Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, in theaters summer 2023

[tekering]

1 hour ago, Duke Togo said:

Crystal Skull has the same problems the Prequels do: bad dialog and poor performances. We could probably get past the story issues if those two weren't so terrible. Dial of Destiny doesn't really have any real dialog or performance issues, so it's much easier for me to get past whatever issues I may have with the story.

Ironically enough, the same is true of The Force Awakens, which (like Dial of Destiny) wasn't written or directed by George Lucas.  It didn't have any real dialog or performance issues, so it was much easier for audiences to get past whatever issues they may have had with a broken, depressed Han Solo, whose marriage to Leia had fallen apart after the loss of their son.

Now that Dial of Destiny presents a broken, depressed Indiana Jones, whose marriage to Marion had fallen apart after the loss of their son, audiences are probably getting tired of seeing Harrison Ford grapple with the same story issues. 🙄

[Thom]

1 hour ago, tekering said:

...

Now that Dial of Destiny presents a broken, depressed Indiana Jones, whose marriage to Marion had fallen apart after the loss of their son, audiences are probably getting tired of seeing Harrison Ford grapple with the same story issues. 🙄

That's my only gripe with the story. For some reason, 4 and 5 had to have Indy at his lowest, when all the previous movies showed him getting along just fine. Sure, the character was getting older and they wanted to show how you start losing more than you get as you go along, a good scene by the way, but doing it twice in a row was too easy to do, esp if you want to force 'drama.'

[Roy Focker]

Crystal Skull,  Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker are movies that help explain the lack of audience for this movie.

Crystal Skull and Last Jedi are both disappointing sequels that made people who were originally excited for a decades later sequels question if doing so was a good idea.

Rise of Skywalker was a correction sequel that made things worst.  Would Dial of Destiny be the same?

In that first movie trailer there's that really bad shot of cgi face Indy on that horse. An instant reminder of the cgi from the Crystal Skull.  Long opening is young cgi Indy fighting Nazis? I love it when he kills Nazis but young cgi Luke was too weird looking. Indy films were mostly practical. They just feel the same with more cgi.

The above is what kept me away.  I've seen the director's other work and I think they're capable of making a good Indy film. I've also read a complete synopsis and it sounds like an okay movie. I'm just not excited enough to run to the theater to see it because the above reasons. I'll just catch it later on streaming. Pretty sure my feelings are shared by many.

This movie's biggest issue is the budget. In order to make a profit it has to be one of the biggest movies ever. A near impossible task for a movie with baggage. According to the reviews movie doesn't need to be as long as it is.  Some of the chase scenes add nothing to it. Drop some of those chases and the cgi opening to bring the budget down. Movie would then have a better chance of making a profit. 

This movie's failure is the same as the failure of everything - greed. Take something good. Over estimate its potential and bet the farm on it. 

[jvmacross]

42 minutes ago, Thom said:

That's my only gripe with the story. For some reason, 4 and 5 had to have Indy at his lowest....

He seemed to be doing pretty good for himself in 4.....5, yeah...his personal life definitely was at a low point

[Big s]

3 hours ago, tekering said:

Now that Dial of Destiny presents a broken, depressed Indiana Jones, whose marriage to Marion had fallen apart after the loss of their son, audiences are probably getting tired of seeing Harrison Ford grapple with the same story issues. 🙄

Han, Luke, Willow. It’s overdone and I don’t think anyone liked that idea when it was new. I don’t think anyone likes finding out that their heroes just turned into lonely wastes of space after a great adventure or series of adventures. brings back bad memories of Die Hard movies beyond the second one.

[Thom]

Intersting to not that Connery was 59 when he was in Last Crusade and Ford, taking into account de-aging and body doubles. is 80.

[jvmacross]

 

[mechaninac]

^ Fantastic, both of them! 

[technoblue]

So I went out to see the movie last night. I enjoyed it. I thought it was fun. When it’s strong, it’s a strong 4 out of 5 stars, but it does drop down into the 3.75 range in parts. Let’s start with the good stuff…

Spoiler

I thought the time travel conceit was done in a clever way. The whole thing about how Archimedes’ artifact wasn’t a ‘go anywhere’ time machine like the main antagonist Jürgen Voller assumed but more of a lighthouse leading the bearer back to Archimedes himself at that one particular moment during the siege of Syracuse. Not bad.

What is unfortunate is that we didn’t get more from this plot element. I think someone else mentioned that could have been it’s own movie. Definitely. And if the creative team had thought on it some more, I wonder how they might have expanded on Indy’s excursion into history?

I also liked the characters.

Spoiler

I didn’t mind seeing an old worn down Professor Jones. Sure, it was a contrast to go from the de-aged opening sequence right to grumpy Indiana, but it wasn’t out of place IMO. We have seen grumpy Indy even in the earlier films like TLC when he was bickering with his Dad.

I also liked Helena Shaw and Teddy. They were intentionally abrasive, but they didn’t turn me off (apart from one trope that I’ll get to later). I did catch myself, at times, wondering who Teddy actually was in relation to Helen. Was he her Short Round or was she her kid? That seemed ambiguous, even after Indy asks her about him and challenges Helena on why she is really seeking out the dial. Throughout the film it was rare for Helena to be honest with her godfather, so I had no reason to think she was being honest when talking about Teddy.

The end with Marion was very well done. I wasn’t upset or annoyed about Mutt’s fate. In fact, it felt grounded to me. I will say I was saddened to read that Karen Allen’s parts were reduced when James Mangold took over the director’s chair from Spielberg and had parts of the script rewritten. Now I’m curious to see how those parts might have added nuance and depth, especially with old man Indy.

