I think Dial of Destiny did feel more original in a satisfying way than say Kingdom of the Crystal Skull where you have characters looking for aliens and doing generic 1950s stuff. Whooo.
I’ve seen some people say they didn’t like the circumstances in Skull as to how Indy and Marion got back together. Yet they’re complete fine with how they got back together in this film which is literally just a callback to Raiders and that’s it. At least Skull actually tried to push their dynamic in a new direction rather than rely on nostalgia.
@@FullFatVideos I still don’t even know why they put so much emphasis on Indy being wanted for murder only to not properly resolve that at all 😂. Hopefully whenever Bethesda’s Indy game comes out it will be a Star Wars situation where the latest film sucks but the latest game is so much better. Honestly great video as well Matt, really enjoyed watching it!
The ending scene in Dial also doesn’t work if you haven’t seen the other movies. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull definitely benefits if you have watched Raiders, but you’re not lost if you haven’t seen Raiders. If you just watch Crystal Skull, it’s the classic “old flame returns” trope. They have enough screen time together that you see their relationship blossom again. In Dial of Destiny, you just know it’s his ex-wife, and you have no idea what they’re referencing if you haven’t watched the other movies. So Crystal Skull works better as an independent adventure serial with returning characters while Dial of Destiny requires the other movies for context.
"crystal skull' had flaws but it was made by two men who loved indy and wanted to give a good send off, along side his son, who is a far more complex and well developed character than most people think. DOD is just a product. a product to run on member berries that drags down and crushes its hero while trying to force feed us a new "bestest gurl evvaaaa" as his replacement. like with the star war ST, i watched to say i watched it and i'll never touch it again. and hopefully, KOTCS will get a bit more love and respect from the fans.
ditto. i rewatched all four movies before the premiere of this abomination called dial of destiny, i found skull a very fun and enjoyable movie, it had its flaws (the cgi in particular), but it treated indy with respect. i always liked how they didn't follow the "old man comes back to action for some reason" trope, they established that indy was an active archeologist and a secret agent ("after all those years we spent spying on the reds"), as well as acknowledged indy's status as a war hero, which can be treated as sort of canonizing the indy lore that's contained in the various comics and games released over the years. on the other hand, dial had no respect for its main character, portraying him as a naive, delusional old man with no personality.
Ugh, no. I’m sorry but Crystal Skull was bad then and is still bad now. Spielberg was done with Indy after Last Crusade. Lucas pushed to make another one and have aliens and crystal skulls and Spielberg was very much against that. He caved to making the film and doing it Lucas way because Lucas was his friend. Between the cringe inducing moments like nuking the fridge, the Tarzan swinging, the CG gophers and the Mac character constantly switching sides, I still find KotCS unwatchable (there’s only about 2 scenes in that entire film that I can say I enjoy).
I’ll be honest the only real issue I had was indeed Mutt. I think if he had been written “upstate”, or even appearing at the end, or something different with the character instead of death, the whole movie’s atmosphere would have changed. So much of the movie would have been completely different because they would have been forced to write a different story entirely. There are some really neat plot threads that would have been enhanced because Indy basically became his dad, and because of Crystal Skull he’s learned you can’t mess with things you don’t understand. And so his Goddaughter would be an earlier him, and so on. It truly feels like no one on this movies team watched Crystal Skull cause if they had, this movie probably would’ve been peak.
Neither of those who made the Star Wars sequels seemed to watch the prequels, they only learned, "oh, many people hated this, let's make something more like the original trilogy".
There are so many better directions they could have taken! Having Mutt in hospital after being wounded in 'Nahm would have been a great plot point. Or a disgruntled war veteran. Part of the "generation gap" in the sixties & seventies was the Greatest Generation that won WW2, having kids that were defeated in Vietnam. That would have been funny to see in Indiana Jones.
@@jesustovar2549 for the Star Wars Sequels, it was more glossing over the Prequels and acting like they weren't there, based on the hate they initially got upon release. I haven't seen Indy 5, but from what I've heard, damn near everything that came out of Crystal Skull was taken away. Mutt's dead, Marion's filing for divorce, and Indy's retiring. They erased the fourth film, and in the process of tying up the loose ends before the story's even started, they put themselves on rocky ground, and they couldn't make the difference.
Oh lawdy, we could have done without the ghastly goddaughter altogether. His wife should have been built up instead. One final adventure together and Indy could have ridden into the sunset with her to a happy retirement. Instead of the sad old man brought to a miserable end by a vile egomaniac.
@97javic I didn’t take or leave Crystal Skull when I saw it as a kid. It was just okay. Now having rewatched all the Indy films prior to this movies release, just like how the second film is super campy, but does well with its characters and moments, skull did that exceptionally well while also being waaaay more campy. I’m not saying Crystal skull is now a masterpiece, and really, none of the Indy movies are. That’s the beauty of the franchise. To take something that’s messy and make something awesome out of it. And it was frustrating as a fan, who liked all of the relationships built in Skull, to then go to this film that throws all that away. Frankly, I think the newest film is actually not as bad as everyone says. In my original post, I say that there are a lot of really awesome and neat things in the new film that really go about celebrating the character as a whole and what’s come before. But it failed (in my opinion) to capture the beautiful messy nature of Indy and instead copted out to tell a fairly basic story. And that’s okay too because what is Indy but mindless dumb fun! And the most recent film was certainly that, especially with the time travel! Don’t come into the comments starting a war over a movie that was made just to be made. And made as a cash grab 🤣 I hear you, and I understand, but it’s also not completely amazing of a movie either.
