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

[35MM-18]

24 minutes ago, Chucky said:

Gore Verbinski sounds perfect

Taking over from Spielberg to do an Indiana Jones film would have been a great way for him to get out of directors' jail.

 

Or did The Lone Ranger's catastrophic performance put him on an unofficial Disney blacklist?

 

Also, he's only shot one film since then (A Cure for Wellness), which tanked, and was one of many, many directors attached to Gambit-you'd think he'd be begging to get his career back up and running at the first opportunity.

[dudalb]

7 hours ago, Chucky said:

Yeah Spielberg hasn't made a great crowd pleasing blockbuster in years. I like Mangold as a choice. Spielberg should make more movies like Bridge of Spies 

I think Spielberg is not really interested in making great crowd pleasing blockbusters any more;his personal wealth is over 3 Billion dollars, he does not need to make a movie just for the sake of making a big paycheck ever again. I think he only wants to do movies he really wants to do.and I wonder if a reason he stepped down was he could not get a enthusiastic about Indy 5 as he knew he should have, and decided to step down as director and hand the film do a director who did really want to do it.

[dudalb]

6 hours ago, 35MM-18 said:

Taking over from Spielberg to do an Indiana Jones film would have been a great way for him to get out of directors' jail.

 

Or did The Lone Ranger's catastrophic performance put him on an unofficial Disney blacklist?

 

Also, he's only shot one film since then (A Cure for Wellness), which tanked, and was one of many, many directors attached to Gambit-you'd think he'd be begging to get his career back up and running at the first opportunity.

Question is does Spielberg/Disney want to give the film to Verbinski, given his weak recent record? 

I think his recent record sort of  puts him a very unlikely choice for this film. In Hollywood you are only as good as your last film.

And Mangold is pretty damn "Hot" as a director.

Edited February 27, 2020 by dudalb

[dudalb]

6 hours ago, Chucky said:

Gore Verbinski sounds perfect

Maybe, but he has his recent record against him.

[OncomingStorm93]

5 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Question is does Spielberg/Disney want to give the film to Verbinski, given his weak recent record? 

I think his recent record sort of  puts him a very unlikely choice for this film. In Hollywood you are only as good as your last film.

And Mangold is pretty damn "Hot" as a director.

That's not true. If that were the case, M. Night Shamalan would have been run out of the country (multiple times). Denis Villeneuve would have had Dune taken away after BR2049. Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird would have been locked out of Pixar after their live-action Disney films went tits up. Simon Kinberg still has multiple directing gigs on his slate after Dark Phoenix.

 

You have to do something like Josh Trank did, publicly blast the hand that feeds, to get shunned by the industry.

 

I'm not sure what is weak about Verbinski's "recent record". A Cure For Wellness didn't impress anyone or the box office, but with a $40m budget it's not like he crashed a huge studio tentpole. Prior to that was Rango in 2011, loved by critics and a moderate commercial success. And prior to that of course was the Pirates trilogy.

 

So I don't agree that the tepid response to a psychological thriller that only cost $40m to produce, earning back $26m, is reason to discount Gore Verbinski from any potential project.

 

He would be a good fit for this project, but he doesn't strike me as a filmmaker who wants to step into someone else's franchise. And he's clearly not someone just looking for studio paychecks.

[dudalb]

2 hours ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

That's not true. If that were the case, M. Night Shamalan would have been run out of the country (multiple times). Denis Villeneuve would have had Dune taken away after BR2049. Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird would have been locked out of Pixar after their live-action Disney films went tits up. Simon Kinberg still has multiple directing gigs on his slate after Dark Phoenix.

 

You have to do something like Josh Trank did, publicly blast the hand that feeds, to get shunned by the industry.

 

I'm not sure what is weak about Verbinski's "recent record". A Cure For Wellness didn't impress anyone or the box office, but with a $40m budget it's not like he crashed a huge studio tentpole. Prior to that was Rango in 2011, loved by critics and a moderate commercial success. And prior to that of course was the Pirates trilogy.

 

So I don't agree that the tepid response to a psychological thriller that only cost $40m to produce, earning back $26m, is reason to discount Gore Verbinski from any potential project.

 

He would be a good fit for this project, but he doesn't strike me as a filmmaker who wants to step into someone else's franchise. And he's clearly not someone just looking for studio paychecks.

You are forgetting The Lone Ranger, which a big bomb for Verbinski.

