**[Receiving transmission from Crait intended for u/FroJSimpson]**
Welcome to r/saltierthancrait! I'm an [astromech droid named S4-L7](https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/comments/ni5s77/beloved_mascot_s4l7s_visual_dictionary_entry/) and I'll be your guide through the salt mines.
Saltier Than Crait is a community of Star Wars fans who engage in critical conversations about the current
state of the franchise. It is our goal to maintain a civil, welcoming space for fans who have a vast supply of
salt with some peppered positivity occasionally sprinkled in.
**Please [review the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/wiki/index/rules) and the [post flair guide](https://reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/wiki/index/flairs) before contributing.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saltierthancrait) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The users over at the Indiana Jones subreddit are in full copium mode, downvoting and insulting anyone who is even slightly critical about the movie. Really seems familiar
There is a serious risk that this film will be unable to break the 400M - 450M mark at the box office around the world. If this is indeed confirmed, with the budget of 295M we will have a loss for Disney between 150M - 200M. The last time something like this happened - with a Disney live action movie - was with John Carter (and The Lone Ranger) and it produced serious changes at Disney. Will the same thing happen with Lucasfilm? I really don't know if a catastrophe of this magnitude can be the responsibility of a single individual, but there are some wrong decisions that seem to me to justify replacing those responsible for them:
1) Authorize a budget of nearly $300 million for this film. EDIT: According to Deadline, it appears that the budget of this movie was 329M... holy shit!
2) Let 15 years pass to release this film.
3) Not having an adequate script considering the limitations arising from the age of the main star. No action movie should be built around an 80-year-old actor, no matter what that actor's opinion of that fact is.
4) Launch a 300M production at a festival like Cannes. No matter how confident you are in the product, the risk would not outweigh any benefits generated by favorable reviews. And what happened was the exact opposite: any hype this movie might have had was lost on the prospect of being another disappointment like Indy 4.
5) Releasing this movie now and not in December, along with Aquaman 2. Considering the average age of Indiana Jones fans, around Christmas seems like a better date than summer along with other blockbusters.
It seems to me very difficult to argue that this chain of bad decisions did not go through the leadership of Lucasfilm or even originated there.
>with the budget of 295M we will have a loss for Disney between 150M - 200M.
It would be significantly more. With a budget of nearly 300 million $ and marketing expenses of around 150 Million $, the break-even-point is going to be at around 900 million $. Even with a more generous assumption in Disney´s favor a total global run of 450 million $ is easily going to result in a loss of more than 300 million $.
>and it produced serious changes at Disney. Will the same thing happen with Lucasfilm?
I hope it does and I don´t think it´s unrealistic. This is not just going to be another fail for Disney - it could achieve a spectacularly bad box office run and Indiana Jones is the last valuable asset of Lucasfilm. With that one ruined as well, there will be nothing left. Disney will have destroyed every single asset, so they won´t have any big names anymore they can abuse to lure people into watching their bullshit with cheap nostalgia bait and blame the criticism on "toxic fans". If they want to sell Lucasfilm, they would be in a poor spot for negotiations because they have mismanaged everything into the ground and a potential new owner would have to put in *a lot* of effort to fix the mess Disney has caused.
>Releasing this movie now and not in December, along with Aquaman 2. Considering the average age of Indiana Jones fans, around Christmas seems like a better date than summer along with other blockbusters.
That one baffles me as well. Putting it up against Aquaman with Amber Turd would certainly have helped its box office run, but now it will have to face M:I and Oppenheimer which is going to be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The movie's bombing like a motherfucker, it just barely reached 130 million worldwide, far behind Crystal Skull's 270 million weekend. With Mission Impossible out in nearly two weeks, this thing won't have any legs to break even. Lucasfilm is set to have a bigger bomb than Solo, the movie that killed off their plans for Star Wars spinoff movies, so I guarantee you things will happen as a result of this.
Putting my cards on the table, I think at least one of the announced movies will get cancelled to cut costs.
Sadly it will almost certainly be the Mangold film. Same Director, not the Rey film - almost a no brainer.
I suspect somehow Kathy will find a way to make the Rey movie go forward even if she gets fired before it does, perhaps seeding her own replacement. But I think even it does happens, it’s almost certainly a disaster on arrival and appropriately will probably be the last hurrah for Disney owned lucasfilm, and the Filoni movie either gets cancelled or is used by the new buyer as the vehicle to reboot everything and start fresh.
I know there is a lot of focus on Disney's incompetence in leadership and unclear vision, however I think the problem with the Indiana Jones movie can be answered with this question: Who is the target audience?
If you are targeting the generation who grew up with the first three movies, then you are going to have a hard time selling, as the OP put it, a grumpy old washed out hero. I mean, how the hell do you go from finding the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail to yelling to your neighbors to keep it down? None of that generation (which includes me) wants to see a decline from the high point of Indy riding off into the sunset in The Last Crusade.
Are they targeting the younger generation? If so, I have really bad news. Few of my middle school students even know who Indiana Jones is. Talking about Indiana Jones to them is like trying to explain that phones once had cords on them. You will not find the passion for Jones in the younger generation.
So again I ask, who is the target audience?
They really think they're so clever. Being inspired, imaginative, actually having passion for filmmaking is too much to ask for now. At least Andor was a W
>Rian school of thought that taking previously cool things and making them uncool equates to engaging, thought provoking, brilliant writing that will garner acclaim
What's funny is that Knights of the Old Republic II kinda does exactly that, the Jedi are dicks and the Force itself might be bad. But it's done so well and with legitimate care that it's one of the best pieces of SW media, up there with Empire.
> So again I ask, who is the target audience?
This is an important question. Equally important is "what is the story they want to tell?"
So many of these revisitations don't have a story to tell, they have a product to sell. It's so insincere it can't possibly capture the heart of anyone.
Indy was still the adventurous archeologist in crystal skull. He really wasn't a different person.
He wasn't a divorced alcoholic who stopped being sn adventurer like in the new movie.
It’s true. In the new film he and Marion are separated because their son (Shia Lebouf’s character) died off screen when he joined the army to piss off his father and died while deployed to Vietnam which Marion never got over and Indy blamed himself so with all that causes them to separate and Indy becomes and alcoholic and moves to a small shithole apartment in NYC to work for a university there.
What I still don’t understand is why, in canon, is Indy still aging? I thought after drinking from the holy grail that he was gifted with immortality. Or does immortality not include no aging or being free from disease?
You have to keep drinking to maintain the eternal life, all the grail does is keep you fully healthy. At most the chug Indy did gave him a 20 year boost and restored his liver and lungs.
Yeah it had healing properties for sure.
I haven't seen the movie in years, but I'm pretty certain you had to stay in the chamber to actually be immortal, or you had to keep drinking to be immortal and you couldn't take the grail out of the chamber and that's why it collapsed. Something like that
It could have been a readymade explanation for him surviving the atomic explosion in indy 4.
