Flea Bag and the Dial of Destiney

[Dazzle1]

Kathleen Kennedy destroys another beloved franchise

https://cosmicbook.news/indiana-jones-5 ... ally-fired

Almost no one wanted to see Phobie Waller-Bridge as the focus of this franchise except Kathleen Kennedy the Mary Sue and other white male cis gender bashers

You want a female archelogist adventures? Her name is Lara Croft

[shevek]

Kathleen Kennedy destroys another beloved franchise

https://cosmicbook.news/indiana-jones-5 ... ally-fired

Almost no one wanted to see Phobie Waller-Bridge as the focus of this franchise except Kathleen Kennedy the Mary Sue and other white male cis gender bashers

You want a female archelogist adventures? Her name is Lara Croft

I already heard a funny joke about this.

Phoebe Waller-Bridge gets cast as Lara Croft, but not as the one with the small breasts who can fit through crevices (yes that's an actual quote
from Phoebe herself).

Rather, she plays a 50-something Lara Croft (that's about the age she would be if she was the same one from the 1996 video game)
who feels decrepit and worn out from her decades of archeological expeditions, and must be taught and inspired to "live again" by a
young Indiana Jones Jr., who accompanies her on the adventure.

Sound good? One can dare to dream, if turnabout is really fair play.

Also, reboot Relic Hunter.

[Dogfish]

I love the idea that somebody can 'destroy a franchise' centred around an actor who just turned eighty by putting a woman in the movie.

Harrison Ford is not an old man, he is a >very< old man. This thing is done because time is linear and people are mortal.

The amount of crying over this is hilarious.

Reminds me of Picard when people complained because Patrick Stewart seemed old and frail. These lads could drop dead any day. Enjoy what you get.

[Femina]

They have to hire younger actors to do the stunt shit cause Harrison Ford is too old to swing by a whip.

[shevek]

I love the idea that somebody can 'destroy a franchise' centred around an actor who just turned eighty by putting a woman in the movie.

Harrison Ford is not an old man, he is a >very< old man. This thing is done because time is linear and people are mortal.

The amount of crying over this is hilarious.

Reminds me of Picard when people complained because Patrick Stewart seemed old and frail. These lads could drop dead any day. Enjoy what you get.

I would say that there's only a 50% chance that you are correct - i.e. that putting a barely attractive woman as co-lead in a movie (or a casting choice which checks various boxes) has been done over and over again because "time is linear and people are mortal."

I say this because only half of the Earth's population is female, and one would presume that the available pool of actors also hovers around that same percentage.

So, given the universal truth that "time is linear and people are mortal" and the other scientific fact that 50% of humanity is female,
the other 50% of the probability involves some other very specific human motivation which deals with neither facts nor truth, but rather, feelings.

Here's an article interviewing Phoebe Waller-Bridge about the details regarding her upcoming adaptation of Lara Croft.

https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/1300 ... lara-croft

Everyone who is quoting this article (such as our buddy Romanian TVee) is focusing on the quotes about the breasts, because that's what gets clicks on Youtube, but that misses the forest for the trees.

The single most important quote from her is an outright admission: "It's the old Trojan horse." She comes right out and says it.

Read it for yourself.

Also, your mention of complaints about a frail Stewart on "Picard" are strawman. Almost nobody said anything about that in terms of a complaint.
They may have noted the frailty as a feature (I probably did, myself) but not as a bug. The complaints were about other things.

[Visitor]

Putting a young, female lead into a franchise to prop it up, like Yvonne Craig as Batgirl to help sagging ratings in Batman TV series .... How many here objected to that idea?

This was the latest attempt to bring in a younger character to provide a spin off for the series after they tried it in the last film. Now if they tried to do the Last Crusade with Ford as the Connery character, being the father, they might have a better plot. At least we wouldn't expect stunt doubles for all of his action scenes.

[Mr. X]

I think the next Superman should be Elliot Page.

[Mr. X]

Putting a young, female lead into a franchise to prop it up, like Yvonne Craig as Batgirl to help sagging ratings in Batman TV series .... How many here objected to that idea?

This was the latest attempt to bring in a younger character to provide a spin off for the series after they tried it in the last film. Now if they tried to do the Last Crusade with Ford as the Connery character, being the father, they might have a better plot. At least we wouldn't expect stunt doubles for all of his action scenes.

I want to applaud Disney and Lucas films for having a young trans woman as the first trans person lead in a major release.