Crystal skull actually had characters that had chemistry, good paced action, it's still a fun film even though it has flaws. The fifth film is just boring
Something else I noticed is that in Dial there's no iconic trap sequence like the others. Raiders has the entire beginning Temple has the spike ceiling and Crusade has the whole run leading up to getting the Holy Grail. This one desperately needed more of going through some ancient ruins just for it to be trapped. All we got was the one weird methane thing. We needed something more crazy and out there. This is Archimedes we're dealing with. They could've had so many bat shit crazy mechanisms for Indy to deal with.
i find it highly HIGHLY ironic how the progression and development of the Indiana jones films parody's the trajectory of the pirates films, the first three being universally loved by most everyone in this day and age (curse of the black pearl, dead mans chest, at worlds end) (raiders of the lost ark, temple of doom, last crusade) and then a fourth film which came out years later, which fans are completely divided about (on stranger tides, kingdom of the crystal skull) and then a fifth film which long jumps over the mark of what makes these characters interesting or compelling and writes everyone into as corner while screwing up the "hero at sunset" story thread this of course being pirates 5 and Indiana jones 5, now they are different moves of course and should be treated as such but something happened in development of these films, to make them like this, and I feel it is the same at its centre, I'm so surprised how no one has talked about this yet??
It really feels like the people making this film took one look at the backlash to Crystal Skull, pre-emptively baulked at the prospect of another Indy film getting such overblown criticism and decided to trot out the safest, blandest most corporate-driven product imaginable. For all of its predecessor's faults, I can at least have some appreciation for its willingness to go all out and be as buck-wild and insane as it ended up being. This film by contrast feels like it's too afraid to do anything that "out there", largely playing things safe and just ticking the boxes of a "typical" Indy adventure. And even then it doesn't do it properly; the map scenes look really awkward and weird, the scenes with bugs and snake-like creatures don't commit to the visceral creature-feature horror, Indy never actually gets into a brutal physical fight with the massive hulking henchman, and in perhaps the most offensive mistake, the film neglects to give the villain a horrifically brutal death scene in keeping with the series' tradition. Burning to death in a plane crash is certainly a nasty way to go, but it's embarrassingly mundane compared to heads being blown up by God, falling off a cliff and beaten eaten alive by crocodiles, aging to death, or brains being fried by infinite alien knowledge. I didn't hate Dial of Destiny, it has a few decent enough action scenes, the score is great, and Harrison Ford is as wonderful as always, but the lack of passion and pulpy excitement that permeated the previous entries (yes, including Crystal Skull) is sorely missing. Add onto that the murky and visually ugly cinematography, the meandering and monotonous story, the mean-spirted undoing of Crystal Skull's happy ending, the lack of emphasis on the late 60s setting and cultural climate, and the incredibly underutilised supporting cast (shoving Sallah and Marion into cameo roles is bad enough, but then also wasting Mads Mikkelsen and Antonio Banderas is unforgivable), and this can happily take its place as the weakest entry in the series, and the only one that I can't see myself watching again at any point. I'll happily rewatch the original trilogy over and over, and might even put on Crystal Skull every once in a while for some half-genuine-half-ironic entertainment, but I all-but-guarantee I'm going to completely forget about this film and its existence by the time the year is done.
The Santa Clause TV show on Disney+ had Scott Calvin's son Charlie in it for a few minutes. It worked well as it showed that he was happily married even if he didn't have a huge part.
With Kathleen Kennedy still at the helm and having a notoriously and known bad writer as Leslie, why would you have even a fraction of an ounce of hope it would be any good?
JRR Tolkien never said or wrote this exact quote and I see it on every thing related to Lucasfilm/Disney LoTR related. This is a paraphrase that can be attributed to more than one piece of writing from Tolkien.
@@Comicbroe405 lol, while I understand the sentiment behind posting the quote, it is a stretch to compare the film makers to some great evil. While storytelling and myth making are important, and Indiana Jones is one of the most culturally relevant, we need to let it go. After The Last Jedi, I was mad about Star Wars for a couple of days, and I realized it is better to move on. Also, criticism of new franchise film compares them to fan fiction. Re-contextualizing the writing of Tolkien to create a quote to fit your own feelings, is fan fiction in itself. Kind of ironic.
My wife and I were a little disappointed with Dial. We didn't think it was horrible, but it just seemed kinda bland to us. Having said that, the train sequence at the beginning was actually my favorite part lol. Thank you for another interesting video essay. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Yes, but I do think he’s gonna fuck up with the Tim Cham Bob Dylan biopic. Why are we having a new Bob Dylan biopic, there’s already an Amazing artful Bob Dylan biopic from the 2000s.
The only thing I disagree with was the Mutt situation. I thought it added a bit of realism and pathos to a movie that sorely needed it. Life doesn’t always turn up roses, even for our beloved heroes and a lot of men who went to Vietnam didn’t come back. But I think a lot of that depends on how one feels about Crystal Skull.
Thats true! But I don't think Indiana Jones has ever had a morbid tone when dealing with it's leads. I'd get more into the idea if it wasn't so obviously a Rise of Skywalker-esque fanboy appeasement plan.
