Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

[Schlosser85]

I wish but I got a bridge to sell you if you think that. Like the past few years especially I've seen people just ragging on Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the character of Indiana Jones in general.

The general complaints

-The Indiana Jones films support a colonialist viewpoint because it's about taking away cultural artifact from other countries (which isn't true, but people keep on peddling that one-sided nonsensical argument), with everyone taking the "That belongs in a museum" line out of context. The whole point is that Indiana Jones is a scumbag graverobber who learns over the course of his adventure to respect the artifact, with him ultimately learning that his early mindset is wrong. Apparently nuance or morally questionable protagonists with a dark side can't exist anymore. Indy's looting is never rewarded, and the filmmakers poke fun at his graverobbing tendencies.

-The films misrepresent archeology! Who on earth watches Indiana Jones for accurate history or genuine practices of archeology?

-Indiana Jones is problematic because the non-western countries are just used as a backdrop for Indy's exploits, and it's inherently told from a Eurocentric perspective. If that really bothers people, why would you be watching a globe trotting adventure film like Indy? That's like buying a ticket to sea world and then complaining about the mistreatment of sea lions.

-The non-white people are portrayed as savages or backwards! While that's obviously an issue with Temple of Doom (which plenty of people criticized back then in 1984), Raiders does a good job of showcasing both good and bad non-white characters. Yes there's some dated casting like John-Rhys Davies playing Sallah, but it's a product of it's time in that regard, back when Arabs were nearly always played by non-Arab actors.

-The Nazis in Raiders are exploiting the locals for their own gain! Like yeah, no duh. They're Nazis. Sallah even makes note of that, comparing the Nazis to the pharaohs.

I even heard people recently complaining about the portrayal of the Nazis, and how it's wrong to cartoonify them. People are so ridiculously jaded these days.

I read enough of that to know I didn’t care to read any more.

 

[Fincher]

I think Hollywood sometimes overestimates how much impact being considered problematic really has on their bottom line. They could probably make a genuine Indiana Jones movie without any social commentary on this stuff, get dragged on Twitter over it, and still make a lot of money if the movie's good. Now whether they actually will is a separate question.

 

[Schlosser85]

I think Hollywood sometimes overestimates how much impact being considered problematic really has on their bottom line. They could probably make a genuine Indiana Jones movie without any social commentary on this stuff, get dragged on Twitter over it, and still make a lot of money if the movie's good. Now whether they actually will is a separate question.

Everyone needs to do this and stop granting pre-teens on Twitter so much power.

 

[MasterBoss]

I have seen it questioned based on the fact that you know Indy's job is rather... iffy. There has been a movement in recent years against museums and the general use of them when it comes to "stolen" property. A lot of attention paid to that in the UK, which makes sense because you know, The Empire. There is of course the racial caricatures and such.

I am not sure what any of this has to do with being woke of course. Then again, adding women and characters of color is apparently woke sacrilege so maybe I am wrong.

The funny thing is, we've been having these discussions of Indiana as a looter who does a lot of morally questionable things since like, the 80's. People aren't being "woke" by pointing out. It's even talked about in the films.

Here's a really great article from 1989 with Lucas talking a bit about that.
Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch (Published 1989)

 

[CaptainWagner]

I think Hollywood sometimes overestimates how much impact being considered problematic really has on their bottom line. They could probably make a genuine Indiana Jones movie without any social commentary on this stuff, get dragged on Twitter over it, and still make a lot of money if the movie's good. Now whether they actually will is a separate question.

It's very important to care about the messages conveyed in the movies you're making. It is also important to distinguish between legitimate structural criticism and clout-chasing social media stunts. Unfortuantely, too many studio execs take the easy way out and just resort to knee-jerk reactionary actions (usually without consulting any of the involved minority groups) and that's how we get nonsense like Netflix deleting the D&D episode of Community.

Anyway, I think that the Atlantis idea is very exciting, and would play well to the reality of shooting with a 78-year old star: Not a lot of running needed on a sub and lots of action taking place in SCUBA suits to hide the stuntmen/CGI. The only problem is if Disney wouldn't want conflict with that percolating "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" live action remake.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The funny thing is, we've been having these discussions of Indiana as a looter who does a lot of morally questionable things since like, the 80's. People aren't being "woke" by pointing out. It's even talked about in the films.