[Dazzle1]

Putting a young, female lead into a franchise to prop it up, like Yvonne Craig as Batgirl to help sagging ratings in Batman TV series .... How many here objected to that idea?

This was the latest attempt to bring in a younger character to provide a spin off for the series after they tried it in the last film. Now if they tried to do the Last Crusade with Ford as the Connery character, being the father, they might have a better plot. At least we wouldn't expect stunt doubles for all of his action scenes.

Yes but the show was still Batman and other than the Pilot, Adam West still was the focus and ended doing most of the heroics and problem solving.

[Dazzle1]

I love the idea that somebody can 'destroy a franchise' centred around an actor who just turned eighty by putting a woman in the movie.

Harrison Ford is not an old man, he is a >very< old man. This thing is done because time is linear and people are mortal.

The amount of crying over this is hilarious.

Reminds me of Picard when people complained because Patrick Stewart seemed old and frail. These lads could drop dead any day. Enjoy what you get.

It's not crying as much as pointing out reality.

Most Star Wars fans would have prefered Luke, Leia and Han to be recast and have Heir to the Empire(Thrawn Trilogy) than the Rey Trilogy

How much call was there for another Indiana Jones film? Now I thought Crystal Skull was not as bad as some people, I thought it was better than the second movie.

As far as Picard what I disliked was all thechanges of making Starfleet weak and corrup, a negative future instead of the positive one that Star Trek had been and focusing on 7 of 9( a character I have always hated)

[Maskripper]

I love the idea that somebody can 'destroy a franchise' centred around an actor who just turned eighty by putting a woman in the movie.

Harrison Ford is not an old man, he is a >very< old man. This thing is done because time is linear and people are mortal.

The amount of crying over this is hilarious.

Reminds me of Picard when people complained because Patrick Stewart seemed old and frail. These lads could drop dead any day. Enjoy what you get.

Since the "thank you" button is gone...

-
I am blocking some Youtube channels each day from getting recommended to me in the future again.
They seem to have a competition on who hates the movie the most.
I will watch the movie in the cinema in the next few days.
I don't expect that much, but it's Indiana Jones... I will watch it, no matter what.

[Mr. X]

I love the idea that somebody can 'destroy a franchise' centred around an actor who just turned eighty by putting a woman in the movie.

Oh yeah. I hated the Wonder Woman show cause they had a yucky woman in it. Same with Batgirl on Batman. Same with Black Scorpion. Yup those darn yucky women.

[shevek]

I love the idea that somebody can 'destroy a franchise' centred around an actor who just turned eighty by putting a woman in the movie.

Oh yeah. I hated the Wonder Woman show cause they had a yucky woman in it. Same with Batgirl on Batman. Same with Black Scorpion. Yup those darn yucky women.

Watched it (thanks, Brazil).

Nazis are bad, but they put us on the moon. Archimedes invented a time machine. The CIA employs a female Shaft (shut yo mouth).
Those are all fun conceptual juxtapositions for a movie.

However, the character played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge is an unlikeable, unattractive know-it-all.
She's supposed to have been the sexual obsession of a Moroccan gangster?
She's supposed to be horny enough to have constant fleeting interest in young virile men at every exotic locale?
She's supposed to be charismatic enough to bring a young teenage boy (hmmmm....) with her all around the world who barely gets paid?
She can identify an ancient script which doesn't exist? (no such script as 'Polibius', he's a Greek writer. However, Linear B is a real thing, so they
should have just used that. Why make it up if everything else in the movie has a factual basis?)
Press X to doubt about all of these things.
Plus, I'm guessing she will characterize Lara Croft in the same manner if she gets a hold of that franchise.

Yes, the very intentional characterization of this particular female character (not every female character ever, so please cease straw-woman-ing) detracted from enjoyment of this particular movie. I'm sure it did for many. It's not the only reason people aren't feeling this movie, but it's one of them.

I will say that it's pretty cool that Welshman John Rhys-Davies is still around as Sallah in 2023, especially given his 'incorrect' opinions.
It was cute to see his whole family. I think it would be hilarious if there was a spinoff TV series about Sallah's adventures as a cab driver in New York City in the 70s. They could call it "Taksim Driver". Who's with me?