@darthdoofus1784 I feel it's more of a reflection of Mutt rebelling against his parents; especially Indy since he had those experiences before and during WW2 fighting Nazis, and you can see Mutt wanting to carve his own path and have his own adventure stories to one-up his Dad. And Indy knows that ideologically Vietnam is completely different to WW2 and clearly he had reservations about his son going to fight there beforehand even if he didn't act on them. I suppose it's also somewhat similar to Kylo Ren prior to the Force Awakens in that Han and Leia both kind of blame themselves/each other for the terrible fate that befalls their son.
@darthdoofus1784 Well, I think with Harrison Ford in both cases playing the father figure who is broken by the loss of his son and basically gives up before regaining hope thanks to a younger female character who calls him to adventure, the parallels are pretty obvious and kind of unavoidable. (Although PWB at least is playing a more flawed character who is less of a fangirl of Indy than Rey was for Han) If you are doing this type of story with the character then you inevitably are going to have to go through similar beats. Crystal Skull has a scene early on with Jim Broadbent where Indy remembers his Dad and Marcus Brody, which essentially was them marking Denholm Elliot's passing as well as trying to acknowledge Jones Snr. since he was such a key part of Last Crusade; Sean Connery was all-but retired from acting by that point so it felt appropriate to pay a small tribute to the character. Come to think of it, Last Crusade even has that small beat where Jones Snr. mentions that his wife hid her illness from him due to him being obsessed with the Holy Grail, and it's one of the things that caused the rift between Henry and Indy. With Mutt in Dial I think it would have felt a little odd to have a film that reflects on the legacy of Indiana Jones and not cover what happened to his son, or even just to have him living happily somewhere off-screen that's never mentioned; (Again, he has that same desire for adventure that Indy has) to me the reason he was killed off was because they didn't want Shia LeBouf in the movie for fairly obvious reasons. So I think the decision to have him die in Vietnam was made as a compromise to at least acknowledge the existence of the character and as a way of justifying the place Indy is in at the start of the film. (Even if it is perhaps a little overly maudlin and depressing)
That's not what Indiana Jones movies are about, and I see the same defence of "The Last Jedi". There are things in story telling such as tone and mode, and good serialized stories tend to have a cohesive tone. Indiana Jones has always been based on Pulp adventure films from the thirties, which rarely if ever dealed with serious themes. There is a time and place for those ideas, but an Indiana Jones film is not one of those. Having said all that, if they were going to go in that direction, they needed to focus on characterization more. A character study of an older Indiana Jones would make for an interesting film at least.
@@Psilocybin77 I wasn't saying it has to be about that, but unless you're gonna do the whole movie with de-aging tech (In which case you're essentially making an animated Indiana Jones film) then you kind of force yourself into making a movie about old Indy, and unfortunately the easiest way to create conflict for him is to basically have something bad happen to him or his family in between films. Like I said, Crystal Skull does something similar with Jones Snr. and Marcus; Indy alludes to having experienced a "rough few years". The difference there is that it's a brief sad scene in Crystal Skull where the plot quickly moves on; Indy's resolve still drives him forwards, whereas Indy is in a much more depressing place at the start of Dial where his resolve has crumbled in a way that audiences have clearly found alienating. I don't think action heroes have to be emotionally invincible but it does feel like Indy just got really unlucky that his son died and his wife left him rather than things falling apart more naturally because of his character flaws and personality. Although I guess Indy not having the conviction to tell his son not to enlist in the Vietnam war and that being his regret is technically a character flaw, or at least Indy himself sees it that way. I half agree; the pulp elements are a big part of the appeal, but at the same time the relationship between Indy and his Dad has a lot of depth to it, and that's why Last Crusade resonates with a lot of people so strongly. But at the same time Last Crusade actually has a pretty light and comedic tone to a lot of its action, which largely comes from Spielberg's direction. I agree that a character study that cut down on the action and had Indy being challenged on a more introspective level would be at least make for a more unique film; for example have an indigenous tribe contact Indy being upset that he stole their artefacts and put them in a museum years ago, and so Indy has to find a way to make amends and break into the museum to steal it back for the tribe. A simple story that calls into question his philosophy and the stakes are personal rather than the world ending threat of Nazis, Russians, or an Indian death cult.
I rewatched all the movies in preparation for this one. I thought that it fit well, had everything I want from an Indiana Jones movie. Sad that not everyone got the same enjoyment out of it.
I enjoyed it too. Definitely still my 4th favorite of the franchise, but I'll admit, I did like it better than Crystal Skull. I know that there seems to be this sudden twist in recent months that people now act like Crystal Skull was always this misunderstood and secretly brilliant film...I don't think so, but to each their own. I don't think it's a terrible film by any means, but I'd give it like a C-, whereas I'd give this one more like a C+
No I’m not looking for views. My Lord, do you really think I just complained about it was 20 minutes and the whole time I was being disingenuous? Like do you honestly really think I secretly enjoyed it and I just force myself to act up on camera? I find that kind of take so frustrating because people only say those kinds of things when THEY like the film in question. It’s not hard to wrap your head around the idea that another audience member genuinely disliked it. When you tell me you enjoyed it I don’t immediately cry confirmation bias my dude. Just do better honestly, that kind of discussion is literally destroying film discourse and I’m so utterly tired of it
@@FullFatVideos Also like... >> You release entire edited scripted video detailing your opinion and train of thought on said opinion >> People go "Oh okay but I liked the film so ur fake" >> They proceed to not elaborate any further whatsoever on their end I'm not a fan of that, If your gonna go in... and ESPECIALLY if your gonna make claims that the person is directly wrong or fake because of their opinion... Get some back bone and actually fire some of YOUR ammunition, That is, of course, if you had any to begin with? Or do you just say things to say them. 🤷♂
People always talk about these movies as being 'safe', but they keep flopping, or at least underperforming. Meanwhile, smaller, stranger movies that are considered 'risky' are actually turning a profit. It seems that trying to stay safe is now a pretty big risk.