Here's a really great article from 1989 with Lucas talking a bit about that.
Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch (Published 1989)

So then... what?

 

[MasterBoss]

So then... what?

Him being a looter is a character flaw, and that Indiana comes to understand at the end of his adventure that these artifacts should be left alone.

The only artifact he puts in a museum is the Cross of Coronado, which is already a western artifact. It was buried on American soil in Utah and young Indy was keeping it out of the hands of thieves, hence where the "that belongs in a museum" line comes in. Unfortunately, that context gets lost and people only seem to remember "that belongs in a museum."

It just annoys me when people miss the point just to peddle their one sided-narrative, and score some woke tm points.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Him being a looter is a character flaw, and that Indiana comes to understand at the end of his adventure that these artifacts should be left alone.

The only artifact he puts in a museum is the Cross of Coronado, which is already a western artifact. It was buried on American soil in Utah and young Indy was keeping it out of the hands of thieves, hence where the "that belongs in a museum" line comes in. Unfortunately, that context gets lost and people only seem to remember "that belongs in a museum."

It just annoys me when people miss the point just to peddle their one sided-narrative, and score some woke tm points.

If it is something that has been given consideration in the past, then why bring up the "woke mob" somehow coming for Indiana Jones over it? Feels like very weak sauce, and an attempt to frame a context to complain about "woke culture". But alas, I have seen this with Star Wars, I've seen it with DC, I've seen it with Marvel, I've seen it with Bond, I've seen it with the frickin' Ghostbusters. I guess I shouldn't be surprised it is happening with Indy.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Him being a looter is a character flaw, and that Indiana comes to understand at the end of his adventure that these artifacts should be left alone.

The only artifact he puts in a museum is the Cross of Coronado, which is already a western artifact. It was buried on American soil in Utah and young Indy was keeping it out of the hands of thieves, hence where the "that belongs in a museum" line comes in. Unfortunately, that context gets lost and people only seem to remember "that belongs in a museum."

It just annoys me when people miss the point just to peddle their one sided-narrative, and score some woke tm points.

And I definitely expect PWB's character to have those conversations with Indy in this new movie, and they absolutely SHOULD. Because those are conversations we as a society need to be having. And that doesn't diminish at all from the potential for a great IJ movie.

All of this goes to make me think just how shockingly awful the ending to Night At The Museum 3 is in this context. The "heart-warming" message of the movie is that the Egyptian prince should stay with his family where he "belongs" - In the ******* British Royal Museum.

 

[Fincher]

And I definitely expect PWB's character to have those conversations with Indy in this new movie, and they absolutely SHOULD. Because those are conversations we as a society need to be having. And that doesn't diminish at all from the potential for a great IJ movie.

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree. I think the majority of Indiana Jones fans want Indy to explore exotic locales and navigate traps to find artifacts and cheer for him while he's doing it and not have the movie apologize over it. There are other ways of skirting around things, like having him have more of a reason to find an artifact than putting it in a museum (like how he was searching for his father in The Last Crusade), and I think chilled monkey brains and Kali murder cults can be avoided because that's not fundamental to what Indiana Jones is, but there's a point to which these attempts to "fix" properties just alienate fans.

 

[MasterBoss]

If it is something that has been given consideration in the past, then why bring up the "woke mob" somehow coming for Indiana Jones over it? Feels like very weak sauce, and an attempt to frame a context to complain about "woke culture". But alas, I have seen this with Star Wars, I've seen it with DC, I've seen it with Marvel, I've seen it with the frickin' Ghostbusters. I guess I shouldn't be surprised it is happening with Indy.

Because people criticizing Indiana Jones seem to forget what kind of character he's supposed to be, not what they think he should be.

Lucas, Spielberg, and Kasdan envisioned Indy as an anti-hero

Indy's a classic anti-hero. The idea always from the get-go was that he's fallen from grace as an archaeologist and he's become a grave robber.
The Making Of Raiders Of The Lost Ark

But in today's age moral ambiguity doesn't exist anymore. Every hero needs to be the paragon of justice and positivity.

