SPOILERS: Indiana Jones 5 (Jun 30, 2023)

[spacemt354]

I’m considering looking into the correlation between negative posts and members with ugly/angry/creepy avatars.

I've done that before and I'm pretty sure it's all the same person.

 

[Prince-1]

Yeah, I don't like the overly positive reviews for crappy shows (she-hulk, falcon and winter soldier) and movies (dr strange 2). Everyone with a working brain can see these aren't any good.

I guess your brain isn’t working or you lack the ability to understand that people have different opinions on movies and tv shows and just because you do not like something doesn’t mean others should as well.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I guess your brain isn’t working or you lack the ability to understand that people have different opinions on movies and tv shows and just because you do not like something doesn’t mean others should as well.

I am so willing to accept someone disliking something, art is subjective. Critique is important.

I am less willing to accept someone pooping on everything, all the time, without having even seen the final product.

It becomes obvious at that point they are not engaging in good faith, have one motive, and enjoy trolling.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I’m considering looking into the correlation between negative posts and members with ugly/angry/creepy avatars.

That Avatars of Dorian Gray.

 

[erasure fan1]

I am so willing to accept someone disliking something, art is subjective. Critique is important.

I am less willing to accept someone pooping on everything, all the time, without having even seen the final product.

It does work both ways as well. There's many here who immediately jump on anyone who doesn't gush about every Disney release. Even if they have seen it, and that gets old fast as well. Unfortunately that's the culture we live in now. It's either all one side or the other.

 

[DKampy]

It does work both ways as well. There's many here who immediately jump on anyone who doesn't gush about every Disney release. Even if they have seen it, and that gets old fast as well. Unfortunately that's the culture we live in now. It's either all one side or the other.

I disagree…I see plenty of people here who give their honest opinions after they have seen it….the issue people have is when someone is like ohhh this movie is awful…just from a trailer…you can say the trailer is awful, but you have no idea until you watch a film whether it is good or not.

The positive side never say anything about the movie…and only is positive about the trailer saying it has got them excited for the movie

 

[larryz]

It had Roman soldiers in the photos, that's how I knew. So unless Indy is a vampire or some other creature that lives for a long time... he time traveled.

Maybe it's a cross-over with Night at the Museum?

 

[Disney Analyst]

It does work both ways as well. There's many here who immediately jump on anyone who doesn't gush about every Disney release. Even if they have seen it, and that gets old fast as well. Unfortunately that's the culture we live in now. It's either all one side or the other.

Sure it can go both ways. But I’d argue the constant negativity is far more draining than anyone who is constantly positive.

Especially when the negativity is not based in any sort of fact and only based on feelings, a trailer, rhetoric.

 

[jeangreyforever]

Us realist, have to counteract your overly positive opinions. You don't own the company, quit acting like you do. You don't have to love everything Disney does. There's a reason why their stock has plummeted. Most of their recent content sucks. Except for a few gems here and there (Guardians Xmas).

I'm inclined to agree with you. The past few years there's been only a handful of Disney stuff I've cared for, if even that. This company is really only Disney in name only and bears no further connection to the company Walt started out with. The fact that there's no actual Disney family member like Roy Disney or Diane Disney Miller involved further indicates "Disney's" lack of integrity. There was a lot more creativity and experimentation during the Eisner/Roy Disney era before the Bobs took over with their IP obsession and agenda to promote Disney+ above all other physical merchandise and media.

 

[jeangreyforever]

It had Roman soldiers in the photos, that's how I knew. So unless Indy is a vampire or some other creature that lives for a long time... he time traveled.

The reason I'm inclined to believe time travel is the plotline is because of the fact that this movie was in development hell for years and kept getting pushed back over and over. Suddenly Endgame comes out, focusing all on time travel, and is a huge blockbuster which makes me wonder if Disney got the wrong message from that and felt that the key to the new Indy movie is to insert time travel.

 

[_caleb]

The fact that there's no actual Disney family member like Roy Disney or Diane Disney Miller involved further indicates "Disney's" lack of integrity.

It’s been twenty years since a Disney family member has been directly involved in The Walt Disney Company. How does that indicate a lack of integrity?

 

[jeangreyforever]

It’s been twenty years since a Disney family member has been directly involved in The Walt Disney Company. How does that indicate a lack of integrity?

Roy Disney has only been dead for a bit longer than a decade. His presence helped create a balance in the company during the Eisner era and I think many of the heights the company reached were precisely because of that friction.

