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

[WittyUsername]

Nearly everything other Avatar seems to get criticized for having bad VFX nowadays. Even Dune was made fun of for that shot of Timothee Chalamet in the helmet. 

[TheDude391]

52 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Lucasfilm no doubt wants to avoid him after Crystal Skull.

Spielberg just wasn't interested in making it ultimately. He only did 4 because Lucas and Ford convinced him. Lucas gone for 5 so it was just on Ford and Spielberg dropped out eventually, handing the reigns to someone else.

[The Dark Alfred]

8 hours 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 

lol Disney never just gives it to the director. The director is always just a name, Disney makes all the big calls. But of course, Mangold shares some culpability, no denying that.

[George Parr]

1 hour ago, The Dark Alfred said:

lol Disney never just gives it to the director. The director is always just a name, Disney makes all the big calls. But of course, Mangold shares some culpability, no denying that.

Based on what exactly?

 

There isn't a whole lot of an argument to be had that "Disney" is getting much involved at all, beyond some conspiracy theories where everything someone doesn't like somehow gets blamed on unnamed Disney-executives forcing it to be that way.

 

In fact, such statements ran contrary to everything the directors tend to say. And while one shouldn't take everything a director says at face-value, it seems rather absurd to claim that they would all go out of their way to make such statements when there is no truth to it.

[Firepower]

They have a contract, they are not allowed to say stuff like this until it's over. Like when Ayer claimed that theatrical cut of Suicide Squad is his cut and there's no other cut when the film was released, and then a few years later, after NDA is over, he claims it's not his movie and it was taken from him and turned to something else completely by the studio.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Firepower

[George Parr]

30 minutes ago, Firepower said:

They have a contract, they are not allowed to say stuff like this until it's over. Like when Ayer claimed that theatrical cut of Suicide Squad is his cut and there's no other cut when the film was released, and then a few years later, after NDA is over, he claims it's not his movie and it was taken from him and turned to something else completely by the studio.

Again, no one forces them to make the statements they do. Yet they still always make them. You can find the occasional case where things went sideways and the director kept quiet about it, but that happens here and there, not all the time.

 

Do studios sometimes interfere with stuff? Yes, of course they do.

Does a studio like Disney call all the shots and give their directors hardly any creative room to work with? Not at all. Most of the stuff gets decided by the people directly involved, not by some overbearing executives in the background.

 

What is more likely to happen, is that once a clearer picture of the movie is taking shape, higher ups might on some occasion disagree with the path that has been taken, leading to changes in the crew involved. But that comes after a director has been able to go with his vision, and it still requires broad agreement among the studio-leads directly responsible for the movie that the course of action is indeed a bad one.

[SpiderByte]

51 minutes ago, Firepower said:

They have a contract, they are not allowed to say stuff like this until it's over. Like when Ayer claimed that theatrical cut of Suicide Squad is his cut and there's no other cut when the film was released, and then a few years later, after NDA is over, he claims it's not his movie and it was taken from him and turned to something else completely by the studio.

That doesn't mean we have to assume there's a secret Snyder Cut of every single movie that gets a bad review 

[Firepower]

8 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

That doesn't mean we have to assume there's a secret Snyder Cut of every single movie that gets a bad review 

Sure, I'm not saying that every poorly received film has some secret great cut.

[wildphantom]

The absolution that this film isn’t remotely good when none of us have even seen it is mind blowing. 
 

Some of you have to admit that you will judge a film based on rottentomatoes now. Not for yourself. 
 

I keep saying it, but some of your most beloved films in this series, or other legendary series would not have got 80’s/90’s scores on an aggregate meter from critics if it existed then.  Go back and read the critic reviews of Temple of Doom, ROTJ, The Thing, Gremlins, Blade Runner. I could go on and on. 
 

I’m not saying that Indy V is good, but I’ve seen nothing based on mixed reviews to say it’s outright bad.  There are really good reviews from legit critics for it already. Are they wrong because others haven’t like it?
 