[sugarcoater]

Seems like the issue is taking the spotlight and heroism off of Indiana Jones and placing it onto the female character. If this is the case--and I can't say as I have no plans of wasting two hours watching something made simply to cash in one more time off a franchise--then the reason for the movie's failure would seem to be the same as the reason I am not planning on seeing it. The first three movies were fun adventure movies in interesting locations with an engaging connection to some historical artifacts with a cocky, humorous yet likable male protagonist. From what I have heard and read about this latest entry into the franchise, the movie is more about handing over the franchise to a somewhat unlikeable female protagonist who knows better than the original protagonist and has to correct him. I imagine this would not appeal to most Indiana Jones fans.

As has been posted, Harrison Ford is long past his days as an action hero, which is not a criticism but merely the obvious admission that time impacts all of us. The problem is a combination of a total lack of originality in Hollywood and, ironically, difficulty finding new actors who can create a similar persona.

But that's just my two cents and my perspective as an Indiana Jones fan who really enjoyed the first three, found the fourth uninspiring and over-the-top with the absurd stunts, and am skipping the fifth.

[DrDominator9]

I believe that Ford honestly wanted to show the conclusion of Indy's run in an interesting send-off for the character. At least that's what I got from some interviews I saw. How that coalesced into the movie around that send off was probably out of Ford's control. I will see it for sure but it may not be in a theater where I pay for a ticket.

A lot of disappointment at the box office for the summer tentpole offerings. Guess America's entertainment conglomerates need to pay writers what they deserve for coming up with the next generation of must see original characters.

[lionbadger]

I couldn't care less about Indiana Jones, I might watch it if it is on tv but I'm nevvr paying to watch it, it's probably targeted at people 50+ who were excited by the originals from 40 years ago

And Harrison Ford is one of the most overrated and over indulged actors in history

Don't care about phoebe waller bridge either, another classic bbc bored aristo with nothing better to do

[Mr. X]

lionbadger

[Mr. X]

The thing I don't get about Bridges is she represents no demographic except Kennedy herself. Sasha as Supergirl represents a young girl generation that would see a super hero movie. Who does Bridges represent? Clearly not young girls.

[sugarcoater]

I believe that Ford honestly wanted to show the conclusion of Indy's run in an interesting send-off for the character. At least that's what I got from some interviews I saw. How that coalesced into the movie around that send off was probably out of Ford's control. I will see it for sure but it may not be in a theater where I pay for a ticket.

A lot of disappointment at the box office for the summer tentpole offerings. Guess America's entertainment conglomerates need to pay writers what they deserve for coming up with the next generation of must see original characters.

But weren't the summer movies written/scripted prior to the writers' strike? My guess is the current movies were written well before the strike, which makes me all-the-less interested in the late 2023/early 2024 offerings.

[lionbadger]

The thing I don't get about Bridges is she represents no demographic except Kennedy herself. Sasha as Supergirl represents a young girl generation that would see a super hero movie. Who does Bridges represent? Clearly not young girls.

it doesn't matter, not sure what demographic they are going for with 80 year lecturer who can go off chasing weird artifacts, the premise is boring

I hate to admit it but the big bang theory hit the nail on the head years ago when they pointed out the Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't need Indiana Jones it at all and it would still come out the same

[DrDominator9]

I believe that Ford honestly wanted to show the conclusion of Indy's run in an interesting send-off for the character. At least that's what I got from some interviews I saw. How that coalesced into the movie around that send off was probably out of Ford's control. I will see it for sure but it may not be in a theater where I pay for a ticket.

A lot of disappointment at the box office for the summer tentpole offerings. Guess America's entertainment conglomerates need to pay writers what they deserve for coming up with the next generation of must see original characters.

But weren't the summer movies written/scripted prior to the writers' strike? My guess is the current movies were written well before the strike, which makes me all-the-less interested in the late 2023/early 2024 offerings.

I was being too cute with my remarks about the writers strike. It has very little to do with the mindset of Hollywood which is to follow the "easy" money of making sequels and copycat scenarios of anything that already succeeded. On paper it seems safe. But it doesn't take into account people with no vision or, worse yet, with visions of following a random thread designed to disparage the heart of a successful trope or character merely to satisfy a power trip which is what sounds like is happening in Dial of Destiny. Hard to know how Kennedy built into such a powerful executive with so little feel for what will work best with an audience.

Besides...Temple of Doom was no great prize of a sequel either. Too cold and heartless a script that had to be corrected by the great third movie The Last Crusade.

[shevek]

I hate to admit it but the big bang theory hit the nail on the head years ago when they pointed out the Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't need Indiana Jones it at all and it would still come out the same

This has already been disproven.