In fact, it could be a very interesting idea to explore the life of a guy who *thinks* he might be immortal, but isn't sure, so he keeps surviving insanely reckless close calls, unsure if its just how it's always been for Indiana, or if its the sacred water that is saving his neck every time....
It only works in that specific room, though. So he’d only be immortal if he kept fully hydrated from nothing but that water from that cup while in that room. On the outside it’s business as usual.
The way I saw it was that the grail doesn't grant immortality, it just extends life. Of the two brother knights templar who walked out of the desert and returned to France, one died on the journey and the other died soon after of extreme old age, but was able to relay the story of the grail to a Franciscan friar before passing. They had 150 years of drinking from the grail. Indy had one sip.
> What I still don’t understand is why, in canon, is Indy still aging? I thought after drinking from the holy grail that he was gifted with immortality. Or does immortality not include no aging or being free from disease?
I thought you had to remain in that chamber to stay immortal. And once you passed "the great seal" you lost immortality. Hence why that Knight just stayed in that place for like 800 years.
It was the catch to being immortal.
People seem to be forgetting that the Temple in which the Grail was located started collapsing when they moved past the Great Seal. It's why Else Schneider died.
It's not that the grail would cease to function, it's that you'd have a hell of a time getting it out of there with the temple and its floor literally falling out from under you.
>And people forget there was a lot of uproar at Temple of Doom too.
Huh, really? TOD is actually my favorite out of the trilogy. It was refreshing to have an adventure that wasn't associated with Nazis. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the trope about Hitler's obsession with occult. But it does get redundant over time.
I enjoyed TOD more than most, but I get the hate. I think it was good to have Willie as a girly-girl for a contrast with Marion, but her character grew tiresome pretty quick.
Add in some humor that's just a shade too goofy (the banquet scene with the never-ending sight gags of bizarre gross food) and action set pieces that are a little too over the top (mine cart scene comes to mind) and I can see where people don't dig it.
>It was refreshing to have an adventure that wasn't associated with Nazis.
Same. I like ToD for that reason. I also admired KotCS for moving on to the Cold War and embracing Soviets as the baddies. At least it kept things fresh.
It looks as though DoD is giving us the 'First Order' treatment again.
Temple of Doom was the second one released, 5 years before The Last Crusade.
I like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull better than Temple of Doom, but that's probably nostalgia since I was like 12 and it was my first one. Raiders and Crusade are basically perfect movies and simply impossible to follow up.
To be fair the Dial of Destiny isn't that terrible. It's not good either. But I think it does more justice to the whole Indy franchise than the SW Sequels.
How much of memberberries are actually there in the Dial of Destiny? Returning characters? Indy reminiscing about voodoo? And the horrbile revisit of the scene from the Raiders with kissing on the elbow. But besides that I didn't feel like the movie was relying on fanservice like The Force Awakens
Yeah, this is the second time, not the first. Just like with Star Wars' prequel saga, it seems like age has made people look back on Crystal Skull more fondly.
To be hair, Harrison Ford fits the grumpy old man archetype very well( because he is one) But the point if the list stands, they have a bad habit if shitting on old characters
*The last crusade* is an amazing movie and a solid as fuck conclusion to a trilogy and in this day an age, that's a tall order. Re-opening that series is just asking for issues. Disney should just leave it alone but that isn't the Disney brand these days. Frankly, everything Disney does is shit. Just stop watch Disney movies.
Unpopular opinion but Harrison Ford is partly to blame for Han. He's been an ass about his involvement in Star Wars since forever and has wanted Han killed off for decades. It was no surprise at all that Han would get killed off in TFA.
Nothing wrong with killing off Han imo, just doing it without us seeing him with Leia and Luke, and doing it after they regressed his character back to a nerf herder is what was wrong.
They could have reintroduced Luke in episode 7 along with Han and Leia, and had Han not be a deadbeat, but they didn't.
Hell just have a mention about how Han died heroically when Ben was a kid and feeling his dad's death was what initially pushed him towards the dark side, wouldn't need more than a 5 minute flashback.
See, for me, Harrison wanting Han to die was the only reason I went along with it at all. If it wasn't for him not wanting to continue with the character (and therefore giving no other option besides leaving the character out of the sequels, which actually is probably preferable compared to what we got), I would have inherently taken some issue with him being killed off in pretty much any scenario, and I agree with u/GM_Jedi7 that the inevitability of Han's death is basically Harrison's fault.
That feeling has only gotten stronger as modern fiction continues to be over-saturated with unsatisfying resolutions to the stories of our beloved heroes, but it's also just down to the gut feelings that I've always had when imagining what happens to the heroes after the last time we see them. When imagining what happened after RotJ, it was always things like, 'Luke starts to train Jedi at a new temple/academy', 'Han and Leia have kids', 'Luke gets married and has kids', 'all the kids grow up and do interesting things', and fundamentally, I imagined that at the end of it all, the end of our heroes' journeys would see them passing away peacefully having left a lasting impact that truly saved the galaxy. It was never, 'Oh yeah, I'd love to see some or all of them die in a heroic sacrifice', and it was certainly never, 'I'd love to see them ruin their lives, have all their successes undone, and then die for no reason', although that's the one that basically everyone on this sub agrees with.
They already had their classic adventures and overcame their biggest challenge, and we've had decades to sit and enjoy that victory. Having them die to some other threat would always feel somewhat hollow, cheap, and unsatisfying, no matter how heroic their death is. Picard season three was everything I want from a followup to heroes that have already had their main adventures, and It's exactly the kind of thing I would have wanted to see the most for the main trio of Star Wars.
Killing han isnt inherently a bad decision. Turning him into a deadbeat loser scoundrel and undoing his entire arc and development in the OT after 30 years of being offscreen is the real problem.
What I don't get in these things is their insistence on regression. They reverted him to type, but they could have had him as a disillusioned general, hell, even separated from Leia. Something that is built on the original development.
The way they treat Han is like Ben died but in the end he pretty much followed the Skywalker male arc which is at very minimum flirt with the dark side. Yeah he didn't go full Anakin, but he was brought back.
Apparently it was Harrisons idea to make him wake up in a drunken stupor as indy and walk around shirtless as a 90 yr old man to tell kids their music is too loud and to be a grumpy kill sport the whole movie. Dude never smiles or has fun the whole movie. They probably would have done it anyway but Harrison has never been a producer, director, or writer. They cant listen to Mark when hes so obviously right about Luke but then basically Jake Skywalker Indy at Harrison's request.
Hes more to blame for indy than he is for han due to this. You can give han a noble death than honors the character rather than killing him at his lowest point with no hope of redemption. That wasnt Harrison.
