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

[screambaby]

5 hours ago, WorkingonaName said:

The Lucasfilm curse is real

 

Trank: Fan4stic

Trevorrow: Book Of Henry

Johnson: The Last Jedi

D and D : Season 8

Jenkins: WW84

JJ: ROS

Watiti: 4hor 

Feige: Phase 4

Mangold: Indy 5

 

 

 

 

Whatever happened to the guy who  directed rogue one? I think most people agree that's the best Disney sw prokect

[Lucas]

7 minutes ago, screambaby said:

Whatever happened to the guy who  directed rogue one? I think most people agree that's the best Disney sw prokect

Check out The Creator, coming soon.

[George Parr]

8 minutes ago, screambaby said:

Whatever happened to the guy who  directed rogue one? I think most people agree that's the best Disney sw prokect

If you mean Gareth Edwards, his first movie since Rogue One is coming out this September, it's called The Creator. It's a sci-fi movie. There are quite a few people who worked on Rogue One involved, including Greig Fraser, Christ Weitz (who co-authored Rogue One) and former Lucasfilm-producer Kiri Hart.

 

Rogue One is a bit difficult though, as Tony Gilroy did some rewrites and supposedly took over during the extended reshoots. So that's a bit of a mix of multiple influences and not a straight up Gareth Edwards movie anymore. He did however get sole directing credit though.

 

Rogue One was visually stunning. I wish other SW-projects took some notes in that regard, especially when it comes to space-scenes. The arrival of the rebel fleet at Scarrif, as well as the space-combat scenes themself just trounce all space-scenes in the other new SW-movies and shows.

[Merkel]

22 minutes ago, George Parr said:

Rogue One was visually stunning. I wish other SW-projects took some notes in that regard, especially when it comes to space-scenes. The arrival of the rebel fleet at Scarrif, as well as the space-combat scenes themself just trounce all space-scenes in the other new SW-movies and shows.

 That was mostly due to Greig Fraser, I reckon. He's one of the best DP's in the business right now and he's particularly good in capturing scale. The Death Star, for example, never felt so massive.

 

I wasn't a fan of Rogue One, but it does look fantastic 

[stuart360]

I have to chuckle a bit when i think back to some of the replies when i dared to suggest ages ago that i could easily see this making less than Crystal Skull domestic, and worldwide..

 

I mean i'm a massive fan of the orig trilogy, its movie magic to me, but everyhting we had seen, and heard, about this movie certainly isnt. And thats ignoring the simple fact of how many people honestly want to watch a 80 year old Indiana Jones bumbling and mumbling through the film?.

[TerwillikerInst]

9 hours ago, TerwillikerInst said:

idk, it feels like over the years people have conjured up an image of the Indiana Jones movies as these kinda dark and gritty action movies when they are very lighthearted whacky goofs. 

 

All of Indy's coolness is basically set up so when the movie continually undercuts him, it's even more satisfying. 

 

Even his famous introduction scene in Raiders has him:

 

- totally make the wrong call to bypass the golden idol's trap/- making the terrible decision to throw Satipo the idol/- allowing Belloq to steal the idol from him while confirming that this is also not the first time he's done it to Indy/- followed by Indy being chased by natives in a total blind panic/- capped off with him screaming hysterically when he finds a non-poisonous snake

 

Even the scary stuff is fun scary, the Nazis' faces melting, the Kali sacrifice, Donovan's death etc

 

The only thing that ever comes across as actively dark with no sense of fun is some of the mine torture stuff in TOD, and even Lucas/Spielberg admitted that was way too off tonally for the series.

 

My biggest concern with DOD has always been that it will try too hard to be like the imagined version of Indiana Jones conjured up by people who saw them young, and not an actual follow-up to what they were. 

 

:Edit: It's also why I would never want to be the one in charge of making a sequel.

 

You're not just dealing with the "if the previous movies didn't do it, then it 'logically' it shouldn't happen in the franchise universe" brigade, but also people who think that the type of stuff that totally happened in the previous movies, did not. 

