Drinker's Chasers - Indy 5 Director Blames Fans For Flop

Summary

In a critique of *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny*, the speaker highlights the film’s disappointing reception, focusing on its failure to capture the essence of the beloved character. The aging of Harrison Ford’s Indy is not the issue, but rather the introduction of an unlikable replacement, Helena, and the convoluted, CGI-heavy plot. Themes like time travel and unmemorable action scenes detract from the franchise's legacy. The film is compared unfavorably to earlier installments, with the speaker lamenting the lost opportunity for a meaningful conclusion to Indiana Jones’ story. Ultimately, the film misses the mark, leaving fans unsatisfied.

Takeaways

• 😀 The film *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny* was considered a disaster for Lucasfilm, grossing only $350 million worldwide against a production budget of over $500 million.
• 😀 Director James Mangold attributes the film's failure to fans' inability to accept an aging Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, believing they didn't want to confront the character's age.
• 😀 Many fans did not have a problem with Ford’s age, but rather with the replacement of Indiana Jones by an obnoxious, unlikable character, Helena.
• 😀 The plot of *Dial of Destiny* was criticized for being nonsensical, filled with overused CGI, and for introducing time travel, which felt out of place in the franchise.
• 😀 The film's action sequences lacked cohesion and often felt like disconnected set-pieces, with little to no proper narrative drive.
• 😀 The opening sequence of the film was particularly disturbing, depicting an aging Indy as a suicidal alcoholic who had lost everything, including his love interest and son.
• 😀 The portrayal of Indiana Jones as a bitter, broken man who hated life contradicted the adventurous, heroic spirit fans were accustomed to from the earlier films.
• 😀 The proposed alternate ending, where a young Indiana Jones sacrifices himself and a female character (Helena) takes over as the new Indiana Jones, was controversial and received negative reactions.
• 😀 The film’s decision to include time travel and aliens (as in *Crystal Skull*) was criticized as a departure from the grounded, historical, and religious themes that made the original films iconic.
• 😀 The lack of mystery and wonder in the film made it feel more like a slapstick comedy rather than an adventure film with depth and substance.
• 😀 Many elements in the film, such as the portrayal of Helena, felt out of touch with audience expectations, with the character being sexualized but not relatable or appealing in any meaningful way.

Q & A

What was the main reason James Mangold believes *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny* failed?

James Mangold suggests that the film failed because fans couldn't accept Harrison Ford's portrayal of an aging Indiana Jones. He believes that the audience didn't want to confront their hero at such an old age.

Why does the speaker disagree with Mangold's explanation for the film's failure?

The speaker disagrees with Mangold's view, arguing that the real issue wasn't Ford's age, but the film's poor writing, unlikable characters (particularly Helena Shaw), a convoluted plot, over-reliance on CGI, and the bizarre inclusion of time travel and space aliens.

How is the character of Helena Shaw portrayed in *Dial of Destiny*?

Helena Shaw, played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, is described as obnoxious, unlikable, and bumbling. The speaker believes she comes across as an unconvincing adventurer who does not complement Indiana Jones, ultimately detracting from the film's appeal.

What is the comparison made between *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny* and *Logan*?

The speaker compares the treatment of the aging hero in *Dial of Destiny* to that in *Logan*. While *Logan* treats the aging Wolverine with respect, exploring themes of mortality and redemption, *Dial of Destiny* is criticized for making Indiana Jones a bitter, suicidal character, which felt disrespectful to the iconic hero.

What alternative ending was considered for *Dial of Destiny*, and why was it criticized?

An alternative ending involved a young Indiana Jones sacrificing himself to save Helena, leading to his disappearance and Helena taking on the mantle of Indiana Jones. The speaker criticizes this idea, suggesting that it would have been problematic and rejected by audiences who couldn't embrace Helena as the new Indiana Jones.

How does the speaker view the film's attempt to incorporate time travel and space aliens?

The speaker finds the inclusion of time travel and space aliens out of place in the *Indiana Jones* series, which traditionally focuses on Earthbound mysteries, often with religious or historical themes. The speaker compares the time travel subplot to the similarly out-of-place aliens in *Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull*.

What are the criticisms regarding the pacing and structure of *Dial of Destiny*?

The film is criticized for having poor pacing, with the action moving from one set piece to another without any proper connective tissue or buildup. There’s no sense of mystery or wonder, which was a hallmark of the earlier films in the series.

What specific issues with the villains in *Dial of Destiny* are raised?

The villains are criticized for being one-dimensional and cartoonish. The speaker specifically calls out Boyd Holbrook’s character as a crazy, overly dramatic antagonist, contributing to the film’s lack of meaningful tension or depth.

Why does the speaker think that the plot lacked mystery in *Dial of Destiny*?

The speaker argues that unlike earlier *Indiana Jones* films, which had an air of mystery and intrigue (such as the pursuit of the Ark of the Covenant), *Dial of Destiny* failed to evoke a similar sense of wonder, leaving the audience with a more superficial experience.

What is the speaker's overall assessment of the film's direction and execution?

The speaker believes that *Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny* failed because it misunderstood the core appeal of the franchise. Instead of exploring the themes of aging and legacy in a meaningful way, the film relied on spectacle and gimmicks, alienating fans in the process.