Action-Adventure Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

[Iceman]

yup, i see this as a decent epilogue to the character of indiana jones we know and love.

that one last great adventure.
he's much older now so he can't get into as much fisticuffs or jumping out of moving vehicles as he did back then, but he still has some gas left in the tank.

for me, there hasn't really been any bad film in this series.

it's just that the best indy films (raiders and last crusade, imo) are so great, they probably outshine the rest.

Yeah, that’s how I see it. Nothing terrible, just 2 great standout all timers within the franchise.

 

[DyeLorean]

Honestly, I think I disliked this more over time. Especially after I saw how awesome Godzilla Minus One was on a much smaller budget. This was just.....blah and forgettable

I'm sorry, I don't understand the correlation. What does Godzilla Minus One have to do with this?!

 

[Deck Rickard]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the correlation. What does Godzilla Minus One have to do with this?!

I can’t speak for him but I think what he’s saying is that GMO managed to be a gripping film with great characters and stunning special effects even though it was made on a shoestring budget. Yet here’s Indy 5, with a pricetag of $300 million, and we got a really bland, generic movie that adds little to nothing to a once great franchise.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the correlation. What does Godzilla Minus One have to do with this?!

That was made on $30 mil and was a lot more dynamic and largely just had better story and direction than this blockbuster that had 300 mil and all the world's resources, and it was just meh. And it isn't just Indy 5, there were a lot of movies that were just wastes of massive amounts of money on garbage

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Budgets have gotten absurdly out of control, it's like studios think they can just drop 150-300 million on a film/show and expect huge success and they just refuse to learn their lesson.

 

[DyeLorean]

I can’t speak for him but I think what he’s saying is that GMO managed to be a gripping film with great characters and stunning special effects even though it was made on a shoestring budget. Yet here’s Indy 5, with a pricetag of $300 million, and we got a really bland, generic movie that adds little to nothing to a once great franchise.

I don't think Dial of Destiny's problems are tied to its budget. In any case, if it isn't as strong as previous entries is because of the script.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't think Dial of Destiny's problems are tied to its budget. In any case, if it isn't as strong as previous entries is because of the script.

It grossed more than the other big disasters of 2023. Something like The Flash or The Marvels were bombs no matter what, but Indy's problem largely was its budget.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

This probably should've been $125 million tops with its budget, I don't get how anyone thought spending so much on an Indiana Jones film starring an 80 year old Harrison Ford was a good idea, it was always going to be a bit of a hard sell, especially when you also factor in post-Covid's unpredictable box offices numbers and the fourth film already leaving people a bit uncertain about watching a past his prime Indy going on adventures, and that was well over a decade ago. They needed to reign in their ambitions for this and make something cheaper.

 

[Deck Rickard]

So, is this the end for Indy then, do you think? Aside from the upcoming video game from Bethesda, is Indy just done at this point? I don’t think there is much interest in any more Old Indy adventures. But a recast or a spinoff probably wouldn’t go over well either.

I don’t know. I feel like Disney has really painted themselves into a corner lately with their apparent “no character can ever be recast” rule. I’m of the mind that any role can be recast; you just need to find the right replacement. Look how many Batmen and James Bonds we’ve had. I guess you can make the argument that Indy is different in that the character largely hinged on Ford’s charisma and persona. But couldn’t the same have once been said about Sean Connery and James Bond? That said, I don’t know if the interest is there for more Indy adventures, even with a recast. Maybe though. Maybe a TV series about a younger (though not “Young Indy” again, good God) Indy could work if the production value is good?

 

[Drizzle]

So, is this the end for Indy then, do you think? Aside from the upcoming video game from Bethesda, is Indy just done at this point? I don’t think there is much interest in any more Old Indy adventures. But a recast or a spinoff probably wouldn’t go over well either.