Half way into Dial of Dysentery, I found myself wishing I had to go pee. That's when the Disney Effect kicked in, which is a Disney sequel is so bad, it magically elevates all the crap that came before. Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull are masterworks compared to this. Worst Indiana Jones movie by far.
Great video and take on why 'Top Gun' and 'Rocky' sequels manage to succeed where Indy sequels don't. I also think those franchises are lucky that the activities that the stories are built around (fighter jets and boxing) are high octane and that they went the practical route with minimal green screen in their filmmaking approach so that it looked exciting (no 'Polar Express' level animation to kill your excitement along with any realism). It also didn't help that 'Dial of Destiny' looked cheap and unatmospheric because it was shot on digital instead of 35mm. I appreciate that it saves time and is less expensive to shoot on but this is the same issue that the 'Fantastic Beasts' movies had. Best de-aging I've seen is of Bruce Willis's character in 'Surrogates.'
Happy to hear someone else call it the Polar Express. I couldn't stop thinking of anything else the whole way through. Here's an idea.... do the de-aging technique on EVERYONE... call it an animated film.... would that work?
This movie did exactly what I feared it would do, kill off mutt and ‘seperate’ indy from Marion. That was weak lazy story telling and felt like stab in the back to me as someone who loves crystal skull. That movie had a beautiful ending, then this movie comes along and ruins it. This movie does not exist.
Yeah they should have just sidestepped Crystal Skull instead of undermining it. It’s like having a line in Creed describing how the robot from Rocky IV got put through a trash compactor in between films. Nobody needs to know
They are the reason Hollywood became what it now is. Films like Star Wars and Close Encounters ruined everything by relying on tired tropes and special effects. We all clapped our hands when Luke blew up the death star, so Hollywood realised this is what people want. Archetypes, good vs evil, big explosion at the end. Then milk it for all it's worth. That's the Lucas/Speilberg way.
The killing of Mutt felt more malicious by the filmmakers, because it would have been the perfect way to go had they recast with someone like Chris Pratt where Indy Jr and Indy III go on an adventure and you could pass the torch to that character and have adventures in the 70s or 80s. But it was clear that father-son relationships was not the goal, it was to replace Indie with a white British woman.
I still can't believe Disney actually went along with Kathleen Kennedy's insane idea to invest 350 million dollars for a movie series who's first successful movie only cost 20 million
Dial of destiny made me appreciate Kingdom of the crystal skull so much more it had what the latest film was missing that fun adventure movie feeling it has its problems Which give the film such a bad wrap if Spielberg didn't want to do it they should of just let indy rest
Y'know, I didn't like Mutt, nor did I think Indy's marriage was a good idea, but even I didn't want him to experience the tragedy of the death of his son and a divorce on top of that!!!! He's not Peter Parker, for crying out loud!
Dial of destiny is perhaps the worst film I’ve ever seen. I went in expecting trash but it ended up being even worse just everything about it is just wrong
They do time-travel and not even try to save Mutt. If saving Mutt was Indiana's motivation to get the dial again? IMAGINE THAT. Or that they changed something in the past and it resultet in Mutt never enlisting and him beeing alife at the very last scene. Dunno, I don't care enought to thing of something better because by making Indi's life miserable and him depressed they made ME depressed.
Personally I feel like this film was one rewrite away from being good, and that rewrite shluld have been: Make Indy obsessed with finding the Dial so he can bring back Mutt. Have it be that obsession that casues Marion to leave because she can't stand around and watch Indy work himself into the ground whilst she's trying to heal herself. Then over the course of the films Indy finds a surrogate Father/Daughter in relationship in Helena, and that starts to heal him, with Indy coming to the realization that he needs to stop looking to the past and focus on the present starting with making sure Marion is okay. That way youve got a full character arc, and it's one that lcan be an ending for the character becausein giving up the past, Indy is giving up archeology, then end the film with Indy's retirement party and a little conversation between him, Marion, and Sallah. Also the film should have had Indu fight the heavy, but play up the fact that Indy can't beat him in fisticuffs, so he needs to rely purely on wit: It should be the Mr Freez bossfight from Arkham City.
Hope Mangold redeems himself with Swamp Thing and agreed about Last Crusade, it’s my personal favorite too! Also Nice to see someone else calling Disney’s hypocrisy(People have ignored it or treated me like a cynic when I mention it)! Honestly I think Mutt should have been away and the film ends with Indy reuniting with Marian and Mutt(except we either never see his face or he’s been recast since Shia is quite controversial!)
Mangold will be fine because he will not be as supervised. I think the biggest issue here is how you can tell the execs were heavily involved in the story, and the script.
