It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Me too. A deep feeling of peace, rest and tranquility. Just wondered what he needed the fedora for in the end.
I take your point, but I do think Skull got a bit crowded with folks tagging along last time: I rather liked the stripped-down feel of this. Indy even got the horse chase to himself.
I was generally against having Sallah back, but I think he was needed for that ending, funnily enough: Indy needed a family of meaningful friends around him.
Because being back with Marion made him feel a bit younger again & she could take it off his head again like in Raiders! In case he has to go downstairs and ask peeps to turn the music down & this time be regarded seriously! So a NY pigeon doesn't poop on it!
Look, I didn't need this movie, the end of CS was fine. But they made it and I like it.
‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ Is the Unanimous #1 on VOD Charts
I think Marion asked him to wear it during sex.
It is rather the inevitable conclusion to be drawn.
To be honest, I meant to express a little innuendo in that direction as well.
My thoughts...
Harrison Ford way too old to be convincing in role. He seemed to be playing grumpy old man for the entirety of the film. To give him some benefit of the doubt the screenplay portrayed him as a grumpy old man so I guess he was respecting what was written on the page but even so I found it a rather depressing, moribund incarnation of the character.
Way too much cgi/greenscreen in action scenes. Much of it didn't feel real. The fight on bike just before Indy gets on the train looked particularly fake.
I thought much of the deaging was impressive. As mentioned by others online, Ford's voice sounded old so the overall combination of deaged face with older voice was a little jarring.
Voller's deaging looked amazing.
Some lazy film making. For example why not hire two stuntmen to jump out of the plane instead of cheap looked cgi models of Helena and Indy leaping out. Why not hire some stuntmen to stand on a real moving train? Octopussy did that but 40 years later we get greenscreen. The train isn't real, the background isn't real. It's all composites. The lack of real life stuntwork was disappointing.
Bonkers plot. I kinda liked it because it was so crazy. The final act is bonkers. Time travel. The watch paradox. Voller has to go back in time for Archimedes to acquire the watch but Indiana and Helena find the watch in the tomb before Voller has taken it and gone back in time. The future event determines the past event.
Woke narrative/character representation. Jones is old and (mostly) useless (hence why he's kidnapped and doesn't even have a final fight with Voller). Helena Shaw is tough, resourceful, smug, regards men as inferior, a ruthless capitalist. She even gets to punch Indiana at the end of the film as a plot device to save him. Old man wants to stay in the past but 20th century feminist woman is not having any of that nonsense. She literally saves him from becoming a relic. Female empowerment!
The end was kinda depressing because we see Marion retuning because she feels sorry for old man Indiana. The same man she divorced!
Overall I did enjoy the film but I don't think it should have been made. Ford is too old. If anything the film is telling us "Indiana Jones is too old." He is a character lost, unable to fit in with the changing cultural and technological landscape. This is why he says he doesn't want to return to 1969.
Despite my enjoyment, I thought the film was rather depressing. Made me acutely aware of time passing. As the credits rolled I realised we can't go back in time. All we can do is live in the present. Let Indiana Jones remain in the past.
Folks see what they want to see.
Let's not forget Indiana Jones does not save the day in Dial of Destiny. He does not have a big battle with Voller. He is kidnapped! And Voller and his men die in the plane crash.
Indiana Jones does nothing heroic in the final act. It's Helena that jumps onto the plane's wheel. She tries to save him. It's Helena that punches Indiana and takes him back via the time fissure. He is kinda useless. Is he inferior to Helena? Maybe.
Put it another way... is Indiana Jones the alpha hero we grew up watching in the original trilogy? No. He's weaker. Can an eighty year old hero remain alpha? Arguably no due to the aging process, however, the screenwriters and Kathleen Kennedy could have made Jones more heroic, particularly in the final act. They didn't.
The film deconstructs Indiana Jones and empowers Helena Shaw. This is consistent with Kathleen Kennedy's third Star Wars trilogy where Rey is very strong and Luke Skywalker is mostly useless or disillusioned. It's all deliberate. Unfortunately this woke narrative backfired with IJ 5. It didn't reach 400 million worldwide let alone the 800 or more Disney wanted. It's possible Kathleen Kennedy will be 'encouraged' to leave her job as president of Lucasfilm. I can't see her coming back from this box office disappointment. Maybe she'll step down in 2024 and Lucasfilm will change creative direction.
Bizarre logic. Where does she show that she thinks women are superior then?
All you have there is evidence that she has scant regard for anyone but herself.
And Teddy of course. Who is male.
I wonder why you instantly assume she hates men and see a problem with the female character from a gendered point of view. Do you assume that Voller hates women?
That's how Indiana Jones films work, yes. Watch Raiders again, for example.
