Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Fucking lol at them people :slight_smile:

1 Like

Can Furiosa can be described as original IP, when it’s a film based on a character from an pre-existing, well established franchise?

I’m sure there are plenty out there who will see it as the replacement for a Mad Max, the the insodious insertion of a female lead in a franchise that’s typically based around a male lead.

If Waller Bridge becoming the protagonist of a film in the Indiana Jones universe is considered doing it wrong, I don’t know that Furiosa can necessarily be held up as doing it right, as if they’re totally opposite approaches.

Furiosa isn’t so much a replacement but rather it’s own spin off and own character. She’s not replacing Mad Max as there will be other mad max movies. And yeah she’s original IP as she’s a completely new character that George Miller invented.

Waller Bridge becoming the new iteration of Indiana Jones would be a like for like straight up replacement of a much beloved character.

I at least haven’t seen any online push back to Furiosa in the same way I have for Jane Bond or Diana Jones for example.

Same goes for Paloma from No Time To Die, people seem very open to her character and her spin off(whereas people were really not fans of Lynch’s 007 - again as it comes in as a direct female replacement of a much loved character).

Personally I get it. Let James Bond be a man, and Lara Croft be a woman.

Not everything has to be some gender war feminist statement.

Waller Bridge’s character would also be then, unless the new IJ film is Doctor Who influenced and she’s literally a reincarnation of Indiana Jones but in a female body, which I assume is not the case, and in fact she is a completely new character.

I understand an original IP to mean a movie that is not a sequel, reboot of off shoot from an existing franchise/universe. So Atomic Blonde is a good example, whereas Furiosa is not, because the character already exists in a previous film. So in this new film, Furiosa is literally not an original, newly invented character, its one that already exists in a pre established movie universe.

Fair enough on the distinction about it being a spin off though, I see there is a Mad Max sequel apparently planned with Hardy and Theron reprosing their roles from Mad Max Fury Road, which I did not know. So I concede that point to you on reflection :+1:

1 Like

Yeah obviously it’s hard to say as of yet as the movie isn’t out yet, but there are some rumours that she may be his daughter or whatever. But yeah it’s not as in your face as for example casting a woman as James Bond and changing the character name.

They might be able to get away with it, but honestly at this point Harrison Ford has made the character so much his own that should they ever reboot it down the line I don’t think it would ever be as successful man or woman, as people watch these movies as much for him as anything else.

1 Like

This is what kinda how I felt about Ghostbusters. A large part of the charm of the original was the cast, whether male or female, a bunch of replacements retreading that old ground was not appealing at all.

The key here is that we need more originality across the board, more new characters for male and female actors alike. Would be better for the viewer generally to get new films based on fresh ideas, but would also eliminate a lot of this kind of really boring arguing between two entrenched camps that seems to dominate the discourse.

3 Likes

Oh yeah absolutely agreed.

I’m desperate for new original IPs, and as I said I was a big fan of Atomic Blonde and would love a sequel. I’m also really looking forward to the Paloma spin off series as she was a character I thoroughly enjoyed, and I also loved Furiosa from Mad Max and am looking forward to that as well.

All I ask is that Hollywood and the feminists just let me at least have some of my most beloved male fantasy IPs like James Bond in peace.

1 Like

I agree here.

James Bond is a male chauvinist, pig piece of shit who largely treats women as a disposable means to an end. That’s literally the character lol. And audiences are fine with that, we all keep coming back “despite” it. You know my views on social issues and politics generally, and I really love Bond.

A female James Bond absolutely isn’t a James Bond, it’s just a female spy, which sounds fine. Make it an off shoot of the Bond series by all means, with her and Bond perhaps crossing over and aiding each other in their respective films occasionally or whatever, a slightly wider Bond universe could be fun if done well, but if you replace Bond with a woman, it just isn’t Bond anymore.

I think with Indy, Waller Bridge will be in this film, and if it does well, they will have a film with her in the leading role once Harrison Ford is off the scene for good. But I don’t think it mean Indiana Jones will effectively be a female led franchise forever. I think Harrison Ford hanging up his whip is momentous for obvious reasons and you’re probably best off not teying to reboot it right away with a new male actor playing the literal role of Indiana Jones, because nobody will feel like a worthy replacement for Ford’s iconic performance. They semi tried it woth Shia TheBeef, and it seems that nost werent ready for a new young bloke to take up the mantle. But I am sure one day they will recast a man as Indiana Jones or have someone play Indiana Jones Jnr, so in effect just Indiana Jones for a new generation, and that it will be more likely to succeed if it doesn’t feel like the new bloke is stepping directly into Ford’s still warm boots.

2 Likes