My parents saw raiders in the theater and loved it. We saw Dial of destiny together, and we loved it. If you watch Indiana jones as if it’s an old dime novel put to screen, then I can guarantee you’ll enjoy these movies so much more. Just enjoy them for what they are, and I promise you you’ll be so much less disappointed, because this is just how media works.
So basically your advising us to lower our expectations? I too saw Raiders in the theater when I was younger, so watching them deconstruct Indiana Jones in order to elevate Helena is a bad move. I'm sorry, is this an Indiana Jones movie or the bestest evaar, Helena Shaw and the Dial of.....oh who cares anymore.
@@paulnicholson5997 I don’t advise anyone do anything, I just so happen to enjoy this movie for what it is. That doesn’t mean I like every aspect of it, but I’m mature enough to overlook what I don’t like and see the goodness in it.
I reject that premise entirely. I’m more than willing to have fun with an Indy movie, this simply wasn’t it for me. Why should I have to enjoy anything for what it is?
@@orange-qj3yd I enjoy a movie if the good aspects of it surprasses the bad ones, not the other way around, by that logic, should we enjoy the Star Wars sequel trilogy for what it is? I'm actually envious of your parents for seeing Raiders in a theatre. I'm glad you prefer to have a healthy mind by enjoying things and overlooking things like let's say "empowered women who can do anything better than men", which is also an aspect I envy from you, but then there is "rewatchability", how many people do you think are going to rewatch Dial of Destiny? sure, there are some, but, is this film going to last for eternity, like it's going to be analyzed or talked about for many years like the original trilogy did? I don't think so, today Hollywood makes many "fast food movies" that are forgettable, I doubt that many are going to revisit these films in decades, this age of sequels/remakes/reboots, etc... with modern "LGBTQ" messages trying to appeal to everyone is probably going to be seen as a dark age for Hollywood, the fact that some of these films are flopping is a demonstration of their failure. Of course, it all depends on how the world evolves, mentalities and "the new world order" (I'm reading a book about it, right now).
I've not seen the film, but I agree with almost all your sentiments on the wider issues with these films and Hollywood in general. The main reason I've not seen Dial of destiny is because I'm already over the line you're talking about... I'm utterly fed up of endless regurgitation of IP without the heart and soul to make it good. Star Wars, Marvel, DC, Jurassic Park... Even the Bond franchise fell foul of it. I'm all in for unique visions and freshness. The more disappointing big budget films I see at the cinema, the less likely I'll go see the next one.
ok, just finished it, and I gotta say, I pretty much agree with everything. This movie was an absolute waste of time. Your video on Crystal Skull did help me enjoy that movie more, and I totally see that as a good film that ends the series well. This doesn't. For most of the movie, I felt nothing. The only time I did feel anything was when they revealed Mutt was dead, and Marion is divorced. My heart actually sank when those were revealed, and it reeks of Rise of Skywalker, where they over-correct on fan reactions, instead of continuing the story as is. This was meant to be Indy's swan song? Because it sure as heck didn't feel like it when the credits rolled. An almost soulless movie that I will quickly move on from.
@@tisbutascratch9987 if you look up the leaks that was the original ending before the reshoots, where Indy stays in the past but history is altered as he leaves the message on the dial for himself to read in the future
I could not agree more with your final thesis! I feel nothing but abject apathy for modern cinema. I grew up in the eighties, and despite what Tarantino might think, it was the greatest time for movies. As I've grown older, the appeal of nostalgia has lost most of its power when it comes to film. If you had told an 11 year old me in 1989 that I would reach a point where I wouldn't care at all about a new Indiana Jones movie, I'd think you were daft. As Henry Jones Sr. so simply but beautifully stated to his son, there is a time to "let it go".
Uncharted better than Dial? 😳 Tbf I get why people don’t like Dial. But I personally loved it. Don’t agree with this retroactive appraisal of Mutt. He was fine but killing him off gave Indy such a fascinating and different story. I don’t agree with this awful idea of”Indiana should have gone back and saved him.” Literally is not within Indy’s character. His story is always about the temptation and showing he’s better than that. He should have had a Crusade type temptation scene where if he had tried to do it, it would have gone against him. So he could pick up his hat and realise he doesn’t need to change things to make himself better. I personally enjoy the fun set pieces. Yes it’s nowhere near the originals. But this film exists and I think it’s fun. I think a lot of people just like being upset by predictable Disney products 🤷🏻♂️
You're admitting the film is predictable, well, months before there were many leaks, I remember some people wanting to convice that the movie was about time travel, and here we are. They had to reshot the ending because the original didn't please fans and critics. Also Disney is losing a lot of the "magic" for which they were known for in the past, for whom are these remakes made? sure for the most pseudo-progressive community in California, these people seem to live inside bubbles with absurd problems that are alien to the world, but since the United States is a super-power, what they want to do is infect the world, as if they never they would have matured or learned that not everything seen in movies and television is real.
They didn’t have to reinvent any wheel for this movie. The Last Crusade provided a perfect template for handling an aging Indiana needing to be rescued by Short Round, or being called out of a happy retirement for one last adventure. Lucasfilm only knows how to trash their male heroes, any nobody wants to see that.
