Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) (1 Viewer)

[SamT]

My biggest problem with Last Crusade was that it was trying to be more like Raiders, it felt like a step back. Temple at least tried to be different.

I'm not sure if I agree. When I saw the Indiana Jones trilogy few years back, I was surprised how Last Crusade tried to be funny. I think tonally Raiders and Crusade are very different. Raiders is a straight serious adventure movie with bits of humor. Last Crusade felt more like a straight comedy.

 

[SamT]

I was an extra in a movie.

Nice. What was it? Is it any movie we can check?

 

[TravisR]

I'm not sure if I agree. When I saw the Indiana Jones trilogy few years back, I was surprised how Last Crusade tried to be funny. I think tonally Raiders and Crusade are very different. Raiders is a straight serious adventure movie with bits of humor. Last Crusade felt more like a straight comedy.

Yeah, I think by Last Crusade they really found a groove for Harrison Ford's humor, there was alot of the humor that came out of the father/son dynamic and there's deliberate jokes (like "No ticket.", Hitler signing the grail book or Marcus going from a colleague of Indy's in Raiders to a buffoon in Last Crusade).

 

[SamT]

What I'm saying in general about directors making movies for fans and actors not seeing their own movies, is that in my mind you should love what you are doing and for that, you should get satisfaction on some level watching your work. You should enjoy what you made.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

What I'm saying in general about directors making movies for fans and actors not seeing their own movies, is that in my mind you should love what you are doing and for that, you should get satisfaction on some level watching your work. You should enjoy what you made.

Maybe, but I don't think it actually works that way for a lot of talent. The satisfaction and enjoyment for most actors that I've spoken to and/or read interviews with is that they enjoy the process of preparing for a role and they enjoy being on set and filming that role, but once they've done that, the job is done. By the time the movie is completed, it could be six months to two years from when they shot the footage. They're not in that head space anymore. There's nothing they can do if they find something in their performance they don't like. And for a director, a lot of them watch the movie and can't stop at just the frame, they see everything else outside the frame that went into filming that shot. I know that's what happens to me. I can't watch my college films as entertainment. I loved making them. I believed in their stories and ideas. I did everything I could to make them as good as they could be. But I can't watch them as movies. All I see is the work that I (and everyone else) put into them. With an audience, it's fun to experience it through their eyes, but on my own? I recognize that they're entertaining without actually being entertained. (I love to cook and the same thing happens there. I can spend an afternoon preparing a meal for guests, and it can be my favorite meal in the world, but once I've spent the day getting it perfect, I'm not really interested in eating it anymore. I've sampled it, I know it's what it's supposed to be, and I enjoy watching other people eat it, but I'm not really hungry for it myself anymore.) All I'm saying is, if you were to limit yourselves to movies made by actors and directors who enjoy sitting down and watching their work, you'd have a very short list of things you could watch. At the end of the day, even if it's the most fun thing in the world, it's still a job - how much time do you want to spend at work on your day off?

 

[Keith Cobby]

I think Last Crusade just edges it for me as the best film. I really like the ending and thought at the time it was a superb way to finish off the trilogy. Watching the fourth one on release I just thought they were doing it for the money and not the art (and the money!) As for the fifth we shall just have to wait and see!

 

[Oliver Ravencrest]

I'm not sure if I agree. When I saw the Indiana Jones trilogy few years back, I was surprised how Last Crusade tried to be funny. I think tonally Raiders and Crusade are very different. Raiders is a straight serious adventure movie with bits of humor. Last Crusade felt more like a straight comedy.

I really like the comedy in the movie, except for turning Brody into a buffoon. It's what helps set it apart from Raiders but after Temple, they went back to Nazis being the villains, they pursue another Christian Religious artifact that has great power and they lightened the tone of the movie. The two movies just feel similar enough to each other. It's the ROTJ of the Indiana Jones movies. I still love the movie, especially the climax.

 

[MattBradley]

Last Crusade is a direct sequel to Raiders, if you watch them in chronological order. Temple Of Doom is set in 1935, Raiders in 1936, Crusade 1938 (1912 at the beginning) and Skull in 1957.

 

[SamT]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bob-iger-interview-star-wars-905320

You have another Lucasfilm property, Indiana Jones, and Steven Spielberg has agreed to make a fifth film. Will there be an Indiana Jones universe, eventually, like Star Wars?

Not like Star Wars, no. But we hope … right now, we're focused on a reboot, or a continuum and then a reboot of some sort.

Reboot? You've got Harrison Ford for this movie, and then the presumption is there will be a younger …

Well, we'll bring him back, then we have to figure out what comes next. That's what I mean. It's not really a reboot, it's a boot — a reboot. I don't know.

THR has been using the term "requel" for these sequels that reboot the franchise.