Let’s just wait and see is it? Does it have to be across the board raves to be considered worth the time to any of you? 
 

Mario was terrible until everybody saw it according to the early RT score. 

[Merkel]

10 hours ago, Bob Train said:

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

 

 

It is particularly weird as this movie was delayed for a year and had a particularly long and relaxed production schedule. Not to mention the huge budget.

 

If it is indeed the case, there really is no excuse for poor VFX

[screambaby]

1 hour ago, wildphantom said:

The absolution that this film isn’t remotely good when none of us have even seen it is mind blowing. 
 

Some of you have to admit that you will judge a film based on rottentomatoes now. Not for yourself. 
 

I keep saying it, but some of your most beloved films in this series, or other legendary series would not have got 80’s/90’s scores on an aggregate meter from critics if it existed then.  Go back and read the critic reviews of Temple of Doom, ROTJ, The Thing, Gremlins, Blade Runner. I could go on and on. 
 

I’m not saying that Indy V is good, but I’ve seen nothing based on mixed reviews to say it’s outright bad.  There are really good reviews from legit critics for it already. Are they wrong because others haven’t like it?
 

Let’s just wait and see is it? Does it have to be across the board raves to be considered worth the time to any of you? 
 

Mario was terrible until everybody saw it according to the early RT score. 

Particularly since we are talking about a whopping 29 reviewss....Mario got hit all over the place yet its like 2 reviews from being fresh...

[Firepower]

1 hour ago, wildphantom said:

There are really good reviews from legit critics for it already. Are they wrong because others haven’t like it?

It doesn't have a single 10 or at least 9 so far though, but a lot of 6/10 which are counted as positive. Considering that even the most generic big budget stuff has some raves, it's a bit concerning that even positive reviews are not that positive. But hey, I do agree that we have to ignore critics and decide for ourselves. It's one of very very few Disney productions I'll watch.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Firepower

[Liiviig 1998]

2 hours ago, wildphantom said:

The absolution that this film isn’t remotely good when none of us have even seen it is mind blowing. 
 

Some of you have to admit that you will judge a film based on rottentomatoes now. Not for yourself. 
 

I keep saying it, but some of your most beloved films in this series, or other legendary series would not have got 80’s/90’s scores on an aggregate meter from critics if it existed then.  Go back and read the critic reviews of Temple of Doom, ROTJ, The Thing, Gremlins, Blade Runner. I could go on and on. 
 

I’m not saying that Indy V is good, but I’ve seen nothing based on mixed reviews to say it’s outright bad.  There are really good reviews from legit critics for it already. Are they wrong because others haven’t like it?
 

Let’s just wait and see is it? Does it have to be across the board raves to be considered worth the time to any of you? 
 

Mario was terrible until everybody saw it according to the early RT score. 

Don't know why we are using Mario as a comp. Just have to scroll through illumination track record. Let's stop acting like we were really expecting 50ish% reviews to really affect it . Illumination has a solid track record with average to just ok critic reception.

 

I don't think Indy is that kind of franchise. 

 

Raiders 95%

TOD.      84%

Last crusade 89%

KOCS.   78%

 

This 52% and it will increase but it will definitely be the lowest and I think that is a cause for worry now. It has a  5.7/10 average.

 

I regard this in the same as starwars interms of pop cultural imprint and I expect both fanbases are quite picky tbh.

 

The verdict isn't out on audience yet I agree but not encouraging signs.

 

Personally don't expect reception on par with crystal skull because general audience is easier to please today  but i think it will land  in it's fine  territory with a B+ CS ,

it will probably open well enough and have meh legs to a 700m total but lose money due to its budget IMO.

 

 

 

[wildphantom]

5 minutes ago, Liiviig 1998 said:

Don't know why we are using Mario as a comp. Just have to scroll through illumination track record. Let's stop acting like we were really expecting 50ish% reviews to really affect it . Illumination has a solid track record with average to just ok critic reception.