If they really wanted to do Time travel, then they should have had Indi get stuck in the past leaving clues for Mutt and Short round to find him. The film could have been about Mutt dealing with the stages of grief as everyone else thinks Indi was dead, where as Mutt thinks he’s still alive. Would have to be a two part story
We really have to reel in these big budget franchise entries that have nothing going for them other than name recognition. When you look at “Everything, Everywhere, all at Once”, “Puss in Boots Last Wish”, and “Spider-Man Across the Spider-Verse” both in terms of critical reception and box office sales with their budgets Vs. Disney’s big budget endeavors that either bomb box office (for not making enough) or are so poorly received by fans and critics that threaten to kill future franchise revenue, there’s a problem.
Sorry if someone already mentioned this: When RAIDERS was released, there was no (PG-13) rating. In '84 when TEMPLE & GREMLIN were released parents were P!SSED. Both movies traumatized little kids. The MPAA came out with the (PG-13) rating. Late that very summer, "RED DAWN" was the 1st. film to receive that rating. The movie was a hit, specifically for two reasons: It had a large cast of popular, young actors and people wanted to see what content would and wouldn't be allowed in a (PG-13) film.
Well I liked it... And I was really dangerous about it, too, because I watched the Young Indy series and the 4 movies not long before seeing this one. When I've done similar things in the past with other franchises, I've had it backfire immensely. Currently for me, it's still tentatively 4th in the rankings of the movies, but Dial of Destiny wasn't bad. I've even seen people say it's 3rd, and that all just depends on how much you enjoy Temple of Doom. I think what really killed this movie's box office was the poor reception it got from critics two weeks beforehand, and the general slump in all blockbusters this year. That doesn't mean it was ever going to make its money back with an estimated $300 million budget, but there's just something in the air this year that's killing that which makes people want to go to the movies. I had fun with the movie, the action was good, the dynamic between Indy and Helena and how it progressed throughout the movie was better than I expected, I found the final act to be incredibly fun, just an all around good time. I will say that Mutt dying is not ideal, and even him joining the military doesn't make sense for someone that was anti-authority, but in the years spent with Indy, maybe that changed some things. Maybe Mutt did feel an obligation to serve for a cause he truly didn't understand, much like how his father did the same joining Pancho Villa and eventually World War I. It was also done out of spite for his father, not much unlike what Indy did to his either. Mutt could have enlisted, immediately regretted it, but there was no backing out and it cost him. Unfair though it may be, I get why it was done for the story in the movie in order to put Indy in a place where he feels like nothing matters anymore, even if the initial impetus was to satiate bad fans and avoid any conflicts of interest regarding Shia LeBeouf. And is it wrong to not have Marion in the movie either until the end? I don't think so. If you look at the relationship between Marion and Indy, it's always gone back and forth, and he's presumably the one that always screws it up, too, although I'm sure she has her moments as well. For starters, he never should have gotten together with her at the ages they were the first time, and when it was finally found out, things got ruined. The second time they got together, he ran away from them getting married. Then 20 years later when they did get married, it lasted about 10 years, but he even admits he wasn't there for her when their son died because he didn't know how to handle it either and it drove another wedge. She does still ultimately love him, and the reason why she's back in the very end is because he almost died, but she can see that he's gotten better and maybe their relationship will finally stick until the end for a fourth time. They are constantly on again and off again, this doesn't exactly feel like it's out of place for her divorcing him. Maybe putting a label on it somehow hurts their relationship despite how much they do care for one another. I'm not saying these things are perfect, but I get why they were done, and they don't bother me so much. Maybe it's because I can find a rationale for it that makes sense to me, but whatever, the movie is the movie. I'm definitely going to need more than just one viewing to truly finalize my thoughts, but I don't suspect they'll get worse, I really did quite like the movie, and it's flaws were not so large that they detracted too much from my enjoyment.
@@FullFatVideos It's true that everyone has dog- piled on Fleabag, but she's the WORST part of the movie, so it creates a glaring omission when you leave her out of your review.
Problems is that Hollywood had steered so much into the blockbusters from previous IPs, they dont make anything original anymore. Its either comic book movies or IP properties like Star Wars, etc that are populating the movie scene. Where are the other genres? What happened to great romantic comedies, original action adventure stories, creating new IPs, etc? Once upon a time these movies like Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, etc put directors like Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, etc on the map. We need creative people who can do things creatively with not a big budget to establish new movies
It was just a cash grab from a studio that thought it could get another pay day from a dead property they still own...plus thinking they could get fleabag to carry it on
Well I mean reason it failed right out of the gate is because Disney has completely lost the trust of the audience everyone was assuming it would suck and then you would be destroyed and sure enough they were right but they just didn't want to witness it and especially have to pay for it.
I enjoyed the film overall, but I found the the end of the film weird and anti-climactic. Our heroes didn't really do anything apart from faff about in the back of a plane, while the baddies just literally crash out of the story, with no real stand-off or moral punchline. Archimedes defeats the Nazis more than Indie does!
The Creed comparison is apt. I don't see why heroes always have to lose their family for them to act as motivation, as if the desire to return to them isn't enough. I'm not a fan of crystal skull, but at least it felt like they were ready for Indy to move on, rather than a tech demo to see if audiences will buy into CGI replacement actors.