I called it a lack of integrity because Disney's current direction has been to completely eradicate their legacy in favor of short-term profits from their collection of IPs or to appear "woke" to appeal to the Twitter mob. When Iger took over, suddenly Walt's name started to be dropped because the Disney name wasn't about the family name anymore but a brand that Iger was willing to milk for every dollar he could get. Not to mention, the character assassination Walt has received in recent years from Meryl Streep of all people who was a Harvey Weinstein enabler but likes to play a feminist hero when it suits her by impugning Walt's name, a man she didn't even know (and even that was more to kill any momentum for Saving Mr. Banks' Oscar campaign, particularly Emma Thompson in the Best Actress race).

I think the most demeaning thing the company did lately was their "celebration" for the 85th Anniversary of Snow White. The Disney Movie Club re-released the movie on Blu-ray to celebrate this anniversary with a new bonus feature. The bonus feature was all about how Frozen and Encanto are the real Disney classics whereas Snow White is an outdated and problematic film, but we shouldn't cancel it because it needed to exist in order for these "real classics" to come into fruition. And based on the quacks who tried to cancel Snow White over the ride revamp and all the controversy over the dwarfs, I wouldn't be surprised if one day Snow White goes the way of Song of the South or at least becomes as vilified as Gone with the Wind. I recommend to all its fans to pick up its merchandise now because who knows if it'll still be around for its 100th anniversary. I wish I could say I was speaking in hyperbole but it's pretty telling that when fans voted for Lego to make the Seven Dwarfs cottage into an official set, Lego approved it but needed additional permission from Disney and Disney vetoed it. Even though Disney had no problem approving of the Steamboat Willie and Winnie the Pooh sets which means it was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that they specifically had an issue with and all of this occurred when the drama with the live-action dwarfs was in the news.

I always think back to how when The Little Mermaid was being made, Howard Ashman specifically wanted to make a movie that could stand on the same shelf as Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, etc. and be regarded as a classic. The motivations now whenever Disney makes an animated movie isn't to put their new products on the same shelf as their legacy movies but to replace those legacy movies for being "old" and "outdated" which I find to be so tragic and such a disservice to Walt's memory and all the other Disney employees. And that's true, not just for the new animated movies but also the live-action remakes which seem to be greenlighted based on how Disney can "improve" or "fix" those problematic old movies of theirs. I don't think it's a coincidence that two of the live-action remakes which still have a warm reception with audiences are Cinderella and The Jungle Book, both of which never went out of their way to denigrate the original moves in their marketing campaigns but constantly talked about their love and respect for the originals. Meanwhile the Snow White remake has its lead actress proudly boasting about how Snow White is a terrible character but she's finally going to be done right and how there won't be a creeper prince who goes around committing sexual assault (never minding the fact that this actress never called out her former co-star for the sexual assaults he's actually been accused of with minors, probably because that wouldn't have helped her career like trying to tear down Snow White does).

 

[Prince-1]

I am so willing to accept someone disliking something, art is subjective. Critique is important.

I am less willing to accept someone pooping on everything, all the time, without having even seen the final product.

It becomes obvious at that point they are not engaging in good faith, have one motive, and enjoy trolling.

Oh most definitely. You can absolutely have a different opinion than others but when you only are a contrarian to what others are saying or you think that your opinion is the only right one then you are just trolling.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Roy Disney has only been dead for a bit longer than a decade. His presence helped create a balance in the company during the Eisner era and I think many of the heights the company reached were precisely because of that friction.

I called it a lack of integrity because Disney's current direction has been to completely eradicate their legacy in favor of short-term profits from their collection of IPs or to appear "woke" to appeal to the Twitter mob. When Iger took over, suddenly Walt's name started to be dropped because the Disney name wasn't about the family name anymore but a brand that Iger was willing to milk for every dollar he could get. Not to mention, the character assassination Walt has received in recent years from Meryl Streep of all people who was a Harvey Weinstein enabler but likes to play a feminist hero when it suits her by impugning Walt's name, a man she didn't even know (and even that was more to kill any momentum for Saving Mr. Banks' Oscar campaign, particularly Emma Thompson in the Best Actress race).

