What if DoD had Part 1 and Part 2?

S

Spiked

Well-known member
Seeing how Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning is Part 1, would you have liked if Mangold/Ford filmed two installments of DoD and released them in two parts? I could imagine part 1 ending with Voller successfully going back through time and winning and Indy finds himself in a world ruled by the Nazis in 1969 then in Part 2 needs to find a way to undo it.

I would have loved to have walked out of the theater with a cliffhanger like that.
 
Dr.Jonesy

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
michael said:
Well good thing they didn't because this movie, unfortunately, had trouble getting people to walk IN TO the theater.

The casual audience spoke loudly. They don't care about an Old Indy.
Click to expand...
The casual audience don't care about most films that come out these days.
 
Attila the Professor

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Spiked said:
Seeing how Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning is Part 1, would you have liked if Mangold/Ford filmed two installments of DoD and released them in two parts? I could imagine part 1 ending with Voller successfully going back through time and winning and Indy finds himself in a world ruled by the Nazis in 1969 then in Part 2 needs to find a way to undo it.

I would have loved to have walked out of the theater with a cliffhanger like that.
Click to expand...
Glib answer: the pitch feels way too close to Avengers 3 and 4, neither of which I feel the need to see again.

Real answer: the fact that the film didn’t go back to 1939 was one of the most delightfully unexpected things about it. Moreover, it just feels way too off-model for Indiana Jones, a series which doesn’t take itself too seriously to ever get into the two-part finale mold. It’s not a saga, like the MCU, or Twilight, or Hunger Games, or even Mission Impossible.
 
Finn

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
I'm glad they didn't go there simply because I'm partial to causal loop time travel stories instead of BTTF-style "Let's change the future" shenanigans. Well, unless the story has its tongue firmly in its cheek (as BTTF does).
 
S

Spiked

Well-known member
michael said:
Well good thing they didn't because this movie, unfortunately, had trouble getting people to walk IN TO the theater.

The casual audience spoke loudly. They don't care about an Old Indy.
Click to expand...
Ouch.

Mike00spy said:
Dead Reckoning being a Part 1 weakened the movie.
Click to expand...
Haven't seen it, but don't you need to see part 2 to know if it was weakened by being two parts?

Dr.Jonesy said:
The casual audience don't care about most films that come out these days.
Click to expand...
Except Barbenheimer.
 
S

Spiked

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
Glib answer: the pitch feels way too close to Avengers 3 and 4, neither of which I feel the need to see again.

Real answer: the fact that the film didn’t go back to 1939 was one of the most delightfully unexpected things about it. Moreover, it just feels way too off-model for Indiana Jones, a series which doesn’t take itself too seriously to ever get into the two-part finale mold. It’s not a saga, like the MCU, or Twilight, or Hunger Games, or even Mission Impossible.
Click to expand...
I thought of Avengers after I posted though it must have been in my subconscious. Still that was amazing amazing in how they 'went there" to have the villain win.

I agree, having them not go back to (the expected) 1939 was a fresh move. They could have ended a part 1 with Indy in ancient Greece. I'm just postulating a two-part thing, not saying I needed it.

Finn said:
I'm glad they didn't go there simply because I'm partial to causal loop time travel stories instead of BTTF-style "Let's change the future" shenanigans. Well, unless the story has its tongue firmly in its cheek (as BTTF does).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. What time travel stories do you like besides BTTF? T1 and T2? Frequency? Looper? HG Wells Time Machine?
 
Lance Quazar

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Dear god, absolutely not. Horrible, horrible idea. I despise it when movies do that. I didn't know the new Spider-Verse was a two-parter and I walked out of the theater furious.

I remember watching BTTF2 in the theater, which ends on a cliffhanger and then a trailer for Part 3. The audience audibly groaned during the trailer. And I was right along with them.
 
Forbidden Eye

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
No. One of my least favorite trends in modern movies. I actually avoided Harry Potter and The Hunger Games in theaters when they splitted the final film. Have zero interest in seeing Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning in large part cuz of that. I ultimately did see Infinity War/Endgame in theaters, but I’m rather ambivalent about Marvel anyway skipping about half of them.

What I love about about Indiana Jones IS the fact each of the movies are complete singular adventures. Unlike Star Wars or Marvel, they’re not each building to a saga or some bs “expanded universe”, they’re instead each complete three act structures with singular character arcs. Y’know MOVIES.

I’m happy sacrificing Indy 6 and limiting the appeal of this “franchise” to the kids if that means avoiding turning Indy into less of a story and more into a marketing gimmick.
 
Walecs

Walecs

Active member
Spiked said:
I thought of Avengers after I posted though it must have been in my subconscious. Still that was amazing amazing in how they 'went there" to have the villain win.
Click to expand...
That's what all two-parters do. Empire Strikes Back, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Matrix 2. They all end with the villain seemingly winning to leave some sort of conlict open for the next movie. Kudos to Back to the Future 2 for actually subverting this.
 
S

Spiked

Well-known member
Walecs said:
That's what all two-parters do. Empire Strikes Back, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Matrix 2. They all end with the villain seemingly winning to leave some sort of conlict open for the next movie. Kudos to Back to the Future 2 for actually subverting this.
Click to expand...
Forbidden Eye said:
No. One of my least favorite trends in modern movies. I actually avoided Harry Potter and The Hunger Games in theaters when they splitted the final film. Have zero interest in seeing Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning in large part cuz of that. I ultimately did see Infinity War/Endgame in theaters, but I’m rather ambivalent about Marvel anyway skipping about half of them.

What I love about about Indiana Jones IS the fact each of the movies are complete singular adventures. Unlike Star Wars or Marvel, they’re not each building to a saga or some bs “expanded universe”, they’re instead each complete three act structures with singular character arcs. Y’know MOVIES.

I’m happy sacrificing Indy 6 and limiting the appeal of this “franchise” to the kids if that means avoiding turning Indy into less of a story and more into a marketing gimmick.
Click to expand...

All good points, appreciate the perspectives. :)
 
HovitosKing

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Spiked said:
Seeing how Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning is Part 1, would you have liked if Mangold/Ford filmed two installments of DoD and released them in two parts? I could imagine part 1 ending with Voller successfully going back through time and winning and Indy finds himself in a world ruled by the Nazis in 1969 then in Part 2 needs to find a way to undo it.

I would have loved to have walked out of the theater with a cliffhanger like that.
Click to expand...

Part 1 would have underperformed and Part 2 would have pulled in less than half the take of Part 1.
 
FordFan

FordFan

Well-known member
It's so hard for the cliffhanger to not be a gimmick. I like it when it works ("BTTF Part II, 'Dead Reckoning', 'Avengers'), but many times, to me, it feels like stretching the story across two films because money (Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, most of the Marvel catalogue, 'Spider-verse').

If the story required it, maybe. But for the sake of a trend? Not into it.
 
S

Spiked

Well-known member
Grizzlor said:
IMO, this part 1/2 stuff stinks. It's bad film making. Learn how to cut your script down into a feature film, not a miniseries. 75% of it is a waste of money to shoot, and whole thing is a cash grab.
Click to expand...
Well as previously mentioned it did work for Empire Strikes Back. I remember seeing that in the theater and you had three years to talk to your friends about what would happen next and try to catch a Starlog magazine that might have some info or clues. Great memories.

Also, isn't the "installment" concept working for streaming? I've read a number of folks who have pointed out that "Solo" might have worked better, and been more successful, on Disney Plus as a series like Mandolorian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top