Disney divulges that the new Indiana Jones film has cost the company $292.7 Million. “Ahead of its first quarter earnings release today, Disney has revealed that it has shelled out $292.7 Million (£244.1 Million) on making the latest installment in the Indiana Jones series in a bid to tempt movie fans back to cinemas this year.” Will it work?
1 Like
I think the lack of George Lucas’ involvement this time gives it a better chance of succeeding.
They could have had Ke Huy Quan back and made sure of it though.
8 Likes
Would Short Round returning had done that though? After all this time? And isn’t Temple of Doom (1984) the least beloved of the classic trilogy?
2 Likes
Note: I personally adore Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). It’s a masterpiece. With that said, I’ve felt alone in loving it against everything I have read or seen from others. It rubbed some the wrong way and apparently still does.
4 Likes
What is this new devilry - Short Round isn’t in the movie? 
As one of the approximately five people who liked Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull I’m expecting it to be great fun, as long as they don’t kill off Han Solo again Indiana Jones.
5 Likes
I really have to be in a heck of a mood to subject myself to Kate Capshaw shrieking so much. 
5 Likes
All respect to Ke Huy Quan, but Short Round would not be a selling point for me.
I’m going to wait for the reviews before I see this. It’s an odd-numbered entry in the series, so maybe it will be good.
2 Likes
THAT was what I hated for the longest time and then I thought on it and realized it was intentional and much of the joke of the movie and I learned to love it. Which now I do.
You folks are thinking of little kid short round. This would be adult short round who would kick butt like in Everything Everywhere All at Once.
Like he could punch someone in the face and say, “and don’t call me Short Round.”
4 Likes
I’m really fond of the iRiff of Temple of Doom. Too bad Rifftrax has apparently stopped that program.
1 Like
Kate Capshaw’s character in Doom makes a lot more sense when you realize that both Lucas and Spielberg were having relationship issues at the time.
4 Likes
Anything goes in their personal lives.
2 Likes
I’ll stream it. 
1 Like
Putting your relationship issues into a popcorn movie is never a good idea.
3 Likes
Serious question. What about other people’s? Would that include putting William Randolph Hearst’s in Citizen Kane (1941)? Or Mank (2020)? It may not be popcorn but it is something we all know and commands a certain cache.
1 Like
Is Citizen Kane a popcorn movie? 
2 Likes
To some movie people, it’s not serious enough. It’s the popular favorite of best ever and not a “serious contender”. I’ve read that opinion. There are those who would actually deem it too accessible and for the masses and won’t give it the proper respect because of it. As far as popcorn, what is popcorn? Is The Godfather (1972) popcorn? It was popular and successful enough to qualify. Is Titanic (1997)? Same thing applies. Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and The Wild Bunch (1967) were seen widely enough and embraced then and now to be popular entertainment. Kane is so universally accepted there is pushback to it. Which was my only point and it has become popular culture because of it. As @moviegique pointed out elsewhere Daffy Duck when created featured the voice of a Warner Animation boss at the time and this is commonly accepted. It’s a slippery slope and Kane is a well known staple and not exactly a curosity.
It’s a very subjective question. I wasn’t trying to be provocative. She inspired my thinking and I commend her for that. To relationship issues in significant and well seen work, it depends on the viewer and your interpretation. Many filmmakers then and now consciously or unconsciously place their hang-ups and preoccupations in their work. Auteur Theory even includes it in the definition. Alfred Hitchcock felt compelled to place unsympathetic mother figures in his work and toyed with Catholic Guilt through much of his career. Spielberg frequently spotlighted fractured and divorced families in his output indicative of his early life. Many filmmakers consider such inclusions the therapy of moviemaking. So I suppose it hinges on who you are and how you personally feel about it. To repeat. “Never a good idea” to lace big movies with personal problems? It goes on and there is a history of it. A good idea? I just honestly feel it depends.
1 Like
I kinda chafe at the term “popcorn movie”. I’m just like, “the fun one was was also very hard to do.”
2 Likes
There’s a possible dismissive quality to the term and how it’s applied. Sometimes. But it also means commonly watched product but there is some play in the term hence why I asked on Kane (1941). It began life as a dramatic picture and still is BUT it is now such a classic and a rallying point that it has many of the attributes of flicks seen by everyone because everyone knows bits of it even if they don’t know its name. Kane is the “NORM!!!” of early 40s movies.
Back to Temple of Doom (1984), it’s profile has risen over the years and it appeared on TCM several times. I’m not alone in thinking of it highly. The tone was more people’s concern compared to the original. And behind that were George and Steven’s marital troubles feeding in. However I would argue they took that baggage and made a better film out of it. It’s highly memorable because of it. The mileage of this does vary and we all have our opinions and thoughts. I would say I prefer my movies and popcorn to be somewhat personal since it makes it relatable until it crosses a line and even then “the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
1 Like