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

[ZeeSoh]

Trailer was nice, the de aging looks good but let's see how it looks in the movie itself. IF this turns out to be a good movie then it can go a nice run like TGM. Obviously I don't think it will do as well as TGM did but this also has the nostalgia factor that TGM had. 

[Juby]

Wow, great trailer, good title and cgi-young-Indy, and surprisingly great teaser poster (no Drew Struzan though).

 

I checked all the previous Indiana Jones adjusted gross:

 

Raiders of the Lost Ark --> $209.56m (only original run) / Average Ticket Price in 1982 (when this run was over) = $2.94 ~ about $784.07m adjusted (ATP in 2022 is $11 according to google)

The Temple of Doom --> $179.87m / ATP in 1984 = $3.36 ~ about $588.86m adjusted (-24,9%)

The Last Crusade --> $197.17m / ATP in 1989 = $3.97 ~ about $546.31m adjusted (-7,22%)

The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull --> $317.1m / ATP in 2008 = $7.18 ~ about $485.8m adjusted (-11.08%)

 

With the biggest of these drops (-24.9%) the 5th film should finish with around $365m dom, with the smallest -7.22% drop it would be over $450m. Of course I didn't take into account PLF formats, 3D, IMAXes, 4DX, etc. so the true ATP in July 2023 would be likely over $13.

 

So yeah, this would be big. I thing $450m is the bare minimum for Indy 5 next year.

 

[jedijake]

The one thing that sticks out to me with the young Indy is "WHY THE HELL COULDN'T THEY HAVE HAD JUST ONE SCENE IN THE SW SEQUELS WITH LUKE, LEIA, AND HAN IN A FLASHBACK!?!?!?!?!"

[John Marston]

5 hours ago, Hatebox said:

It looks like what it is: an Indiana Jones movie made in 2022. The glimpse of the de-aging looked good but the green screen's horrible. This is why people still like Mission Impossible movies, they offer what so few other action films seem to bother with anymore.

 

 

 

 

well unlike Mission Impossible, the action here will probably be all CGI, understandably due to the stars age

[CaptNathanBrittles]

The fakeness of INDY 4 is greatly over-exaggerated. Yes there are some obvious CGI shots but no more than the obvious rear-projection or optical effect shots in the original trilogy. In general it has the beautiful contrast, texture and depth you can only get from film and are not visible in the INDY 5 trailer. 

[Brainbug]

Looks very good. Im excited for this.

[Macleod]

13 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:

Right? I get it disliking something visually, is actually instinctive, so it's all fine. There are shots that looks unfinished and unpolished to me because well, the movie is far from finished and the image compression on the platforms are simply awful and make everything looks worse.

 

Still, those arguments that tbh reads as "i know what it's a good shooting, i'm better at it than the people working on it" is so weird. 

 

You might be surprised what I do for a living, that's all I'll say.  You're right that it's never good to fully judge these things on a YouTube screen.  I never said I was "better" than anyone making these blockbusters...but people who know their Film History can tell how different and "staged" these movies look compared to classic cinema.  Because even "fakery" in the past was done practically, whether on-set or optically through the camera...and didn't rely on digital tools to solve everything.  And no, I don't hold "Crystal Skull" as a high watermark of Spielberg's career, so I have no problem critiquing what may be a master's worst work...because of course, the story there wasn't up to snuff, so they knew subconsciously (or even consciously) they were making something without passion.  

 

Look, I'm a big fan of James Mangold's work, and I'm rooting for this movie to be great, just to clarify.  Doesn't mean I can't say that it currently seems to have the same visual problems that so many other contemporary blockbusters do...  

 

Try watching 1946's "Beauty and the Beast."  "The Seventh Seal."  "Ugetsu."  "Lawrence of Arabia."  "The Seven-Year Itch."   "Jaws."  And then see if you think most blockbusters from the last 20 years really look all that great and have meaningful things to say in their framing or mise-en-scene... 

