last 2 movies HAVE to be "Indiana Jones" movies and not "The Adventures of Henry Williams" (Mutt) if they absolutely had to tie it to Indiana Jones or potentially an entirely new franchise? Throw in a cameo or mild plot device for Harrison Ford and let Indy's son carry on the franchise. I'm not saying it would have been any different/better but it would take so much effort to be worse.
I feel like Hollywood is willingly bankrupting itself, creatively. It has to be willingly at this rate. Look at all the Disney live action remakes. While I don't keep track, it seems like each one is doing worse than the previous one did at the box office. Same with every other franchise or "shared universe" (Star Wars, Harry Potter, Aliens, Predator, etc etc)
I'm on the edge of my seat awaiting the inevitable "Jaws" prequel where (twist) Ahab was really hunting a great white shark who happened to be Jaws' great uncle or something.
I personally hate prequels involving known characters since they have no sense of tension at all for me (looking at you, "Solo") so I avoid them. Even "Rogue One", which I watched and mostly enjoyed, was a tough sell to me since I knew none of the characters would be important since none of them ever showed up again (it also undid one of the points of movie--and pre-merger book-- canon for no apparent reason?)
I will avoid the inevitable Fast and Furious prequel series of movies you know they'll release eventually showing a young Vin Diesel and John Cena with a whole crew of boy band member tropes (the moody one, the geeky one, the silent one). There will be sense of agency or danger for the main characters and no one will really care about the "nobodies" that never made an appearance later in the timeline.
I think Hollywood is having its own "circle of life" thing. Maybe it's the way, they'll realize what's wrong with the industry and fix it.