For some reason you've ignored the part where Indy shoots the Nazi hanging onto Helena's legs, pulling her out of the plane. And the part where he gets a parachute and grabs her, saving her again.
They both save each other over the course of the film, several times. Just like in all of the other Indy movies. In the tank chase in Last Crusade for example, Indy is saved from being squished against a rock wall by Marcus Brody of all people. Do you think that was 'empowering' Marcus? And why would it be a problem if it did?
He is older, and obviously not as capable of acrobatics as he was, but you're also misremembering who Indy was.
I wonder why you single out Kathleen Kennedy in particular.
Do you watch a lot of YouTube videos by any chance?
Indiana Jones is not heroic in the third act. He's a prisoner on a plane. He jumps out of the plane and er.. that's it. Oh, and he moans that he has no reason to go back to 1969.
Yes, thrilling, heroic stuff.
;))
Yes I know, I've seen it. My question was why do you assume that she regards him as inferior because he's a man? Where is gender ever brought up in the film? I suspect you didn't answer because you know you're wrong.
I mean, I literally just told you another heroic thing he does, but you don't seem to be able to retain it.
Also, the idea that he has to be a superhero, winning every battle singlehandedly, is not born out of an understanding of any of the previous movies in this series.
Disney/Lucasfilm deliberately deconstructed Indiana Jones and empowered the main female character. This was done due to so called toxic masculinity in modern culture and to appeal to the female demographic (which has huge box office clout as proven by the success of Barbie).
Unfortunately, the vast majority of male film goers don't want to see an emasculated grumpy old man Indiana Jones nor a smug condescending masculine vibe female character trying to get the better of the aforementioned emasculated grumpy old man hero. The result... dismal box office.
You've successfully cracked the case, all there is for us to do now is burn all Indiana Jones and Star Wars films, and call on Bob Iger and Kathleen Kennedy to be fired with immediate effect. Or we will boycott all future Disney ventures.
Or we could just move on with our lives. ;)
It's about one man. Who is old. Because it's a sequel to some other films which had already been made, and which starred a man who is now 80. It's not about all men.
Again, why do you have a problem with an empowered woman?
And yes, he's deconstructed because the film is entirely about him. He is not reduced in stature or importance, it is a film about this one man who we love. He encounters a member of his extended family who he hasn't seen in years, and teaches her to be a better person and shows her what her personality is missing and what she's running away from. And yes, he learns from her too: there's nothing actually bad about learning things from women.
You don't speak for me, no. The vast majority of male filmgoers are well-adjusted and can deal with women being 'empowered'. Mission Impossible, The Flash etc. all underperformed: you can try and pin that on there being women in those in there too if you want, but it will be nonsense just as equally.
You keep having to swerve and ignore any points I make and just repeat the same little nuggets of YouTube wisdom, so I'll leave you to your fantasies.
You may think IJ 5 is a nice respectful farewell to the character. Fair enough. But you're in the minority because the box office stats prove DoD didn't have any of the appeal of Oppenheimer and Barbie or even of the underperforming MI 7.
By the way, Helena Shaw actually says she is better than a man (or as good as a man) - words to that effect- during the Tuk Tuk cgi saturated chase. Evidence of the anti men pro women agenda rife in pop culture.
It got better critical reviews as time went on and the audience scores were pretty high. You're equating fan love/hate for the film with its abysmal box office results.
Hell, look at the new M:I - amazing reviews from critics and fans alike but it didn't even hit $600 million worldwide.
I didn't care for TDOD but there's way more that goes into the financial success of a film than whether people liked it or not.
Having an 80 year old actor in the lead role is not going to appeal to gen z film goers. That was probably a major reason for the poor box office. There's also competition from other big budget films. Various reasons why some films fail and some soar! ;)
It's not a matter of Gen-Z appeal. It's more a matter of taste.
But just my opinion.
I'm going to regret asking this, then what's your point?
Not every 20 year old uses Tiktok, you know.
I'm pretty sure there's plenty of Gen-Z who met Indiana Jones from their parents and became fans.
Well the idea of making big budget films is to maximise your potential profit. And to do that it makes sense to appeal to the largest audience possible. Young, middle age and older film goers.
It seems reasonable logic to assume one key demographic - the youth audience - is less likely to go see your film if the main guy reminds them of their grandad.
Would Raiders of the Lost Ark be as good/considered a classic had Indiana Jones been around 80? Of course not. The character was in his late 30s. Broad appeal to younger and older film goers.
The concept of an 80 year old Indiana Jones final film was counterintuitive. Made no sense. I accept Disney bought Lucasfilm so there was economic pressure to get a return on the studio's investment but you have to be realistic. Disney compromised a bit and gave us 20 minutes of deaged Indiana Jones but it wasn't enough to get people into the cinema. People chose to see other films.