Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

1121315171820

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,867 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    That test screening ending sounds horrific.

    Sacrilege.

    The Butterworth brothers are pretty decent writers, how much free reign will they be allowed by Disney though is the question.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    In what must surely be a definition of futility, James Mangold has been engaging with the trolls inevitably ranting about Waller-Bridge and Kathleen Kennedy. Good luck to you Mangold but you're on a fool's errand there.

    Of actual note though was his pushback that there was any reshoots of the ending. As before, if one simply listens to the source, it turns out to be clickbait, stirring the pot of the perpetually triggered.

    Glad to hear the FX is still being worked on though, cos some of the trailer material was rough.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    you wouldnt bet your house he is telling the truth? directors have lied in the past, JJ for instance about Khan and there are other instances. In this case Mangold is then saying that John Williams "lied"

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,576 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    I guess everyone could be telling the truth as a 'new ending' doesn't have to mean a change of story.

    e.g., imagine The Last Crusade had originally ended with them leaving the Temple and the knight bidding them farewell. Begin credits. And then they came back 3 months after filming to shoot the scene with them riding off on horses into the sunset. It would technically be a new ending.

    So it could just be a fun scene, or an exposition scene, anything really. It would be at the end, likely need John Williams to score it, but not change anything.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Look, you wanna believe some random websites that's your prerogative. But there's the director, a fairly open and transparent one by all accounts, on record saying the ending-reshoots rumour is bullshít - and then practically getting into fights with trolls, if you read the full thread (A hiding to nothing). Would have been easiest to say nothing at all rather than expose yourself to later ridicule. Why does it have to be Williams "lied"? That's being over-dramatic. Maybe he misspoke, maybe he got his wires crossed; maybe he himself read those websites!

    The JJ comparison doesn't track because in that case it was a limp attempt to hide a big plot twist nobody believed for a second. Sure JJ, it's brand-new villain, "John Harrison" in your Trek film. Here, it's external, clickbait outlets trying to drum up controversy and anger for easy clicks because they know there's an audience salivating for a pile-on. One passing comment by Williams isn't a silver bullet. Sometimes the internet lies.

    shrug




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I watched a video of John Williams saying it during a performance recently, not an overheard rumor twice removed so there are questions

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Return of the King is notorious for its abundance of endings. Williams did say there's "another ending" to shoot not a *new* ending. Also even if they are shooting a new ending that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be bad, Die Hard 3 had an alternative ending and I'm sure there are other examples. It really is just trolls looking for any excuse to rag on this film before they've even seen it.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I've seen the same video, never said it was a passing rumour and again, I still think you're being overly dramatic. If it quacks like a duck etc. "there are questions"? Maybe, but Mangold gave you an answer too - sounds like you want a different conclusion 😁

    But the internet's flair for the dramatic, or taking something trivial and exploding it into monetised outrage, is certainly on full show. As @FunLover18 notes, even Williams' language can be noted to simply mean "another ending". Which could be annnnnnything - Christ it could be a Shia LeBeouf cameo, considering the latest news is that Mutt Williams will be addressed in the story in some fashion. It doesn't automatically mean Waller-Bridge's character is going to high-five a walk-on cameo from Kathleen Kennedy as they both pelt Indy's grave with pússyhats.

    But this is Film Discourse 2022: it can't simply be "Big Studio Releases [Probably] Mediocre Movie". No, there has to be something factional about it all. Will all be somewhat embarrassing when this film comes out, it's aggressively forgettable like most blockbusters now, and everyone moves on after its initial weekend



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    if i want to poke fun and second guess a mutibillion corporate trying to sweat its assets by taking on desperate film ideas, thats my right godamit. Thinking like them it seems obvious they "would want" to spin off a tv series, so the rumours would fit in with all that, it fits a pattern is all.

    I would be curious to know if a brewing fan backlash is something they are aware of, or they enjoy the controversy as it creates energy or they feel forced to edit their movie to tone it down due to a mild case of hubris on their part.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Given the furore over the last Indy movie, I imagine Disney are acutely aware of the resting, oversized reaction to Indy sequels. Going double for that other former Lucasarts property.

    Which is why I'd imagine this film will be utterly milquetoast for that reason, when all the hubbub has died down and the reality is the film wasn't worth the energy.

