It gave you coordinates to fissures in time based on when you wanted to go.
Dial of Destiny Spoiler Discussion Thread!
- Thread starter Lance_Quazar
- Start date
It gave you coordinates to fissures in time based on when you wanted to go.
Wasn't the "when" kind of a trick, though, because it always brought you back to archimedes? Helena made a point (during the scene with the cards) that she somehow lead you to take the card she wanted you to take and she (later) said that the dial works the same way. So, choice is just an illusion?
I enjoyed it more the second time as well, picked up a lot of gems and dialogue that I missed the first time.I gotta say, I liked it even more the second time around.
That is exactly what they said, it was the only coordinates for you to bring help to Archimedes against the invasion. It was a "trick deck" there was never really another choice...continental drift or not.
But why did Indy, at the end, give Helena Basils notes, saying that she just needed to "reverse the numbers" (or something), that would bring her home. Was he just... being slow, not understanding, that the Dial was a trick deck?
But even if it was a trick deck and all it could do was to only give you the coordinates to the fissure, not to different times itself, wouldn't the continental drift mean, that the coordinates to the fissure would be (slightly) off? I'm sure the pilots didn't comment on it.
Its a bit of a mess. Or I'm being stupid.
Propably both.
I’ll have to rewatch, but I think that’s correct. Their theory on how it worked was that they could travel whenever with the right coordinates.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,410
- Reaction score
- 10,275
Yes and no. He's a credited writer but made no contributions to the film's actual script.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,410
- Reaction score
- 10,275
I came away a little confused, too, but I guess the intent is that Archimedes built it so it would ONLY lead to a portal to himself.
They didn't need the dial to go back, just to reverse course through the same (presumably two-way) fissure.
In theory, but the dial was built only to find coordinates to Archimedes. If I understand correctly.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,410
- Reaction score
- 10,275
Yeah, the continental drift was kind of a red herring. It didn't really matter one way or the other.
But why did Indy, at the end, give Helena Basils notes, saying that she just needed to "reverse the numbers" (or something), that would bring her home. Was he just... being slow, not understanding, that the Dial was a trick deck?
But even if it was a trick deck and all it could do was to only give you the coordinates to the fissure, not to different times itself, wouldn't the continental drift mean, that the coordinates to the fissure would be (slightly) off? I'm sure the pilots didn't comment on it.
Its a bit of a mess. Or I'm being stupid.
Propably both.
(It doesn't really make sense. Up to every individual viewer if that's a movie-breaking plot hole or just another disbelief suspended.)
It wasn't Indy's watch.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,508
- Reaction score
- 3,449
Oh ya. Well he had to be a part of the ordeal to get there and all that
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,410
- Reaction score
- 10,275
No. Time travel is 1000 times more realistic than what was depicted in that scene.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 209
Did you ever look up Darabons indy: city of the gods script? Eh, not very good. Some cool set pieces and elements that were better than Skull but some things way worse. I was not impressed overall. Unless it’s all fake. Then disregard what i’m saying.
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 6,457
- Reaction score
- 4,626
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,410
- Reaction score
- 10,275
City of the Gods is SOO much better than KOTCS it's depressing. There's not a single element that's "worse." Sorry, but I think you're way off on that one.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 209
Indy getting eaten by a giant snake???
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,410
- Reaction score
- 10,275
Funny and scary. Would have been a great scene.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,508
- Reaction score
- 3,449
Not what I was inferring but sure
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,410
- Reaction score
- 10,275
I know, but i'll take any opportunity to **** on KOTCS.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 5,180
- Reaction score
- 852
Saw DoD earlier this week & was extremely impressed. Amazing film; I have intentionally stayed away from ALL reviews, and I'm glad I did. I knew very little about the film prior to seeing this. My only knowledge about the story had been from seeing the trailers & that's all.
Solid story, good acting/casting, and great effects. The 1944 sequence (with a de-aged Harrison Ford) was incredible & extremely impressive.
The 1969 setting (for the majority of the film) was fantastic; I liked the 'fish out of water' element re: IJ being much older than the young hippies who were coming of age during this era. Indy being woken up by a neighbor playing the Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour" was hilarious I liked how everything was authentic to this era, i.e. phones with cords; people reading magazines/listening to music for entertainment; phone booths; etc.