You even see in the Last Crusade, where Lucas and Spielberg deliberately softened up the characters rougher edges

 

[CaptainWagner]

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree. I think the majority of Indiana Jones fans want Indy to explore exotic locales and navigate traps to find artifacts and cheer for him while he's doing it and not have the movie apologize over it. There are other ways of skirting around things, like having him have more of a reason to find an artifact than putting it in a museum (like how he was searching for his father in The Last Crusade), and I think chilled monkey brains and Kali murder cults can be avoided because that's not fundamental to what Indiana Jones is, but there's a point to which these attempts to "fix" properties just alienate fans.

A movie can do more than one thing. Nothing about addressing the social issues at hand diminishes from Indy's ability to have zany hist-sci-fiction adventures.

And IMO anyone who values Indy's original antihero status should WANT them to address those problems, because otherwise we aren't going to get a morally grey graverobber, we're going to get a white-washed, noncontroversial pop lead.

edit: I'd also like to point out to those suggesting the contemporary social media era can't handle antiheroes that the two most successful TV shows of my generation were lead by an increasingly villainous drug dealer and a queen whose go-to solution for any problem was to burn them alive.

 

[Fincher]

A movie can do more than one thing. Nothing about addressing the social issues at hand diminishes from Indy's ability to have zany hist-sci-fiction adventures.

And IMO anyone who values Indy's original antihero status should WANT them to address those problems, because otherwise we aren't going to get a morally grey graverobber, we're going to get a white-washed, noncontroversial pop lead.

Well, I wasn't saying anything about him being an antihero. Maybe that's what the filmmakers intended, but I think most people cheered for him unambiguously. I also don't think directly addressing something is strictly necessary for having it. You can have James Bond be a womanizer without someone saying, "You are a womanizer, James Bond". That character, the "This is why you're bad" character, has a habit of irritating the audience. Just look at how people react to Skyler in Breaking Bad when him being the badguy could hardly be more obvious.

 

[Snow Queen]

If it is something that has been given consideration in the past, then why bring up the "woke mob" somehow coming for Indiana Jones over it? Feels like very weak sauce, and an attempt to frame a context to complain about "woke culture". But alas, I have seen this with Star Wars, I've seen it with DC, I've seen it with Marvel, I've seen it with Bond, I've seen it with the frickin' Ghostbusters. I guess I shouldn't be surprised it is happening with Indy.

I'm confused, as leader of the woke mob, shouldn't you be banging on Spielberg's door with a pitchfork by now?

 

[CaptainWagner]

Well, I wasn't saying anything about him being an antihero. Maybe that's what the filmmakers intended, but I think most people cheered for him unambiguously. I also don't think directly addressing something is strictly necessary for having it. You can have James Bond be a womanizer without someone saying, "You are a womanizer, James Bond".

Firstly, "being a womanizer" is not the problem with Bond. Bond's problem is that he has a very poor understanding of consent. And making a sexual predator the star of your franchise is not ideal. So a dreaded woke writer/director simply has to, you know, not have Bond assert constant unwanted advantages and we're golden. That is both ethically responsible AND maintains what everyone expects from the character.

That character, the "This is why you're bad" character, has a habit of irritating the audience. Just look at how people react to Skyler in Breaking Bad when him being the badguy could hardly be more obvious.

You're right, Skylar IS a great example here. But the people who hated her weren't a commentary on the quality of the character, but on the critics themselves. Because dealing with an antihero is dangerous. There will always be people who don't grasp the fact that the bad person is BAD. And they get mad at anyone who gets in the way of their fantasy playing out.

That's why you have to have characters like Skylar. Otherwise there is no pushback to the bad behavior. And while the dudes calling her a ***** on the internet aren't likely to go out and start cooking meth, they are a lot more likely to emulate their heroes like Bond in preying on women.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because people criticizing Indiana Jones seem to forget what kind of character he's supposed to be, not what they think he should be.