    As to spin offs, we'll see. The property doesn't lend itself to one as like Bond there's basically only one character of note in its whole universe. I'm sure Disney want to churn out more - it's basically why Disney+ exists - they may struggle to find a way. Bar maybe another go at Young Indiana Jones.

    Post edited by pixelburp on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,178 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Crystal Skull killed all the anticipation I had for the return of Indiana Jones if I'm being totally honest and I'll happily wait for this to pop up on Disney+ or whatever streaming serive has it I won't be hurry to watch it and all this nonsense especially  with Mangold replying on Twitter to trolling accounts isn't doing it any favours

    Post edited by Agent Coulson on


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    On the spin-off it looks like as to be expected, it'll not involve the primary cast from Indy 5; so maybe that previous rumour about it "starring" the Ravenwoods had some legs. I suppose to indulge in prior examination of Things Actually Said, technically it could be argued that it won't star Harrison Ford still could mean it'll star a recast Indy.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,245 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Disney and free reign for creators doesn't exist. They have to tow the line.

    The trailer is not as horrific as I thought it would be but hard not to realise that Indy will be surely getting the full Disney policy on male lead actors here so hope the fans are prepared 😅



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    there are some production numbers floating around from a Forbes article that the production budget is around 300m, that turns into a box office requirement of a billion to breakeven , cant see Top Gun levels of nostalgia for this film

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Superbowl TV spot appeared last night; it was too brief to linger on, but that de-aged, smiling Indy remains quite impressive...




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,867 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    The De-aged scene looks like a flashback.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,923 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I'm pretty sure people involved have repeatedly said the de-aging is primarily used in the opening scene, which is a flashback. That may be misdirection to obscure an alleged time-travel element, but that's what has been publicly claimed.

    On a different note, I'm not sure why the YouTube versions of the trailers for this film have been so poor. Even by the standards of 1080p YouTube compression, the video quality is pretty terrible in the official versions of both the main trailer and the TV shot. Not sure why they wouldn't go 4K or at least a higher bit rate to do their big, expensive film more justice TBH.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭FortuneChip


    Yeah, Top Gun this isn't! 300m is a serious bet.

    There's a few things Top Gun had in it's favour.

    Firstly, it's not Indy's first attempt at a comeback. And the last one was lacklustre at best.

    Secondly, Tom Cruise vs Harrison Ford. One has just stayed better (that's no knock to a decent looking Ford at 80). Tom Cruise has kept himself in great shape, and has been acting in mega blockbusters all the while and what he brings to those blockbusters is different to what Ford brought to his respective franchises, with some of the best moments being quirky one-liners as opposed to some central spectacle that "must be watched on a big screen". Maverick was billed as more of the same high octane action, whereas Indy 5 looks to be just going for that lazy "too old for this sh*t" humour.

    And maybe a third - budget attribution. I think Harrison Ford is getting roughly twice what Tom Cruise got (up front) for their respective movies. After that, I assume a lot of Mavericks' budget went into practical effects, whereas if Crystal Skull is anything to go by, we're gonna have a lot of CGI coming our way for Indy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Just comparing the scene of Indy and PWB falling out of the plane to the Temple of Doom scene with the raft. I know CGI is cheaper and way less risky but the ToD scene looks so much better even if the people in the raft are clearly mannequins.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    I'll be going in with cautious optimism. Flashback Indy looks great and I reckon we will only see him for the start of the film (similar to the introduction to The Last Crusade). I really want this to be a success, but Disney have ruined a lot of Lucasfilm content with Andor being the only highlight in a decade of ownership.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    I saw some comments about the ending being re-shot and I have my own theory.

    I think this will end with Indy holding on to the relic (The Dial of Destiny) and taking it with him back into the past to hide. This would be a some what apt ending as it would mean, technically, Indy doesn't die but he goes away to discover the ancient worlds and past he has spent most of his life investigating and studying - a fitting reward for someone who was obsessed with the past. Very much a bittersweet ending, but it would ensure an end (definitive) that wouldn't be about him dying or being re-cast.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 88,569 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    The world premiere at Cannes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭Shred


    I gotta be honest, I’ve watched the trailer numerous times now and it really gets me in the feels, let’s hope the actual film can follow it up this time!