The fact that Indy kept bothering the Nazis and frustrating their plans caused Belloq to jump the gun and open the Ark in the desert
instead of waiting until he got to Berlin.

Thus Indy either did one of two things:

1) He either prevented Hitler's early and untimely death when Hitler would have opened the Ark in Berlin and melted his face off.
Thus allowing Hitler to start World War II and causing millions upon millions of deaths.

2) Or, he pushed Belloq into causing his own death by melting his own face off.
Which prevented Hitler from possibly (and cautiously) harnessing the power of the Ark, which would have allowed him to conquer
Europe with ease.

But I thought of another idea. Even if Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't need Indiana Jones, it still needs the Nazis.
Because presumably Belloq and his soldiers' faces were burned off because they were evil.

Let's say that random American archeologist Indiana Jones was replaced with a lead character who was specific and "chosen".

Like a Jewish archeologist who happens to be a descendant of the ancient prophetic line of Moses or the kingly line of David.
Both lineages were allowed to look at the Ark either in the Tabernacle or in the Temple, if my Biblical recollections are accurate.

He also happens to be a mensch with fairly pure heroic motives and an aw-shucks down-to-earth demeanor.
(He could be played by Jeff Goldblum, for example)

After he witnesses the Nazis getting their faces burned out, this person just approaches the Ark like it's a Tuesday.

This person's bloodline would allow them not just to haul away the Ark and store it in a vast warehouse of artifacts, like what happened with Indy.
Instead, the protagonist would actively use the Ark and become infused with its power, letting it remain in the Holy Land.

He then re-establishes the Kingdom of Israel, brings most of the Jews home to Zion, and builds the Third Temple, being hailed as the long-awaited Davidic Messiah since he has the powers of the Ark to back him up.

The Arabs try to invade but it's not big deal - the Ark just burns them all to cinders when their armies try to cross over into the borders of Canaan.
They try to launch some nukes from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran, but the Ark just turns the missiles back where they came from, and obliterates
Cairo, Riyadh and Tehran.

Everyone else in the Middle East figures they'd better just live and let live in peace. No Arab-Israeli conflict.

With the power of the Ark, that not even nuclear weapons can beat, the newly emboldened Third Kingdom of Israel becomes the greatest power on Earth, banning all nuclear weapons and forbidding all armed conflict between nations.

A Golden Age ensues during which disease is cured, disasters are mitigated against, and hunger and suffering are eliminated, all by applying the mighty divine power of the Ark.

Then, humanity heads for the stars, united in purpose and backed up by the power of the divine to bring the message of God to all intelligent life in the universe. Maybe little pieces of the Ten Commandments could power these starships.

[Mr. X]

In most of those old serials the hero really didn't do much other than run around, get in a fight, save a girl, rinse/repeat.
As far as demographics the 80 plus actor appealed to the legacy fan base and the idea of handing off to a younger generation was pretty present as a theme. But Bridge is NOT that younger generation. I think Shalo (sp?) was supposed to be that in Crystal Skull. I can't think of any demographic she appeals to, even Karens. I was expecting a young black person perhaps... maybe that would make sense. Does anyone think she appeals to the Chinese crowd?

[Femina]

Is Shia really SO unpopular they couldn't bring him back? I sorta feel like this movie ought to have been Indy's son on an adventure with Jones acting support... like the 'Sean Connery' to his Indy in 'Crusade'. Did he not WANT to come back?

[Mr. X]

Is Shia really SO unpopular they couldn't bring him back? I sorta feel like this movie ought to have been Indy's son on an adventure with Jones acting support... like the 'Sean Connery' to his Indy in 'Crusade'. Did he not WANT to come back?

I don't think so but he maybe difficult to work with. Ed Norton is also supposedly very difficult to work with.

[Femina]

Is Shia really SO unpopular they couldn't bring him back? I sorta feel like this movie ought to have been Indy's son on an adventure with Jones acting support... like the 'Sean Connery' to his Indy in 'Crusade'. Did he not WANT to come back?

I don't think so but he maybe difficult to work with. Ed Norton is also supposedly very difficult to work with.