I think the most demeaning thing the company did lately was their "celebration" for the 85th Anniversary of Snow White. The Disney Movie Club re-released the movie on Blu-ray to celebrate this anniversary with a new bonus feature. The bonus feature was all about how Frozen and Encanto are the real Disney classics whereas Snow White is an outdated and problematic film, but we shouldn't cancel it because it needed to exist in order for these "real classics" to come into fruition. And based on the quacks who tried to cancel Snow White over the ride revamp and all the controversy over the dwarfs, I wouldn't be surprised if one day Snow White goes the way of Song of the South or at least becomes as vilified as Gone with the Wind. I recommend to all its fans to pick up its merchandise now because who knows if it'll still be around for its 100th anniversary. I wish I could say I was speaking in hyperbole but it's pretty telling that when fans voted for Lego to make the Seven Dwarfs cottage into an official set, Lego approved it but needed additional permission from Disney and Disney vetoed it. Even though Disney had no problem approving of the Steamboat Willie and Winnie the Pooh sets which means it was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that they specifically had an issue with and all of this occurred when the drama with the live-action dwarfs was in the news.

I always think back to how when The Little Mermaid was being made, Howard Ashman specifically wanted to make a movie that could stand on the same shelf as Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, etc. and be regarded as a classic. The motivations now whenever Disney makes an animated movie isn't to put their new products on the same shelf as their legacy movies but to replace those legacy movies for being "old" and "outdated" which I find to be so tragic and such a disservice to Walt's memory and all the other Disney employees. And that's true, not just for the new animated movies but also the live-action remakes which seem to be greenlighted based on how Disney can "improve" or "fix" those problematic old movies of theirs. I don't think it's a coincidence that two of the live-action remakes which still have a warm reception with audiences are Cinderella and The Jungle Book, both of which never went out of their way to denigrate the original moves in their marketing campaigns but constantly talked about their love and respect for the originals. Meanwhile the Snow White remake has its lead actress proudly boasting about how Snow White is a terrible character but she's finally going to be done right and how there won't be a creeper prince who goes around committing sexual assault (never minding the fact that this actress never called out her former co-star for the sexual assaults he's actually been accused of with minors, probably because that wouldn't have helped her career like trying to tear down Snow White does).

I'd like this post a million times if I could.

And I'd just like to point out again that EVERY slander on Walt - the anti-Semitism, the racism, the misogyny - has been thoroughly debunked by people who knew and worked with him, and by credible evidence. That's why the attempts to "clean up" and retrofit his classics are so obnoxious. I agree with jeangreyforever's comment about the live-action Jungle Book - it made no attempts to "correct" anything, but went in its own direction, and it ended up being an excellent film. By contrast, other live-action adaptations - such as the dreadful Lady and the Tramp with its non-"racist" cats - are turds. And as for the Snow White remake - I'm calling it in advance as a turd. Nuts to anyone who claims the prince sexually assaults Snow when he kisses her THUS FREEING HER FROM A DEATH CURSE. What total idiots. They deserve nothing but mockery and disdain. And I hope that flick bombs like other PC Disney films have done. Maybe then the management at Disney will get a clue. And stop hiring nitwits who have an axe to grind. Here's hoping, anyway...

 

[_caleb]

This is a thread about the new Indiana Jones movie.

 

[sedati]

It is a poor generation that can't learn from the younger.

It's a shame that there are whole swaths of people out there unwilling to give up an inch of cultural soil (amongst other things.)

 

[erasure fan1]

I disagree…I see plenty of people here who give their honest opinions after they have seen it….the issue people have is when someone is like ohhh this movie is awful…just from a trailer…you can say the trailer is awful, but you have no idea until you watch a film whether it is good or not.

I agree, but again it works both ways. When people voice their opinions based on a trailer, there are a bunch here who will immediately shout them down if it's not all sunshine and roses. Disney has unfortunately lost the benefit of the doubt with a lot of people. You can no longer just assume a project is going to be fantastic.

The positive side never say anything about the movie…and only is positive about the trailer saying it has got them excited for the movie

Not true, there's people posting in this thread, today, who do exactly what I was talking about. Could both sides back down a bit? Sure. When someone digs in one way, the other side tends to overcompensate the other way.

 

[jeangreyforever]

This is a thread about the new Indiana Jones movie.

I was responding to your question about why I felt the lack of an actual Disney at the helm of a company showcased a lack of integrity. I didn't feel I could give a clear response without fully explaining why I felt that way. And much of what I said holds for Indiana Jones as well. I was looking forward to the trailer but I found it lackluster. The spoilers concern me because The Rise of Skywalker and The Secrets of Dumbledore were both movies that were leaked months in advance and all those spoilers turned out to be 99% true.

