#kathleen spielberg

[guillotineman]

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous ask: What do you think of the new Indiana Jones movie? And of Phoebe Waller-Bridge?

In a nutshell: From start to finish ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ is watching Indiana Jones being a broken-down shell of a once great legacy character who has to be saved by the perfect younger and snarky but stereotypical ’Strong Independent Woman’ that passes for women characters in popcorn movies today.

I went in to this film with conflicted feelings. On the one hand I was genuinely excited to see this new Indiana Jones movie because it’s Indiana Jones. Period. Yet, on the other hand I feared how badly Lucasfilm, under Kathleen Kennedy’s insipid woke inspired CEO studio direction, was going to further tarnish not just a screen legend but the legacy of both George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. The cultural damage she has done to such a beloved franchise as the Star Wars universe in the name of progressive woke ideology is criminal. The troubled production history behind this film and its massive $300 million budget (by some estimates) meant Disney had a lot riding on it, especially with the future of Kathleen Kennedy on the line too as she was hands on with this film.

To me the Indiana Jones movies (well, the first three anyway, the less we say about ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’ the better) were an important part of my childhood. I fell in love with the character instantly. Watching ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ (first on DVD in my boarding school dorm with other giggly girls and later on the big screen at a local arts cinema retrospective on Harrison Ford’s stellar career) just blew me away. 

As a girl I wanted to be an archaeologist and have high falutin’ adventures; I even volunteered in digs in Pakistan and India (the Indus civilisation) as well as museum work in China as a teen growing up in those countries and discovering the methodical and patient but back breaking reality of what archaeology really was. But that didn’t dampen my spirit. Just once I wanted to echo Dr. Jones, ‘This belongs in a museum!’ But I happily settled for studying Classics instead and enjoyed studying classical archaeology on the side.

I couldn’t quite make sense why Indiana Jones resonated with me more than any other action hero on the screen until much later in life. Looking like Harrison Ford certainly helps. But it’s more than that. I’ve written this elsewhere but it’s worth repeating here.

‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ is considered an inspiration for so many action films yet there’s a very odd aspect to the film that’s rather unique and rarely noticed by its critics and fans. It’s an element that, once spotted, is difficult to forget, and is perhaps inspiring for times like the one in which we currently live, when there are so many challenges to get through. Typically in action films, the hero faces an array of obstacles and setbacks, but largely solves one problem after another, completes one quest after another, defeats one villain after another, and enjoys one victory after another.

The structure of ‘Raiders’ is different. A quick reminder:

- In the opening sequence, Indiana Jones obtains the temple idol only to lose it to his rival René Belloq (Paul Freeman). - In the streets of Cairo, Indy fails to protect his love, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), from being captured (killed, he assumes). - In the desert, he finds the long-lost Ark of the Covenant, only to have it taken away by Belloq. - Indy then recovers the ark only to have it stolen a second time by Belloq, this time at sea. - On an island, Indy tries to bluff Belloq into thinking he’ll blow up the ark. His bluff fails. Indy is captured. - The climax of the film literally has its hero tied to a post the entire time. He’s completely ineffectual and helpless at a point in the movie where every other action hero is having their greatest moment of struggle and, typically, triumph.

If Indiana Jones had done absolutely nothing, if the famed archeologist had simply stayed home, the Nazis would have met the same fate - losing their lives to ark’s wrath because they opened it. It’s pretty rare in action films for the evil arch-villains to have the same outcome as if the hero had done nothing at all.

Indy does succeed in getting the ark back to America, of course, which is crucial. But then Indy loses the ark, once again, when government agents send it to a warehouse and refuse to let him study the object he chased the whole film. In other words: Indiana Jones spends ‘Raiders’ failing, getting beat up, and losing every artefact that he risks his life to acquire. And yet, Indiana Jones is considered a great hero.

The reason Indiana Jones is a hero isn’t because he wins. It’s because he never stops trying. I think this is the core of Indiana Jones’ character.

Critics will go on about something called agency as in being active or pro-active. But agency can be reactive and still be kinetic to propel the story along. It’s something that has progressively got lost as the series went on. With the latest Indiana Jones film I felt that Indiana Jones character had no agency and ends up being a relatively passive character. Sadly Indiana Jones ends up being a grouchy, broken, and beat up passenger in his own movie.

Released in 1981, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ remains one of the most influential blockbusters of all time. Exciting action, exotic adventure, just the right amount of romance, good-natured humour, cutting-edge special effects: it was all there, perfectly balanced. Since then, attempts have been made to reproduce this winning recipe in different narrative contexts, sometimes successfully (’Temple of Doom’ and ‘the Last Crusade’), usually in vain (’Crystal Skull’).

What are the key ingredients of an Indiana Jones movie? There are only four core elements - leaving aside aspects of story such as the villain or the goal - that you need in place before anything else. They are: the wry, world-weary but sexy masculine performance of Harrison Ford; the story telling genius of George Lucas steeped in the lore of Saturday morning action hero television shows of the 1950s; the deft visual story telling and old school action direction of Steven Spielberg; and the sublime and sweeping music of the great John Williams. This what made the first three films really work.