I liked Helena Shaw & the other supporting characters. It was also great to see Sallah (John Ryhs-Davies) & Marion Ravenwood again. Sallah's singing as he left IJ alone with Marion (at the end) was reminiscent of his loudly singing in ROTLA - nice.
The time-travel sequence to Ancient Greece was incredible; great effects - I especially liked the fireballs shooting across the ocean during the battle.
Nice ending as well - re: Indy reaching in & bringing his hat in from outside. I know that HF has said this will be the last IJ film. However, given how great the de-aged CGI IJ looked in the 1944 sequence....I wonder if they could make subsequent IJ films without HF - and just use his voice?!
Will definitely want to see the film again at some point, and am definitely getting the Blu-ray.
Solid story, good acting/casting, and great effects. The 1944 sequence (with a de-aged Harrison Ford) was incredible & extremely impressive.
The 1969 setting (for the majority of the film) was fantastic; I liked the 'fish out of water' element re: IJ being much older than the young hippies who were coming of age during this era. Indy being woken up by a neighbor playing the Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour" was hilarious
I liked how everything was authentic to this era, i.e. phones with cords; people reading magazines/listening to music for entertainment; phone booths; etc.I liked Helena Shaw & the other supporting characters. It was also great to see Sallah (John Ryhs-Davies) & Marion Ravenwood again. Sallah's singing as he left IJ alone with Marion (at the end) was reminiscent of his loudly singing in ROTLA - nice.
The time-travel sequence to Ancient Greece was incredible; great effects - I especially liked the fireballs shooting across the ocean during the battle.
Nice ending as well - re: Indy reaching in & bringing his hat in from outside. I know that HF has said this will be the last IJ film. However, given how great the de-aged CGI IJ looked in the 1944 sequence....I wonder if they could make subsequent IJ films without HF - and just use his voice?!
Will definitely want to see the film again at some point, and am definitely getting the Blu-ray.
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 6,457
- Reaction score
- 4,626
So I haven’t watched the film yet but it appears to be struggling to pass 100 million, far short of its 300 million budget. Everyone here seems to have a fairly positive opinion of the sequel, despite the 69% on rotten tomatoes, so I’m wondering why the disinterest or lack of appeal at the theater.
Well, the thing is, the audience score is 88%, which is very good. So it would appear the people willing to give the film a chance mostly walked away entertained. I've met fans who disliked it, but I've met a lot more who really enjoyed it. I think it really boiled down to his age. Either you're willing to roll with it or you're not, because a lot of the complaints I see seem to be judging Indy by the standards of a 35-year-old Indiana Jones and not an 80-year-old one. I still found him very recognizably the character; it's just that he's not capable of being quite as physical anymore, hence the flashback sequence. They still wanted to show the most physical Indy, but how else do you do it unless you recast? Therein lies a massive issue I have with the complaints; specifically, I keep hearing how he appears "weak." I don't think that's remotely true. The dude is 80 and still doing his thing as best he can! I'm just not seeing how Indy looked weak or was one-upped all the time by Helena, not do I see Indy being helped occasionally as weakness. In prior films, he was saved by women, an elderly man, and a small Asian child, but suddenly, in 2023, Helena helping him is going too far? He looks weak? He goes toe-to-toe with her, saves her, and the lot just as often, if not more often. I don't get it.
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 6,457
- Reaction score
- 4,626
I do not have a positive opinion of the film in any way. The director is now attacking Indiana Jones fans over the film's financial failures.
He did the same thing a year ago when some of the movie secrets got out. If someone likes the film so be it. I could care less. As someone who grew up with the Classic Indiana Jones films, I personally think this movie probably should have never been made. It was way to late in the characters life and there is only so much you can do at this point and make it original and work as something fresh and new. Harrison in my opinion was fine in this movie and even in Crystal skull, but once again he was tossed into another bad story idea with poorly written side characters and a very bad script. Making him an old curmudgeon is not going to go over well with someone who loves the classic Indiana Jones Trilogy. Making him an alcoholic, divorcing 80 year old man yelling at kids over loud music was just ridiculous and something only the poorest of writers would do.
From that point forward in the film you have boarded the Titanic. I'll save my review until you've seen it or it's out of the theaters. You should still see it and make up your own mind. In my opinion as well this is nearly identical to what they did to Harrison Ford in the Disney Star Wars sequel. What a shame what Lucasfilm and Disney did to these classic movie characters that millions love. Harrison Ford is a terrific actor that millions love and hold in very high esteem. Most of us can't remember a time when we didn't know his name. He deserved much better in both films. The people in charge calling the shots in these films should be ashamed.