Lucas, Spielberg, and Kasdan envisioned Indy as an anti-hero

Indy's a classic anti-hero. The idea always from the get-go was that he's fallen from grace as an archaeologist and he's become a grave robber.
The Making Of Raiders Of The Lost Ark

But in today's age moral ambiguity doesn't exist anymore. Every hero needs to be the paragon of justice and positivity.

You even see in the Last Crusade, where Lucas and Spielberg deliberately softened up the characters rougher edges

That's just not true. At all. Tony Stark, Bucky Barnes, Loki, the entire GotG crew. Batman is as popular as ever. The anti-hero is alive and well. So again, it feels like you are looking for a reason to complain about the "woke mob" where no such thing exist.

I'm confused, as leader of the woke mob, shouldn't you be banging on Spielberg's door with a pitchfork by now?

Good point. I'll get my bike.

 

[MasterBoss]

And I definitely expect PWB's character to have those conversations with Indy in this new movie, and they absolutely SHOULD. Because those are conversations we as a society need to be having. And that doesn't diminish at all from the potential for a great IJ movie.

All of this goes to make me think just how shockingly awful the ending to Night At The Museum 3 is in this context. The "heart-warming" message of the movie is that the Egyptian prince should stay with his family where he "belongs" - In the ******* British Royal Museum.

But they do have these conversations in the films.

In Raiders, you have the scene between Indy and Belloq in the bar, where it's literally spelled out for you. Archaeology is our religion, yet we have both fallen from the pure faith. The entire point of Raiders is that Indy is just like Belloq, they've both killed and stolen to get what they want. The only difference is that Belloq has allied himself with the Nazis.


In Temple of Doom, during that ridiculous banquet scene, you have the Prime Minister implying Indy's looting is so bad that Sultan of Madagascar wanted to chop his balls off.

See, this is where I fundamentally disagree. I think the majority of Indiana Jones fans want Indy to explore exotic locales and navigate traps to find artifacts and cheer for him while he's doing it and not have the movie apologize over it. There are other ways of skirting around things, like having him have more of a reason to find an artifact than putting it in a museum (like how he was searching for his father in The Last Crusade), and I think chilled monkey brains and Kali murder cults can be avoided because that's not fundamental to what Indiana Jones is, but there's a point to which these attempts to "fix" properties just alienate fans.

Ironically, both Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull are about Indy returning the artifact to it's place of origin.

In Raiders, Indy starts the quest with the intent to put the ark in a museum, but at the end of his adventure he realizes it should be left alone. Hence why at the end of the film, the US government, aka the bigger colonialists take it away for "safe keeping," with Indy being all angry at how stupid the US government is. It's a dig at beaucratic incompetence.

 

[Fincher]

Firstly, "being a womanizer" is not the problem with Bond. Bond's problem is that he has a very poor understanding of consent. And making a sexual predator the star of your franchise is not ideal. So a dreaded woke writer/director simply has to, you know, not have Bond assert constant unwanted advantages and we're golden. That is both ethically responsible AND maintains what everyone expects from the character.

You're right, Skylar IS a great example here. But the people who hated her weren't a commentary on the quality of the character, but on the critics themselves. Because dealing with an antihero is dangerous. There will always be people who don't grasp the fact that the bad person is BAD. And they get mad at anyone who gets in the way of their fantasy playing out.

That's why you have to have characters like Skylar. Otherwise there is no pushback to the bad behavior. And while the dudes calling her a ***** on the internet aren't likely to go out and start cooking meth, they are a lot more likely to emulate their heroes like Bond in preying on women.

If the concern is that people will emulate something Indiana Jones did, the way to address that is not by making an Indiana Jones movie that says that what Indiana Jones does is bad. People who see Indiana Jones as a hero and don't like him being attacked are just going to push back against that movie. The better way would be to make an original property that has those values at its core, that has a hero with the values you think are good.