 

Thinking back on it, this is probably the major problem with these legacy sequels, it's not just that you're dealing with the inherent seque desire to just do the same movie again-

 

But now you also have the weird faux-reverence from producers and audiences of "doing right by the franchise" and treating the original IP and their hazy memories of it, as holy writ. 

 

It's just not healthy. 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by TerwillikerInst

[WittyUsername]

21 minutes ago, TerwillikerInst said:

Thinking back on it, this is probably the major problem with these legacy sequels, it's not just that you're dealing with the inherent seque desire to just do the same movie again-

 

But now you also have the weird faux-reverence from producers and audiences of "doing right by the franchise" and treating the original IP and their hazy memories of it, as holy writ. 

 

It's just not healthy. 

 

I think this was a particular problem with Ghostbusters: Afterlife. It’s one thing for TFA to treat the events of the original Star Wars trilogy with so much reverence, but Ghostbusters? The original Ghostbusters film is a silly comedy about some schlubby SNL guys who play ghost exterminators. 

[filmlover]

Genuinely confused why they took this to Cannes when it's currently sitting at 52% six weeks away from release (sure the festival has seen its fair share of duds premiere there over the decades lol but not at this price tag).

[ringedmortality]

12 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Genuinely confused why they took this to Cannes when it's currently sitting at 52% six weeks away from release (sure the festival has seen its fair share of duds premiere there over the decades lol but not at this price tag).

The last Indiana Jones went to Cannes and this has prestige attached to it. First one was a Best Picture nominee and Mangold has directed multiple academy award nominees.

[TerwillikerInst]

16 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Genuinely confused why they took this to Cannes when it's currently sitting at 52% six weeks away from release (sure the festival has seen its fair share of duds premiere there over the decades lol but not at this price tag).

I think they thought they could get a Top Gun 2-type reaction, but the key difference is that Top Gun 2 already had some positive buzz and buzz is the currency of film festivals. 

 

Film Festivals are really no different to comic conventions in that regard, a lot of people go in already hyped for stuff or dreading it, and the responses they give out reflect that pre-existing desire 80% of the time. 

 

I don't doubt that this movie tested high internally, but a lot of that might be because it's very much not a "breaking the mould" type of movie. At least, that's the impression I get here. 

 

It's safe and fanservicey and that could translate well to WOM (the VFX is probably not that much if an issue, people regularly sit through Marvel and Fast and Furious movies that look worse). 

 

Critical miscalculation though to mistake fan love with critical love. 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by TerwillikerInst

[PrinceRico]

Tickets sells will be interesting next week. This film was already struggling with awareness and buzz and I don’t think these reviews are going to get people rushing back.

[The Dark Alfred]

The issue is not making another entry that nobody asked for. The issue is making a bad film, which this one seems to be. The original trilogy was refreshingly original adventure, this one looks like a just another CGI dud. It just doesn't fit this franchise. Underwhelming numbers expected. 

[Firepower]

And to think Mangold claimed Disney wanted to go full Volume with it and he insisted on real sets and practical stuff, it could've looked even worse somehow.

 

Maybe they shouldn't have spent 300 mln on this. Maybe they should've gone for more grounded and practical approach, replace big scale CGI action with a more meaningful story, drop scenes like 80 year old Ford CGI fall from a plane and actually take character's age into account when you do action sequences. A lot to ask, I know.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Firepower

[CaptNathanBrittles]

11 hours ago, TerwillikerInst said:

idk, it feels like over the years people have conjured up an image of the Indiana Jones movies as these kinda dark and gritty action movies when they are very lighthearted whacky goofs. 

 

All of Indy's coolness is basically set up so when the movie continually undercuts him, it's even more satisfying. 

 

Even his famous introduction scene in Raiders has him:

 

- totally make the wrong call to bypass the golden idol's trap/- making the terrible decision to throw Satipo the idol/- allowing Belloq to steal the idol from him while confirming that this is also not the first time he's done it to Indy/- followed by Indy being chased by natives in a total blind panic/- capped off with him screaming hysterically when he finds a non-poisonous snake

 

Even the scary stuff is fun scary, the Nazis' faces melting, the Kali sacrifice, Donovan's death etc

 

The only thing that ever comes across as actively dark with no sense of fun is some of the mine torture stuff in TOD, and even Lucas/Spielberg admitted that was way too off tonally for the series.