Last edited:
That's the thing I don't understand. Was he a curmudgeon? Did we watch the same movie? His attitude was very much Indiana Jones if he were thrust into the 1960s. Indiana Jones is often depicted as a cold, sarcastic, and selfish man who, by the end of the adventure, grew to be a more selfless person. I didn't see anything out of character. This is far from the 180 Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi that people are comparing it to. If it were similar to Luke, Indiana Jones wouldn't even be a professor or archeologist anymore and wouldn't even go on this adventure. I can only imagine that complaint is coming from a very selective memory of Indiana Jones films from people who haven't actually watched them in quite some time. I found him very fitting for what he'd be like at that age, which is why I say...I think people just didn't want to see him at that age, not that he's unrecognizable. He "yells" at "kids" for a single scene. A long-term fan would know that alcoholism is ingrained into the character; it's even in Raiders. Now, one might argue that's a single scene, but I'd counter that with...it's also a single scene in DOD. It's not like the dude is all boozed up throughout the entire film, or even the vast majority of the film. Heck, his alcoholism was originally intended to be far more overt in Raiders. And I will never, ever understand why people are using his divorce as a detriment. Since when did anyone like him getting married in the first place? Old fans of the original should know that Indiana Jones getting married was out of character. That was more a reflection of Steven Spielberg getting older and sentimental than it ever was in keeping with something the actual established character and serial adventure forumla would have done. This whole "They made Indy a pathetic old loser" thing is being completely milked out of, what? Less than three minutes of scenes? It's barely even relevant to the immediate plot, a plot in which he's very akin to prior Indy depictions...except Crystal Skull, the actual odd film out that goes against the established rules of the franchise, where he lost his *****.
Last edited:
Covid has teached people that you just need to wait a month or two, and you can enjoy the movie at home. Take the inflation on top, and people will wait a movie out, except if it is a must-see movie and I'm afraid that and 80 years old Indy isn't one anymore - certainly not with Mission Impossible starting soon after.
Also, young people simply don't care for Ford at best, or downright can't stand him at worst (after he was announced to be in the next Captain America movie, I went and read some of the reactions and it's clear, that the younger generation only "knows" him as that grumpy old fart that does everything only for the money - they don't seem to get his dry sense of humor).
Take that, the bad Cannes reception, the youtube-influencers with a grudge/focus against anything disney/kennedy/female, the overblown budged of the movie and you got a potential flop in the making.
Yes, there are a lot of reasons why this would flop, unfortunately. It's a massive combo of all of the above. What I don't understand is anyone citing this as undeniable proof that the film is terrible. I can't imagine being so ignorant as to actually claim that the box office is some sort of indication of quality. If that were the case, Bladerunner, Wily Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and Citizen Kane would be terrible films, now deemed among the greatest films of their genres ever made, or, in the case of Kane, just films, period.
For the "influencers," well, it's largely become political, oddly enough. I'm seeing a lot of these right-wing YouTubers making claims about things that aren't even in the movie! We're living in a clout generation that cites every film they dislike as the "Worst Movie Ever!" or "Destroys the Legacy!" Extremes get views, and you can't get more extreme than the crowd that screams "Fire KK" every day. These are people unwilling to even attempt to like anything Disney, I cannot tell you how many I've seen trashing this film, and they haven't even seen it yet. This, in turn, caused many to just not see it as, well, sadly, on a level...they're playing off a level of reality. I can understand why someone would fear this movie is all agenda-driven social justice that walks all over Indiana Jones; there's unfortunately an established track record for that sort of thing. The problem is, this film doesn't do that, regardless of whether or not other reboots have done that sort of thing. So you have people out there already apprehensive about another Disney Lucasfilm reboot because of said track record; they see these trolls slandering it as so-called "woke nonsense," and they believe it, thus becoming unwilling to see it. I cannot imagine becoming so cynical as to fabricate lies about the content of a film in the hopes of engineering a flop, and all because I want Kathleen Kenedy fired. I just cannot imagine that, yet that's what some people are doing. Just go to Youtube and type in Dial of Destiny flop, and you'll see slander like how Helena insufferably steals the film from Indy and he's a side-character, Indiana Jones is an "alcoholic loser," the movie belittles Indy, Helena's pushing a feminist agenda, etc. All sorts of "tiny ****" energy things that don't happen in the film.