In the latest Indiana Jones film, you only have one. Neither Lucas and Spielberg are there and arguably neither is Harrison Ford. John Williams’ music score remains imperious as ever. His music does a lot of heavy lifting in the film and let’s face it, his sublime music can polish any turd.

This isn’t to say the ‘Dial of Destiny’ is a turd. I won’t go that far, and to be honest some of the critical reaction has been over-hysterical. Instead I found it enjoyable but also immensely frustrating more than anything else. It had potential to be a great swan song film for Indy because it had an exciting collection of talent behind it.

In the absence of Spielberg, one couldn’t do worse than to pick James Mangold as next best to direct this film. Mangold is a great director. I am a fan of his body of work. After ‘Copland’, ‘Walk the Line’, ‘Logan’ and ‘Le Mans 66’ (or ‘Ford vs Ferrari’), James Mangold has been putting together a fine career shaped by his ability to deliver stories that rediscover a certain old-fashioned charm without abusing the historical figures - real or fictional - he tackles. And after Johnny Cash, Wolverine and Ken Miles, among others, I had high hopes he would keep the flame alive when it came to Indiana Jones. Mangold grew up as a fanboy of Spielberg’s work and you can clearly see that in his approach to directing film.

But in this film his direction lacks vitality. Mangold, while regularly really good, drags his feet a little here because he’s caught between putting his own stamp on the film and yet also lovingly pay homage to his hero, Spielberg. It’s as if he didn't dare give himself away completely, the director seems too modest to really take the saga by the scruff of the neck, and inevitably ends up suffering from the inevitable comparison with Steven Spielberg.

Mangold tries to recreate the nostalgic wonder of the originals, but doesn't quite succeed, while succumbing to an overkill of visual effects that make several passages seem artificial. The action set pieces range from pedestrian to barely satisfying. The prologue sequence was vaguely reminiscent of past films but it was still a little too reliant on CGI. The much talked about de-ageing of Harrison Ford on screen was impressive (and one suspects a lot of the film budget was sunk right there). But Indiana’s lifeless digitally de-aged avatar fighting on a computer-generated train, made the whole sequence feel like the Nazi Polar Express. Because it didn’t look real, there was no sense of danger and therefore no emotional investment from the audience. You know Tom Cruise would have done it for real and it would have looked properly cinematic and spectacular.

The tuk tuk chase through the narrow streets of Tangiers was again an exciting echo of past films, especially ‘Raiders’, but goes on a tad too long, but the exploration of the ship wreck (and a criminally underused cameo by Antonio Banderas) was disappointing and way too short. 

The main problem here is the lack of creativity in the conception of truly epic scenes, because these are not dependent on Ford's age. Indeed, the film could very well have offered exhilarating action sequences worthy of the archaeologist with the whip, without relying solely on the physicality of its leading man. You don't need a Tom Cruise to orchestrate great moments but you could do worse than to follow his example. 

Mangold uses various means of locomotion to move the character  - train, tuk tuk, motorbike, horse - and offers a few images that wouldn't necessarily be seen elsewhere (notably the shot of Jones riding a horse in the middle of the underground), but in the end shows himself to be rather uninspired, when the first three films in the saga conceived some of the most inventive sequences in the genre and left their mark on cinema history. There are no really long shots, no iconic compositions, no complex shots that last and enrich a sequence, which makes the film look too smooth and prevents it from giving heft to an adventure that absolutely needs it.

And so now to the divisive figure of Phoebe Waller-Bridge. 

It’s important here to separate the person from the character. I like Phoebe Waller-Bridge and I loved her in her ‘Fleabag’ series. She excels in a very British setting. I think she is funny, irreverent, and a whip smart talented writer and performer. I also think she has a particular frigid English beauty and poise about her. When I say poise I don’t mean the elegant poise of a Parisienne or a Milanese woman, but someone who is cute and comfortable in her own skin. You would think she would be more suited to ‘Downton Abbey’ setting than all out Hollywood action film. But I think she almost pulls it off here. 

In truth over the years Phoebe Waller-Bridge, known for her comedy, has been collecting franchises where she is able to inflict her saucy humour into a hyper-masculine space. I don’t think her talent was properly showcased here. 

Hollywood has this talent for plucking talented writers and actors who are exceptional in what they do and then hire them do something entirely different by either miscasting them or making them write in a different genre. I think Phoebe Waller-Bridge is exceptional and she might just rise if she is served by a better script.

In the end I think she does a decent stab at playing an intriguing character in Helena Shaw, Indy’s long lost and estranged god daughter and a sort of amoral rare artefacts hustler. Phoebe Waller-Bridge brings enthusiasm, charm and mischief to the role, making her a breath of fresh air. She seems to be the only member of the on-screen cast that looks to be enjoying themselves. 

To be fair her I thought Waller-Bridge was a more memorable and interesting female character than either Kate Capshaw (’Temple of Doom’, 1984) and Alison Doody (’Last Crusade’, 1989). She certainly is a marked improvement on the modern woke inspired insipid female action leads such as Brie Larson (’Captain Marvel’), or any women in the Marvel universe for that matter, or Katherine Waterson (’Alien Covenant’). Waller-Bridge could have been reminiscent of Kathleen Turner (’Romancing the Stone’) and more recently Eva Green, actresses who command attention on screen and are as captivating, if not more so, than the male protagonists they play opposite.