I don’t know. I feel like Disney has really painted themselves into a corner lately with their apparent “no character can ever be recast” rule. I’m of the mind that any role can be recast; you just need to find the right replacement. Look how many Batmen and James Bonds we’ve had. I guess you can make the argument that Indy is different in that the character largely hinged on Ford’s charisma and persona. But couldn’t the same have once been said about Sean Connery and James Bond? That said, I don’t know if the interest is there for more Indy adventures, even with a recast. Maybe though. Maybe a TV series about a younger (though not “Young Indy” again, good God) Indy could work if the production value is good?

The difference between Indy and Bond is that Bond existed as a character before Sean Connery was cast in the role. Indiana Jones originated with Harrison Ford and is therefore synonymous with him. It's easier to recast characters like Bond or Dracula or Batman or Spider-Man because they originated in books and comics and aren't synonymous with any one actor in particular.

 

[DarkKnight88]

They also were done fairly early into the series. Each recast was within a decade of release.

Maaaaybe Star Trek is the only comparable media where they recast iconic actors playing iconic characters 40+ years later.

 

[Drizzle]

They also were done fairly early into the series. Each recast was within a decade of release.

Maaaaybe Star Trek is the only comparable media where they recast iconic actors playing iconic characters 40+ years later.

I more or less loop the newer Star Trek movies in with Solo: A Star Wars Story and The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles in the sense that the older, classic versions of the characters still exist in that universe in some form. It's more complicated with the separate timeline in the Abramsverse but Nimoy was still along for the ride, and there was also this moment from Beyond:

 

[Spider-Fan]

The difference between Indy and Bond is that Bond existed as a character before Sean Connery was cast in the role. Indiana Jones originated with Harrison Ford and is therefore synonymous with him. It's easier to recast characters like Bond or Dracula or Batman or Spider-Man because they originated in books and comics and aren't synonymous with any one actor in particular.

That is an arbitrary distinction. Yeah, Bond existed, but books and films are different mediums. Dracula never existed on film until he was adapted. Same for any character making their on screen debut. This argument to me is just an excuse people make cause they don't want to see a recast happen, but I think it's nonsensical. Every role is a first role somewhere. This entire line of logic stems from Batman and such already having a history of being recast while Indy doesn't. But at some point that wasn't the case

Let's also ask this: what harm is there in recasting? Does a new Indy erase Ford's work from history? Does it devalue a franchise thats already heavily devalued? What actual harm does recasting Indy tangibly do, cause I don't see any. It's one thing if you wanna argue remaking a great cinema classic like Casablanca or The Godfather, but Indiana Jones is a big dumb blockbuster they make toys and merchandise. So that argument doesn't apply

 

[DyeLorean]

That is an arbitrary distinction. Yeah, Bond existed, but books and films are different mediums. Dracula never existed on film until he was adapted. Same for any character making their on screen debut. This argument to me is just an excuse people make cause they don't want to see a recast happen, but I think it's nonsensical. Every role is a first role somewhere.

Let's also ask this: what harm is there in recasting? Does a new Indy erase Ford's work from history? Does it devalue a franchise thats already heavily devalued? What actual harm does recasting Indy tangibly do, cause I don't see any

The main difference between Indy and Bond, for me, is that Bond exists in real time. When is 2023, the character exists in 2023. They can just keep going. But Indiana Jones is very much a character that works in the past.
If they do recast, what is it gonna be? New adventures set between 1930 and 1960. Just filling gaps in Indy's life. Which is something the Star Wars universe has been doing for years now, explaining every single thing, filling every single gap in a character's life. And, honestly, I don't like that. There's nothing wrong with having some closure with certain characters. I'm fine with having some mystery, unexplained things. If I want more Indy adventures, there are many books and novels already.

 

[Drizzle]

That is an arbitrary distinction. Yeah, Bond existed, but books and films are different mediums. Dracula never existed on film until he was adapted. Same for any character making their on screen debut. This argument to me is just an excuse people make cause they don't want to see a recast happen, but I think it's nonsensical. Every role is a first role somewhere.