I read "Don't touch that dial" on the image as "Don't touch that girl" and immediately thought of Phoebe Waller-Bridge 🤭 This was a very balanced analysis. I haven't seen this movie, and I don't plan to watch it, but I appreciate RU-vidrs like you biting the bullet for those of us who prefer to be selective and see MI7 more than once in the big screen instead 🤗
Really enjoyed it. The ranking of the 5 movies is as follows: 10, Deeply Flawed 10, 10, 7 and 8. Please bare in mind that these scores aren't my personal opinion, but objective facts, handed down by God on tablets of stone and placed within an ark.
I really liked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It was pulp fiction cheese. Exactly what Indy is supposed to be. However, the thing I'd have done differently is rely less on CGI. That's the main drawback of the film. The original Indy films soared above Crystal Skull by having a sense of jeopardy during all the stunts. If Crystal Skull had that too, it would be a perfect book-end.
Despite what everyone thinks of Shia LeBouf, I definitely agree that it was a mistake to kill off Mutt. First, I don't think that his death was true to his character. He doesn't seem like the type who would go along with the establishment (aka the government) and voluntarily enlist. I also don't believe he would want to spite Indy and and Marion (particularly not Marion) by enlisting. Second, I don't think that his death was earned. Although I understand that it was an attempt to explain some aspects of Indy's character in this particular movie, to me it feels like a hollow afterthought and doesn't add any substance to the plot.Third, I think it was cruel to take away everything Indy was given in the last film (on the assumption that people want to view the fourth film as canon). Also, because I view The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles as canon (because of George Lucas' involvement with it), I consider Indy to also have a daughter (Sophia). As far as I am concerned, he could have found out about her later, and she doesn't have to be Marion Ravenwood's offspring 🙂.
I personally like DoD better than the fourth one. But a lot of little kids loved the fourth one when it came out. I did my practicum in an elementary school in 2008, and the Crystal Skull was a hit with the five to ten year olds. I can't really imagine DoD having the same appeal to kids. And I'm going to say it folks: Indiana Jones is for kids first and foremost. Nothing wrong with being an adult fan of the series, but it's for kids. I consider them the best judges for this sort of thing.
The comparison to star wars is a good one. Saying this movie makes crystal skull look good is exactly what happened when 7, 8 and 9 came out. The love and appreciation for 1, 2 and 3 suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Saw it the other night because my 11 year old son wanted to see it. It was just as I expected, not good. Indie was sad and tired old man who was constantly being berated by a "strong" woman who was morally saved at the end.
"Things you could get away with in kids' movies then, you absolutely could not, now" That's a really sad commentary on how fragile our society has become.
Say what you will about cryatal skull atleast it was an ending for the character as decided on by his original creators and not an obvious corporate grab for some kind of relevancy from a franchise that had already been put to bed
I really like Indiana Jones 5 and the Dial of Destiny, and thought it was a good enough movie. Not great, but alright. I do agree though that high-budget movies are dangerous businesses for Hollywood in general than low to mid-budget films since they take way too time, energy, and effort to get through them. The worst offender I find is movies trying to return double or triple the money back from a high-budget movie of $200-300 million over a span of two months since its public release date and rarely achieving that goal. Cannes, France doesn't count!! Anyway, I'm really glad the protagonists got genuinely hurt once again since The Last Crusade and it's great to see Indiana Jones punch Nazis in the face since 1989, which is a great breath of fresh air than say Indy fighting Soviet soldiers with uniforms cleaner than a typical Nazi uniform getup. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull felt way too safe, unoriginal, and riddled with more plot holes than a script can fit in. The Temple of Doom is another example of a film riddled with plot holes and bad characters, but at least it had a lot of effort on its effects, and it tried to tell a story albeit unsuccessfully, although in the wrong date of 1935, instead of 1937 of June or earlier right after Raiders of the Lost Ark, not before.
The reason about why Temple of Doom is set in 1935, one year before Raiders, is because George Lucas didn't want the nazis to be the vilains again, but now imagine an Indy film set in the spanish civil war.
@@jesustovar2549 That would've worked better for Indiana Jones to face off against the Spanish of either side in the middle of the Spanish Civil War in 1937 or begin right at the beginning stages of the Second Sino-Japanese War where Indy was on a legal archeology expedition with Chinese archeologists, but then the Japanese begin to show up out of nowhere and attack everyone for the sake of good drama. Instead, we got The Temple of Doom where Indiana Jones faces off against main villain Indian sacrificial cult God stereotypes and temporary antagonist Chinese mobster stereotypes, which boggles my mind ever since I saw this movie.
Raiders was originally given an (R) rating (there was no PG-13 rating at the time), due to violence, particularly for the moment when Belloq's head exploded (why THAT particular moment, I'm unsure). They wanted to keep Belloq's gruesome fate, so they added flames, hoping it would obscure the head exploding and grant them the (PG) rating they desperately wanted. It worked.😁
I think one of the problems is quite simple. Original movie and a lot of movies at the 80s took an old idea and put a modern spin on it. Indiana Jones old cereals told in a new (at the time) blockbuster way. This movie, as with so many of it's ilk, have taken an old idea and presented it in a now old fashioned way.
I agree the last crusade is the best. In fact, I rank them as follows: 3, 2, 1, 4, 5. Also, Marvel has gotten WORSE with deaging over time. Michael Douglas, RDJ and Michelle Pfeiffer were all done better 2015-2017 than Sam Jackson since 2019. It's amazing that it's getting worse over time.