To be sure there have been strong female leads before the woke infested itself into Hollywood story telling but they never made it central to their identity. Sigourney Weaver in ‘Alien’ and Linda Hamilton in the ‘Terminator’ franchise somehow conveyed strength of character with grit and perseverance through their suffering, while also being vulnerable and confident to pull through and succeed. Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character isn’t quite that. She doesn’t get into fist fights or overpowers big hulking men but she uses cheek and charm to wriggle out of tight spots. She’s gently bad ass rather the dull ‘strong independent woman’ cardboard caricatures that Marvel is determined to ram down every girl’s throat. If Waller-Bridge’s character was better written she might well have been able to revive memories of the great ladies of Hollywood's golden age who had the fantasy and the confidence that men quaked at their feet.

What lets her character down is the snark. She doesn’t pepper her snark but she drowns in it. All of it directed at poor Indy and mocking him for his creaking bones and his entire legacy. It’s a real eyesore and it is a real let down as it drags the story down and clogs up the wheels that power the kinetic energy that an adventure with Indiana Jones needs. ‘The grumpy old man and the young woman with the wicked repartee set off across the vast world’ schtick is all well and good, but it does grate and by the end it makes you angry that Indy has put up with this crap. I can understand why many are turned off by Waller-Bridge’s character. As a female friend of mine put it, we get the talented Phoebe Waller Bridge’s bitter and unlikable Helena acting like a bitter and unlikable man. But it could be worse, it could be as dumb as Shia LaBeouf‘s bad Fonzie impersonation in 'Crystal Skull’.

I would say there is a difference between snark and sass. Waller-Bridge’s character is all snark. If the original whispers are true the original script had her way more snarkier towards Indy until Ford threatened to leave the project unless there were re-writes,  then it shows how far removed the producers and writers were from treating Indy Jones with the proper respect a beloved legacy character deserves. It’s also lazy story telling.

Karen Black gave us real sass with Marion Ravenwood in ‘Raiders’. Her character was sassy, strong, but also vulnerable and romantic. She plays it pitch perfect. Of all the women in Indy’s life she was good foil for Indy.

Spielberg is so underrated for his mise-en-scène. We first meet Marion running a ramshackle but rowdy tavern in Tibet (she’s a survivor). She plays and wins a drinking game (she’s a tough one), she sees Indy again and punches him (she’s angry and hurt for her abandoning her and thus revealing her vulnerability). She has the medallion and becomes a partner (she’s all business). She evades and fights off the Nazis and their goons, she even uses a frying pan (she’s resourceful but not stupid). She tries on dresses (she’s re-discovers her femininity). Indy saves her but she picks him up at the end of the film by going for a drink (she’s healing and there’s a chance of a new start for both of them). This is a character arc worth investing in because it speaks to truth and to our reality.

The problem with Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character is that she is constantly full on with the snark. Indy and Helena gripe and moan at each other the entire film. Indy hasn’t seen her in years, and she felt abandoned after her father passed, so there’s a lot of bitterness. It’s not unwarranted, but it also isn’t entertaining. It’s never entertaining if the snark makes the character too temperamental and unsympathetic for the audience to be emotionally invested in her.

I think overall the film is let down by the script. Again this is a shame. The writing talent was there. Jez and John-Henry Butterworth worked with James Mangold on ‘Ford v. Ferrari’ and co-wrote ‘Edge of Tomorrow‘ while David Koepp co-wrote the first ‘Mission: Impossible’ (but he also penned Indiana Jones and the ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’, and the 2017 version of ‘The Mummy’ that simultaneously started and destroyed Universal’s plans for their Dark Universe). I love the work of Jez Butterworth who is one of England’s finest modern playwrights and he seemed to have transitioned fine over to Hollywood. But as anyone knows a Hollywood script has always too many cooks in the kitchen. There are so many fingerprints of other people - studio execs and directors and even stars - that a modern Hollywood script somehow resembles a sort of Ship of Theseus. It’s the writer’s name on the script but it doesn’t always mean they wrote or re-wrote every word.

Inevitably things fall between the cracks and you end up filming from the hip and hoping you can stitch together a coherent narrative in post-production editing. Clearly this film suffered from studio interference and many re-writes. And it shows because there is no narrative fluidity at work in the film.

Mads Mikkelsen’s Nazi scientist is a case in point. I love Mikkelsen especially in his arthouse films but I understand why he takes the bucks for the Hollywood films too. But in this film he is phoning in his performance. Mads Mikkelsen does what he can with limited screen time to make an impact but this character feels so recycled from other blockbusters. Here the CIA and US Government are evil and willing to let innocent Americans be murdered in order to let their pet Nazi rocket scientist pursue what they believe to be a hobby. But to be fair the villains in the Indy movies have never truly been memorable with perhaps Belloq, the French archaeologist and nemesis of Indy in ‘Raiders’, the only real exception. It’s just been generic bad guys - The Nazis! The Thugee death cult! The Nazis (again)! The Commies! Now we’re back to Nazis again which is not only safer ground for the Indy franchise but something we can all get behind.