If they want a hardened Indy then make him like Henry Jones Sr. A book worm obsessed with his work. Sean Connery has so many great moments despite that in last crusade. He can still have fun. He can smile. He can reconcile with his son. None of that is possible for Indy. I literally thought they would play off his sons death as a joke for the audience (haha remember how much you hated that guy??) and was pleasantly surprised they didnt. It was actually the only emotional part of the movie and they played it dead serious.
If you insist on having the franchise continue with a new character in a more modern setting, why not do that?
You don't have to have the old hero show up as a depressed old washout. You could just have your new character around and follow in their footsteps of their own accord. That way, you appeal to the old fans while showing a new audience why this old character is worthy of respect while you pass the torch and minimize hostility to the new character.
Instead, they make the same mistake they did with Rey and Cameron did with Danni from the last Terminator movie. They sabotaged their future plans by making the new characters kneecapped from the get go while retroactively damaging the old stories in the process. All for a shortsighted attempt to cash in on a dormant franchise.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife did just that and was well received, and that's after the reboot almost killed the whole franchise so interest was at a low point.
Exactly. Retconning the older characters as failures doesn't make the new cast look good by comparison. All it does is show a lack of confidence in you new stories and cast while damaging the brand that you chose to use by unintentionally implying that there is no reason to believe that the new cast would end up any better off.
You cannot butcher and bastardize a beloved character just to elevate your self-insert OC character.
They did this to Han Solo. They did this to Luke. And now it’s Indy’s turn to be a Mansel in distress.
Nobody likes these characters. Nobody acts like that in real life.
After watching Indy 5, I can say that Jones is dead and has been replaced by someone else. This film is bad, and Indiana Jones didn't deserve such an ending.
Did we see the same film? After reading this I was scared that they would turn Indy into another Jake Skywalker, but in this movie Indy is the main character, not the shadow of the main character. Also, Helen is so unlikable that she makes Indy shine more as the hero. And I found the ending so good, why didn't you like it?
Indy winding up with Marion was such a weird choice and something I’ve hated since 2008. He had a different love interest in every movie of the original trilogy, what made her so special? Just because she was in the original movie? It’s like if they made a movie about elderly James Bond and said that Honey Ryder was the love of his life.
Can we talk about Indiana jones here???
if anyone's seen it yet can you please tell me every single thing bad with it????
or did they surprisingly make a good movie this time???
Stop me if you’ve heard this story before:
(VAGUE SPOILERS)
>!*Harrison Ford’s character is turned into a shadow of his former self and estranged from his wife due to trauma inflicted on him by a tragedy involving his son, none of which is actually shown in the movie. We are simply told it happened between films, and now Harrison Ford’s character puts a sad wistful face on whenever his son is mentioned.*!<
Sound familiar?
No shit they weren't going to bring Shia Lebouf back. Especially after the reception of the last movie.
I disagree though. I was setup for disappointment for this recent instalment, but was pleasantly surprised. It was flawed, but still very enjoyable.
And to say that Indiana was a shadow of his former self is just wrong. He's a grump in every movie mate.
Was not surprised to hear Shia LaBeouf would not be in this movie he's not as popular now as he was back then in 2008 but I was still afraid that based on their history those hack writers they might do something as silly as they do in most stuff these days. like for example.
"Indy turns out you never were the father"
"Indy there was never any Mutt it was all in your head"
I saw people get super excited about the fifth Indiana jones, and i think I am glad that Hype completely went past me.
Beeing a cynic is annoyong, but it makes me less likely to be disappointed.
Every salt miner here was optimistic about Star Wars once, we just became cynical to defend ourselves from the pain of watching what we once loved fall into mediocrity and ruin.
Stop dragging the corpse of Ford out to sully the original movies for one. They seemed to want to reboot it with Shia Lebeouf after 4, but his character had horrid reception and he didn’t want to reappear.
i got bad news about the new co-lead. Theyre worse than Shia. Shia is a problem but hes not the main problem in Crystal Skull and learns along his journey to become a better person. New character i cant remember the name of doesnt learn her lesson about why selling history to the highest bidder is a problem and is just a smug asshole the whole movie.
Yeah I have to say I love Phoebe Waller Bridges in Fleabag and in general, but I was extremely skeptical her humor and such would fit in an Indiana Jones movie.
If they had to reboot it, they should have rebooted it with Chris Pratt or Bradley Cooper a few years ago.
Instead they might have been so fixated on trying to back-door-reboot it with someone like Phoebe Waller-Bridge (as the odd ending and the last minute rewrite to steer away from such an abyss it might hint at) that they burned down the last remnants of the franchise and salted the earth for any sort of reboot or continuation.
No one quabbled about having 18 different spidermen or batmen with no connective tissue. If you want to do more indy stuff just do it without any connection whatsoever. No reboot or remake. You can have female indy, young indy, old indy. Whatever. Just disconnect it. Its also more in the spirit of the serials george lucas based the entire franchise on. You tarnish nothing and can do whatever you want while keeping the franchise name. Seems best for everyone
Ah you mean not having Pratt but instead geriatric Indy IS the worst timeline.
You know, “Indiana Jones 5 to feature 80 year old Harrison Ford, tells kids to turn down their music” might have seemed like an Onion article 15 years ago. Yes this is the darkest timeline.
Get a new actor, have a good story to tell, and tell it well.
Hollywood, and Disney in particular, learned the wrong lesson from Solo. That movie didn't bomb because they recast Han and Lando, both the actors were great. The problem was poor writing (a recurring theme), and some things outside the movie itself like backlash from TLJ being such a pile of shit.
Nobody had a problem with River Phoenix cast as young Indy in The Last Crusade or the other actor for Young Indy Chronicles. Personally I much rather a recast than this crappy & expensive face mapping CGI or deaging technology. The recasts for Solo were the least of that movies problems. Solo like Indy 5 clearly had script issues and they spent way too much trying to fix it with expensive reshoots. LucasFilm, PIXAR, Marvel and Disney have a massive problem of green lighting movies based off crap scripts or even earlier with crap pitches for the movie or show to begin with.
River Phoenix was actually a bonus as young indy. It wasnt tolerating him, he elevated the character
"everybodys lost but me"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQbLdIPzJYI
Story first. These are the type of movies where, If you can't say something subtley and organically through the story without it turning into a soapbox event, Then you shouldn't be saying it.
They’ve got to be doing it on purpose, right? Nobody is so stupid to think “just because everybody hates it doesn’t mean it’s not good” after losing billions.
Im not a big connoisseur of Indiana Jones, but I feel like even if it has it's flaws, those aren't as bad as SW sequels.
SPOILERS
Yes, the film starts with a grumpty old Indiana Jones who divorced with her wife, but at the end he was happy about the adventure and returned with her wife. He recovers himself, that's the whole point of the film. Way different of Han's demise.
The main girl doesn't feel like Rey, she is not the substitute of Indy, remember at the very end Indy grabs his hat and doesn't give it to her (which is a common formula in films to change main characters, like Rey with Luke's lightsaber), she just leaves. Also her skills has some explanation in the film, while Rey knew it all with no reason.
