Don't Encourage Us

Indiana Jones and the Whatever the 5th One Is Called (2023)

Episode Summary

Indiana Jones is back! Join Indy, Helena, Jurgen, and the hosts of Don't Encourage Us as they travel the globe for clues to the location of the missing half of the Dial of Destiny! Is this the last we'll ever see of Harrison Ford's Dr. Jones? Will Phoebe Waller-Bridge pick up the torch? Is Mutt trapped in a tiger cage in Vietnam? For the answers to none of these questions and more, check out this week's episode of the only show that properly accounts for continental drift. But first: Follow The Chalk Line... --------------------------------We Spoil Everything-----------------------------------

Episode Notes

Indiana Jones is back! Join Indy, Helena, Jurgen, and the hosts of Don't Encourage Us as they travel the globe for clues to the location of the missing half of the Dial of Destiny! Is this the last we'll ever see of Harrison Ford's Dr. Jones? Will Phoebe Waller-Bridge pick up the torch? Is Mutt trapped in a tiger cage in Vietnam?  For the answers to none of these questions and more, check out this week's episode of the only show that properly accounts for continental drift.

But first: Follow The Chalk Line...

--------------------------------We Spoil Everything-----------------------------------

Episode Transcription

Speaker 1: Indiana Jones is defining quality. The thing that always saves him in the end and always kills his enemies, typically Nazis, is that the Nazis rely on science. And math, and they want to understand things and that's what they trust. And Indiana Jones trusts history. He trusts myths. He has faith. And because he has faith that what people used to believe is real, right, in a very literal sense, he survives in the end.

Welcome to Don't Encourage Us, the show where we talk about the big ideas behind fiction projects of all different kinds. Books, movies, TV shows, video games. Nothing's off limits. I'm your host Private Ryan, and I'm here with my co host Colonel Kurtz. How you doing? Great.

Speaker 2: I really like these names that you've picked out for us for every episode.

I hope the audience

Speaker 1: likes them, too. I knew I'd win you over eventually. So today we're discussing the latest and possibly last Indiana Jones movie, but first what's been on your list this week?

Speaker 2: I watched a psychological thriller. I think it's called The Chalk Line. It's from Spain about a couple that finds this little girl walking down the road and she's mute.

They have to figure out kind of like the mystery of like what's going on with her because they realize early on that she draws these chalk lines that she can't walk out of or crawl out of inside of their house. So anytime someone tries to erase one or one side of it, she starts screaming. And eventually she's able to draw them out on her own to create paths to where she's going, but she can never leave the house and it's an interesting premise.

You don't know much about the little girl. You realize that later on that she speaks German. There's a big mystery that goes on, but it's a pretty tight, tightly wound thriller. I enjoyed it and it wasn't overly long. Interesting. So it starts kind of in the um, in the couple, the woman's been wanting to have a kid for a long time and of course there's like this element of like people not believing her when she starts kind of trying to figure out what's actually going on and she's having trouble with her husband.

Eventually there's like trouble with the neighbors in general where they're like, Oh, she's kind of, there's something wrong with her and she's off. But it was pretty good. It was pretty satisfying. It wasn't the best thriller ever, but it was interesting. It was nice. The acting was really good too.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

This sounds like one of those movies where. It's an interesting concept, and it was executed in a way that held attention, and then other than that, it didn't have that much going for it. Like, everything else was good enough not to get in the

Speaker 2: way. Yeah, yeah, I would say so. And I think, I would say it's not, it's not really a paint by numbers sort of plot, because for a long time, you, you don't have any idea what's going on.

But then the reveal's interesting, because they do that thing that I, I really like when they show the same scenes. From completely different angles than the first time around. So you get to see like what was actually happening when, when that, that original scene was happening and you had no idea before.

So that was really a good kind of technique that they used. Throughout the movie, and

Speaker 1: it's a satisfying

Speaker 2: reveal. I'd say so. You could have added a little more backstory as to what was going on, but I think you kind of would have just lengthened it for no reason. So I think, I think it worked out because it wasn't an overly long movie.

I think if they would have pushed it to that, like over two hour mark or something, it wouldn't have worked. But it was pretty, like I said, pretty tightly

Speaker 1: wound. Interesting. I don't want to spoil it, but I'm curious now, so you can just whisper to me. You can mouse. I'll

Speaker 2: mute. Let me mute the podcast. Hold on.


Speaker 1: make me Google it after the episode. If everyone

Speaker 2: wants to know, I just told them.

Speaker 1: You can mute me and tell everyone else. Edit it in later.

Speaker 2: We'll just end his session, and I'll tell the audience separately.

Speaker 1: He's kicked me out.

That's great. Well, that sounds like it's worthwhile. That's good. How about you? Uh, not much. I, uh, you know, I watched a lot of stuff. Uh, read a few things, ran across a few interesting things, but not that I think is really that interesting. Yes. Announcing my retirement from the list.

Speaker 2: Did you get a chance to watch what, uh, what the podcast is about or not?

Speaker 1: You skipped it? I did, and I'm, I'm fired up to talk about the dial of destiny and everything implied by their decision to actually make this movie. Also known as

Speaker 2: what? Indiana Jones and the Temple of Destiny's

Speaker 1: Child? Say my name. Alright, so this was directed by James Mangold, who also directed Logan, which is probably the best movie that came out that year.

The budget for this has been estimated to be around 300 million, and the take in the theaters was about 390 million, so not amazing. I'm sure it's making a little bit of money now on streaming. I think it's currently streaming on Is it Disney? Yes. Disney plus of course. Uh, so hopefully it's making a few bucks for them.

I'm sure it'll sell some toys or posters or t shirts or something, but not the most successful of the Indiana Jones films. Did you see this one in the theater? No,

Speaker 2: I saw this one online, like streamed. Did you pay for it? Let me put you on mute. I did.

Speaker 1: Okay, good. Yeah. Uh, I actually signed up for a month of Disney So, they got their 16 bucks out of me or whatever it is these days just to watch this. Uh, so this movie stars Harrison Ford, of course. John Rhys Davies, Mads Mikkelsen. Mikkelsen? Mikkelsen? Milken. Milkenson. Uh, Boyd Holbrook.

Speaker 2: Are you pronouncing their names backwards?

Speaker 1: Just forgot how to read. Boyd Holbrook, Seanette Renee Wilson, Antonio Banderas, Phoebe Waller Bridge, and a few other people. Do you want to tell me what you thought of this one or should we get right into the story?