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,133 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    The TV series with Ewan MnĜregor was allright and there is nothing wrong with the Mandelorean



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,563 ✭✭✭✭peteeeed




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Fúck it, I'm in. That's an excellent trailer, and it looks like it might - might - be legitimately fun and a touching goodbye to Indy.

    CGI looks garbage, but if the Dungeon and Dragons film has shown anything, it doesn't matter if the actual story within rocks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,563 ✭✭✭✭peteeeed




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yup… I’m sold. And if the intro is him waking from a nightmare and Crystal Skull was just a bad dream, all the better.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭BruteStock


    It look too digital and that goes against the ethos Lucas had in taking inspiration from the technicolor era adventure films. The 3 originals were lush , vibrant and lavish looking films. This looks like a Marvel movie



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,790 ✭✭✭SuperBowserWorld


    Looks good. Hopefully it is good and we can forget about that previous film abomination.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,867 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    I suppose it wouldnt be an Indiana Jones film without the whiny female accomplice.

    Trailer doesnt look too bad apart from Waller Bridges ham acting.

    Colour does seem off, doesnt look graded properly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,243 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I saw Crystal Skull on TV a while back and apart from the stupid story the main thing I noticed was how terrible it looked, like a cheap cartoon.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,281 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    This.

    But I'll give it ago with my 15 year old daughter in tow. She's an Indy fan because of me. I saw Ark on release at the age of ten. Transcending generations via film can be cool!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,018 ✭✭✭Theboinkmaster


    Looks like CGI garbage



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭Shred


    I don’t need to watch the new trailer, I’m already encouraged enough with what was in the first.

    Despite hopefully being a sign of confidence in the film, it’s such a pity it’s going to be at Cannes in terms of the plot being spoiled by clickbait fúckwits, at least I’m not on any social media anymore which helps massively in that regard.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kingp35


    Far too much CGI for me. I absolutely hate Marvel movies because of the sheer amount of CGI and this looks the same unfortunately.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    another little headwind for this film, Mission Impossible is coming out 2 days early in the US, so there will only be 12 days between the 2 films, based on Maverick last year, there will be massive goodwill for this film, indie will have less time to coin it

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,268 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    The Indiana Jones movies got worse with each one, from a high bar at Raiders to the low low of Crystal Skull. Lets just hope the new one can skip over that tiny bar.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Jesus looks abysmal. Might as well be Indiana Jones made by Chat GPT. The bar has been set so incredibly low that adults are actually looking forward to a 'film' almost made entirely in front of a green screen. This stuff is for the under 12's. The Crystal Skull might have been the raping of Indiana Jones, this one looks like it will be the defiler of the dead corpse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,584 ✭✭✭irishgeo


    The amount of people slagging a film of based on a trailer is unreal.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71 ✭✭noahungry


    I'm afraid this is the best we can hope for...



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    In case anyone was hoping the final CGI might be better? Well... ... I suppose, it looks better than Crystal Skull's own? And not so transparently fake as that prior film's jungle chase. We're a far cry from the era of just building a tank to climb & fight around.

    So with a bit of luck the actual adventure might be a bit of fun.




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    At least they've kept the exact same machine gun FX.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,923 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Well, it's premiere day today in Cannes, well over a month before its wide release, so we should hopefully at least have an idea whether it's a disaster or (fingers crossed) not well in advance.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Is Cannes likely to gush, or be filled with shills though? Not sure festival hyperventilation would persuade me lol 🤭



  • Registered Users Posts: 930 ✭✭✭JPup


    Ah hear. You can't seriously be arguing that Temple of Doom was better than the 3rd one? I have some nostalgia for Temple of Doom which seemed to endlessly be on repeat around Christmas time in the late 80s and early 90s, but let's be honest, it's well below the standard of the other two.

    Young Indiana Jones is also comfortably better than ToD! The less said about the 4th movie the better!



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,923 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Festival hyperbole is absolutely a thing, but Cannes wouldn’t be filled with the usual ‘will give film good tweet for freebies’ brigade either. Usually more signal than noise at somewhere like Cannes, albeit with caveats. We’ll see when the reviews land.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,054 ✭✭✭Mr Crispy


    I expect nothing less than a seven minute standing ovation.



Advertisement