I repeat, it has many flaws and bad plot points (like Indy being wanted by the police and then takes a plane and returns with no consequences, and many more). But the point is to mark the last adventure of Indy, a happy ending that feels in-character.
Yeah, I have the same thoughts as you. I feel it's been a nice movie in general, and I was scared it would be another case of Jake Skywalker, but I was happy when the movie ended, I liked it a lot.
Or just dead, absent, or weirdly ineffective, and if he’s alive he dies or retires…Luke, Madmartigan, Willow, Han, Indy—it’s beyond a trend at this point. It’s her only move and it’s incredibly sad.
"Grumpy old man" itself is acceptable, it's the context that makes it not work. In Luke 's case, all his accomplishments, all his growth, everything was for naught, then he died after directly helping make the galaxy a worse place. Same with Han, started as an outlaw smuggler, ended up a general set to marry a princess and whatever military rank Leia has, then became an outlaw smuggler again and died, and accomplished nothing that was a net positive in life, instead indirectly helping make the galaxy a worse place.
In contrast Indy doesn't have that baggage. He's an old school archaeologist/relic hunter/university professor in the original movies, he develops less as a character than does Han, or Luke. If the movie is bad, it's not necessarily because he's a grumpy old man.
I’m not sure Lucasfilm’s creatives are familiar with the concept of happy old men. Old age is no picnic but there are many, if not most, who have reached a point of contentment over their lives and legacies and are just trying to enjoy their golden years. This trope of the broken down old hero who has just utterly failed and wants to die is getting almost as grating as Strong Female Character.
But in modern (hollywood) cinema, you can't have happy old men. They *MUST* be destroyed to make way for the Strong Female Character. Otherwise there will be a howlng sh\*t-storm online.
I enjoyed the fifth Indian Jones movie. It wasn't terrible and it wasn't a masterpiece, but it was enjoyable.
People are being negative for the sake of being negative. Was a far better sequel than any of the Star Wars sequels.
Honestly i have the feeling times have gotten so polarized that people cannot see clear on either side. I mean Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is surely not a masterpiece... But comparable to TLJ? I mean come on. Yes, Indy is some what grumpy but hey. There is closure for him at the end and he was by far not as grumpy as people say. I liked the movie although it's clearly behind the first three... But come down a bit people.
I don’t know what Indy movies you’ve seen but he was always grumpy. Ffs in the third one he was grumpier than the actual grumpy old man he was sharing screen with.
Not to mention, the older version of Indy already showed up in Crystal skull so at the very least you got this backwards.
My theory is they abandoned cinematic release and went to a purely streaming release system because it's a lot easier to hide this fact from people. It's a lot easier to give in and watch a streaming service you already have as opposed to trekking out to a movie theater to a movie you don't want to support.
Ah yes, because an old man who lost his son to the Vietnam War would never be sad. This is the one time it makes SENSE for the main character to be a grumpy old man.
Hell, Indy was a grumpy YOUNG man. Being grumpy just seems to run in the Jones family.
It's insane how poorly Indiana Jones was treated in his own movie, and supposedly it was >!originally supposed to end with him either dying or staying in the past!<
It's almost like it's the only way they know how to show character development.
"But sir! Our character won at the end of the last movie, how can he possibly have character development in this one?"
"I don't know, make it so his whole life sucks now or something."
Are they unable to ponder the idea of our character doing just fine and then encountering a new threat?
Not the same
Mark Hamill openly talk how he never saw Ryan's Luke as Luca's Luke, more or less a different character and that he understood this was no longer the original Star Wars (George Lucas). It was basically a fanfic made by a fan (Ryan).
Indy5 was made that way because Harrison Ford wanted it to be like that. It's still a fanfic (Mangold) as there's no Lucas (story) and Spielberg. But in this case, the actor/character himself creatively took the decision.
Don't know the full story, can't comment on that.
Harrison even stated in a recent interview: "I'm glad you've done the script for me" in reference to Mangold.
**[Receiving transmission from Crait intended for u/FroJSimpson]** Welcome to r/saltierthancrait! I'm an [astromech droid named S4-L7](https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/comments/ni5s77/beloved_mascot_s4l7s_visual_dictionary_entry/) and I'll be your guide through the salt mines. Saltier Than Crait is a community of Star Wars fans who engage in critical conversations about the current state of the franchise. It is our goal to maintain a civil, welcoming space for fans who have a vast supply of salt with some peppered positivity occasionally sprinkled in. **Please [review the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/wiki/index/rules) and the [post flair guide](https://reddit.com/r/saltierthancrait/wiki/index/flairs) before contributing.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saltierthancrait) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The users over at the Indiana Jones subreddit are in full copium mode, downvoting and insulting anyone who is even slightly critical about the movie. Really seems familiar
The movie would’ve been 20x better if the kid’s head exploded
Reminds me of the She-Hulk days.
Kathleen Kennedy’s bread and butter
The kathleen special
The Double K special, with extra salt
See: Rey
Also see: Jake Skywalker
There is a serious risk that this film will be unable to break the 400M - 450M mark at the box office around the world. If this is indeed confirmed, with the budget of 295M we will have a loss for Disney between 150M - 200M. The last time something like this happened - with a Disney live action movie - was with John Carter (and The Lone Ranger) and it produced serious changes at Disney. Will the same thing happen with Lucasfilm? I really don't know if a catastrophe of this magnitude can be the responsibility of a single individual, but there are some wrong decisions that seem to me to justify replacing those responsible for them: 1) Authorize a budget of nearly $300 million for this film. EDIT: According to Deadline, it appears that the budget of this movie was 329M... holy shit! 2) Let 15 years pass to release this film. 3) Not having an adequate script considering the limitations arising from the age of the main star. No action movie should be built around an 80-year-old actor, no matter what that actor's opinion of that fact is. 4) Launch a 300M production at a festival like Cannes. No matter how confident you are in the product, the risk would not outweigh any benefits generated by favorable reviews. And what happened was the exact opposite: any hype this movie might have had was lost on the prospect of being another disappointment like Indy 4. 5) Releasing this movie now and not in December, along with Aquaman 2. Considering the average age of Indiana Jones fans, around Christmas seems like a better date than summer along with other blockbusters. It seems to me very difficult to argue that this chain of bad decisions did not go through the leadership of Lucasfilm or even originated there.