Speaker 2: Good question. I'd say, let's talk about what I thought about it. Just in in broad terms. I thought it started off pretty strong.

I thought the, the CGI was, was decent, but still a little bit distracting.

Speaker 1: It was a little rubbery a couple of times. Yeah, when

Speaker 2: they kind of, I don't know what you, what you'd call it, young ifying or something. What do they do? Turning

Speaker 1: I believe it's de oldifying, but go

Speaker 2: ahead. A technical term. Uh, de oldified, um, Harrison Ford, which I heard someone call him Harrison Board.

But that's another story. Um, I thought the action was really, I guess you'd say classic Indiana Jones in the beginning and it really caught your attention. But then after that, it kind of seemed like it was some kind of pastiche of all these different elements of an adventure movie. It's kind of brought together in kind of like a very formulaic sort of way.

And it was almost like, it seemed like almost like it was a movie made for kids. In a way, like just the way it was, was put together. It seemed very simplistic. The, the villains were really, really well drawn, but I thought Mads Mikkelsen was pretty, was pretty decent in that role as usual. Great actor.

Speaker 1: Yeah, I

Speaker 2: just don't think they gave the actors that much to work with, even though I thought the actors were, were very good.

I don't know, it seemed like a movie that wasn't really necessary in terms of the series. It was entertaining, but it's not something that you'd say, Oh, I could watch that again. Like I would say Indiana Jones, like Raiders of the Lost Ark, you could just watch it anytime and it still holds your attention.

It's still a great movie. It's timeless. You know, I don't think this fits into that.

Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think the bottom line on this film for people who haven't seen it is it is definitively a movie that did not need to be made. I think that's accurate. I don't know if everyone agrees to that, but it's definitely a general consensus.

It's kind of an, it's interesting in that it's such an automatic reaction. Like if you go out and you talk to people and you ask them what they thought about this movie, if they're fans of Indiana Jones, they'll probably get around to saying something to the effect of it's a movie that didn't need to be made.


Speaker 2: But why, but why didn't it work? That's the part that it took me a little. a little more time to really think it through. And I don't think I still have a definitive answer besides what I said, that it seems like it's kind of a hodgepodge of action scenes, but I'm thinking to myself, what could have made it better?

Would it have been more of the, you mentioned in the last episode, like letting a scene breathe. I didn't feel like there was enough of that. I mean, I think the story in itself is interesting. The Archimedes, the dial of destiny, that whole idea, time travel, I always am fascinated by that in general, but I think for this it was kind of just, maybe it was too quick in the way the scenes happened, maybe there wasn't enough, you know, action, and then kind of like a slower, more expository scene to balance that action.

I don't know

Speaker 1: right pacing yeah well i have a few theories so maybe we can piece it out together so bottom line would you recommend this movie or not you know

Speaker 2: i think i think i would say it's worth watching but keep your expectations low don't compare it to the you know the original indiana jones because you're not going to get there but in terms of your kind of basic Action movie that you could play in the background while you're doing other things.

It's good enough for that. Like on a Sunday when you're doing your chores or something, but not something that you didn't actually sit down and watch and try to compare it to the original because it's just not. It's not that.

Speaker 1: Yeah, I actually thought you and I would be at odds over this one a bit.

Because i thought you would say you really didn't like it and i was gonna say i think it's fine but it sounds like you're saying it's fine

Speaker 2: i'd say it's i think it's fine i don't think there's anything that stands out as as being just terrible about it where it's a don't don't watch it all i had some really good.

Some really good sequences and I think when he's in the 60s that I found to be very interesting too in terms of how they bring in the Apollo parade, the Apollo 11 parade, and just kind of like those kind of historical little details that they brought into his world. I thought that was interesting, but yeah, in terms of a movie that you're really intentionally going to go out and watch and get excited for.

I don't think

Speaker 1: this one's it. No, I agree. So I'm going to do the plot this week, and I'm going to do it in chronological order. Sometime around 220 BC, Archimedes, the famous Greek mathematician, gets interested in the movement of the planets, and he notices abnormalities. So, he conceptualizes this device that can track these abnormalities and, uh, identify the cause or the source.

In around 213 BC, The Romans conduct a siege of Archimedes home city, Syracuse, and he finishes the design for a device called the anti Kythera, which can not only explain or calculate discrepancies in planetary motion, but also it can track the source. Which are apparently wormholes in space

Speaker 2: time and it's uh, let's clarify.

It's not Syracuse, New York in case anyone was out there wondering Right

Speaker 1: exactly. It's not Syracuse, New York. It'll be a short little dotted line He

Speaker 2: takes the takes the Amtrak

Speaker 1: up there Uh, so Archimedes, whose city is under siege, hatches a plan to use this device to call for help from the future. I don't know the exact details of his plan, but he's gonna make sure this device survives into the future, and the idea is people in the future will come back to his time and help.

Then suddenly, Indy and some Nazis show up out of thin air, and they kill a bunch of the Romans with machine guns. Then Indiana gets shot. And the Nazis all get killed a lonely, depressed and dying. Indiana Jones decides to retire in the year 213 BC. His goddaughter punches him in the face and knocks him out.

Then we jumped to 1944. Indy is hot on the trail of the Spear of Destiny and the Nazis who stole it for Hitler. The spear turns out to be a fake, but Indy obtains half of the Antikythera from a Nazi scientist named Mads Mikkelsen. Indy gives the relic to his fellow history professor and friend. And then we jump to 1951.

Indy visits his friend, who's now obsessed with the Antikythera, and believes it can be used as a time machine. Indy takes the half they found back and agrees to destroy it, but he doesn't do that. His friend's daughter, Helena, age 12, sees all this go down and slowly realizes the value of the relic. Now it's 1969.

Indy is alone, depressed and retiring from a mediocre university teaching job. Helena shows up hoping to get the MacGuffin and auction it for profit. She steals it and manages to escape to North Africa with Indy and the Nazi Mads Mickelson, now a rocket scientist for the U S space program in hot pursuit.

Helena and Indy team up to secure half of the Maltese Falcon and track down the map to the other half. Mads and his henchmen track down Indy and his crew again. Indy and Helena escape with one half of the Necronomicon and a map to the other half. Indy and Helena find the other half and unite the pieces of the One Ring just in time for Mads to steal it and reveal his plan to use the One Ring to go back in time and kill Hitler.

Mads, Indy, Helena, and the rest of the Brady Bunch fly through a wormhole in space time and disappear. Then Indy wakes up in his bed at home. His wife is back and his friends are there. Indy is recovering. from his bullet wound, everyone else leaves to get ice cream and he has sex with his wife.