Let's also ask this: what harm is there in recasting? Does a new Indy erase Ford's work from history? Does it devalue a franchise thats already heavily devalued? What actual harm does recasting Indy tangibly do, cause I don't see any

I think there's merit to the argument. There's a reason why Batman and Bond recastings have been more generally accepted by audiences than characters that originated on film like Freddy Krueger, Robocop or even Buzz Lightyear. The one major exception to the rule that comes to mind for me is Mad Max but Fury Road as a movie is much bigger than the character.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The main difference between Indy and Bond, for me, is that Bond exists in real time. When is 2023, the character exists in 2023. They can just keep going. But Indiana Jones is very much a character that works in the past.
If they do recast, what is it gonna be? New adventures set between 1930 and 1960. Just filling gaps in Indy's life. Which is something the Star Wars universe has been doing for years now, explaining every single thing, filling every single gap in a character's life. And, honestly, I don't like that. There's nothing wrong with having some closure with certain characters. I'm fine with having some mystery, unexplained things. If I want more Indy adventures, there are many books and novels already.

Indiana Jones is a character based on serial icons. So I have never seen the series as being about living his life from A to B. Though they incorporated those elements as they worked with older Indy. But at its core, he is a treasure hunter and there is nothing wrong with just making movies about Indiana Jones chasing whatever the object of the day is. It doesn't have to have this super tight continuity, IMO. Just do it like Doctor Who. Yeah, it's all in continuity but don't overthink it. And yeah, sure there doesn't NEED to be more Indiana Jones. But we also did not NEED Dial of Destiny, either. And given the game coming out, it's clear the intent was to bring Indy back so he could be another IP for Disney to make money off of long term. DoD wasn't the best movie to make that a reality IMO

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think there's merit to the argument. There's a reason why Batman and Bond recastings have been more generally accepted by audiences than characters that originated on film like Freddy Krueger, Robocop or even Buzz Lightyear. The one major exception to the rule that comes to mind for me is Mad Max but Fury Road as a movie is much bigger than the character.

Movie quality had a lot to do with those examples you provided. If those had been higher quality movies, I bet you they'd have been fine with the recast. Which is why Fury Road worked and the others did not

 

[Sithborg]

Yeah, because no one accepted the new younger Obi-wan Kenobi. And really, focusing on the casting of those movies rather than the myriad other issues as to why those movies aren't liked is cherrypicking.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah, good points about Obi-Wan and Fury Road. In the case of Fury Road specifically, I remember seeing posts from people bemoaning the absence of Gibson before it came out. But then the movie was released and I think it shut a lot of people up, because even if they didn’t care for Hardy’s take on the character, the movie itself was so good that it didn’t matter. As for me personally, I prefer Hardy’s unhinged Max over Gibson’s more stoic version.

 

[Drizzle]

Yeah, because no one accepted the new younger Obi-wan Kenobi. And really, focusing on the casting of those movies rather than the myriad other issues as to why those movies aren't liked is cherrypicking.

Obi-Wan isn't the best example to use since he was always supposed to be a younger version of the character within the same continuity. If they were to do a live action Star Wars show or movie set during the same time as the original trilogy with entirely new actors playing Luke, Han and Leia, it's a guarantee that wouldn't go over well at all.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Indy will eventually be recast.

It's inevitable.

 

[Arachnerd]

Chris Pratt, anyone?

 

[chintai80]

i can only see them doing prequels with indy at this point.

like the tv show - young indy in his late teens to 20s in his early adventures.

like when he first met marion, sallah,..., an early quest that would define who he is when we see him in temple of doom, etc

 

[Deck Rickard]

Chris Pratt, anyone?

Tom Holland!

 

[Sithborg]

i can only see them doing prequels with indy at this point.

like the tv show - young indy in his late teens to 20s in his early adventures.

like when he first met marion, sallah,..., an early quest that would define who he is when we see him in temple of doom, etc

I am pretty certain we are not going to see the first time he met Marion.....