However Mads Mikkelsen’s Dr. Voller, is the blandest and most generic Nazi villain in movie history. At the end of World War II, Voller was recruited by the US Government to aid them in rocket technology. Now that he’s completed his task and man has walked on the moon, he’s turning his genius to his ultimate purpose, the recovery of the ‘Dial of Destiny’ built by Archimedes. Should he find both pieces of the ancient treasure, he plans to return to 1930s Nazi Germany, usurp Hitler, and use his advanced knowledge of rocket propulsion to win the war. In a sense then he was channeling his inner Heidegger who felt Hitler had let down Nazism and worse betrayed Heidegger himself.

So there is a character juxtaposition between Voller and Indy in the sense both men feel more comfortable in the past than the present. But neither is given face time together to explore this intriguing premise that could have anchored the whole narrative of the film. It’s a missed opportunity and instead becomes a failure of character and story telling.

Then there are the one liners which seemed shoe horned in to make the studio execs or the writers feel smug about themselves. There are several woke one lines peppered throughout the film but are either tone deaf or just stupid.

“You trigger happy cracker”-  it’s uttered without any self-awareness by a black CIA agent who is chaperoning the Nazi villain. Just because white people think it’s dumb and aren’t bothered by it doesn’t make it any less a racial slur. If you want authenticity then why not use the ’N’ word then as it would historically appropriate in 1969? The hypocrisy is what’s offensive.

“You stole it. He stole it. I stole it. It’s called capitalism.” - capitalism 101 for economic illiterate social justice warriors.

“[I’m] daring, beautiful, and self-sufficient” - uttered by Helena Shaw as a snarky reminder that she’s a strong independent woman, just in case you forgot.

“It’s not what you believe but how hard you believe.” - Indiana Jones has literally stood before the awesome power of God when the Ark of the Covenant was opened up by the Nazis, and they paid the price for it by having their faces melted off. Indy has drunk from the authentic cup of Christ, given to him by a knight who’s lived for centuries, that gave him eternal life and heal his father from a fatal bullet wound. So he’s figuratively seen the face of God (sure, he closed his eyes) and His holy wrath, and has witnessed the divine healing power of Christ first hand. And yet his spews out this drivel. It’s empty of any meaning and is a silly nod to our current fad that it’s all about the truth of our feelings, not observable facts or truth.

For me though the absolute worse was what they did to Indiana Jones as a character. Once the pinnacle of masculinity, a brave and daring man’s man whose zest for life was only matched by his brilliance, Henry Jones Jr. is now a broken, sad, and lonely old man. Indiana Jones is mired in the past. Not in the archaeological past, but in his own personal past. He's asleep at the wheel, losing interest in his own life. He's lost his son, he's losing his wife. He's been trying to pass on his passion, his understanding to disinterested people. They're not so interested in looking at the past. He remains a man turned towards the past, and then he finds himself confronted by Helena, who embodies the future. This nostalgia, this historical anchoring, becomes the main thread of the story.The film tries to deconstructs Indiana Jones on the cusp of retirement from academia and confronts him with a world he no longer understands. That’s an interesting premise and could have made for a great film.

It’s clear that the filmmakers’ intention was for a lost and broken Indiana to recapture his spirit by the film’s end. However, its horrible pacing and meandering and underdeveloped plot, along with Harrison Ford’s miserably sad demeanour in nearly every scene, make for a deeply depressing movie with an empty and unearned resolution. 

By this I mean at the very end of the film. It’s meant to be daring and it is. There’s something giddy about appearing during the middle of siege of Syracuse by blood thirsty Romans and then coming face to face with Archimedes himself. The film seems to want to justify the legendary, exceptional aura and character of Indy himself by including him in History. Hitherto wounded deep down inside, and now also physically wounded, Indy the archaeologist tells Helena that he wants to stay here and be part of history. 

It's a lovely and even moving moment, and you wonder if the film isn't going to pull a ‘Dying Can Wait’ by having its hero die in order to strengthen its legend. But in a moment that is too brutal from a rhythmic point of view, Helena refuses, knocks out her godfather and takes him back to the waiting plane and back to 1969. The next thing Indy sees he’s woken up back in his shabby apartment in New York.

I felt cheated. I’m sure Indy did too.

After all it was his choice. But Helena robbed him of the freedom to make his own decisions. She’s the one to decide what’s best. In effect she robbed him of agency. Even if it was the wrong decision to stay back in time, it’s so important from a narrative and character arc perspective that Indy should have had his own epiphany and make the choice to come back by himself because there is something worth living for in the future present - and that was reconciling with Marion his estranged wife. But damn it, he had to come to that decision for himself, and not have someone else force it upon him. That’s why the ending feelings so unearned and why the story falls flat as a soufflé when you piss on it.

‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ feels like the type of sequel that aimed to capture the magic of its predecessors, had worthwhile intentions, and a talented cast, but it just never properly materialised. In a movie whose pedigree, both in front and behind the camera, is virtually unassailable, it’s inexcusable that this team of filmmakers couldn’t achieve greater heights. 