Speaker 2: Thank you.

I'm so glad you did that. And I didn't because I'd still be going right now and I would, I would probably be at the years 1944.

Speaker 1: Yeah. Hold on a second. Yeah, I guess you could do this with all the movies. That'd be kind of fun to just slot them all in there. Of course, the other ones would be easier.

Speaker 2: But doesn't it, when you listen to it though, it sounds very compelling and a very interesting plot in terms of like the pitch, right?

You've got your archaeologist in venture who's kind of sick of it all, retiring. Done with life and then he gets this new adventure that he gets pulled into. It's a typical hero's journey with all of these other very fascinating kind of historical elements thrown in there, which makes you think of the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, right?

But in this case. You're not really getting there. I talk about why or why we think

Speaker 1: we don't get there. Yeah, there's a lot of reasons why, like, I cut a lot of stuff, you know, I sort of thought about, like, how would you summarize the story? And I was like, well, you got to work in short round and you got to work in some of these other characters, like the Alabama Nazis and stuff like that.

And I realized really quickly, you just don't. Even the classic characters they bring back, you just don't really need them. They don't actually add anything to the story. They don't really move it forward. They're not critical in the development of other characters. So that's a bit of an issue. Um, I don't know how much of that is why the story doesn't work, but.

Even John Rhys Davies, right? Like, in the original story, you could say, like, he's not really important, wouldn't be part of a summary, and that's true again here. But for some reason, this version, this movie feels like it needs it more. Maybe it's because it's, this is well trodden territory, and it's not new, or maybe it's some of the other things we'll talk about.


Speaker 2: those are some interesting points. Is there any part of this movie that you would have wanted to see more of, in terms of the timeline? Like, would you have wanted to see more of Indy in 212 BC? More in the 1940s? More in the 60s? Like, how do you, how do you see that? Hmm, that's a

Speaker 1: good question. Um, I do think the opener, as you were saying, is some of the best stuff in the film.

I think the, uh, 1960s stuff. It was fine. It was okay. It felt a little bit. I wish instead of doing another action sequence for that, they would have taken advantage of the time difference and the change in Indiana Jones to highlight how he's developed as a person. So in the, uh, you know, the, the World War two scenes, he's very physical and he's a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a.

Kind of sloppy and lucky relies on luck and you know, he can take a beating and things like that, right? He's a little bit foolhardy and cocky and so on and I wish that they had used the 1960s action sequence that came pretty close after that to show how he's still Indiana Jones But he's just figured out another way to do it Right.

He's not as physical. He can't take the hits. He doesn't rely on luck as much, but he still gets it done. He just uses, you know, other things like maybe cleverness or bravery or, uh, just really anything like, um, getting along with people or, or, you know, managing people better if he demonstrated more wisdom and more.

Of where you would think Indiana Jones would go, I think it would have made for pretty exciting, a pretty exciting scene and maybe even more so instead it, it relied heavily on some of the visual elements.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I really like that. You were saying in the 1940s, it's like a different type of Indiana Jones, obviously the younger version, but that's who you're really used to seeing much younger.

That's, yeah, that's why I think it works so well. It would have been great. If you would have seen that version of him in Syracuse in 212 BC, I just always love those fish out of water scenarios. And I think you didn't get enough of that. Even when he's the older version himself interacting with Archimedes.

I thought they were going to stay there much longer than they

Speaker 1: did. Yeah, that would have been interesting. And there have been some classic Indiana Jones scenes where he or sequences where he has to pretend to be a local. You know, and rely on his knowledge of the culture in order to, you know, get where he's trying to go, escape, get something or whatever.

And you're suggesting, I think, a really interesting sequence where he and the Nazis are in Syracuse and they're trying to blend in during a siege in order to get to the MacGuffin or whatever it is they're trying to get to, to get what they want or escape or something. I think that would have been great.

That would have been really interesting, especially if it was shot in a way where the sets and the actors, the background actors all felt very genuine for the time. You know, and if they put a lot of effort into making it seem realistic and then seeing Indy and perhaps Helena have to rely on their knowledge and what's what is and isn't accurate about our knowledge of that time period, I think that would have been really entertaining.

They were taken prisoner

Speaker 2: and Archimedes somehow had to like bail them out or they had to convince him who they were. And why was important for them to escape something along those lines would have been would have been really

Speaker 1: fun. I think I would do more of like they did in. I think it's the original with the baskets right where they're in.

I forget what city was it was something and yeah, right. And they're like, try, you know, Indies trying to look like a local, you know, look like a merchant and they've got the basket thing going and the Nazis are looking for him. I think a sequence like that where they're. Yeah. Hiding, they're trying to read things.

They're trying to remember stuff, but they stand out, you know, I don't know if they'd be bigger or taller or whatever, lighter skinned, you know, for whatever reason, and they're trying to explain that in the local language, but they don't know all the idioms and their knowledge is imperfect. And the Nazis are just punching people and dealing in the Roman soldiers are getting into the mix.

Like, I just think there's a lot of fun, a little bit of physical comedy and a lot of fun to be had there. And then they get whatever it is they need, like piece of the Antikythera or the original diagram. So they can correct the calculations and for continental drift or whatever dumb thing. But yeah, I think that would have been fun and you're right.

They did miss out on what would have been a cool. A really fun version or way to do Indiana Jones, a little bit like it's been done, but now it's actually happening in history for the first time. So that's

Speaker 2: pretty cool. You could also get those like one liners from him, like, not this again, you know, like that type of, he's like, he has to, yeah, he has to play by those rules in order to save his life.

That would have been great. I think. Yeah. And, um, also how the villain dies. Just, I don't know. It was, it was, he was one of the most interesting characters in the movie by far. The Mads Mikkelsen character. Mm. I would have liked to see more of his

Speaker 1: scheming. I think his death was very forgettable. And that's, that's a waste.

I mean, at least they could have pushed him out of a plane or something or have his corpse have Shown up his skeleton of shown up earlier in the film or just something that like gave some added weight and interest to the way he dies. But you're right. I guess they were done with them in the story. So he got dispatched unalive.

He got D live.

Speaker 2: He's a lot of technical terms

Speaker 1: on this podcast. That's right. Try to keep up. So, uh, major problem I had with this film was Helena. First of all, how old is that character supposed to be? Just, I, I know you could probably Google it and, and get the script or whatever. But, like, based on what you remember from the movie, how old would you think the character is supposed to be?