 

My biggest concern with DOD has always been that it will try too hard to be like the imagined version of Indiana Jones conjured up by people who saw them young, and not an actual follow-up to what they were. 

 

:Edit: It's also why I would never want to be the one in charge of making a sequel.

 

You're not just dealing with the "if the previous movies didn't do it, then it 'logically' it shouldn't happen in the franchise universe" brigade, but also people who think that the type of stuff that totally happened in the previous movies, did not. 

 

 

One would hope the highly paid makers of the new one would spend 6 hours of their life watching the first three before making theirs.

[The Dark Alfred]

The only way it could have worked if it's a fresh idea and someone else takes the lead and Ford is only limited. But it's Disney. They turn most franchises to creativeless money grab. A truly disgusting company, but that's a story for another day. Nobody wanted a 80-year old Ford. Disney though that de-aging Ford and John Williams score will bring the 80s nostalgia flock to the cinemas. Forgot to the most important thing: make a good movie.

[SpiderByte]

4 hours ago, The Dark Alfred said:

The only way it could have worked if it's a fresh idea and someone else takes the lead and Ford is only limited. But it's Disney. They turn most franchises to creativeless money grab. A truly disgusting company, but that's a story for another day. Nobody wanted a 80-year old Ford. Disney though that de-aging Ford and John Williams score will bring the 80s nostalgia flock to the cinemas. Forgot to the most important thing: make a good movie.

I think this is a little disingenuous, they gave it to Mangold, who's not exactly a hired gun director. If there's a ball that's been dropped it's at least a little on him 

[AniNate]

Well he is a hired gun but usually a pretty reliable one

[Cap]

9 hours ago, filmlover said:

Genuinely confused why they took this to Cannes when it's currently sitting at 52% six weeks away from release (sure the festival has seen its fair share of duds premiere there over the decades lol but not at this price tag).

Same. It’s not the critic pool you want. There is no fake fanboy nerd critics to inflate your average here. 

[Bob Train]

9 hours ago, TerwillikerInst said:

I think they thought they could get a Top Gun 2-type reaction, but the key difference is that Top Gun 2 already had some positive buzz and buzz is the currency of film festivals. 

 

Film Festivals are really no different to comic conventions in that regard, a lot of people go in already hyped for stuff or dreading it, and the responses they give out reflect that pre-existing desire 80% of the time. 

 

I don't doubt that this movie tested high internally, but a lot of that might be because it's very much not a "breaking the mould" type of movie. At least, that's the impression I get here. 

 

It's safe and fanservicey and that could translate well to WOM (the VFX is probably not that much if an issue, people regularly sit through Marvel and Fast and Furious movies that look worse). 

 

Critical miscalculation though to mistake fan love with critical love. 

 

I don't think you could compare bad VFX and Marvel or Fast and Furious to bad VFX in Indy. People go to Indy movies expecting action to be good, because that's the main draw.

 

People go to Marvel movies because Marvel built up goodwill over the course of a decade, giving them a loyal fanbase that will turn up even if it looks bad visually just to know how the new entry will progress the universe as a whole. Indy isn't like that at all. Completely not comparable.

 

Fast and Furious entries are turn your brain off type movies so those aren't comparable either.

[Bob Train]

1 hour ago, SpiderByte said:

I think this is a little disingenuous, they gave it to Mangold, who's not exactly a hired gun director. If there's a ball that's been dropped it's at least a little on him 

Mangold was a just a studio yes man who did whatever he was told. It's obvious he would not have the creative freedom he had on Logan or Ford v. Ferrari on a project of this caliber. Lucasfilm does not want another TLJ/Solo debacle so they are doing everything as safe as possibly can be done. Only a director like Spielberg would be able to get a good level of creative freedom but Lucasfilm no doubt wants to avoid him after Crystal Skull.

 

However if the reports of bad VFX are true I would blame it on him. That was completely avoidable.