Disney isn't making an Indiana Jones movie to send a message, though. They want to make a profit off of a valuable franchise, and the way to do that is to consider what fans like and expect from that franchise and not try to fix that. Like, if someone thinks John McClane in the Die Hard movies shouldn't joke about people dying and should take his job more seriously, and they make a movie where McClane is broken up every time he has to kill someone, fans won't like it because they expect John McClane to do that. If they keep him the same but have another character who says he shouldn't do that so the audience knows that cops aren't supposed to do that, they won't change their mind about John McClane, they'll just hate that new character.

And yeah, there will be people who think Walter White is misunderstood or whatever. Any protagonist you have will have someone who agrees with that protagonist, or else the protagonist wouldn't be realistic. But I think a lot of the time people just don't like the character who tells the protagonist not to do the very thing that is the premise of the film. If it's fun watching the anti-hero be a drug dealer in a drug dealing show, the "dealing drugs is wrong" character can be seen as a fun-sucker. And I've had that experience. In the movie JFK, Kevin Costner's wife complains about him spending too much time investigating the JFK murder, and it's a thankless role whether she's right or not because in a movie about investigating JFK, I want to watch the investigation and not his wife complaining about it. It's dragging the movie down by getting away from the point. If I'm watching Tomb Raider, I want to see tombs being raided, not someone talking about how tombs shouldn't be raided.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But they do have these conversations in the films.

In Raiders, you have the scene between Indy and Belloq in the bar, where it's literally spelled out for you. Archaeology is our religion, yet we have both fallen from the pure faith. The entire point of Raiders is that Indy is just like Belloq, they've both killed and stolen to get what they want. The only difference is that Belloq has allied himself with the Nazis.


In Temple of Doom, during that ridiculous banquet scene, you have the Prime Minister implying Indy's looting is so bad that Sultan of Madagascar wanted to chop his balls off.



Ironically, both Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull are about Indy returning the artifact to it's place of origin.

In Raiders, Indy starts the quest with the intent to put the ark in a museum, but at the end of his adventure he realizes it should be left alone. Hence why at the end of the film, the US government, aka the bigger colonialists take it away for "safe keeping," with Indy being all angry at how stupid the US government is. It's a dig at beaucratic incompetence.

Then what are you complaining about? 5 people you saw on twitter?

 

[samsnee]

Indiana Jones does not need to be a woke movie. It shouldn’t reinforce negative stereotypes but there shouldn’t be forced social commentary just to be “relevant”. I want escapism and watching Nazis getting punched.

 

[MasterBoss]

Then what are you complaining about? 5 people you saw on twitter?

It's more than 5 people. I feel like recently it's been pretty constant whether the topic of Indiana Jones comes up. Again, I'm not trying to sound like I'm complaining about the woke mob, as in my own life I'm a fairly progressive person myself. My frustration comes at the fact that there seems to be a misunderstanding among some people about the type of character Indiana Jones is supposed to be. 5 people come up with a stupid hot take, and then it spreads like wildfire on twitter and the like.

Pretty sure I've read a few articles in the past year about how "Indiana Jones is the real villain."

 

[CaptainWagner]

Indiana Jones does not need to be a woke movie. It shouldn’t reinforce negative stereotypes but there shouldn’t be forced social commentary just to be “relevant”. I want escapism and watching Nazis getting punched.

The most gracious reading of this is that you really don't understand what "woke" means. Because every movie should be a "woke movie," because that means being aware of the social implications of your messaging.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's more than 5 people. I feel like recently it's been pretty constant whether the topic of Indiana Jones comes up. Again, I'm not trying to sound like I'm complaining about the woke mob, as in my own life I'm a fairly progressive person myself. My frustration comes at the fact that there seems to be a misunderstanding among some people about the type of character Indiana Jones is supposed to be. 5 people come up with a stupid hot take, and then it spreads like wildfire on twitter and the like.

Pretty sure I've read a few articles in the past year about how "Indiana Jones is the real villain."

This really feels like an isolated incident that you fell upon, that clearly hasn't gotten much mainstream traction.

 

[samsnee]

The most gracious reading of this is that you really don't understand what "woke" means. Because every movie should be a "woke movie," because that means being aware of the social implications of your messaging.

Jesus when was the last time you enjoyed something purely for the entertainment value

 

[Schlosser85]

We have to do this in every thread on this forum?