I also found it odd that Phoebe Waller-Bridge is basically the co-lead of the movie but she doesn't really even speak in the trailer. Was it because they were afraid longtime fans would be turned off? I'm not sure for now. I hope the next trailer is much better.

 

[Movielover]

It is a poor generation that can't learn from the younger.

View attachment 684583

It's a shame that there are whole swaths of people out there unwilling to give up an inch of cultural soil (amongst other things.)

It's a shame that people mistakenly focused on Kylo's line of "let the past die" thinking that was the theme of The Last Jedi and completely ignoring that Luke and Yoda scene. We were shown all throughout the film that Kylo was emotionally comprised due to the past mistake of Luke, a mistake which both Luke and Kylo share, they thought they had to live up to the legend that came with the name Skywalker. Of course, Kylo went on to build on that mistake thanks to the mental poisoning from Snoke, whereas Luke did what his two mentors (Obi Wan and Yoda) did and isolated himself with his failure. Both not learning from their mistakes. Then after the Yoda scene Luke comes to his senses and was able to use Kylo's emotional state of anger to his advantage and distract Kylo thus saving the Resistance. God, I love The Last Jedi, so much going on with film on a character level.

I also found it odd that Phoebe Waller-Bridge is basically the co-lead of the movie but she doesn't really even speak in the trailer. Was it because they were afraid longtime fans would be turned off? I'm not sure for now. I hope the next trailer is much better.

1. It was the first trailer, which usually is a focus more on action and tone of the film. In most cases the second trailer that is released is more focused on story and character. This allows audiences with the first trailer to know that a new film is coming and what the tone of the movie will be, then the second trailer accouple months later to actually get more meat of the movie to decide if they want to go see it by giving a setup of the story. You can see this model of trailers used in most franchises.

2. She does actually speak in the trailer. The final scene you can hear her talk before Indy says "Godfather". Now it's nothing major but out of all the film's characters we see in the trailer:
Henry Jones Jr - Ford
Helena - Waller-Bridge
Voller - Mikkelsen
Renaldo - Banderas
Sallah - Rhys-Davies
Basil- Jones
Klaber - Holbrook
Rahim - Safi

Only Indy, Sallah, Basil, Helena, and Rahim have dialogue. Again, this relates back to statement 1 of being a first trailer, establishing the tone and action of the film. Heck, we haven't even seen Shaunette Wilson's Agent Mason or Thomas Kretschmann's Colonel Weber yet. My point is don't take a character's lack of dialogue in the first trailer as a conspiracy of cover up. I thought it was a great trailer and has me sold on the movie.

 

[jeangreyforever]

1. It was the first trailer, which usually is a focus more on action and tone of the film. In most cases the second trailer that is released is more focused on story and character. This allows audiences with the first trailer to know that a new film is coming and what the tone of the movie will be, then the second trailer accouple months later to actually get more meat of the movie to decide if they want to go see it by giving a setup of the story. You can see this model of trailers used in most franchises.

2. She does actually speak in the trailer. The final scene you can hear her talk before Indy says "Godfather". Now it's nothing major but out of all the film's characters we see in the trailer:
Henry Jones Jr - Ford
Helena - Waller-Bridge
Voller - Mikkelsen
Renaldo - Banderas
Sallah - Rhys-Davies
Basil- Jones
Klaber - Holbrook
Rahim - Safi

Only Indy, Sallah, Basil, Helena, and Rahim have dialogue. Again, this relates back to statement 1 of being a first trailer, establishing the tone and action of the film. Heck, we haven't even seen Shaunette Wilson's Agent Mason or Thomas Kretschmann's Colonel Weber yet. My point is don't take a character's lack of dialogue in the first trailer as a conspiracy of cover up. I thought it was a great trailer and has me sold on the movie.

One line at the end of the trailer technically counts as talking, I suppose, so you're right there although I still wouldn't say that counts. I've heard some people speculate on Twitter that they deliberately only had her speak right at the end so disgruntled fans wouldn't turn the trailer off until it was too late. That being said, I loved her L3 in Solo (which I know is a controversial opinion) and her work in Killing Eve so I don't really have a problem with her besides what the alleged spoilers claim. I'm more curious at this point as to why she's Indy's goddaughter as in who her parents are to him.

I was also expecting Shaunette Wilson to turn up because I know she left The Resident as a series regular to take this role.