[OncomingStorm93]

25 minutes ago, dudalb said:

You are forgetting The Lone Ranger, which a big bomb for Verbinski.

You’re right, I did forget Lone Ranger, but is anyone actually holding that against Verbinski personally? Remember Rich Ross, the genius Disney executive who produced Mars Needs Moms and John Carter, as well as green lighting Lone Ranger? Disney fired just ass during production of Lone Ranger. Putting the failure of Lone Ranger on Verbinski is misplaced.

 

Either way, it’s a high bar to get blackballed as a director. There needs to be some kind of controversy. Because if you’ve been proven to be profitable before, theoretically you can be profitable again. And not every movie bomb falls on the director.

[35MM-18]

12 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

You’re right, I did forget Lone Ranger, but is anyone actually holding that against Verbinski personally?

I don't, but I feel that it should've cost $100 million less than it ended up costing.

 

I wouldn't mind see him back to work-last I heard he was attached to direct Beat The Reaper (starring Sebastian Stan), which was 2 years ago. IMDb also has him listed as director and producer for Spaceless.

[TalismanRing]

Mangold ....  trying to think of any movies where he had to handle charm and humor  -  oh yeah  - Knight & Day and Kate & Leopold... 

 

 

[TalismanRing]

44 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

You’re right, I did forget Lone Ranger, but is anyone actually holding that against Verbinski personally? Remember Rich Ross, the genius Disney executive who produced Mars Needs Moms and John Carter, as well as green lighting Lone Ranger? Disney fired just ass during production of Lone Ranger. Putting the failure of Lone Ranger on Verbinski is misplaced.

 

Either way, it’s a high bar to get blackballed as a director. There needs to be some kind of controversy. Because if you’ve been proven to be profitable before, theoretically you can be profitable again. And not every movie bomb falls on the director.

Yes, because even Ross didn't want to finance Long Ranger at that price - which is why it was first put on ice so the budget could get back in hand.  Then Verbinski ran right over the budget and beyond anyway.   He did he same reportedly with Pirates but those made money. 

 

Still, over budget or no he'd be miles more fitting for this than Mangold.

[TMP]

5 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Mangold ....  trying to think of any movies where he had to handle charm and humor  -  oh yeah  - Knight & Day and Kate & Leopold... 

Ford v Ferrari?

[TalismanRing]

Just now, TMP said:

Ford v Ferrari?

Compared to say Logan yes - but compared to an Indiana Jones movie - no.

 

 

[The Wild Eric]

 

🍵

[dudalb]

Joe Johnston anybody?

[dudalb]

4 hours ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

You’re right, I did forget Lone Ranger, but is anyone actually holding that against Verbinski personally? Remember Rich Ross, the genius Disney executive who produced Mars Needs Moms and John Carter, as well as green lighting Lone Ranger? Disney fired just ass during production of Lone Ranger. Putting the failure of Lone Ranger on Verbinski is misplaced.

 

Either way, it’s a high bar to get blackballed as a director. There needs to be some kind of controversy. Because if you’ve been proven to be profitable before, theoretically you can be profitable again. And not every movie bomb falls on the director.

Maybe not the failure, but when a film goes 100 Million over budget the Director is going to take the rap.

 

[keysersoze123]

I am assuming no Shia Lebouf in this. Is it a reboot or they are just recasting his character. 

[Hatebox]

I like Mangold but I just can't get excited for an almost 80 year-old Indy, in the same way I'd struggle to get excited about an almost 80 year-old Bond.   

[35MM-18]

8 hours ago, dudalb said:

Joe Johnston anybody?

Depends. The last time he took over from Spielberg on a franchise has left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth, but so long as it's the Joe Johnston who did The Rocketeer and The First Avenger, I'll be okay with it.

 

There's also the fact he's been confirmed to direct Shrunk-he might turn down a possible return to Indy to work on that instead.

[OncomingStorm93]

If he minimizes his aggressive style, Guy Ritchie isn’t a bad option. He’s definitely in the good graces of Disney after Aladdin... 

[filmlover]

10 hours ago, keysersoze123 said:

I am assuming no Shia Lebouf in this. Is it a reboot or they are just recasting his character. 

It's a sequel, but I'm guessing they'll just ignore his character completely given how divisive the previous movie was.

 

Although they'll probably give Ford a much younger sidekick anyway (in before they cast George MacKay to capitalize on 1917).

Edited February 28, 2020 by filmlover