[ThomasNicole]

5 hours ago, Macleod said:

 

You might be surprised what I do for a living, that's all I'll say.  You're right that it's never good to fully judge these things on a YouTube screen.  I never said I was "better" than anyone making these blockbusters...but people who know their Film History can tell how different and "staged" these movies look compared to classic cinema.  Because even "fakery" in the past was done practically, whether on-set or optically through the camera...and didn't rely on digital tools to solve everything.  And no, I don't hold "Crystal Skull" as a high watermark of Spielberg's career, so I have no problem critiquing what may be a master's worst work...because of course, the story there wasn't up to snuff, so they knew subconsciously (or even consciously) they were making something without passion.  

 

Look, I'm a big fan of James Mangold's work, and I'm rooting for this movie to be great, just to clarify.  Doesn't mean I can't say that it currently seems to have the same visual problems that so many other contemporary blockbusters do...  

 

Try watching 1946's "Beauty and the Beast."  "The Seventh Seal."  "Ugetsu."  "Lawrence of Arabia."  "The Seven-Year Itch."   "Jaws."  And then see if you think most blockbusters from the last 20 years really look all that great and have meaningful things to say in their framing or mise-en-scene... 

I agreed, all the examples you bring does looks amazing. 

 

But i can remember some recent blockbusters that looks amazing as well, like Avatar, all the Nolan blockbusters, the last 3 Mission Impossible movies, The Last Jedi, the recent Planet Of The Apes 2 and 3, Skyfall, Life Of Pi, Gravity, Rogue One, Fury Road etc. 

 

Even this year i think we have 3 blockbusters that looks absolutely great: The Batman, Top Gun and Nope. And Avatar is coming. 

 

So, my point is: is easier to remember how great older movies look because we usually only remember the ones that resisted to the test of time, and forget the ones that wasn't very memorable (most of them). But the new movies we're living them, is easier to remember bad looking movies.

 

In the end, while i understand your pov, is an argument very based on anachronism imo. 

[stephen]

Enjoyed the trailer but bit worried that we have young Indy meeting old Indy.

 

This feels likely, especially as this is from the director of Logan, which has a similar plot point. That was the only weakness in that film for me.

 

It's really difficult to pull time travel off never mind having characters meeting themselves.

 

It works in comedies like BTTF as it's essentially absurd and therefore ripe for comedy. Other than Days of Future Past, I can't think any really good non-comedy time travel films.

 

Maybe the film leans heavily into comedy and it works. 

 

Still really excited for this. If it's any good and not divisive (surely some lessons have been learned about crapping on a beloved character's legacy), I'm thinking 450 million plus.

[Porthos]

3 hours ago, stephen said:

I can't think any really good non-comedy time travel films.

 

It's pure SciFi* but Star Trek: First Contact is widely regarded as one of the best of the Star Trek films.

* Or at least Space Opera

 

(The Voyage Home is also very highly regarded but that leans into the humor angle a bit more than First Contact — but if we want to count that [and we probably should], that's two right there)

Edited December 3, 2022 by Porthos

[dudalb]

Add Lean's "Doctor Zhivago" to that list.

Trailer looks great. I always wanted a film on Indy's WW2 Exploits, looks as if I might get my wish fulfilled.

And, god, Phoebe Waller Bridge looks different then she did in Fleabag.

BTW, any wonky visuals in Crystal Skulls were the least of it;s problems.

Edited December 3, 2022 by dudalb

[dudalb]

And, although she might not get credit, I suspect stronglly that Waller Bridge made some contributions to the screenplay.

[Eric the Fall Guy]

 

[Eric the Fall Guy]

 

[Porthos]

9 minutes ago, Eric Claus said:

 

 

Didn't even tag @Brainbug???

 

[35MM-18]

59 minutes ago, Eric Claus said:

 

[dudalb]

But now the big question..and one that probably won't be answered until the movie opens....what will they come up with for the Creepy Crawly in the film? Won't be an Indy film without a Creepy Crawly sequence....

[Brainbug]

1 hour ago, Eric Claus said:

 

 

Greatness.

[excel1]

That was a flawless piece of advertising. Ugh. Please be good. So much potential here. 

[dudalb]

People forget that  John Wayne was playing action roles well into his 70's.