Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny | June 30 2023 | Very mixed reviews out of Cannes

[Elessar]

1 minute ago, Lucas said:

There is the very real Lucasfilm curse but there's also the Spielberg franchise curse where the second you take him out of the director's chair and start making sequels they just don't work.

 

You don't even have to take him out of the director's chair, see Crystal Skull. One might even say DoD is in this predicament because of KoCS turning people against the franchise.

 

Personally, i'm not hating on KoCS, i thought it was alright. Haven't seen it in years, though.

[George Parr]

3 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:

Critics aren't paid audiences. Audiences were clowning on the fridge/Shia stuff even during the original run.

It was sort of a Mario situation in reverse.

No, it wasn't.

 

Reviews were good but not great, starting at Cannes and continuing from there. The same can be said for audience reactions, which for the most part was in the mold of "pretty solid entertainment, not on the level of the first three". The over the top criticism came from the usual loudmouths, who represent a vocal minority, not the general audience. The latter pretty much never really cares about some over the top stuff or things that impact the lore, only fans really do (outside of loons who love to hate stuff for the sake of hating on it, but those tend to be very few). Just like with the Star Wars sequels, it's fans who freak out if something isn't according to their liking, not a casual viewer. The casual viewer doesn't go to length telling others how good or bad something is, he simply doesn't care enough to do that. Only people with a fixation on the movie do.

 

Sadly, those who shout the loudest often get remembered, even if they don't represent the actual audience as a whole. That's how a movie with a reaction that was just fine (and not more than that) somehow got slandered as bad, horrid or whatever else you can think of, which isn't in any way representative of the audience reaction at that time.

[MightyDargon]

Just now, George Parr said:

No, it wasn't.

 

Reviews were good but not great, starting at Cannes and continuing from there. The same can be said for audience reactions, which for the most part was in the mold of "pretty solid entertainment, not on the level of the first three". The over the top criticism came from the usual loudmouths, who represent a vocal minority, not the general audience. The latter pretty much never really cares about some over the top stuff or things that impact the lore, only fans really do (outside of loons who love to hate stuff for the sake of hating on it, but those tend to be very few). Just like with the Star Wars sequels, it's fans who freak out if something isn't according to their liking, not a casual viewer. The casual viewer doesn't go to length telling others how good or bad something is, he simply doesn't care enough to do that. Only people with a fixation on the movie do.

 

Sadly, those who shout the loudest often get remembered, even if they don't represent the actual audience as a whole. That's how a movie with a reaction that was just fine (and not more than that) somehow got slandered as bad, horrid or whatever else you can think of, which isn't in any way representative of the audience reaction at that time.

Nah, audiences thought it was kinda lame even at debut, even if a Last Jedi type split didn't develop because they thought "it's the last Indy". It helped that the ending at least paired off Indy/Marion which is more satisfying than this movie's likely conclusion, but stuff like the fridge, Shia, hokey looking CGI in the jungle chase sequence, and especially the alien not really being explained well was criticized even in the initial run.

 

With Star Wars people knew Disney would make more regardless so things like Luke getting whacked halfway through the Sequel Trilogy stung more.

[jedijake]

Under $200 million domestic is a very strong consideration for this movie, sadly.

 

I think the biggest issue may have been that none of the teasers, trailers, or clips screamed "final film" and none of them had the finality aspect. Actually, they all made it seem like a random episode of an Indy TV show or something.

[Brainbug]

56 minutes ago, Mulder said:

TPM nostalgia has loooooong since left irony tbh

 

I agree with this. Of course the meme culture plays a very large part (drinking games for every meme in ROTS are very common), but the prequels as a whole got a new appreciation after the sequels came out.

 

 

33 minutes ago, WorkingonaName said:

Jurassic world is on par with the first one IMO. 

 

Yes and No imo. As a film, JP1 is not only the best JP movie, but one of the best movies of all time. Jurassic World is a very close second.

 

But i mean, if were talking about Jurassic Park and Jurassic World, its like comparing diamonds with diamonds or a five star restaurant with another five star restaurant.

[MightyDargon]

Just now, jedijake said:

Under $200 million domestic is a very strong consideration for this movie, sadly.

 

I think the biggest issue may have been that none of the teasers, trailers, or clips screamed "final film" and none of them had the finality aspect. Actually, they all made it seem like a random episode of an Indy TV show or something.

Oh it screams "final film" alright...but not in a good way.

[PrinceRico]

33% on RT. Some of you really thought this was winning the summer.

[MightyDargon]

1 minute ago, PrinceRico said:

33% on RT. Some of you really thought this was winning the summer.

Nostalgia of old millenials (myself included). Powerful as it is, we're not the young demo anymore.

It's sad watching your heroes age, esp. knowing stuff like Dominion is almost certainly Sam Neill's last JP movie.

[SpiderByte]

I've seen stronger recoveries from films before. Captain America debuted at a 27 percent with about the same number of reviews. Ill wait till it gets above 50 to say for sure where the wind is blowing.

[Blaze Heatnix]

I've just read an article where Mangold says no great script happens without writers.

 

Well, I guess he's probably looking for the guys who wrote Dial of Destiny as we speak.

[Liiviig 1998]

Found crystal skull mid ,it's watchable and has a bit of fun moments but the whole alien premise just felt so weird and  out of place for an Indiana film, goofiness was dialed to 11. Fridge scene was hillarously stupid.