Yes Norton is a hyper controlling. He tries to take over production on everything he works on... he needs to stop taking gigs and JUST direct/star in things he's directing. Sad thing is he's a good actor and his changes to things generally make the thing better..... but it makes him utterly infuriating to work with. Was supposedly so bad the Director of Malcom X asked to have his name taken OFF the credits because it was so much more Norton's edit of the film than his. Nobody whose trying to make a thing wants/needs another creative looking over their shoulder pushing their version of the thing so.... I probably wouldn't hire him either.

Shia DOES strike me as someone who'd be a pain to work with just going by his public antics... if he's the same while WORKING that prolly wouldn't be worth it.

[Dazzle1]

Is Shia really SO unpopular they couldn't bring him back? I sorta feel like this movie ought to have been Indy's son on an adventure with Jones acting support... like the 'Sean Connery' to his Indy in 'Crusade'. Did he not WANT to come back?

I don't think so but he maybe difficult to work with. Ed Norton is also supposedly very difficult to work with.

Yes Norton is a hyper controlling. He tries to take over production on everything he works on... he needs to stop taking gigs and JUST direct/star in things he's directing. Sad thing is he's a good actor and his changes to things generally make the thing better..... but it makes him utterly infuriating to work with. Was supposedly so bad the Director of Malcom X asked to have his name taken OFF the credits because it was so much more Norton's edit of the film than his. Nobody whose trying to make a thing wants/needs another creative looking over their shoulder pushing their version of the thing so.... I probably wouldn't hire him either.

Shia DOES strike me as someone who'd be a pain to work with just going by his public antics... if he's the same while WORKING that prolly wouldn't be worth it.

One of my favorite non seperheroine movies Edward Norton is in is the Illusionist. Mark Ruffallo is such a jerk, Norton would have been better kept as the Hulk.

[shevek]

Best line: "This is a Star Wars!" Followed by "Copy paste, baybee!"

[Victor]

I love the idea that somebody can 'destroy a franchise' centred around an actor who just turned eighty by putting a woman in the movie.

Harrison Ford is not an old man, he is a >very< old man. This thing is done because time is linear and people are mortal.

The amount of crying over this is hilarious.

Reminds me of Picard when people complained because Patrick Stewart seemed old and frail. These lads could drop dead any day. Enjoy what you get.

I didn't watch Picard, but from what I've seen, the main complaint was the bad writing, not that Stewart is old. Some people mentioned his age, but the most complaints were the bad writing. And the complaints turned to praises for Season 3 when Terry Matalas was given full control and Alex Kurtzman no longer influenced the show. Reviewers who hated seasons 1 and 2 were raving about Season 3, and no one was complaining about Stewart's age though he was three years older in Season 3.

Not a woman: a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue is not a female character but a device to make a political point and influence culture. And Kathleen Kennedy destroyed Star Wars and Willow the same way. Willow failed so badly that Disney removed it from their streaming services to get a tax break. People love Cobra Kai. Those actors are in their late 50s and early 60s. Granted, they do look younger than their ages, but the writing is so good. I think Lucasfilm could have pulled off Indiana Jones if they had a good script and cared about the story more than Kennedy's agenda. One of the great sitcoms of all times is The Golden Girls. At first, I didn't have a desire to watch it because it was three old ladies, but once I did, I saw the show was awesome, one of the funniest sitcoms of all time, a classic.

And imagine the hubris of Kathleen Kennedy and Bob Iger. George Lucas gave them a treatment for the sequel trilogy, and they threw it out. Bob Iger wanted to start off by cloning the original series, and Kennedy only cared about having a Mary Sue as the protagonist. That was her one demand. Kennedy didn't even bother to have someone plot out the full story arc of the trilogy but left each movie up to each individual director, which shows how little she cares about the story.

[Dazzle1]

I love the idea that somebody can 'destroy a franchise' centred around an actor who just turned eighty by putting a woman in the movie.

Harrison Ford is not an old man, he is a >very< old man. This thing is done because time is linear and people are mortal.

The amount of crying over this is hilarious.

Reminds me of Picard when people complained because Patrick Stewart seemed old and frail. These lads could drop dead any day. Enjoy what you get.

I didn't watch Picard, but from what I've seen, the main complaint was the bad writing, not that Stewart is old. Some people mentioned his age, but the most complaints were the bad writing. And the complaints turned to praises for Season 3 when Terry Matalas was given full control and Alex Kurtzman no longer influenced the show. Reviewers who hated seasons 1 and 2 were raving about Season 3, and no one was complaining about Stewart's age though he was three years older in Season 3.