 

I don't think Indy is that kind of franchise. 

 

Raiders 95%

TOD.      84%

Last crusade 89%

KOCS.   78%

 

This 52% and it will increase but it will definitely be the lowest and I think that is a cause for worry now. It has a  5.7/10 average.

 

I regard this in the same as starwars interms of pop cultural imprint and I expect both fanbases are quite picky tbh.

 

The verdict isn't out on audience yet I agree but not encouraging signs.

 

Personally don't expect reception on par with crystal skull because general audience is easier to please today  but i think it will land  in it's fine  territory with a B+ CS ,

it will probably open well enough and have meh legs to a 700m total but lose money due to its budget IMO.

 

 

 

I was only referring to Mario because it was all doom and gloom when the scores started to come in. 
 

My other references to beloved films of the 80’s was my real point. RT scores for those now with modern reviews included make it irrelevant. If you go back to the major critical reviews of those, tons of them were middling to scathing. 
 

RT shouldn’t dictate what anyone thinks of a film before they see it.  If it does then people really are just treating this more like sport gossip than actual love of film. 

[WorkingonaName]

IGN giving it 4 worries me.

[John Marston]

I mean even many of the positives are just 3/5's. Sorry but I think this is a dud. Also if they didn't want RT discourse they shouldn't have screened it and allowed reviews over a month in advance

[TerwillikerInst]

2 hours ago, WorkingonaName said:

IGN giving it 4 worries me.

It's from Siddhant Adlakha, though. Who's like, the only actual critic they have. 

 

In fact, I believe he actually got taken off reviewing Marvel stuff for some website because people hated that he just kept giving every episode a negative review. 

 

Which isn't to say that makes his opinion wrong, but it also means he's not the typical IGN "this was an 11/10, a real gift for the fans!" guy. 

[The Dark Alfred]

11 hours ago, wildphantom said:

The absolution that this film isn’t remotely good when none of us have even seen it is mind blowing. 
 

Some of you have to admit that you will judge a film based on rottentomatoes now. Not for yourself. 
 

I keep saying it, but some of your most beloved films in this series, or other legendary series would not have got 80’s/90’s scores on an aggregate meter from critics if it existed then.  Go back and read the critic reviews of Temple of Doom, ROTJ, The Thing, Gremlins, Blade Runner. I could go on and on. 
 

I’m not saying that Indy V is good, but I’ve seen nothing based on mixed reviews to say it’s outright bad.  There are really good reviews from legit critics for it already. Are they wrong because others haven’t like it?
 

Let’s just wait and see is it? Does it have to be across the board raves to be considered worth the time to any of you? 
 

Mario was terrible until everybody saw it according to the early RT score. 

 

Nobody is judging based on RT, we are judging based on what we've seen. The trailer is terrible. The clips we have seen so far are terrible. Of course we have seen good movies having bad trailers, but you can see the tone, the style and the premise of the film. It's going to be average at best and further reviews and WoM will confirm it. 

[jedijake]

I wouldn't say the teasers, trailers, or clips have been horrible. I'd say they've been uninspiring. There's no sense of "this is it!" or "the conclusion we've been waiting for all these years" (not that we have), etc. It's been more "oh here's just another Indy movie that's pretty much a mish mash of others". And that isn't what people want. If they've wanted anything at all, they wanted a reason to believe this one would take things up several notches from the last one and really feel like a culminating finish.

 

Does that mean it should be rotten? Probably not, UNLESS the critics felt it had to have the above stated to be fresh.

[WittyUsername]

I’d say this movie has looked fairly unremarkable from the trailers, and going by how muted the Internet buzz seemed to be, much of the Internet agreed. The fact that they decided to premiere this at Cannes did make me think that perhaps it was going to be something special, but the critics so far clearly don’t think so. 
 

By the way, the most recent critic review on Rotten Tomatoes seems to confirm that this is in fact 142 minutes long, and not 154 minutes. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by WittyUsername