Speaker 2: mean maybe like mid

Speaker 1: twenties okay so she pops up in his college classroom and she pretends to be an undergrad student and a little bit later like not much longer like I think they're at the bar like a few minutes later in the movie she says that she finished undergrad and she plans to go to graduate school I believe that's correct right so based on that I would guess that the character is supposed to be about twenty one.

I think so. Yeah. Okay. And the actress looks like she's about 41. I

Speaker 2: think she is, right? She's late thirties. Well, she's,

Speaker 1: she's late thirties. She's currently 38 years old. That seems really weird to me. Because it, it felt like it was this adult woman, like, you know, middle aged trying to play like kind of almost a teenager, a lot of the film, and she had this, uh, kind of classical delivery of lines, like where she enunciated everything and it was very proper and her posture and her bearing were all very, like, well developed and, you know, and I was like, this is, you know, This is somebody's mom.

You know what I mean? Like this is not this is a lady. This is not a college student and I don't know that that's inappropriate for the story because I don't recall them ever saying like, Hey, Helena, happy 22nd birthday or anything like that. So it's totally possible that I guess she went back to school later.

In life or, you know, became an, or got her undergraduate degree or just lied about that entirely. But that Indy would think that she went back to school or went to school later in her life, like in her mid thirties and recently graduated and still plan to get a doctorate. There's nothing wrong with that, but it was confusing to me.

It felt like the part was written for a much, much, much younger character than B. B. Waller Bridge can play. Yeah, that's,

Speaker 2: that's a good point. But the way I read it was a little bit different in the fact that I think they were, they chose somebody who could add that level of like, I think what they were trying to do, I could be totally wrong, was to add this extra layer of experience of the world that someone younger may not have or could pull off.

So I think there was that going on in terms of the casting. I

Speaker 1: don't disagree. I just think they should have rewritten the role so it better fit what you were saying if they wanted to use

Speaker 2: this actress. Do you think there was a reason why they needed to set everything up the way that they set it up in terms of having her mention those things about going to school, et cetera, because it would place her in a specific time, on a specific timeline that they skipped?

Have skipped over all of that and you just wouldn't have thought about it

Speaker 1: as much. I think the original script was written for a much younger actress and, uh, for whatever reason, they decided to cast Phoebe Waller bridge and they didn't change the script enough to accommodate the age difference. That's quite possible.

Speaker 2: And she also has star power. Behind her. She's going to be in the next Tomb Raider series. That's her next. Is that right? She's very popular. She's written her own shows. I think one's called crashing and done another one too. That was really, really popular just recently. So I think she's one of those stars that's really on the rise and I'm assuming that's why chose her to bring in that audience or her fans.

Got it. But yeah, it's very

Speaker 1: distracting. I just, I thought she was terrible in this role. Just absolutely terrible. Like, probably the worst actress in the whole film to play that role. In fact, I don't know if you remember, there was a, I think she was a CIA officer or something like that. She was an agent, uh, mod squad.

Shawnette Renee Wilson plays this kind of young agent who's very idealistic and trying to sort of wrangle Mads Mikkelsen's character to go meet with the president and maintain his security for him and stuff like that. That actress I thought did a fabulous job. I think she's really, really talented and I think she would have been a better Helena.

Speaker 2: Yeah, that's it. That's a really good, uh, good point. Now that I think about it, yeah, that would have worked. Yeah. Yeah. And I actually think the she's she's

Speaker 1: good. Yeah, she's really good. She was sharp and she had a vulnerability about her, but she was also tough. I think she would have been great. I think the way the helmet character was played was much more like you said, this kind of like savvy.

World traveler who's seen it all done. It all knows everything can hold men in the palm of her hand. But I think the character wasn't written that way. I think she was written more as like a young woman who's very smart and very educated, but can get in over her head. You know, sometimes she has control and other times she realizes she doesn't right.

And I think that would have been a better fit for a mentor in the form of Indiana Jones and a foil for the two of them. And I think this actress, even though I don't know that she's that much younger, I think she could have played. A version of Helena that would have been spicy and sharp and stimulating and, you know, kept you as an audience member kind of guessing and engaged and so on.

I'm not saying it had to be her. I'm just saying since she's in the same film and they killed her off early, by the way, I think that was that was a mistake. I think she was great. So, she would have been fine or really a ton of other people would have been fine. I think Alicia

Speaker 2: Vikander, who was in Tomb Raider, would have been great for that role.

Speaker 1: Oh, interesting. Yeah, yeah, yeah. She could probably use the work, right? I, I don't

Speaker 2: know. That's a good question. She might be in a lot of stuff coming up and I have just no, no

Speaker 1: idea. Let's see. Alisa, good memory by the way. Thank you, sir.

Speaker 2: Uh,

Speaker 1: I don't see too much. Oh, she's Swedish. Yeah. Did you know that? I

Speaker 2: believe she's married to Michael Fassbender.

Speaker 1: Ah. Yeah, she's got things. She did a TV show. She did a miniseries recently. She did a film called Firebrand. Interesting. Okay, yeah. She looks like she would have been available. Uh, yeah. Great choice. Uh, there's plenty of other choices. I think this was a major problem with the film. I don't, I'm not trying to say Phoebe Waller Bridge isn't a good actress.

I just think she was horribly miscast in this role. And she delivered a performance exactly the way she does performances, you know? So it's not her fault for doing what she does well and what's worked for her in the past. I just don't think it worked in this dynamic and in this film. It just didn't.

Speaker 2: And she was highly unlikable.

I think in that, in the beginning of the film, especially, which really, that's what I'm getting at, pulled you out of the action, especially in that scene with the, uh, in Morocco, it was just, yeah,

Speaker 1: no, she was. Extremely unlikable and never recovered. And I think an actress who can play strength with more vulnerability and less of a proper more of like, uh, this is what I've had to do to survive.

I've got a little bit of an edge because my dad died and I was on my own or I got into the wrong line of business and. I don't know you. So this is the way it goes. Uh, and then later was like, uh, showing a little bit more regret and just more emotion and more personality. Like, uh, this actress is just very selfish.

She played this character. Yeah. And just very fine with it. You know, and nothing to learn because she's 40 and already knows the world anyway. And I don't know, it's fine. I just think it was a bigger flaw in this film than probably most people would realize consciously. Uh, so, you know, that's something that I would, would point to for sure.