The film was a missed opportunity to give a proper send off to a cinematic legend. Harrison Ford proving that whatever gruff genre appeal he possessed in his heyday has aged better than Indy’s knees. He may be 80, but Ford carries the weight of the film, which, for all its gargantuan expense, feels a bit like those throwaway serials that first inspired Lucas - fun while it lasts, but wholly forgettable on exit.

I wouldn’t rate ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ as the worst film in the franchise - that dubious honour still lies with ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’.  Indeed the best I can say is that I would rate this film at the benchmark of “not quite as bad as Crystal Skull”.But it’s definitely time to retire and hang up the fedora and the bull whip.

For what’s worth I always thought the ending of ‘Last Crusade’ where Indy, his father Henry Jones Snr., and his two most faithful companions, Sallah and Marcus Brody, ride off into the sunset was the most fitting way to say goodbye to a beloved character.

Instead we have in ‘Dial of Destiny’ the very last scene which is meant to be this perfect ending: Indiana Jones in his scruffy pyjamas and his shabby apartment. Sure, the exchange between a reconciling Indy and Marion is sincere and touching. But that only works because it explicitly recalls ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’. That's what Nietzsche would call “an eternal return”.

I shall eternally return to watch the first three movies to delight in the adventures of the swashbuckling archaeologist with the fedora and a bull whip. The last two dire films will be thrown into the black abyss. Something even Nietzsche would have approved of.

Thanks for your question.

[movie--posters]

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

The BFG (2016, Steven Spielberg)

13/03/2024

The BFG is a 2016 film directed by Steven Spielberg.

The first film directed by Spielberg to be produced and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, it is the film adaptation of the 1982 novel The BFG written by Roald Dahl, already brought to the big screen with the 1989 animated film The BFG.

In a London orphanage, in the middle of the night, the orphan Sophie Tibbs can't sleep. Once they arrive in the giant's cave, in a place protected by the fog of the north sea of the United Kingdom, the Land of Giants, Sophie, terrified, tries to escape.

Sophie decides to desist from escaping from the land of the Giants, learning of their customs: the good giant shows her how he must feed on disgusting Snozzcumber, the only food existing in their land besides human flesh, which are the raw material for preparing Frobscottle, a bizarre sparkling green drink consumed by all the giants, in which the bubbles go down instead of up and which therefore causes flatulence.

Finding a photo of Queen Victoria in Jack's lair, Sophie comes up with a plan to get rid of the giants. She then asks the BFG to create a dream for Queen Elizabeth II: in the dream, the queen will see their adventure so far and will know that, when she wakes up, she will see a little girl and a peaceful giant at the window who will help her stop the evil giants who decided that night to eat several children in orphanages.

The first attempts to make a big-screen adaptation of the novel The BFG were made in 1991, when producers Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy tried to involve Paramount Pictures. In 1998, the spouses Robin Swicord and Nicholas Kazan wrote a screenplay for a possible film, thinking of Robin Williams in the main role of the BFG. In 2001 the screenplay was rewritten by Gwyn Lurie with the approval of the Dahl foundation.

In September 2011, DreamWorks announced that it had purchased the film to the book; Kennedy and Marshall are confirmed as producers, and Melissa Mathison is brought in to write the screenplay. In April 2014, Steven Spielberg was announced as director. In March 2015, Walden Media announced its role as co-financier and co-producer of the film.

[webbergirl]

⁣⁣⁣⁣Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Mellody Hobson, Harrison Ford, Calista Flockhart, Karen Allen, Ke Huy Quan, John Rhys-Davies, John Williams, James Mangold, Kathleen Kennedy, and Frank Marshall attend the Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny U.S. Premiere at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, California on June 14, 2023

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Who are the bad guys in Indiana Jones 5 gonna be?

1 and 3 had Nazis, 2 had an Indian warlord, 4 had Soviets, so I was convinced that 5 would be about the Viet Cong or the Cultural Revolution or Kim Il-Sung's North Korea, set somewhere in east Asia for sure, but recent developments imply it'll be set at least in part in the United States during the summer of 69. There's a chase scene through the Apollo 11 ticker tape parade in New York, and much of the cast is "German" (one Dane, one German, and one Dutchman; in Hollywood that means they're all interchangeably German)

You know what, as I was typing that I realized it'll probably be set in Apartheid South Africa. One of the actresses is Guyanese-American; there's no telling where her character is from by that fact alone, but the presence of all the Germanic actors has changed my mind. They're not German, they're actually Dutch. They're Afrikaners. Mads Mikkelsen is gonna play the owner of a blood diamond mine (just like Elon Musk's dad, no really, look it up), and he'll be searching for the Mystical Magical Unobtainable Emerald of M'Ghuffan which will grant him unlimited powers, and Indy has to return it to its people like the stones in Temple of Doom.

Conservatives will attack the movie as woke propaganda for saying racism is bad, but it'll be handled in that dumb tone deaf Disney way which is designed to appeal predominantly to white liberals and very few others. It's a schlocky popcorn movie, but everyone involved is gonna act like it has an Very Important Message™, "because really, it's about family, and that's what's so powerful about it." And Indy's goddaughter (presumably Sallah's daughter, because they're bringing him back too and it wouldn't make sense for her to be old dead Marcus Brody's) will inherit his mantle at the end, putting on his hat and embarking on her own adventures with this exact energy, but unironically:

It'll be insincere Disney pandering and conservatives will freak out even more about it. It could be done well, but it won't be. The focus groups won't let it. Kathleen Kennedy won't let it. Disney is physically incapable of letting it. Goddaughter Jones isn't gonna be a badass like Marion Ravenwood, she's gonna be a Strong Female Character™ like every Marvel heroine.