Requel. (Laughs.) We [got] Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones in the film. But then what's the direction? I've had discussions about what the direction is, [but] I don't want to get into it.

But you do see making more films?

Yes, I do. I don't think it reaches the scale of the universe of Star Wars, but I see making more. It won't be just a one-off.

 

[TravisR]

Disney is just going to wait for Spielberg to die or retire so they can ignore his wishes since they won't have to worry about working with him any more and then they'll do great-grandson of Indy (it's a cheaper movie if it's modern day) or whatever bullshit they want.

 

[SamT]

Very confusing. I don't understand what Bob Iger is saying.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Disney is just going to wait for Spielberg to die or retire so they can ignore his wishes since they won't have to worry about working with him any more and then they'll do great-grandson of Indy (it's a cheaper movie if it's modern day) or whatever bullshit they want.

If they're going to continue the franchise with a different actor, I would actually prefer modern-day stories with Dr. Jones's great-grandson or great-granddaughter (also nicknamed "Indiana") than doing more stories in the 1940s with a different actor in the role. Indiana Jones is not James Bond.

But I hope Indiana Jones 5 doesn't have any baton passing. Just make a great Indiana Jones movie.

 

[Sam Favate]

Regardless of what Frank Marshall says, the role of Indy will eventually be recast. Disney is going to make these movies for another 20 years, and although Ford is in great shape, there's no way he can be Indiana Jones in his 80s.

 

[SamT]

There is no way he is going to do it for the next 10 years. I think he is already too old for the role. I can see only one more movie with him.

 

[Malcolm R]

I think I would have more interest in a new Indy with a new director, than yet another Spielberg/Ford film.

It's time to spray a little Febreze on this musty franchise.

I'm also not big fan of "tradition." Doing the same thing over and over again just because that's the way it's always been done seems ridiculous to me. Just because movie-Indy has always been portrayed by Ford is no reason to avoid considering anyone else in the role.

 

[TravisR]

Just because movie-Indy has always been portrayed by Ford is no reason to avoid considering anyone else in the role.

My problem with recasting is that that is just another way to keep something alive usually at the cost of doing something new. Rather than wanting to see an old idea recycled, audiences should want to see something new.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

My problem with recasting is that that is just another way to keep something alive usually at the cost of doing something new. Rather than wanting to see an old idea recycled, audiences should want to see something new.

I think getting to see the Steven Spielberg-George Lucas-Harrison Ford invention of Indiana Jones has been one of the great moviegoing joys of my lifetime. And, like all good things, I'd be okay with it one day coming to an end. I'm all for as many of these movies as they want to make as long as Spielberg and Ford are still involved, but once they've decided to call it quits, I have no desire to see anyone else playing the part. It's okay with me if there are a finite number of these movies.

I also had no desire to see the Han Solo role recast in the Star Wars universe - I'm all for them making new movies that explore little unknown tangents within the Star Wars universe, but I don't need or really want to see someone else doing their best Han Solo impersonation.

They'll make Bond movies forever, probably, with new actors when the last one retires, but I don't want to see every franchise handled that way. The thing that made Indy so special was the combination of a great star, a great producer and a great director all working together at the height of their powers. I'm sure someone else could engineer a really nice imitation, but I'm not interested. I don't really like cover bands either, so maybe that's just my own quirk with these types of ideas.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Lucas did the first 3 too. They were all his stories.

Moving forward I don't even think Lucas needs to be involved with the new Indiana Jones movie. Yes the original trilogy may have been his stories but I see no reason for Lucas to be brought on board, not with Steven Spielberg involved. I loved the first original and the third movie, both of which I would love to purchase on 4K UHD if they are good candidates for the format. I can live without the 2nd Indiana Jones movie as I never cared for it. While there was a good story line and I get why they did what they did with the movie happening in the 50's. There where alot of good parts in Crystal Skull but there where also some very cheesy scenes, especially the atomic bomb/refrigerator scene that I could have done without. But IMHO if you look at the career for Lucas and Spielberg I feel Spielberg has proven to be a far better director. This doesn't mean that it should take away anything from Lucas directing American Graffiti or the original Star War Trilogy. I would be interested in seeing a new Indiana Jones when it comes out in 2019.

 

[Oliver Ravencrest]

After The Force Awakens and Crystal Skull, I realized I don't like seeing heroes get old, unless it's Luke Skywalker. I've always imagined him aging and taking on the elder mentor role to another character, like Ben in A New Hope. I'd rather they recast Indy if they are to continue making these movies. I always wished they made more when Ford was still in his prime.

 

[SamT]

This doesn't mean that it should take away anything from Lucas directing American Graffiti or the original Star War Trilogy.

Except he didn't.