Speaker 2: point. For sure. It's very distracting. Mm hmm. It's sometimes I think these actors are cast and they can just really pull you out of. The action, whatever's happening in a, in a movie, it's almost like that they can really, if you have a, a cast with even abilities, and then you have one person that just like sticks out so much, it just can really ruin things, you know, if they're not made to, to be that type of character, you know, sidekick was really annoying or something, but I don't think that was the case in this, for this movie, they were just trying to blend her character into Indy's character.

Like you said, it doesn't work like they just kind of

Speaker 1: clash. Yeah, I don't know if it's the actresses delivery or what was asked of her, but I just don't think she fits the part at all. I think it was tragic that they cast her. They could have done worse. She's a good actress, so it's not like for the reason like what you were just saying didn't happen because she's a bad actress.

So that can happen for, you know, that can cause the problem you were just saying, but in this case, it was just who she is and how she acts and how she delivers things. And she either doesn't have the range or didn't understand this character or was specifically instructed to play it as if she was an Ivy league, educated, good at everything, you know, no real faults, no major moments of vulnerability or concern or confusion.

She's just driving the whole way until she's not. You know, and then she's back in the driver's seat at the end and we're done like that's very boring, especially with a character like indiana jones in the same scenes, her relationship with her short rounds character was absolutely heartless. It was as plastic as it could be, so that was a mistake having that kid in there.

There were a couple moments where he offered a little bit of heart, but it was more with Indy. Than it was with her character. So yeah, I think that was a major fall. I think it's difficult though, to

Speaker 2: really know whether it's the actor's fault or whether the director is just making them act a certain way.

Yeah. You know, it's. Sure.

Speaker 1: And they cast her. And who knows? I mean, she, she might've just been doing what she does best and they told her to do that. It just doesn't work. And there are a few decisions that I think James Mangold made, and I also think Lucas and Spielberg signed off on them, that don't work for the Indiana Jones franchise, and it makes me wonder if this is a situation where they either didn't care, didn't think about it, or they've forgotten what makes Indiana Jones so special and what makes his character work.

But anyway, we'll get to that stuff. So explain to me how the Antikythera mechanism works. Can you explain how that worked and how they used it in the last act? It was pretty

Speaker 2: difficult to understand, like what exactly they were getting at. Like there are these two pieces. Yeah. It's, it's a dial. Once it's assembled.

Yeah. You, you turn it, it's showing you like a specific alignment of the planets. And at some point it creates some type of wormhole. If it's calibrated correctly, like there's not much going on in terms of like really explaining it. It's just it does what it like. That's what I got out of the movie that it does what it does if you use it in the right way.

So if whoever has it knows what they're doing, quote unquote. They can make it work and open this wormhole if continental drift doesn't get involved and it's miscalibrated from the get go, which it was. So

Speaker 1: that's what. So it's unclear when you adjust the dials, right? It has multiple gears, right? And when you point them in different places, does that open a portal through time?

Does it tell you where one is? Or does it tell you how to go through it in the right, you know, direction or angle to get to the time period you want or some combination of those, right? So it's really not clear. What's even more unclear is how it would do any of that exactly. Uh, based on what little bit they say about its origin.

So, do you think there's a comment

Speaker 2: about that? No, I was going to say it would have been great to know more. See, those are the types of things that I, as a viewer, am very interested in. Like I mentioned, the whole Syracuse, him fish out of water, having to get out of that situation. This is another thing that would have been great to know.

Like, how did this device actually work, or how did he figure that out? They don't really get into those details too much, because then they're into some, like, throwaway kind of action scene. That they're in the middle of,

Speaker 1: do you think this fit as an Indiana Jones MacGuffin, like the arc of the covenant?

Speaker 2: It's a very good question. And I can't really answer that unless I understood how they went about explaining how the device worked. And I think in that case, wait,

Speaker 1: you saw the film, so that should be all you need to know. I'm

Speaker 2: saying it might've worked, but in this case. I don't think it works in the same way that the Ark of the Covenant works,

Speaker 1: and I did see the film.

Okay. And so, okay. So, but no, I mean, I thought you were trying to say like, if I understood better how the Antikythera works, I could judge whether it's a good example of an Indiana Jones MacGuffin. But what you're saying instead is you can't, you know, right? I'm saying, no,

Speaker 2: I mean, I would have been curious about how it worked.

I don't think in terms of if you look at the other movies. And, you know, the Ark of the Covenant, the perfect one. Does it fit that mold? No. I don't

Speaker 1: think so. It's hard, I think, to understand why it doesn't work as a MacGuffin in an Indiana Jones film. The Ark and the Cup of Christ from the third movie, we can, we can really use any of the first three movies, but those items work really well because there's nothing sciency about them at all.

Indiana Jones uses archeology and science to find these objects, but in the end they are religious fantasy. It just, any kind of fantasy really would work, but religious fantasy in particular, or historical fantasy, like myth, right? Is what these MacGuffins are like the arc. It's just a magic box with angry Jesus in it or whatever.

And that's, that's it. There's no like, Oh, and it works this way and it melts spaces because it has a mathematical connection to mercury or something like that. There's none of that stuff. There's no one calculating the energy output of the art in angstroms or something like that. Like, it's just none of that stuff.

It's just a magic box. And the same thing with the chalice of Christ, right? It's just a, you know, a mortal old guy guarding a wooden cup that Jesus touched or whatever. So it works. It's fundamental to Indiana Jones that the MacGuffin in the end be an object of really faith. Not necessarily religious faith or Christianity, but Indiana Jones is defining quality.

The thing that always saves him in the end and always kills his enemies, typically Nazis, is that the Nazis rely on science and math and they want to understand things. And that's what they trust. And Indiana Jones. Trusts history. He trusts myths. He has faith. And because he has faith that what people used to believe is real, right.

And a very literal sense, he survives in the end. It's a very good point.

Speaker 2: I hadn't thought about it in that way. Like the way I was thinking about it, so it was just very complicated. The way they turned the MacGuffin into something that was so scientific, mathematical, et cetera. So it kind of bogged things down.

In the way that it was explained, but yeah, I think your, your point is extremely valid that the other ones are faith based. And once you have a faith based MacGuffin and it's universal and you don't get bogged down by the math, the science, the accuracy of it. Et cetera, which bogs down a lot of movies and sci fi as well.

Speaker 1: It's very strange to me that Lucas Spielberg and mangled all signed off on this ending because it implies that they don't understand this character. Right. And in one way, he is the opposite of Han Solo, right? Han Solo only believes. What he can touch and shoot and punch, Indiana Jones has that faith, like history myth is real to him.