I haven't seen this movie, but I feel like I've seen it a million times.

[mindctrlaltdel]

Random Reviews: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Good enough. Maybe I’m being nice. Maybe it’s the years AND the mileage. 

Sure, Dial D for Destiny loses steam before the wacky ending (that I really enjoyed because it’s the 2023 version of playing Civilization 2 on the family Macintosh).

That said, I especially liked the opening. Normally, I hate de-aging CGI, but if you watched this on grainy VHS after the first three Jones movies, you’d hardly notice the difference. Hardly. Yes, de-aging is still weird, but it looks about as good here as any time they photoshop Robert Downey Jr.’s head onto a CGI Iron-Man body.

There were rumors that Mangold and company had trouble cracking the ending. It shows. Apparently, they filmed a bunch of alternate climaxes and that’s all evident in the finished product. Going in, I’d heard the last 30 minutes were weird and wild. 

As I watched the movie I kept asking myself, “how wacky can this possibly get?” 

Not wacky enough. 

At one point, I theorized that Mads would get the Dial and activate it. Then, Indy would wake up in an alternate 1969 where the Nazis won WW2, and he’d have to find a way to undo this Man in the High Castle scenario in the final 15 minutes of movie time. 

Then they ended up in ancient times, and I assumed the twist was gonna be: that robed wise man ISN’T really Archimedes. INDY is Archimedes. And the corpse-with-the-watch-that-they-found-in-that-tomb-ten-minutes-ago was Indy himself. Indiana Jones robs his OWN grave. How poetic! It RHYMES!

***1/2

[esonetwork]

Twilight Zone The Movie | Episode 372

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/twilight-zone-the-movie/

Twilight Zone The Movie | Episode 372

Jim takes a look at a sci-fi film celebrating its 40th anniversary and one that has had a major impact on him over the years – “Twilight Zone The Movie,” starring Vic Morrow, Scatman Caruthers, Bill Quinn, Kathleen Quinlan, Patricia Barry, William Schallert, Kevin McCarthy, Dick Miller, John Lithgow, Dan Ackroyd and Albert Brooks. This homage to the classic TV show highlights some of Rod Serling’s best episodes. Find out more on this episode of MONSTER ATTACK!, The Podcast Dedicated To Old Monster Movies.

[grimlocksword]

Kennedy Publicly HUMILIATED by Spielberg at Indy 5 Premiere | KK is FURI...

[thenerdsofcolor]

NOC Review: 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny' Is an Imperfect Good Time

NOC Review: 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny' Is an Imperfect Good Time @IndianaJones #IndianaJones #DialOfDestiny

The online world is ridiculous. We all know it. Most stupid “leaks” and rumors involving Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny have been planted by small minded anti-woke trolls in an attempt to perpetuate anti-Disney agendas and garner unearned clicks. And while I have no real dog in those fights, other than to denounce the stupidity of anyone who believes “woke culture is ruining the world,” I…

[vintagegeekculture]

One detail in the worldbuilding of Back to the Future Part II (1989) that is often overlooked: the police department of Hill Valley in 2015 seems to be made up of statuesque women. And no, it wasn't just the two cops that found Jennifer on a bench and took her home; every time we see a police officer in the background of Hill Valley 2015, they were female.

This was a prediction that did not come true: women only make up 12% of all police officers in the United States today.

However, I can see what they were thinking with this. Consider that it was extremely rare to have female police officers in American cities before the 1970s. So, anticipating the entrance of women into police work, Bob Gale and Zemeckis might have foresaw a future where women make up half of all police officers, or even a majority. There are many examples of professions that were once majority male but over time, became majority female, like primary school teachers and pharmacists. In some countries, like Russia and Cuba, the majority of medical doctors are women, for example. Gender-based shifts in professions happen all the time.

The novelization of Back to the Future Part II gives a bit more information. According to the book, police departments in 2015 are majority women because it was believed by city governments that women's nurturing nature made them more likely to be caring, and less likely to be violent or brutal.

Fun fact: the woman who played the blonde cop was Mary Ellen Trainor, Robert Zemeckis's wife, best known as the only person to ever be in both The Goonies and Monster Squad, and she played a Mom both times. Mary Ellen Trainor also introduced her husband's friend, Spielberg, to her best friend, Kathleen Kennedy, who became Spielberg's most frequent producer-collaborator (Kennedy produced E.T. and the Back to the Future movies).