The good news is that word of mouth is still a valid form of promotion that will never truly go extinct. Because of the decent reception from general audiences and fans, on average, there's a good chance that the film will be much more successful once it hits streaming.
For the actual critic reviews, I said it once and I'll say it again: I'll never understand why people panicked when they didn't like it. When the professional critics dislike a nerd-oriented franchise movie, that's usually a good indication that the fans will like it. Who cares what they think? Since when do they often reflect what most fans think?
Also, people must take note: Had the internet been accessible to the mass populace in 1984, the reaction to Temple of Doom would have been eerily similar. A lot of people disliked it back in the day, but over the years it's evolved into a cult classic. While it's not universally beloved to this very day, it's definitely grown on a lot of people over time.
Last edited:
If you want to blame anyone for Han Solo being killed in TFA, you’d have to blame the man himself. There’s no way Disney wouldn’t have wanted to sell three films worth of Han Solo merchandise if they could. My theory is that his contractual conditions for TFA were 1. He dies and leaves Han Solo behind and 2. They make him one more Indiana Jones film.
I've often said the same thing: He hates SW; he's even open about it. Well, hate may be a strong word, but he certainly is fed up with SW, especially the fanatics. Now, sure, I think one can make a strong argument that this is often played up for gags, but it does stem from a level of reality. I'm convinced the only way they got him back for SW was with a boatload of money and on the condition that Han Solo dies. It was even more shocking to see him show up in TROS, even though he was dead and just a halicuination.
But he's not like that with Indiana Jones. He doesn't seem to have any animosity toward it. He wouldn't have accepted the part if he disliked it. He actually cares about Indiana Jones.
I constantly see people saying that Dial of Destiny belittles Indiana Jones, but I just don't get that at all.
The film is about time; that's the central focus. The film literally opens with a clock, but what is in direct correlation with time? Age! This story was intended for an older Indiana Jones and was really a commentary on the inevitabilities that come along with aging. In fact, I think the 1969 opening is a very poignant commentary on how often we, as a society, ignore and even abandon the elderly.
The people who seem to feel that the film belittles Indiana Jones are really missing this central theme. People often cite that he's old, he's retiring in this film, long gone are students with crushes and the respect they had for him, there's no central love-interest, he's not as physically capable, he's getting divorced, death of a loved one, etc. These are all organic happenings in a person's life; they're what often happens as people grow older. Yet people interpret the inclusion of all these things as the writers belittling him, when really, it's the world he inhabits in the beginnings of the film that's belittling him and not the film itself. His surroundings view him as a dusty old relic with nothing of substance to offer anymore, and he's starting to wonder if that's true.
The film progresses to show how wrong about Indiana Jones those people are by giving countless examples through action set-pieces, displaying how knowledgeable and passionate about archeology he still is, and through his heroic will to still act despite his age. The story, or, well, the film's entire adventure, is crafted in such a way as to show that Indiana Jones has, in fact, not become irrelevant (unlike some characters initially underestimate him as) and never will be, just like those dusty old artifacts archeologists dig up. By the climax, Helena, his pseudo-frenemy goddaughter, has the utmost respect for him. By the end, the inclusion of time travel is a complete play off of all this. The film is now literally saying Indiana Jones is timeless, the exact opposite of belittling the role. That's showing as much respect for the character as an archeologist does for their priceless discoveries. Metaphorically speaking, he's effectively become like that which he's spent his entire life seeking—something of great value and significance, but more so something or, in his case, someone to greatly learn from. This film has a great shared reverence for Indiana Jones and his passion, history. This is what the film is saying. And it is through this that you can recognize the monumental past achievements of those no longer with us or those all too often overlooked and forgotten by the ever-ticking presence of time.
Last edited:
It's crazy watching people contort themselves with mental gymnastics cause they're so desperate to convince themselves, and others, that a truly lousy film is anything other than what it is.
I remember that feeling well, back in 1999, going back to see Phantom Menace several times, convinced that somehow it would get better on subsequent viewings. It never did.
This movie sucks. It's awful. It's just a dreadful experience, start to finish.
If you actually think you liked it, that's fine. I'll never convince you otherwise. But you gotta concede that you'll never convince the millions (billions?) of people around the world that rejected this trash that we were "wrong."