 

Don't love raiders as much as most . Opening sequence was great but the rest movie didn't quite much to it for me. 

 

Love temple of doom and the last crusade is my favorite.

 

I also agree the premise is worn out Abit. Old Indy is not as exciting and that was evidenced by crystal skull at points Spielberg failed to find a way to wrap a good story around old Indy. Think mangold also fell into the same issue.

 

Indiana Jones has always been sort of a wish fulfilment ,charasmatic swashbuckling character and old Indy ain't that anymore and it seems the previous movie and this one to an extent are trying to be that and it ain't working.

 

Oldy Indy can work with the good and right story. 

 

 

 

 

 

[TwoMisfits]

1 minute ago, Liiviig 1998 said:

Found crystal skull mid ,it's watchable and has a bit of fun moments but the whole alien premise just felt so weird and  out of place for an Indiana film, goofiness was dialed to 11. Fridge scene was hillarously stupid.

 

Don't love raiders as much as most . Opening sequence was great but the rest movie didn't quite much to it for me. 

 

Love temple of doom and the last crusade is my favorite.

 

I also agree the premise is worn out Abit. Old Indy is not as exciting and that was evidenced by crystal skull at points Spielberg failed to find a way to wrap a good story around old Indy. Think mangold also fell into the same issue.

 

Indiana Jones has always been sort of a wish fulfilment ,charasmatic swashbuckling character and old Indy ain't that anymore and it seems the previous movie and this one to an extent are trying to be that and it ain't working.

 

Oldy Indy can work with the good and right story. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I was never sure why they didn't do the official recast for this one, with Harrison Ford telling a bedtime story of his past to his grand/great grandkids from a far off future (or to some future college graduation or something similar), so you could tell any story you wanted and pass the torch on Indy for more swashbuckling fun...

[John Marston]

I think people are jumping the gun when it comes to box office predictions. It should still open well. Winning the summer is unlikely but not completely out of the possibility. 

[filmlover]

10 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

Honestly, I was never sure why they didn't do the official recast for this one, with Harrison Ford telling a bedtime story of his past to his grand/great grandkids from a far off future (or to some future college graduation or something similar), so you could tell any story you wanted and pass the torch on Indy for more swashbuckling fun...

 Solo was a cautionary tale of what happens when you remove or sideline Harrison Ford from playing his most iconic characters.

 

Not that I'm expecting this to make much more than Solo did at this point. Even before the mediocre reviews came in this seemed to have less going for it than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did pre-release back in the day.

[Valonqar]

3 minutes ago, John Marston said:

I think people are jumping the gun when it comes to box office predictions. It should still open well. Winning the summer is unlikely but not completely out of the possibility. 

 

This and also jumping the gun about where reviews will land. These are reviews from reporters that attended Cannes festival, not the neckbeard crowd with YT channels that studios court for favorable reviews. Once those geeks see it the rating is likely to go up though whether that's enough for fresh rating remains to be seen. 

[Last Man Standing]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

 Solo was a cautionary tale of what happens when you remove or sideline Harrison Ford from playing his most iconic characters.

 

Not that I'm expecting this to make much more than Solo did at this point. Even before the mediocre reviews came in this seemed to have less going for it than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did pre-release back in the day.

Solo also was a movie no-one asked for, and followed up on a very divisive movie.

[TwoMisfits]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 Solo was a cautionary tale of what happens when you remove or sideline Harrison Ford from playing his most iconic characters.

 

Not that I'm expecting this to make much more than Solo did at this point. Even before the mediocre reviews came in this seemed to have less going for it than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did pre-release back in the day.

 

But it wasn't - he was completely not in the movie.  In this one, he'd kick off the movie (after a thrilling intro) and end it, letting you say goodbye.

 

Solo, he was passed completely.  And recast with someone way less charismatic.  Totally different scenario...

[George Parr]

36 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:

Nah, audiences thought it was kinda lame even at debut, even if a Last Jedi type split didn't develop because they thought "it's the last Indy". It helped that the ending at least paired off Indy/Marion which is more satisfying than this movie's likely conclusion, but stuff like the fridge, Shia, hokey looking CGI in the jungle chase sequence, and especially the alien not really being explained well was criticized even in the initial run.

 

With Star Wars people knew Disney would make more regardless so things like Luke getting whacked halfway through the Sequel Trilogy stung more.

No, they didn't. The audience reception at that time was a completely generic one, neither particularly good nor bad. Stating anything else is a flat out lie, twisting what actually happened to create a narrative years later. Some people who really didn't like it criticised the stuff you mentioned, but none of that has anything to do with how the general audience as a whole reacted. Its reaction was just fine. Which in itself was somewhat disappointing, seeing how the first three movies got a better reaction than that. But being disappointing relative to expectations is not the same as audiences thinking the movie was bad. Such a claim is not something the data from that time backs up.

 

 

Sounds like French reviews for this movie are more positive than the ones we've got so far. Seems rather unusual when it comes to Hollywood-movies. (Second hand info, I didn't check them myself).

[JOHN WICK]

This might have the tendency to play well with the older crowd, but in the long run, I predict they should've left well enough alone..

[Maggie]

Yeah, the RT score should go up. Metascore, probably too, but not by much