[guillotineman]

Twisters (2024)

[kittiesandbooks]

❤️‍🔥🔥

[dollsahoy]

Harrison Ford was Spielberg's original choice to play Eddie Valiant, but his price was too high. Chevy Chase was the second choice, but he was not interested. Bill Murray was also considered for the role, but due to his idiosyncratic method of receiving offers for roles, Murray missed out on it. Eddie Murphy reportedly turned down the role as he misunderstood the concept of toons and humans co-existing; he later regretted this decision. Robin Williams, Robert Redford, Jack Nicholson, Sylvester Stallone, Edward James Olmos, Wallace Shawn, Ed Harris, Charles Grodin and Don Lane were also considered for the role. Ultimately, Bob Hoskins was chosen by Spielberg because of his acting skill and because Spielberg believed he had a hopeful demeanor and he looked like he belonged in that era. To facilitate Hoskins' performance, Charles Fleischer dressed in a Roger Rabbit costume and "stood in" behind camera for most scenes. Williams explained Roger was a combination of "Tex Avery's cashew nut-shaped head, the swatch of red hair... like Droopy's, Goofy's overalls, Porky Pig's bow tie, Mickey Mouse's gloves, and Bugs Bunny-like cheeks and ears." Kathleen Turner provided the uncredited voice of Jessica Rabbit, Roger Rabbit's wife. Tim Curry auditioned for the role of Judge Doom, but was rejected because the producers found him too terrifying. Christopher Lee was also considered for the role, but turned it down. John Cleese also expressed interest for the role, but was deemed not scary enough. Peter O'Toole, F. Murray Abraham, Roddy McDowall, Eddie Deezen and Sting were also considered for the role. Christopher Lloyd was cast because he previously worked with Zemeckis and Spielberg on Back to the Future. He compared his part as Doom to his previous role as the Klingon commander Kruge in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, both overly evil characters which he considered "fun to play". He avoided blinking his eyes while on camera to portray the character.

[deckardsdwelling]

“Timeless Hereos: Indiana Jones & Harrison Ford”

“Timeless Heroes,” directed by acclaimed documentary filmmaker Laurent Bouzereau, explores Harrison Ford’s enduring appeal and his upbringing, including his foray into the entertainment business, his casting in the iconic “Indiana Jones” franchise, and the impact and inspiration generated by the films. It is an in-depth look at an incredible moment in film history when Steven Spielberg and George Lucas assembled an amazing creative team to collaborate on another cinematic benchmark and features never-before-seen footage and interviews with Ford, Spielberg, Lucas, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, James Mangold, and many others as well. — trailer released 11/01/23 (Lucasfilm/Disney)

Premieres 12/01/23 only on Disney+ (Lucasfilm/Disney)

—WDD

[chaos0pikachu]

Hi Chaos,

I keep seeing people post about x director and their thematic parallels and storytelling, and I can't help but think that it's the writer who does all those things!!! And it's so frustrating seeing the director get the credit for the screenwriters' work. I am also in the TVDU fandom, and to this day, I've never seen the director get the credit for what is clearly a writer's work. We praise, and we curse at the writers every time. We know their names by heart. Even in kdrama fandoms, I've seen the writer get the credit they deserve. So I'm just baffled by why the director is being credited with 'making' or 'writing' a show in the eyes of the public. I understand that they are more visible than the writers, but its only a matter of looking it up on MDL. (And the only writer who gets full credit for her work, MAME, is also cursed/called names by a lot of people). ( Can't forgive the fact that MAME did not write the TT show. What's the difference, you ask? I point you to Big Dragon, Kinnporsche (positive), Step by Step (negative). ) (Sorry, I feel very passionately about this.)

Lol nah I love this chaotic passion and I love how folks are so open about how Mame is treated in fandom is weird, actually yes spill those feelings to me it's safe here

I've written and rewritten this answer like five different times b/c it got so long but fuck it under a read more cut for other stuff but here's my general gist on this: I think it comes down to a few factors - visibility, apathy, ignorance and probably other stuff but I'm not a behavior scientists I'm just a bitch with a blog. As always y'all take what I say with some season salt mix

So, visibility.

It's really easy to credit whichever person is the most visible on a project with a majority of the work. We understand, as people, that many many folks work on these shows, but it's much easier to attribute the bulk of the project with a few individuals.

Actors used to be at the forefront of this, in recent years as social media has chipped away at the fourth wall, writers and directors have also risen in prominence in the discussions of film. But like, producers can and do have a huge impact on the way I project takes form and shapes yet you hardly ever see fans talking about x, y, z producers' influence on a project.

I think the only times I see a producer come up in discussions of a project is Kevin Feige (almost universally positive) and Kathleen Kennedy (almost universally negative). And that's really b/c both of these ppl are visible - they're a part of the promotional tours, they're walking the premiere carpets, they're giving interviews, etc. But it's all very bias b/c fans look at a singular body of work - Feige's case Marvel films, Kennedy's case Star Wars - of both of these producers and b/c they made either things they liked or hated.

But like, a quick bit of research and you'd see Kennedy has been a producer on some amazing and even classic projects: Gremlins, Back to the Future I & II, The Goonies, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Schindler's List, ET, The Color Purple, Hook, Jurassic Park, The Sixth Sense.

She's even been a producer on the Star Wars things people did like: The Mandalorian, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Andor, and The Acolyte. She's been a longtime collaborator of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas and has eight Oscar nominations as a producer but she was a producer for some mid Star Wars films and she's the devil incarnate. I don't even care that much about Kennedy or Star Wars shit but I'm not gonna pretend there's not bias in her case that's similar to how fandom views and treats Mame.