Not a woman: a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue is not a female character but a device to make a political point and influence culture. And Kathleen Kennedy destroyed Star Wars and Willow the same way. Willow failed so badly that Disney removed it from their streaming services to get a tax break. People love Cobra Kai. Those actors are in their late 50s and early 60s. Granted, they do look younger than their ages, but the writing is so good. I think Lucasfilm could have pulled off Indiana Jones if they had a good script and cared about the story more than Kennedy's agenda. One of the great sitcoms of all times is The Golden Girls. At first, I didn't have a desire to watch it because it was three old ladies, but once I did, I saw the show was awesome, one of the funniest sitcoms of all time, a classic.

And imagine the hubris of Kathleen Kennedy and Bob Iger. George Lucas gave them a treatment for the sequel trilogy, and they threw it out. Bob Iger wanted to start off by cloning the original series, and Kennedy only cared about having a Mary Sue as the protagonist. That was her one demand. Kennedy didn't even bother to have someone plot out the full story arc of the trilogy but left each movie up to each individual director, which shows how little she cares about the story.

There is no doubt that Kathleen Kennedy was more interested in promoting her Mary Sue Agenda than anything else.

[Dazzle1]

I hate to admit it but the big bang theory hit the nail on the head years ago when they pointed out the Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't need Indiana Jones it at all and it would still come out the same

This has already been disproven.

The fact that Indy kept bothering the Nazis and frustrating their plans caused Belloq to jump the gun and open the Ark in the desert
instead of waiting until he got to Berlin.

Thus Indy either did one of two things:

1) He either prevented Hitler's early and untimely death when Hitler would have opened the Ark in Berlin and melted his face off.
Thus allowing Hitler to start World War II and causing millions upon millions of deaths.

2) Or, he pushed Belloq into causing his own death by melting his own face off.
Which prevented Hitler from possibly (and cautiously) harnessing the power of the Ark, which would have allowed him to conquer
Europe with ease.

But I thought of another idea. Even if Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't need Indiana Jones, it still needs the Nazis.
Because presumably Belloq and his soldiers' faces were burned off because they were evil.

Let's say that random American archeologist Indiana Jones was replaced with a lead character who was specific and "chosen".

Like a Jewish archeologist who happens to be a descendant of the ancient prophetic line of Moses or the kingly line of David.
Both lineages were allowed to look at the Ark either in the Tabernacle or in the Temple, if my Biblical recollections are accurate.

He also happens to be a mensch with fairly pure heroic motives and an aw-shucks down-to-earth demeanor.
(He could be played by Jeff Goldblum, for example)

As a Zionist, I would love to see more Jews and Israeli in miansteam action films but it won't happen. Too much of the world Hollywood markets to is anti-Semitic. Same reason Bond has never teamed with a Mossad agent. It's know Fleming was anti-Semitic but the last several films are not based on his books. Gal Gadot would have been great for this role.

[Dazzle1]

I believe that Ford honestly wanted to show the conclusion of Indy's run in an interesting send-off for the character. At least that's what I got from some interviews I saw. How that coalesced into the movie around that send off was probably out of Ford's control. I will see it for sure but it may not be in a theater where I pay for a ticket.

A lot of disappointment at the box office for the summer tentpole offerings. Guess America's entertainment conglomerates need to pay writers what they deserve for coming up with the next generation of must see original characters.

But weren't the summer movies written/scripted prior to the writers' strike? My guess is the current movies were written well before the strike, which makes me all-the-less interested in the late 2023/early 2024 offerings.

I was being too cute with my remarks about the writers strike. It has very little to do with the mindset of Hollywood which is to follow the "easy" money of making sequels and copycat scenarios of anything that already succeeded. On paper it seems safe. But it doesn't take into account people with no vision or, worse yet, with visions of following a random thread designed to disparage the heart of a successful trope or character merely to satisfy a power trip which is what sounds like is happening in Dial of Destiny. Hard to know how Kennedy built into such a powerful executive with so little feel for what will work best with an audience.

Besides...Temple of Doom was no great prize of a sequel either. Too cold and heartless a script that had to be corrected by the great third movie The Last Crusade.

I never thought the Temple of Doom fit in with the rest of the saga. His ward/sidekick is never seen again. It's a prequel to Raiders.

[Lurkndog]

You want a female archelogist adventures? Her name is Lara Croft

Or, more on point, Marion Ravenwood.

