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

[Jake Lipson]

Mangold’s own “Logan” was a fascinating tale of a legend past his prime.

I've seen a lot of references to Logan around the internet today, as if that film will be a reference point for this one. I'm not saying this is what you are implying here, but I've seen it mentioned several times elsewhere. And for the record, I liked Logan. But Mangold already made that movie. I doubt he wants to repeat himself, and I also think that the tone of Indiana Jones is very different from the tone of Logan. I'm not saying that Mangold can't make Indiana Jones work, but if Lucasfilm wants him to make a carbon copy of Logan with Indiana Jones, I don't think that would work. If they're going to do it, this has to be its own movie.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

“Logan” was mentioned by me only in the context that there are compelling stories to be told about formerly young characters now past their physical prime. I would not expect or ask for any other similarities.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Some brief opinions about this possible film.

Crystal Skull was the worst directed Spielberg film I’ve seen in my life. Ford was game, but the story wasn’t compelling, alongside the poor, poor direction.

I really loved Logan. Spectacular film. I also really appreciated Ford vs. Ferrari. I think Mangold is a fine director.

I have zero interest in a Indy film by another director. I would be surprised if Ford doesn’t feel the same way. His call, though. His time.

I would have begrudgingly seen this if Spielberg had been involved.

I’ll rank the Indy films:
Raiders (classic, one of the greatest films of all time)
Temple (best Harrison performance, darker adventure, great villain)
Crusade (outstanding, crowd-pleasing adventure, zags where Temple zigged)

 

[SamT]

They should name it Ford vs. Ferrari 2. It's about Harrison Ford racing.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Indy, and especially Marion, were a little too old to be having kids.

Hey, we’re talking about Indiana Jones here.

 

[Sam Favate]

I have zero interest in a Indy film by another director.

Who says Spielberg wouldn't be involved? He would be certain to produce.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I’m much more interested in Spielberg the director than Spielberg the producer.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Right. Plus, producer can mean a lot of things. I know the reports say he will be a hands-on producer, but that's not always the case. I read somewhere that James Cameron never even showed up to the set of Dark Fate even though he was credited as an executive producer on it. There are involved producers, for sure, but because they are not always that, it is less easy for us to know what they did than what the director did. I also wonder if Spielberg would actually be comfortable being a producer for something like this, which is so tied to his career and his vision, rather than directing it. He may think he is now and then get on the set and decide it's more difficult than he thought stepping away. We can't know because last I checked none of us are in his head.

I like James Mangold, and if they insist on doing this, he is not a bad choice. But, contrary to Disney's apparent philosophy here, sometimes it's okay to not make a movie and have a series just end. It is important for stories to have an endpoint, which makes them better than if they went on forever regurgitating the same ideas. I'm not saying Indiana Jones 5 would do that -- again, we don;'t know what is in their heads for this film -- but I do think there is something to be said for ending strong while people still like you rather than dragging things on too long, and Indiana Jones 5 at this point absolutely risks being too late. It could be good, and I could very well see it. But nothing creatively screams to me, "I need to see Indiana Jones again!" If Crystal Skull was the last one, I would be perfectly happy with the ending that that movie gave to him and Marion. But obviously, Disney wants to do this for financial reasons. I hope they come up with a story worth telling.

 

[Worth]

This feels a bit like Mick Jagger going on tour alone, but still calling it The Rolling Stones. If they're not keeping the band together, they might as well just start from scratch with a different lead.

 

[Paul_Warren]

Sad news Spielberg does not want to do it anymore. Time to let it go Indiana. Indy to me was Ford, Lucas, Spielberg & Williams. I can accept Lucas not being involved as he is retired but Spielberg brought a LOT to the franchise. I really hope Harrison steps away now (he was so good in the Call Of The Wild as well) it would not be the same without Spielberg behind the camera. There is way more to this story as well which will probably never come out in public around the financial aspects of who gets (or not in this case!) what piece of the box office pie ...…!!

Spielberg + Ford Indy would have been a guaranteed $1bn minimum gross so Disney's new CEO should think twice about going forward without Spielberg attached as Director!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Jurassic World grossed over a billion dollars.

If the film looks good, the general public doesn’t care who directs. A few die hards might but for any movie to gross a billion it needs a much larger audience and those larger audiences care more about the finished product than the nuances of how it was made.

 

[Wayne_j]

Spielberg directing was the one remaining thing making me think this film would ever be made. I guess we will never see this then.

 

[Worth]

I don't know. I wouldn't put the failure of Solo on recasting Ford. James Bond is recast all the time.

Recasting Bond hasn't always gone smoothly. The series was on shaky ground between the time Connery quit until The Spy Who Loved Me, and then again after Moore retired and Goldeneye.

 

[usrunnr]

I wonder if the new "Indy" will have any CGI animals in it.

 

[Worth]

If Raiders was set in 1936, this should by all rights be set in 1976. I can't really see an Indiana Jones movie set in 1976. What would it be? A conspiracy thriller?

They'll probably cheat the timeline and set it in the mid-60s. If they're following the trends in cinema the way the they did with the previous installments, that should make it a spy film, but Indy already owes a lot to Bond.

 

[Cranston37+]

At this point... just reboot the damn thing. Going in this direction just doesn't feel like it's going to add up to anything special.

 

[Malcolm R]

Spielberg + Ford Indy would have been a guaranteed $1bn minimum gross so Disney's new CEO should think twice about going forward without Spielberg attached as Director!

It may not be $1 billion, but I think it would still be a huge worldwide hit as much of the world audience is a fan of the character, more than the cast/crew. I'm not sure Spielberg or Ford's names really carry any cachet these days. With the kinda-sorta exception of Ready Player One, Spielberg has not had a runaway blockbuster since the last Indy film and it's pretty much the same for Ford in any film where he's the primary "lead". The Call of the Wild is not selling out the multiplexes.

Plus it seems unlikely Disney would just toss the IJ franchise in the bin without making any films. Until it actually fails, no one really has any idea how a "new" Indy would be accepted, and it's too valuable an intellectual property to just toss it away.

If not for Spielberg and Ford blocking the way, we'd likely have had a couple new IJ films in the years since Disney bought Lucasfilm.

 

[TravisR]

If not for Spielberg and Ford blocking the way, we'd likely have had a couple new IJ films in the years since Disney bought Lucasfilm.

Between that and Universal not having already remade every Spielberg movie they own, it's wonderful that he has the clout to stop these studios recycling every movie.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think it is clear that another Indiana Jones was put on the backburner because Disney viewed Star Wars as the more important franchise to relaunch immediately.

They've done that.

Now that Star Wars is going into a hiatus, at least in terms of the theatrical side of things, Disney wants to get what they can out of Indy next. Remember, if Indy sticks to its current release date next July, it will be the next theatrical release supplied by Lucasfilm.

 

[Edwin-S]

We need an "Indy 5" like we need another hole in the head, no matter who directs it. The last one was terrible and the character of Indiana Jones is identifiable with Harrison Ford like no other character, outside of Han Solo......maybe even moreso than Solo, because in the Star Wars films Harrison's Solo is a supporting character while in the IJ films his Indiana Jones character is the lead.