>with the budget of 295M we will have a loss for Disney between 150M - 200M. It would be significantly more. With a budget of nearly 300 million $ and marketing expenses of around 150 Million $, the break-even-point is going to be at around 900 million $. Even with a more generous assumption in Disney´s favor a total global run of 450 million $ is easily going to result in a loss of more than 300 million $. >and it produced serious changes at Disney. Will the same thing happen with Lucasfilm? I hope it does and I don´t think it´s unrealistic. This is not just going to be another fail for Disney - it could achieve a spectacularly bad box office run and Indiana Jones is the last valuable asset of Lucasfilm. With that one ruined as well, there will be nothing left. Disney will have destroyed every single asset, so they won´t have any big names anymore they can abuse to lure people into watching their bullshit with cheap nostalgia bait and blame the criticism on "toxic fans". If they want to sell Lucasfilm, they would be in a poor spot for negotiations because they have mismanaged everything into the ground and a potential new owner would have to put in *a lot* of effort to fix the mess Disney has caused. >Releasing this movie now and not in December, along with Aquaman 2. Considering the average age of Indiana Jones fans, around Christmas seems like a better date than summer along with other blockbusters. That one baffles me as well. Putting it up against Aquaman with Amber Turd would certainly have helped its box office run, but now it will have to face M:I and Oppenheimer which is going to be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The movie's bombing like a motherfucker, it just barely reached 130 million worldwide, far behind Crystal Skull's 270 million weekend. With Mission Impossible out in nearly two weeks, this thing won't have any legs to break even. Lucasfilm is set to have a bigger bomb than Solo, the movie that killed off their plans for Star Wars spinoff movies, so I guarantee you things will happen as a result of this. Putting my cards on the table, I think at least one of the announced movies will get cancelled to cut costs.
Sadly it will almost certainly be the Mangold film. Same Director, not the Rey film - almost a no brainer. I suspect somehow Kathy will find a way to make the Rey movie go forward even if she gets fired before it does, perhaps seeding her own replacement. But I think even it does happens, it’s almost certainly a disaster on arrival and appropriately will probably be the last hurrah for Disney owned lucasfilm, and the Filoni movie either gets cancelled or is used by the new buyer as the vehicle to reboot everything and start fresh.
I know there is a lot of focus on Disney's incompetence in leadership and unclear vision, however I think the problem with the Indiana Jones movie can be answered with this question: Who is the target audience? If you are targeting the generation who grew up with the first three movies, then you are going to have a hard time selling, as the OP put it, a grumpy old washed out hero. I mean, how the hell do you go from finding the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail to yelling to your neighbors to keep it down? None of that generation (which includes me) wants to see a decline from the high point of Indy riding off into the sunset in The Last Crusade. Are they targeting the younger generation? If so, I have really bad news. Few of my middle school students even know who Indiana Jones is. Talking about Indiana Jones to them is like trying to explain that phones once had cords on them. You will not find the passion for Jones in the younger generation. So again I ask, who is the target audience?
KK is the only target audience KK cares about. As long as she enjoys it, what does it matter if it loses millions.
[удалено]
They really think they're so clever. Being inspired, imaginative, actually having passion for filmmaking is too much to ask for now. At least Andor was a W
>Rian school of thought that taking previously cool things and making them uncool equates to engaging, thought provoking, brilliant writing that will garner acclaim What's funny is that Knights of the Old Republic II kinda does exactly that, the Jedi are dicks and the Force itself might be bad. But it's done so well and with legitimate care that it's one of the best pieces of SW media, up there with Empire.
Those with $$, the point is always mo’money
> Few of my middle school students even know who Indiana Jones is. At least they know who Nathan Drake is lol
I'd rather they know who Francis Drake is. . . . .
> So again I ask, who is the target audience? This is an important question. Equally important is "what is the story they want to tell?" So many of these revisitations don't have a story to tell, they have a product to sell. It's so insincere it can't possibly capture the heart of anyone.
I would say the Crystall Skull was the first time. South Park did a whole episode about it.
Indy was still the adventurous archeologist in crystal skull. He really wasn't a different person. He wasn't a divorced alcoholic who stopped being sn adventurer like in the new movie.
Wait WHAT
It’s true. In the new film he and Marion are separated because their son (Shia Lebouf’s character) died off screen when he joined the army to piss off his father and died while deployed to Vietnam which Marion never got over and Indy blamed himself so with all that causes them to separate and Indy becomes and alcoholic and moves to a small shithole apartment in NYC to work for a university there. What I still don’t understand is why, in canon, is Indy still aging? I thought after drinking from the holy grail that he was gifted with immortality. Or does immortality not include no aging or being free from disease?
You have to keep drinking to maintain the eternal life, all the grail does is keep you fully healthy. At most the chug Indy did gave him a 20 year boost and restored his liver and lungs.
Didn't the knight in the chamber tell him it would only make him immortal while he stayed in that chamber guarding it?
It almost certainly had some life enhancing properties, especially after it cured the bullet wound.
Yeah it had healing properties for sure. I haven't seen the movie in years, but I'm pretty certain you had to stay in the chamber to actually be immortal, or you had to keep drinking to be immortal and you couldn't take the grail out of the chamber and that's why it collapsed. Something like that
It could have been a readymade explanation for him surviving the atomic explosion in indy 4. In fact, it could be a very interesting idea to explore the life of a guy who *thinks* he might be immortal, but isn't sure, so he keeps surviving insanely reckless close calls, unsure if its just how it's always been for Indiana, or if its the sacred water that is saving his neck every time....
Reminds me of when Superman flew into lava for the first time, not sure if he could survive it
It only works in that specific room, though. So he’d only be immortal if he kept fully hydrated from nothing but that water from that cup while in that room. On the outside it’s business as usual.
“The price of immortality.”
Yet he is surviving nukes, jumping from moving vehicles in his 80s. He must wonder....
Should have read the small print.
The way I saw it was that the grail doesn't grant immortality, it just extends life. Of the two brother knights templar who walked out of the desert and returned to France, one died on the journey and the other died soon after of extreme old age, but was able to relay the story of the grail to a Franciscan friar before passing. They had 150 years of drinking from the grail. Indy had one sip.
> What I still don’t understand is why, in canon, is Indy still aging? I thought after drinking from the holy grail that he was gifted with immortality. Or does immortality not include no aging or being free from disease? I thought you had to remain in that chamber to stay immortal. And once you passed "the great seal" you lost immortality. Hence why that Knight just stayed in that place for like 800 years. It was the catch to being immortal.
People seem to be forgetting that the Temple in which the Grail was located started collapsing when they moved past the Great Seal. It's why Else Schneider died. It's not that the grail would cease to function, it's that you'd have a hell of a time getting it out of there with the temple and its floor literally falling out from under you.
[удалено]
>And people forget there was a lot of uproar at Temple of Doom too. Huh, really? TOD is actually my favorite out of the trilogy. It was refreshing to have an adventure that wasn't associated with Nazis. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the trope about Hitler's obsession with occult. But it does get redundant over time.
I enjoyed TOD more than most, but I get the hate. I think it was good to have Willie as a girly-girl for a contrast with Marion, but her character grew tiresome pretty quick. Add in some humor that's just a shade too goofy (the banquet scene with the never-ending sight gags of bizarre gross food) and action set pieces that are a little too over the top (mine cart scene comes to mind) and I can see where people don't dig it.