[Lurkndog]

I never thought the Temple of Doom fit in with the rest of the saga. His ward/sidekick is never seen again. It's a prequel to Raiders.

I mean, it fits in pretty well in an Indiana Jones movie marathon, as an intermission.

Watch Raiders, watch part of Temple of Doom until you get tired of it, then wander off for food and a bathroom break, talk to people, and regroup for Last Crusade.

Dunno about Crystal Skull, it wasn't out yet the last time my friends did a movie marathon.

[Lurkndog]

Is Shia really SO unpopular they couldn't bring him back? I sorta feel like this movie ought to have been Indy's son on an adventure with Jones acting support... like the 'Sean Connery' to his Indy in 'Crusade'. Did he not WANT to come back?

In hindsight, it does seem like the path not taken.

Though I think Shia has become more of a character actor than a leading man.

Sean Patrick Flannery played the role in Young Indiana Jones, and has aged into looking the part of adult Indy pretty well.

[Mr. X]

Sean Patrick Flannery played the role in Young Indiana Jones, and has aged into looking the part of adult Indy pretty well.

I was going to say River Phoenix died then realized there was a Young Indiana Jones series.

[Victor]

Is Shia really SO unpopular they couldn't bring him back? I sorta feel like this movie ought to have been Indy's son on an adventure with Jones acting support... like the 'Sean Connery' to his Indy in 'Crusade'. Did he not WANT to come back?

Good point. But that is not what Kennedy does. She could have even recast Indy's son, but she wanted to replace the male hero with a Mary Sue, like she does in all her movies and shows. Even in the one show that was successful, The Mandalorian, she replaced him with a Mary Sue in season 3, and season 3 flopped.

[heroinehunter]

I love the character of Indiana Jones. I was the first one on line for Temple of Doom way back in '84 in the days of the duplex. I actually have the pic to prove it. Being such a fan, I saw the very first showing of 'Destiny' last Thursday at 3p - opening day. I wanted to see other viewers reactions before I post my own.

It's on par with "Crystal Skull'. There are some good, fun, entertaining bits. There are also some bits that are bad and make a fan want to cringe.

Back when 'Crystal Skull' was released, a friend asked me about it. I told him, "Harrison is in his late 60's. It's amazing what you can do with a stunt double, CGI, and quick edits." When he asked me, "how did Harrison move around in 'Dial' at the age of 78 years old?", I told him the same exact thing. Stunt double, CGI, and quick edits. In a scene where Indy and Helena are sitting at a restaurant talking, you can actually see Harrison's right hand shake slightly like an 78 year old man.

Also, I joked that, after Dad is in 'Crusade' and son is in 'Crystal Skull', what family member are we going to get in the next one? The grandson or granddaughter? Nah, we got the goddaughter. The audience wants Indiana Jones and only Indy. You know, the guy running away from a massive boulder or hanging on to the front of a speeding truck for dear life before he manages to slide underneath it. Not Indiana Jones and now comes the family dog for the ride. The addition of a family member worked in one film, and it was really good. It's a mistake to keep going with that idea just for the sake of making the film 'family friendly'.

Lastly, the concept and world of Indiana Jones is developed by three people : George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford. Two out of three people are not involved in this film.

I was entertained and extremely happy to see one of my all time favorite cinematic characters of all time, Indiana Jones, back on the big screen. But I'm also happy that this is the last one.

[Lurkndog]

Lastly, the concept and world of Indiana Jones is developed by three people : George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford. Two out of three people are not involved in this film.

That's actually a really good point. Lucas, with Spielberg to rein him in, is definitely part of the magic. His love of history and film history show through in the better installments of the series. The best parts of Crystal Skull were Indy on the stage of history, the worst parts were the sci fi elements.

[Lurkndog]

I hate to admit it but the big bang theory hit the nail on the head years ago when they pointed out the Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't need Indiana Jones it at all and it would still come out the same

If Indy stays home, the Nazis murder Marion in Act 1, get the Ark in act 2, and fly it to Berlin in the flying wing.

Even if their hubris still destroys them, you still need Indy there to take the Ark to safety afterwards.

Plus, none of the best scenes in the movie happen. No Cairo Swordsman, no truck chase, no archaeology-fu, no monkey, no nothing.

[Mr. X]

If Indy stays home, the Nazis murder Marion in Act 1, get the Ark in act 2, and fly it to Berlin in the flying wing.

And Hitler dies.

I think they still would have taken the Ark to the island and opened it there first just in case.