And on the flipside she's been a producer on shit or mid projects - like the Star Wars films and Signs, the Flintstones - which is just typical. You work long enough in the industry and you'll make or work on mid to bad projects. See Ridley Scott's career of epic highs & epic lows.

[It's interesting to me that Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni get all the credit for shows like The Mandalorian but Kennedy gets no credit whilst on the flipside JJ Abrams gets like no blame for how mid to bad Force Awakens & Rise of Skywalker were but Kennedy did get blame. And I'm speaking broad strokes here, yes I'm sure JJ did get some cranky posts about his part in RoS but in general Kennedy got more.]

Which leads me to the next factor, ignorance.

I think ppl are gonna like take offensive to that word but I'm using it super neutrally ignorance is just a lack of knowledge.

We're all ignorant about stuff like fuck don't ask me about how sales tax works I don't know. Lacking knowledge is just a fact of life we can't be experts on every single facet of the world, life, etc it's impossible and that's fine. Just own up to the fact you don't know and if you want to know do some research because learning can actually be really cool and fun and shit. Except sales tax I'm not learning all that.

But from my general observations of BL fandom well a lot of people are ignorant on how film making works. Hell a lot of ppl outside of BL fandom are ignorant about how film making works - the implosion in the 911 fandom is showing out re: this lmao literally right now - and again, that's fine. It's really Not A Big Deal. I'm no by-the-by expert either. I think the grind comes when folks try to be Breadtubers and others take said posts as gospel knowledge when by my observations it's a lot of opinion and/or misinformation.

[idk what yaoi framing is but it isn't a real film making thing; comics and film are two different mediums y'all]

I saw this a lot in the BBC Sherlock fandom ppl with very strong voices claiming x, y, z is how television works and, well it wasn't lol like this very consistent argument I see in migratory conspiracy shipping circles is actors and showrunners just be lying in interviews to "hide the big romantic plot twist" for said MCS and that's just not true. It's not trueeeeee that's not how PR and marketing works. So many MCS fandoms pull out the "we were baited b/c they posted The Ship on twitter" and harass the showrunners who have nothing to do with the official twitter. That's an entirely different department of the show/film. Marketing is a different department from the film crew.

But most people don't know this or don't consider this b/c a lot of folks don't know the inner workings of film, or publishing.

Like whoever runs the Seven Seas social media is in a totally different department from who's acquiring licenses for titles and who's editing the books themselves. Likewise yelling at a showrunner b/c the trailer for an episode advertised a scene you were excited about and then the scene wasn't in the episode? Not the showrunners fault they don't cut the promos that's a different department entirely.

I'm not knocking ppl for not knowing stuff like this, it's not like it's inherently common knowledge. Like hell if I know how the education hierarchy works I don't work in education. The issue - if it can be called that - comes in when people make assumptions is all and spreading misinformation.

In the case of Mame you're right she didn't write Tharnype on MDL she isn't even listed as a producer (idk if she is and it's listed elsewhere personally I find MDL very unreliable since it's fan edited) the show is just based on her novel but she's the one who gets all the hyper focused critique not the actual screenwriter nor director. Similar for any other Me Mind Y show. They're all just considered "Mame's work" and not like, a group project (which is what film making is lol).

Now, I'm no expert on how the Thai film industry works. I imagine the hierarchy aspects are, if not the same, at least similar to American film hierarchy. Meaning producers, and directors have a lot of power in terms of what gets put on screen.

I will say from what I've seen folks do wear multiple hats on Thai productions so like the director might also be the screenwriter, or the screenwriter might also be a producer, etc so that could also add to some of the overlap in credits.

I don't use the term "apathy" as a negative here. Fandom is first and foremost a hobby and a hobbyist space. I do not research every single show or film I watch either. Hell I struggle with watching as many BLs as other people who are just straight up powerhouses with how much they can watch.

Not being interesting in the deep ins and outs of How A Thing Is Made isn't a bad thing, focusing on only "the faces" of the project isn't something I'm gonna hold against people either.

I do think if you're going to be giving a Roger Ebert style critique or go for a more academic reading of a piece of media then yeah, you might have more of a burden to do some research if only to not spread misinformation. Or at least, to properly give credit where credit is due.

Personally, I'm of the mind fandom - in general not just BL fandom or whatever - is to concerned with like, "being right" about the media they watch and being seen as pseudo authority figures at times. That Big Name Fan aspect of it all, the social clout that comes with it - saw this with a lot of bbc sherlock wank - and genuinely, bro who fucking cares?

It bothers me when fans feel guilty for liking a thing big voices in fandom claim are Bad, Wrong, in a breadtube voice like who caaaaaares there's so many shows I could break down via film techniques for why I dislike them but like I'm so lazy bro it's not that real if you like 2gether I'm so happy for you light up like a firework baby

[unless you like star trek into darkness and then your wrong pikachu has spoken es lo que es]

anyway idk where I'm going with but yeah those are my general thoughts I guess on why ppl might attribute or heavily focus on the director vs the screenwriter of a project