It's, it's who he is fundamentally. It's like, it's what may it's part of what makes him so interesting. I mean, he's kind of bumbling. He's not the best at everything, but he's, he can take a hit and keep going. And he has faith, faith in history from myths from all over the world. But this, they presented this device as science, as science fiction, and that whole comment, like that bit about the continental drift where he's like, that's the exact moment where Indiana Jones's faith that the myths of history are more real than any of us would ever imagine should have saved him.

Yeah, but instead he's talking about continental drift. He sounds like a Nazi.

Speaker 2: Yeah, that's he sounds like a bad I'm just thinking back to the end of Raiders and why it was so satisfying that that ending remember He's like you have to close your eyes close your eyes. Remember? Yeah,

Speaker 1: and they right he was beaten He was defeated and he's he won because he had faith That the myths of history are real and it wasn't even about like his faith in God.

He believes in the reality of the stories of the myth and that saves his butt, right? Um, that allows him to triumph in the end and in this it was like, no, you just did the math wrong, you stupid Nazi. So he's

Speaker 2: not above believing and the villains are always too good to believe in whatever it

Speaker 1: is. Yeah, I think, um, Mangold and Lucas and Spielberg forgot or didn't care and they thought that what set Indy apart was his knowledge of facts of history, right?

It's like, oh no, he's really good at like deciphering things and he knows a lot of languages and he's a smart archaeologist. They make a point in the films to have other smart archaeologists, both on good guy side and bad guy side. And. Phoebe Waller Bridge's character was a smart archaeologist, basically, even though I guess she technically doesn't have the credentials.

But that was her whole character. They could, so, okay, here's another small point. A lot of people, before I saw this, had accused this film of being a passing of the torch, right? They were like, oh, this movie sucks because they're giving Indiana Jones a daughter and they're gonna try to make her the new Indiana Jones.

I did not get that from this film at all, but if they were trying to do that, then she would have been the one who had faith in the myth of history that saved everyone. And then she would have been a believable person to wear the cap. You know, she would have taken the whip and saved them all and moved on or whatever.

And that would have been the end, but that they didn't do that at all. She didn't really offer much. She's just another knowledgeable person. And there's multiple people like that in this film alone.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just thinking what would they have used instead if you were to, to redo this film, what MacGuffin would you've replaced this one with?

Is there anything that comes to

Speaker 1: mind? I don't know. I mean, they put the spear of destiny in the beginning. You may as well just use that. It was right there. They already had the prop. Just

Speaker 2: stick with it. Maybe someone lost it. Didn't look fake to me. They're like, we lost it. Yeah, exactly. We just have this dial thing.

What do we do? Oh, we'll call it the dial of destiny. Yeah, he lost

Speaker 1: the prop.

Quick, we need to

Speaker 2: rewrite. They're like three fourths of the way film, and that's why it's so expensive. That we can start that rumor right here on this podcast. It cost 300 million, and they were almost done shooting. Someone lost it.

Speaker 1: If it were me, I would have chosen something that wasn't a Christian artifact.

I think that that's, it's great. I mean, I love the first movie and the third movie and they both lean into that mythology. And I think that's amazing. And it works really, really well. Like those are both fabulous films. And the second film I enjoy, I know a lot of people don't or they're offended by it or whatever, but I think the sort of the magic and mysticism in that is interesting.

I don't know how accurate it is. for that culture, but it's interesting and it proves, I think definitively that you can make an Indiana Jones story that feels like Indiana Jones that does not revolve around the Bible. Right. So I would have chosen something from an interesting, different part of the world.

Maybe the last movie tried to do this. I'm not really sure. It was like South America. Right. Wasn't that the, wherever the aliens were, whatever weird, yeah, that was difficult to watch. Um, and I did doze off. So yeah, I would have picked something, uh, another part of the world or what are those clay statues, right?

The Chinese, uh, clay statue, the big army that was buried and I'm blanking on that too, but you just pick something that has a, a lot of mystical, a lot of myth around it, right? A lot of legend and rumor and questions and unanswered aspects and unknown. There's a lot of those. And then you. There's a lot of those and they're so cool and so interesting, right?

There's all these pyramids all over the world and all these other kinds of things. And like just with the crystal skull, was that the last one? That's what it was, right? Yeah. Yeah. They do the crystal skull thing. Um, but there's stuff like that all over the world that you could explore and. Indiana Jones belief in the reality of myth, like the literal, you know, literal aspects are interpretation of myth would have been so much more fun and interesting and it could have had a really cool payoff anyway.

So yeah, I would have just flipped through some history books and chosen something along those lines. A

Speaker 2: good point. I think that your overall point is really strong, the, that it's based on faith and they, once they shifted over to, to science. It loses its spark and he loses who he is.

Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. It doesn't fit the character and it doesn't work in the story.

So we talked about this before, right? A lot of people blend or confuse science fiction and fantasy. And I think that is very annoying even to the majority of, of audiences, but not consciously. So I think that it feels awkward or off, they just don't like it or it just sort of takes them out of the film or stops them from enjoying it as much.

It's just a personal theory of mine. And I think this film unfortunately does that too much. It takes something and it's like, well, it's science fiction. Well, it's it's kind of fantasy. Well, it's kind of science fiction. And they do that in subtle ways in the way they talk about and present the item and even the music cues right convey to the audience.

This is. Yeah. Science fiction. No, it's fantasy. No, it's science fiction. No, it's fantasy. Right. And that it just doesn't work. It's like really clunky and it takes the magic out of the story, right? The Indiana Jones movies, the good ones have this like feel of magic about them. And when you take the MacGuffin and you try to make it science fiction, when it's not, it kills that magic feel.

So yeah, I think that James Mangold, I assume if he read the script before they started filming, he just doesn't get the difference. You know, he just doesn't, it's unfortunate, but he doesn't understand science fiction versus fantasy and how to maintain a tone that's consistent with one or the other. I, I, I try not to take specific direct shots at people, but I think this is a fair one.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree. I was thinking about that chase scene in the movie and how exhausting it was. How long, which one the, the one in Morocco, the other took, took one as compared to the chase scene in mission impossible, there was, it was so much more fun in mission impossible as compared to this, where it's almost, they threw these scenes in there like, Oh, we need to have one of these.

So we're going to throw it in. That's what I felt like was going on a lot in this movie.

Speaker 1: A little tacked on. Yeah, it was fairly well done. I thought. Um, and it was, it was a smart choice to have him driving instead of like running and jumping a lot or even riding a horse, which by the way, is pretty tiring.