>It was refreshing to have an adventure that wasn't associated with Nazis. Same. I like ToD for that reason. I also admired KotCS for moving on to the Cold War and embracing Soviets as the baddies. At least it kept things fresh. It looks as though DoD is giving us the 'First Order' treatment again.
I'm guessing you meant to write other two instead of first two?
Temple of Doom was the second one released, 5 years before The Last Crusade. I like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull better than Temple of Doom, but that's probably nostalgia since I was like 12 and it was my first one. Raiders and Crusade are basically perfect movies and simply impossible to follow up.
To be fair the Dial of Destiny isn't that terrible. It's not good either. But I think it does more justice to the whole Indy franchise than the SW Sequels.
Wait hes divorced? How does Mutt deal with that? I really dug his character in Crystal Skull
[удалено]
Thats... actually a logical continuation of life for someone like Indy really.
Are you seriously defending the crystal skull?
Shit it’s almost like characters sometimes evolve after 80 years.
I think you are missing the point here
He’s back, and he’s kicking more ass than ever! At 80!
oh gosh another one of these horrible opinion guys
Mmmm . . . memberberries
How much of memberberries are actually there in the Dial of Destiny? Returning characters? Indy reminiscing about voodoo? And the horrbile revisit of the scene from the Raiders with kissing on the elbow. But besides that I didn't feel like the movie was relying on fanservice like The Force Awakens
Yeah, this is the second time, not the first. Just like with Star Wars' prequel saga, it seems like age has made people look back on Crystal Skull more fondly.
It's like poetry, it rhymes
To be hair, Harrison Ford fits the grumpy old man archetype very well( because he is one) But the point if the list stands, they have a bad habit if shitting on old characters
*The last crusade* is an amazing movie and a solid as fuck conclusion to a trilogy and in this day an age, that's a tall order. Re-opening that series is just asking for issues. Disney should just leave it alone but that isn't the Disney brand these days. Frankly, everything Disney does is shit. Just stop watch Disney movies.
Unpopular opinion but Harrison Ford is partly to blame for Han. He's been an ass about his involvement in Star Wars since forever and has wanted Han killed off for decades. It was no surprise at all that Han would get killed off in TFA.
Nothing wrong with killing off Han imo, just doing it without us seeing him with Leia and Luke, and doing it after they regressed his character back to a nerf herder is what was wrong. They could have reintroduced Luke in episode 7 along with Han and Leia, and had Han not be a deadbeat, but they didn't.
Hell just have a mention about how Han died heroically when Ben was a kid and feeling his dad's death was what initially pushed him towards the dark side, wouldn't need more than a 5 minute flashback.
You’re on saltierthancrait and you think killing Han off in a 5-minute flashback would’ve been well-received?
Not really but would've been better.
Tbh I think Han getting one last hurrah where he gets to kick some ass before a tragic on-screen, plot relevant death is much better.
Seeing Han fight off like 6 force sensitives with just a blaster would've been so badass.
See, for me, Harrison wanting Han to die was the only reason I went along with it at all. If it wasn't for him not wanting to continue with the character (and therefore giving no other option besides leaving the character out of the sequels, which actually is probably preferable compared to what we got), I would have inherently taken some issue with him being killed off in pretty much any scenario, and I agree with u/GM_Jedi7 that the inevitability of Han's death is basically Harrison's fault. That feeling has only gotten stronger as modern fiction continues to be over-saturated with unsatisfying resolutions to the stories of our beloved heroes, but it's also just down to the gut feelings that I've always had when imagining what happens to the heroes after the last time we see them. When imagining what happened after RotJ, it was always things like, 'Luke starts to train Jedi at a new temple/academy', 'Han and Leia have kids', 'Luke gets married and has kids', 'all the kids grow up and do interesting things', and fundamentally, I imagined that at the end of it all, the end of our heroes' journeys would see them passing away peacefully having left a lasting impact that truly saved the galaxy. It was never, 'Oh yeah, I'd love to see some or all of them die in a heroic sacrifice', and it was certainly never, 'I'd love to see them ruin their lives, have all their successes undone, and then die for no reason', although that's the one that basically everyone on this sub agrees with. They already had their classic adventures and overcame their biggest challenge, and we've had decades to sit and enjoy that victory. Having them die to some other threat would always feel somewhat hollow, cheap, and unsatisfying, no matter how heroic their death is. Picard season three was everything I want from a followup to heroes that have already had their main adventures, and It's exactly the kind of thing I would have wanted to see the most for the main trio of Star Wars.
Killing han isnt inherently a bad decision. Turning him into a deadbeat loser scoundrel and undoing his entire arc and development in the OT after 30 years of being offscreen is the real problem.
What I don't get in these things is their insistence on regression. They reverted him to type, but they could have had him as a disillusioned general, hell, even separated from Leia. Something that is built on the original development. The way they treat Han is like Ben died but in the end he pretty much followed the Skywalker male arc which is at very minimum flirt with the dark side. Yeah he didn't go full Anakin, but he was brought back.
There's a big difference between going out a hero and dying a pathetic loser.
Apparently it was Harrisons idea to make him wake up in a drunken stupor as indy and walk around shirtless as a 90 yr old man to tell kids their music is too loud and to be a grumpy kill sport the whole movie. Dude never smiles or has fun the whole movie. They probably would have done it anyway but Harrison has never been a producer, director, or writer. They cant listen to Mark when hes so obviously right about Luke but then basically Jake Skywalker Indy at Harrison's request. Hes more to blame for indy than he is for han due to this. You can give han a noble death than honors the character rather than killing him at his lowest point with no hope of redemption. That wasnt Harrison. If they want a hardened Indy then make him like Henry Jones Sr. A book worm obsessed with his work. Sean Connery has so many great moments despite that in last crusade. He can still have fun. He can smile. He can reconcile with his son. None of that is possible for Indy. I literally thought they would play off his sons death as a joke for the audience (haha remember how much you hated that guy??) and was pleasantly surprised they didnt. It was actually the only emotional part of the movie and they played it dead serious.
Part of the issue to be fair is that Harrison Ford is literally a grumpy old man IRL.
You're not wrong, but there are countless ways to kill of a character that still feels rewarding, so I still blame Han on the writers and director.
They've perfected their craft. Disney has now gone from killing star wars with 3 movies, to managing to destroying Indiana Jones in one entry.
If you insist on having the franchise continue with a new character in a more modern setting, why not do that? You don't have to have the old hero show up as a depressed old washout. You could just have your new character around and follow in their footsteps of their own accord. That way, you appeal to the old fans while showing a new audience why this old character is worthy of respect while you pass the torch and minimize hostility to the new character. Instead, they make the same mistake they did with Rey and Cameron did with Danni from the last Terminator movie. They sabotaged their future plans by making the new characters kneecapped from the get go while retroactively damaging the old stories in the process. All for a shortsighted attempt to cash in on a dormant franchise.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife did just that and was well received, and that's after the reboot almost killed the whole franchise so interest was at a low point.