I remember that feeling well, back in 1999, going back to see Phantom Menace several times, convinced that somehow it would get better on subsequent viewings. It never did.
This movie sucks. It's awful. It's just a dreadful experience, start to finish.
If you actually think you liked it, that's fine. I'll never convince you otherwise. But you gotta concede that you'll never convince the millions (billions?) of people around the world that rejected this trash that we were "wrong."
*astronaut meme* Always has been. If any of the YouTube nerd "influencers" (nerdfluencers?) started as actual fans, as opposed to people using pop culture to lure people into their political perspective, they gave up the focus on their fandom once they saw the profit potential in following the hate route.
That doesn't mean there are actual fans who don't like it, mind you. But the "influencers" who keep working the SEO to get into people's recommendation feeds with the big block letters and red-eyed screenshots? Yeah, they have an agenda, and it ain't caring about the quality of nerd product.
I've always maintained that Harrison Ford's stipulations to agree to come back as Han Solo included three things:
1. A shedload of money.
2. A death that brought narrative closure to the character (more about that below)
3. Absolutely, 100%, cannot-miss-it, no doubt at all that he was dead. "I want to be stabbed, fall off a high bridge, plunge into the core of a planet, and then have the planet blow up around me -- there should be NO QUESTION that I'm gone and gone forever!"
He got all of them, execution of item 2 notwithstanding...until Carrie died and they needed a parent figure to talk to Adam Driver in Episode IX. Good thing they had another shed...
I think he really did hate Star Wars -- partly because of the fanatic fans, but mostly because he wanted to have Han die in Return of the Jedi and George wouldn't let it happen. Now, did he want Han to die for the reasons stated above (the annoying fans can't bother him about sequels if the character is dead)? Maybe. But as time goes on, I've chosen to be more trusting in Harrison's stated commitment to his job being storytelling. When he talks about how Han didn't serve a purpose to the story in ROTJ and could have done so if he had to sacrifice himself, I believe him.
Which, again, is why I think he didn't mind coming back in TFA, and seemed to speak highly of the experience. Not as highly as he speaks of playing Indy, of course...and, sure, he was out there selling the movie. But even a couple years after, he seemed to be positive about it all -- and I think the idea that Han died trying to reach out and reconnect with his prodigal son was something that worked for him. Again, we can talk for hours and days about whether the execution of that worked, or if the setup of Han's life in the movie was the best choice...but I do think he liked having that be the character's final moments.
(And because he got to act it opposite Adam Driver, I don't think he even really minded coming back to do it again a few years later, in the only scene that works in TROS.)
Anyway, sorry I cut a bunch of your stuff here, MM -- I agree with your Indy takes in here, and don't want my cherry-picking of SW-related statements to appear to undercut that. Especially since I think Ford wanted to come back and close things off with Indy because he's found it rewarding (in a storytelling sense, though surely a monetary one as well) to come back to Han and Deckard in their old age and close the book on them.
If millions or billions of people around the world saw the movie and ended up not liking it, that would be well within their rights...but then the movie would have boffo box office, since a ton of people would have checked it out.
Instead, a bunch of people have rejected the concept of the movie by not seeing it. Which is also within their rights -- there are plenty of movies I don't go see because I don't think I'll like it or that it won't be worth my time. But I'm not sure it really reflects the quality of the movie one way or another.
But, hey, I also don't think it's lousy -- at worst it's serviceable. Which means it already ain't the worst Indiana Jones movie, IMO.
It’s also baked into the DNA of Star Wars. I knew from the trailer Han wasn’t getting out of The Force Awakens alive because he said the same sort of mentor lines as Obi-Wan in Star Wars and Qui-Gon in the Phantom Menace.
I was sad to see Han go. I also really liked how he found faith and believes in the Force. He’s telling Finn and Rey this in the same cargo hold where Han was so cynical of Obi-Wan.
The saga earned that bit.
I like that Dial of Destiny has Indy and Marion finding each other at the end. Indy doesn’t have the Kylo Ren baggage Han does.
I suppose if Han had brought Ben Solo home the ending would have been more like Dial of Destiny for Han and Leia.
So, uh...how 'bout that new Indy movie, huh?
I just saw it for the second time. I really enjoyed it both times....and I'm not "trying to convince myself" that I enjoyed it either.
If you scroll up to see what this person wrote to me, my response makes a lot more sense.
Similar threads