I mean, certainly when you write it like that. Uh, but yeah, they didn't, I don't know. They just didn't seem that interesting. Um, I actually tuned out a little bit and I had to go back and watch it. So there's a point in the film for those of you who aren't going to watch it where, uh, Indiana Jones. Finally gets the second half of the anti kite Thera and he's going to assemble it.

But then the Nazis catch up with them and take Indy and the device, right? And so Indiana Jones is a hostage and, uh, the bad guys are headed to, uh, use the device to travel through time to kill Hitler. And yep, that's right. The bad guys are going to kill Hitler. Oh my gosh. You'll have to watch the movie to figure out why that makes sense.

Uh, and then Helena and her sidekick have to catch up, right? I actually got bored and realized I like I tuned into my phone I was watching it at home and I just it just hit me like it's been a while since I checked my email or whatever thing I was doing and I got sucked into that and then I tuned back in as the plane was emerging in I was like oh they're going back in time I'll just watch that and then I was like wait a minute I just missed like a key part of the film.

And I don't care, so I went back and watched it and there really wasn't much there and it was pretty boring and it was definitely paint by numbers, but for parts of the film to be that unengaging and I think the, the action sequence you're talking about, it was, it was pretty engaging, but for an action sequence, maybe also not enough, I don't know.

What are your thoughts on that? I think it just dragged

Speaker 2: to me. It just like dragged way too long. It should have ended earlier. And I just. Couldn't stop but think, you know, this is just kind of something they're throwing in there just because they feel they have to have a scene like this and they're just going to milk it for all it's worth to like extend the runtime when I'm thinking that during a scene.

Yeah, that's a bad sign. It's like you and the phone, you know what I mean? Because they usually don't have that reaction. Um, When something's actually entertaining and the right length but this i could really feel the time taking like okay when is this thing gonna end and yeah that

Speaker 1: wasn't well you knew it wasn't it wasn't critical to the story so it was kinda like antonio banderas is cameo.

You know, I was like, is that Antonio Banderas? Wow. Okay. Well, I guess his character is going to be, no, it's really clear that this is just some sort of weird extended cameo. I thought, oh man, he's going to be like this new part of the story and I was like, no, it would have been

Speaker 2: really fun. It would have been better.


Speaker 1: like him. I think he's a great times. Movies have more money. Yeah, I agree. A hundred percent, and I think sometimes films have more money than they should, uh, and if you've got Antonio Banderas delivering just useless lines, and just kind of standing in the background, right, and then he gets killed for no reason, and fifteen minutes later, like, you've gotten too much money.

You mean like Asteroid City?

Exactly, that that is the poster child for that problem. Absolutely. But yeah, this, this movie, I don't know, maybe they had to pad the budget a little bit, or maybe Antonio has some gambling debt or something. You heard it here first, folks.

Speaker 2: We're like TMZ now. We're a podcast on TMZ. If it doesn't break on Don't Encourage Us, do

Speaker 1: not.

That's right. All right. So I got another question for you. So for those of you stayed awake during, uh, kingdom of the crystal skull, was that the last one? I

Speaker 2: think I fell asleep in the theater. So you're going to ask me about that and I'm not

Speaker 1: going to know, but I'm going to ask you about it anyway. So you remember mutt Shia LaBeouf?

Speaker 2: I remember that he was in the movie. And I remember there was a refrigerator.

Speaker 1: Okay, good. That was not Shia LaBeouf. He did not play the refrigerator. He actually played Indiana Jones son, Mutt, which now that I think back on it, I think was a playoff of the joke from the third one where Sean Connery's like, we named a dog Indy.

Oh, remember that? So then Indiana Jones kid is named dog, I guess, basically. Wait, but

Speaker 2: doesn't he end up in a refrigerator or something at the end, or is that right in the beginning? Isn't there a refrigerator and some explosion or something?

Speaker 1: Help me. Help me out here. Go back and watch that movie. Yeah, no, that's, that's when, uh, Indy officially jumps the shark there.

He survives a nuclear blast in an old refrigerator.

Speaker 2: That's right. They don't make them like they used to, right?

Speaker 1: No. Apparently they used to make them like little bomb shelters. So anyway, in this film, there's some dialogue and it's, it's, it's a little bit of like a key point for the character's development, but it's more throwaway dialogue along the way.

Um, that's not fair. It's supposed to be an emotional moment. So anyway, we find out Mutt died in Vietnam. Do you think they'll ever bring back Mutt? Because honestly, with all the stories around POWs in Vietnam, it's entirely plausible. That they'll just say that Mutt was a POW this story, like the last time period for this film is right around the time, you know, for Vietnam, like it's, 50 years, they could bring back Shia LaBeouf pretty easily just by saying he was in a what a tiger cage or whatever for a year or two years.

And then he's back. Right. Do you think they'll do that?

Speaker 2: I don't know, I guess it's how, it depends how they reimagine the movie, right? Because at some point, they're going to have to retire Harrison Ford. And would they bring him back? The intellectual property. Would they bring him back? Yeah. That would be kind of interesting, wouldn't it?

If the son actually comes back. Because they didn't, I mean, they didn't say he was, they said he was dead, but. You're right. It's possible for him to come back.

Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it would be super easy for them to say he didn't actually die in Vietnam. That was somebody else's body or they never recovered a body and he got caught up in some.

It would be more interesting than making a P. O. W. It'd be more interesting that he. You know, went behind enemy lines in order to investigate some thing, you know, historical artifact or like protect some aspect of history, or he got Shanghai to some other country to do that or whatever. And he just hasn't been able to communicate with anyone a great way to start a next, but the issue.

Yeah, I mean, but so here's the problem. Mr. Leboeuf ticked everybody off. I don't know if you recall that what he did, but after Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, he came out and basically said the movie was bad. He sort of, you know, shot himself in the proverbial foot.

Speaker 2: Unless they, they just recast him and they kind of do a refresh on the whole, whole series.

And they could do that because this is a perfect franchise for spinoffs. You know, in a lot of different directions.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So I don't think it makes sense to do another movie for a long time. What I would do is more of a anthology series on a streaming network where you explore some of these other characters.

And in the final episode, their stories kind of weave together. So you use like, I hate to say it, but Phoebe Waller bridge and you do some, you know, character plastic surgery, so to speak, you know, and try to fix her character to like give it depth and help the actress, uh, portray it in a way that's more compelling and more interesting.