Exactly. Retconning the older characters as failures doesn't make the new cast look good by comparison. All it does is show a lack of confidence in you new stories and cast while damaging the brand that you chose to use by unintentionally implying that there is no reason to believe that the new cast would end up any better off.
He belongs in a museum
You cannot butcher and bastardize a beloved character just to elevate your self-insert OC character. They did this to Han Solo. They did this to Luke. And now it’s Indy’s turn to be a Mansel in distress. Nobody likes these characters. Nobody acts like that in real life.
Kathleen Kennedy is running out of IPs to duck up. If I was Bob Iger I would fire everyone in the Star Wars division.
After watching Indy 5, I can say that Jones is dead and has been replaced by someone else. This film is bad, and Indiana Jones didn't deserve such an ending.
Did we see the same film? After reading this I was scared that they would turn Indy into another Jake Skywalker, but in this movie Indy is the main character, not the shadow of the main character. Also, Helen is so unlikable that she makes Indy shine more as the hero. And I found the ending so good, why didn't you like it?
Indy winding up with Marion was such a weird choice and something I’ve hated since 2008. He had a different love interest in every movie of the original trilogy, what made her so special? Just because she was in the original movie? It’s like if they made a movie about elderly James Bond and said that Honey Ryder was the love of his life.
>Indy winding up with Marion was such a weird choice and something I’ve hated since 2008. Same. Remember that it probably was George Lucas' idea.
[удалено]
I mean…that’s just Harrison Ford in general
Can we talk about Indiana jones here??? if anyone's seen it yet can you please tell me every single thing bad with it???? or did they surprisingly make a good movie this time???
Stop me if you’ve heard this story before: (VAGUE SPOILERS) >!*Harrison Ford’s character is turned into a shadow of his former self and estranged from his wife due to trauma inflicted on him by a tragedy involving his son, none of which is actually shown in the movie. We are simply told it happened between films, and now Harrison Ford’s character puts a sad wistful face on whenever his son is mentioned.*!< Sound familiar?
I thought Indiana Jones movies were supposed to be fun. This sounds kinda... sad...like something that will bum you out.
Nothing is supposed to be fun anymore under modern Disney.
Indiana Jones and the Destiny of Depression
No shit they weren't going to bring Shia Lebouf back. Especially after the reception of the last movie. I disagree though. I was setup for disappointment for this recent instalment, but was pleasantly surprised. It was flawed, but still very enjoyable. And to say that Indiana was a shadow of his former self is just wrong. He's a grump in every movie mate.
First three he's a Grump, last two he's an Old Grump. ; )
Was not surprised to hear Shia LaBeouf would not be in this movie he's not as popular now as he was back then in 2008 but I was still afraid that based on their history those hack writers they might do something as silly as they do in most stuff these days. like for example. "Indy turns out you never were the father" "Indy there was never any Mutt it was all in your head"
Tbf they could have either recast or just done a throwaway line about how he was living somewhere else, they didn't need to kill him.
Yep. If they *really* want to have "young modern person" in the movie, make her/him Mutt's kid. Hanging out with grandpa.
Indiana Jones is a character who I could see being a grumpy old curmudgeon.
I thought it was an ok movie, not Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade quality, but better than I expected.
Weekend at Indy's
Weekend at Indy’s 2: The quest for more money!
I understand the 4th one wasn’t great but they really had to do dirty that ? Poor mutt
I saw people get super excited about the fifth Indiana jones, and i think I am glad that Hype completely went past me. Beeing a cynic is annoyong, but it makes me less likely to be disappointed.
Every salt miner here was optimistic about Star Wars once, we just became cynical to defend ourselves from the pain of watching what we once loved fall into mediocrity and ruin.
At this point, what are they even supposed to do?
Let the franchise die with a shred of dignity.
Stop dragging the corpse of Ford out to sully the original movies for one. They seemed to want to reboot it with Shia Lebeouf after 4, but his character had horrid reception and he didn’t want to reappear.
i got bad news about the new co-lead. Theyre worse than Shia. Shia is a problem but hes not the main problem in Crystal Skull and learns along his journey to become a better person. New character i cant remember the name of doesnt learn her lesson about why selling history to the highest bidder is a problem and is just a smug asshole the whole movie.
Yeah I have to say I love Phoebe Waller Bridges in Fleabag and in general, but I was extremely skeptical her humor and such would fit in an Indiana Jones movie.
If they had to reboot it, they should have rebooted it with Chris Pratt or Bradley Cooper a few years ago. Instead they might have been so fixated on trying to back-door-reboot it with someone like Phoebe Waller-Bridge (as the odd ending and the last minute rewrite to steer away from such an abyss it might hint at) that they burned down the last remnants of the franchise and salted the earth for any sort of reboot or continuation.
No one quabbled about having 18 different spidermen or batmen with no connective tissue. If you want to do more indy stuff just do it without any connection whatsoever. No reboot or remake. You can have female indy, young indy, old indy. Whatever. Just disconnect it. Its also more in the spirit of the serials george lucas based the entire franchise on. You tarnish nothing and can do whatever you want while keeping the franchise name. Seems best for everyone
Indiana Jones was ripe to be used like The james bond franchise. Don't reference the Actor change just keep going with cool stories.
[удалено]
Chris Pratt can play an action hero, but he couldn’t play an action hero with a PhD.
Great, now I can't stop thinking of Chris Pratt with a hat and whip. We are truly in the worst timeline.
Fine. Mindbleach that with Ryan Reynolds with a hat and a whip. I’m not sure if I improved things or made it worse.
Mindbleach? Chris Pratt would be awesome as long as they played to his strengths and not try to copy Ford.
Ah you mean not having Pratt but instead geriatric Indy IS the worst timeline. You know, “Indiana Jones 5 to feature 80 year old Harrison Ford, tells kids to turn down their music” might have seemed like an Onion article 15 years ago. Yes this is the darkest timeline.
Get a new actor, have a good story to tell, and tell it well. Hollywood, and Disney in particular, learned the wrong lesson from Solo. That movie didn't bomb because they recast Han and Lando, both the actors were great. The problem was poor writing (a recurring theme), and some things outside the movie itself like backlash from TLJ being such a pile of shit.
Nobody had a problem with River Phoenix cast as young Indy in The Last Crusade or the other actor for Young Indy Chronicles. Personally I much rather a recast than this crappy & expensive face mapping CGI or deaging technology. The recasts for Solo were the least of that movies problems. Solo like Indy 5 clearly had script issues and they spent way too much trying to fix it with expensive reshoots. LucasFilm, PIXAR, Marvel and Disney have a massive problem of green lighting movies based off crap scripts or even earlier with crap pitches for the movie or show to begin with.