They’ve given up trying! They think audiences will turn up no matter what and they’re only now learning they will not. Also that ranking is decent! I could be convinced of that
I think he has plenty of flaws but The Force Awakens is a much better version of “franchise plays it safe” than this movie. I feel like he would have made it more fun and dynamic
A much better way of dealing with the Mutt hate would have been to make him awesome in this movie. Opinions on charaters can change. He'd be much older now and no annoying teenager. Wouldn't Crystal Skull be a much more enjoyable rewatch if you thought "Mutt will be awesome in the next one" instead of "that kid's gonna die and Indy will be miserable"?
I could not agree more!!!! People say they’re sour on characters forever but in reality there was more than enough room to give him a rejig as an older wiser man. Henry Jones III could have been great!!!
Don't feel bad, based on the info we had, thinking it would be good is a fair assumption. I'm a lot happier just thinking the Last Crusade ending is the end of Indiana Jones. That's it, they ride off... perfect ending. I saw the Crystal skull one, I just think its OK and fine and if I'm glad I tried it. But I don't need to go back tor the new one. Indiana Jones is 3 movies. And I get on with my day.. I like your video. Its interesting to me that Phoebe Waller-Bridge escapes with barely any criticism.
oversaturation of big budget movies that rely on cgi and intertextuality. audiences aren't awed by cgi stunts unless its avatar level, and people are growing tired of every single franchise being brought back. all the cheaper spectacle movies like john wick 4 and insidious have fared better than all of this big budget stuff and I hope studios take note!
The "critique of capitalism" isn't even a critique of capitalism. Imperialism perhaps, but it's directly against the core tenet of capitalism: defense of property rights. Complain all you want about accumulation of wealth, at least that's actually something that's a direct result of capitalism. But theft is the greatest sin in a capitalist worldview. Disney is complaining about something it knows nothing about despite being successful specifically because of it.
Respectively, I diagree. In my opinion dial of destiny is an actual good indy movie and I would rank it my 3rd favorite. (my ranking; last crusade, raiders, dial, skull, temple of doom). The movie knows ford is to old for indy and constantly shows that, but it also shows as soon as you get indy into the action, he'll take control over the situation and leads the charge of this new adventure. Indy is still as smart as ever, still managing to escape the antagonist in the film when seemingly being put in inescapable scenarios. Harrison is also as charming as ever in the movie and doesn't miss a beat. Also I personally didn't really notice the cgi on Harrison on the train (for the most part) , I agree the opening cgi wasn't good, but I quickly got accustomed to it. This is just my view but I don't think you can judge the me el of ciolince in a movie based on previous ones in the franchise when made around 40 years ago or under a different studio. We know going in this movie won't show extreme violince because of disney, so I wasn't that bothered by it. I didn't like mutt but I agree he prob should be in it. I'm not exactly sure what point your making in mangolds biggest missfire, so I won't touch that. Overall I really enjoyed dial and even though I think these movies should of ended with the last crusade I'm really happy I could finally experience an indy movie in cinema.
@@FullFatVideos I really don't like temple of doom. Watched it recently and i hated it. It's not even got to do with how the tribes were shown or short round or even willy (though I really don't like her character) but I find the story to not be that great and all the characters, (beside indi and maybe shortroun), to not be that well written or just not engaging. Also the train cart section became really boring and felt like it dragged on (have the same complaint for the car chase in dial of destiny). Anyway that's just my opinion. For Dial of destiny, along with liking indi obviously, I liked the two shaws and, and enjoyed voller as well. Beside from that chase scene, the story always kept me engaged and b I didn't feel board by it at all, (also chuckled at some of the jokes in the movie). I also don't really think putting it in my top three is that crazy, there's only 5 of them and on balance 3 of them are considered to be controversial. Like I said before, I would rather have last crusade as the last indy movie, but skull was good enough and with dial I actually really enjoyed it. I to had low expectations for this film but I was pleasantly surprised by it.
@@dylancahill6522 I also want to see this film just to have an experience of watching an Indy movie in theatres (although I don't expect it to be good as the originals), I like Temple of Doom, didn't know some people hated until I found out in the internet, say what you want, I think the opening scene is great, fits the tone for a movie set in the 1930s (I'm just an old Hollywood junky), the action set pieces like the cart chase and the bridge still look great for it's day, and especially Short Round, those are considered some of the best elements in the film. Although Steven Spielberg said that Temple of Doom was his least favorite, after he found out about the bad crticisms the film received, he said that the best thing he could have done was marrying Kate Capshaw who played Willie.
@@jesustovar2549 dial is definitely not as good as the originals (in my view better than temple of doom though). With temple of doom I just don't really like it at all because of what I said above. My opinion, dial is better than temple and skull but I know I'm prob in the minority. If you or anyone don't like it that's fine, as long as we can respect each other of what media we like and dislike. I will try to defend dial of destiny just like you will prob defend temple. Anyway I hope you at least find some enjoyment from this movie cause I do believe there are some parts that's should be enjoyable for anyone 👍 but maybe I'm wrong. BTW I don't love dial, even though its my 3rd, I consider it a big gap between my 2nd rank and the third one, likewise there is also a big gap between my fourth rank and the fifth. Also maybe experiencing this movie as the first indy movie I saw in cinema subconsciously adds to my enjoyment but I'm not sure.