And you could bring back Shia LaBeouf if he's out of. Indiana Jones jail because he's been, I think, trying to get his act together. I don't know anyway, but I would be personally interested in an anthology series that did, you know, an episode with short round, you know, that actors now doing pretty well.

You bring him in, you talk about what he's been up to, you can bring John Rhys Davies in to support or be even the focus or one of his kids or whatever could be the focus of an episode and so on, you could even set the anthology episodes at different time periods because you could age the actors, you could recast, you know, make them older, younger, whatever, um, and have them, um, Basically get into one adventure, each one feeling fairly self contained, but that weave together to make a larger story set in the Indiana Jones universe.

I don't know if you can do that before Harrison Ford passes away, or you'd have to announce right up front. Like he's not going to be in it. So stop, stop waiting, everybody. Just don't worry about it. He's not in it. I know it says Indiana Jones in the title, but there's no Indiana Jones, right? Uh, you're going to see the hat and the whip at some point, but that's it.

So calm down. Um, but you could even have like a younger, an actor playing Sean, Sean Connery's character, you know, when he was young and do an episode like that. But I just, if you correct this idea that. Okay. The myths of history are real, right? That's the point. That's the magic of Indiana Jones. If you stick to that and you make compelling characters that are better developed than the supporting cast for Indiana Jones often is, then I think you could do a fun series, you know, it's like, um, a scaled up X Files almost like if, if it was a, um, interwoven set of stories and had more cinematic value.

It would be.

Speaker 2: Fascinating if at the end of that anthology, you find out that Mutt's alive and that becomes the adventure for series two or limited series number two, where they go get him.

Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think he's. Popular. The actor has become adequately popular to draw an audience. I don't know if he's a good actor, honestly, because I haven't seen him in much and I didn't like him in what I saw him in when he was younger.

But if he can pull a leading role off, if he's got his act together, or at least be an interesting add on to another actor who's a better lead. You're absolutely right. That's a great idea, but I don't know that you can sell an anthology series set in the universe of Indiana Jones without Indiana Jones.

And I don't think you can recast him, not for a long,

Speaker 2: long time. It would be like trying to recast Mission Impossible with another actor who's not Tom Cruise, which is what we talked about during that episode, right? Right. How would you, how would you do that? Yeah. He is the franchise, and this

Speaker 1: is I think so.

His, his particular portrayal, like the actor I just think that Harrison Ford does a combination of things like tough, vulnerable, like non threatening, you know, it's like, how do you do non threatening? He's just

Speaker 2: a great actor, especially when he plays, you know, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, obviously he's been great in a lot of other films too, but he's so iconic in this.

That is just burned into your head that that's who indiana jones is like separating the two. You're right. It would be extremely difficult to do if not impossible.

Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, if you're listening to this and you're jonesing for some more good indiana jones stuff, then there is one other project.

Which a lot of people consider to be very much other than films, right? Uh, very much an Indiana Jones style story. Like it has the feel, it features Indiana Jones, it captures the magic. Do you have any idea? I'm just curious if you would guess what that is. So it's not one of the other movies, but there is another project that people say is as much Indiana Jones as the first three movies.

No, it's Indiana Jones. It's another Indiana Jones

Speaker 2: project, but it's not a

Speaker 1: film. Yeah. So that's pretty controversial, right? I, I was, I did a little research into this. Cause I was like, if you want an Indiana Jones. And you really want it to be like classic Indiana Jones, which this really isn't in a lot of ways.

Right? Where do you go? And some people said young Indiana Jones, but there was a lot of negativity around that series. And I do recall watching a lot of it and it's a well done series, but it doesn't really feel like Indiana Jones a lot of the time. It's okay. It just sort of feels like they're cramming a lot of history in there and it's sort of weird and goofy.

Um, but it doesn't have that Indiana Jones feel there's a project called the fate of Atlantis. Yeah. From 1992, it's a computer game, and it's considered one of the best Indiana Jones stories of all time. It's, I think it's currently available on Steam. There's a comic book series, um, but it's a point and click video game, and it's been remade and redone, and from what research I did, it's universally loved.

Like, people who do it just, they, they pop in to say, exclamation point, this is amazing. So if you're listening to this and you really, this didn't scratch, this movie didn't scratch your Indiana Jones itch, the fate of Atlantis might be the project for you. The story itself is supposed to be amazing.

Speaker 2: I haven't heard of that one.

Sounds interesting.

Speaker 1: Check it out. Yeah. Yeah. I had heard of it and I do recall that it made a splash, but I never bothered to try it. I was just too busy. Um, but a lot of people love it. And like I said, it's been redone. So, or like, you know, the graphics have been upgraded or whatever. Uh, so if you're interested.

I would recommend you check that out. All right. So anything else you want to cover about Indiana Jones and the part five?

Speaker 2: Not particularly, except asking the audience the question, what would they do next? Um, and what would they use as the MacGuffin based on what we talked about? Faith versus science. How would they make it more faith based?


Speaker 1: right. Absolutely. So I think that is literally a billion dollar question, right? What would you do next? Because Indiana Jones is an extremely valuable intellectual property, extremely, but with the, I don't want to say failure of this film, but with the, uh, moderate success of this film, I don't think you just make another one.

So what do you do? That is the billion dollar

Speaker 2: question.

Speaker 1: I think that's, it's. Literally a billion dollar question, if not a 1. 5 billion question. So I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm sure someone listening right now has exactly the right idea. Like they know what should be done. Um, and it'd be great if they could spread that around and maybe it would make its way to Disney.

Fingers crossed.

So as always, thank you to the people who made this project. Thank you to the listeners. Stay away from those like and subscribe buttons. You can reach the show at dontencourage at gmail. com. You can make fun of us on YouTube, Instagram, or Twitter. I think we also have a Threads account.

Speaker 2: Do we still check that?

Anyone still check that? Just kidding. Just kidding. Threads. We love you. Just kidding. Threads, right?

Speaker 1: You can check out the show notes for more information about the things we talked about and coming soon, a little taste of the future. We're going to cover Notorious, Alfred Hitchcock films. We're going to do more story break episodes and we're going to talk about Dimension X. Which is a classic radio show.

So I recommend you go check that out. If you can find it, it's available. Actually, I think a lot of the podcast, uh, apps have dimension X, even though it's so old, it's a super old radio show, but it's still that popular. When I looked at it, it was available almost everywhere. And it's, uh, in some cases been cleaned up and audio has been improved.

So anything else ready to wrap it up? Ready to wrap it up. All right. We'll see you guys next week.

Speaker 2: Take care, everybody.