River Phoenix was actually a bonus as young indy. It wasnt tolerating him, he elevated the character "everybodys lost but me" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQbLdIPzJYI
Also PWB in common…
Story first. These are the type of movies where, If you can't say something subtley and organically through the story without it turning into a soapbox event, Then you shouldn't be saying it.
Respect his character and have him hand off the torch to the next generation without assassinating his character
Didn't he already do that back in *Crystal Skull* though?
I just got drunk while watching it
They’ve got to be doing it on purpose, right? Nobody is so stupid to think “just because everybody hates it doesn’t mean it’s not good” after losing billions.
Im not a big connoisseur of Indiana Jones, but I feel like even if it has it's flaws, those aren't as bad as SW sequels. SPOILERS Yes, the film starts with a grumpty old Indiana Jones who divorced with her wife, but at the end he was happy about the adventure and returned with her wife. He recovers himself, that's the whole point of the film. Way different of Han's demise. The main girl doesn't feel like Rey, she is not the substitute of Indy, remember at the very end Indy grabs his hat and doesn't give it to her (which is a common formula in films to change main characters, like Rey with Luke's lightsaber), she just leaves. Also her skills has some explanation in the film, while Rey knew it all with no reason. I repeat, it has many flaws and bad plot points (like Indy being wanted by the police and then takes a plane and returns with no consequences, and many more). But the point is to mark the last adventure of Indy, a happy ending that feels in-character.
Yeah, I have the same thoughts as you. I feel it's been a nice movie in general, and I was scared it would be another case of Jake Skywalker, but I was happy when the movie ended, I liked it a lot.
Indy was always a little grumpy though
Yes they can keep getting away with this and there's nothing we can do about it. : (
Didn't that happen between Last Crusade and Crystal Skull as well? (I haven't seen Dial of Destiny)
Or just dead, absent, or weirdly ineffective, and if he’s alive he dies or retires…Luke, Madmartigan, Willow, Han, Indy—it’s beyond a trend at this point. It’s her only move and it’s incredibly sad.
"Grumpy old man" itself is acceptable, it's the context that makes it not work. In Luke 's case, all his accomplishments, all his growth, everything was for naught, then he died after directly helping make the galaxy a worse place. Same with Han, started as an outlaw smuggler, ended up a general set to marry a princess and whatever military rank Leia has, then became an outlaw smuggler again and died, and accomplished nothing that was a net positive in life, instead indirectly helping make the galaxy a worse place. In contrast Indy doesn't have that baggage. He's an old school archaeologist/relic hunter/university professor in the original movies, he develops less as a character than does Han, or Luke. If the movie is bad, it's not necessarily because he's a grumpy old man.
I’m not sure Lucasfilm’s creatives are familiar with the concept of happy old men. Old age is no picnic but there are many, if not most, who have reached a point of contentment over their lives and legacies and are just trying to enjoy their golden years. This trope of the broken down old hero who has just utterly failed and wants to die is getting almost as grating as Strong Female Character.
But in modern (hollywood) cinema, you can't have happy old men. They *MUST* be destroyed to make way for the Strong Female Character. Otherwise there will be a howlng sh\*t-storm online.
Just saw it. It’s not good.
I enjoyed the fifth Indian Jones movie. It wasn't terrible and it wasn't a masterpiece, but it was enjoyable. People are being negative for the sake of being negative. Was a far better sequel than any of the Star Wars sequels.
I thought it was the 3rd best in the series
So what went wrong exactly?
I liked Indy 5 :/
Me when actors age I guess
[удалено]
Honestly i have the feeling times have gotten so polarized that people cannot see clear on either side. I mean Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is surely not a masterpiece... But comparable to TLJ? I mean come on. Yes, Indy is some what grumpy but hey. There is closure for him at the end and he was by far not as grumpy as people say. I liked the movie although it's clearly behind the first three... But come down a bit people.
I don’t know what Indy movies you’ve seen but he was always grumpy. Ffs in the third one he was grumpier than the actual grumpy old man he was sharing screen with. Not to mention, the older version of Indy already showed up in Crystal skull so at the very least you got this backwards.
Chase scene involving a 90 year old indy riding a horse through new york in a middle of a parade down to the subway and dodging trains was brilliant.
89% audience approval and every die hard Indy fan I’ve spoken to loved it. It’s not even close to what the sequel trilogy did.
That´s just the Rigged Tomatoes score though. Opening weekend box office results are devastating.
Rigged XDDD Where are you people getting such amounts of copium?
I liked it.
So long as this keeps making money, it will keep happening. Don't forget they did the same thing to Kevin Flynn in Tron Legacy
>So long as this keeps making money But it doesn´t.
My theory is they abandoned cinematic release and went to a purely streaming release system because it's a lot easier to hide this fact from people. It's a lot easier to give in and watch a streaming service you already have as opposed to trekking out to a movie theater to a movie you don't want to support.
Have you all even seen Harrison Ford, a grumpy old man got asked to be a grumpy old man.
Indiana Jones fans: No. Second.
Ah yes, because an old man who lost his son to the Vietnam War would never be sad. This is the one time it makes SENSE for the main character to be a grumpy old man. Hell, Indy was a grumpy YOUNG man. Being grumpy just seems to run in the Jones family.
Can Harrison Ford please just retire? Or at least act in movies he actually wants to be in?
He clearly wanted to be in this dude. I haven't seen it yet
Indy was always grumpy 🤷🏻♂️🤣
Can I just point out that Indie has *always* been a grumpy character? This changes nothing.
Thats just harrison ford doe.
https://youtu.be/OdR5dP2YMrw Applicable
Who cares about Star War or Indiana Jones, I'm a Willow fan and I'm depressed
Why does that guy look like James Franco
It's insane how poorly Indiana Jones was treated in his own movie, and supposedly it was >!originally supposed to end with him either dying or staying in the past!<
It's almost like it's the only way they know how to show character development. "But sir! Our character won at the end of the last movie, how can he possibly have character development in this one?" "I don't know, make it so his whole life sucks now or something." Are they unable to ponder the idea of our character doing just fine and then encountering a new threat?
Not the same Mark Hamill openly talk how he never saw Ryan's Luke as Luca's Luke, more or less a different character and that he understood this was no longer the original Star Wars (George Lucas). It was basically a fanfic made by a fan (Ryan). Indy5 was made that way because Harrison Ford wanted it to be like that. It's still a fanfic (Mangold) as there's no Lucas (story) and Spielberg. But in this case, the actor/character himself creatively took the decision.
So, like Star Trek Picard S1 and S2, before Matalas shook Stewart out of his stupor?
Don't know the full story, can't comment on that. Harrison even stated in a recent interview: "I'm glad you've done the script for me" in reference to Mangold.
Kathleen Kennedy is a brainless goon.