For non-spoilery bits, I thought the whole opening sequence with a de-aged CGI Indy was impressive. Not perfect but it could have quickly gone visibly sideways like it did for de-aged Professor X in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Luckily, it didn’t and that just shows how far the tech has come since Tron: Legacy, that’s for sure. The dips in the effect, like the horse riding and train stunts didn’t pull me out of the film. I think the Luke de-aging in Book of Boba was a little more uncanny for me, but I digress.

Back to spoilery bits. Here are some things that I thought could have been better…

Spoiler

The whole CIA subplot. That was messy. At this time in the Indyverse, I gather ‘good government men’ are hard to find, and it’s certainly a stinging commentary on the events of that era in the real world. Even in spite of the moon landing and Voller being an analogue for von Braun and other German scientists.

However, the CIA’s intentions felt underdeveloped and comic bookish. I thought Mason should have had a stronger and less reactive role. That said, Voller’s goons were decent enough as goons.

The parts with Basil Shaw felt disconnected to me. Why did he let his study of the dial consume him? What was the trauma that was driving him? As with Helena, there seemed to be more to it than mere science, money, or fame. But unlike Helena, we don’t get any insight here.

Teddy, as much as I liked him, had scenes where he was written as too much of a do-it-all character. I know the film tried to establish that he was learning to fly, and I thought that was ok. The part near the end when he hot-wires a plane. HaHa! No. Let’s stop with the everything can be hot-wired trope.

And finally, it was nice to see Sallah but, like Marion, I was disappointed that there wasn’t more of him on this adventure. He got sidelined instead of getting to go off with Indy. And I guess that proved to be a life saving plot device, given how many innocent side-characters Voller’s goons just shot on sight, but still. What could have been…

But is it an Indiana Jones film? I think so. Sure, it plays things safe given Harrison Ford’s age and the age of the other returning cast members. I did like how the movie takes these characters in different unexpected directions but brings them back to a hopeful place at the end. It’s not a genre changing film but it also doesn’t have to be. With the strength of the original Indy trilogy, people can choose to ignore the two old man Indy entries if they wish. Watching them, though, doesn’t ruin anything or take away from Raiders, Temple of Doom, or Last Crusade. That’s all in my opinion, of course, so take it as you will. I’m glad I saw it on the big screen.

Edited July 13, 2023 by technoblue
unintentionally messed up the names

[Thom]

One thing that I was hoping would happen, was that the....

Spoiler

...Antikythera would end up as we know it is now. Not just broken but eroded and encrusted as the real one is after spending a couple thousand years under the ocean. I thought that would have been a nice little twist to do in showing a shift in known history that the audience would know of even as the character didn't. 

At the end of the movie it is fully intact and pristine.

 

[electric indigo]

I largely agree with @technoblue that it was an entertaining ride, but fell a bit short from it's potential. Voller's and Archimedes' true plans should have had a larger role and the various chase scenes wasted time that could have been better used to build suspense. I expected a little more from Indy's banter with Helena, and lastly, while it's been a long time I saw Raiders or TLC, I think Spielberg had the golden touch back then considering the timing & beat of the actions scences as well as the dialogue. DoD is solid craft, but nothing more in that regard.

[electric indigo]

From the Pitch Meeting: "This is Star Wars" 😄

Edited July 10, 2023 by electric indigo

[mechaninac]

3 hours ago, electric indigo said:

From the Pitch Meeting: "This is Star Wars" 😄

It's a Lucasfilm, and Harrison Ford, mainstay at this point:  Portray a legacy male hero as a broken, depressed, separated/divorced, old man with a fallen son being overshadowed and led around by a "better at everything" brunette KK self-insert.  PM hit that nail square on the head, in hilarious fashion. 

[mechaninac]

I'll give DoD "props" for having a less bad 2nd weekend than The Flash did, with a 55% total 3 day drop in US ticket sales, being outsold by Insidious: the Red Door.  It is damning it with faint praise, I know, especially considering what its 1st, at the very lowest end of expectations, outing brought in.... and Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning (just like Top Gun Maverick, a non demoralized deconstructed legacy male protagonist) coming out this Wednesday will crush everything in its wake.

Audiences have spoken loud and clear, so I think it's pretty obvious what Indi 5's outcome will ultimately be...

[electric indigo]

1 hour ago, mechaninac said:

It's a Lucasfilm, and Harrison Ford, mainstay at this point:  Portray a legacy male hero as a broken, depressed, separated/divorced, old man with a fallen son being overshadowed and led around by a "better at everything" brunette KK self-insert.  PM hit that nail square on the head, in hilarious fashion. 

And actually, Blade Runner 2049 runs on the same formula...

[mechaninac]

Awful may be a bit of hyperbole (a few people actually like the movie, more -- myself included -- think it is hot garbage, and most just view it as mediocre unworthy meh with only about 9% of folks who've seen it actually recommend it to others... it's all a question of personal taste); however, the massive Disney flop thing is 100% accurate.  This film will be lucky to end up around 350-400 million global, on a ridiculously overblown budget of over 300M... this is set to be a historical money losing dumpster fire for Disney -- well north of 300 million loss on a flick that needed to rake in 800 M just to barely break even, and movies aren't made to just barely break even.

[Big s]

2 hours ago, mechaninac said:

Awful may be a bit of hyperbole (a few people actually like the movie, more -- myself included -- think it is hot garbage, and most just view it as mediocre unworthy meh with only about 9% of folks who've seen it actually recommend it to others... it's all a question of personal taste); however, the massive Disney flop thing is 100% accurate.  This film will be lucky to end up around 350-400 million global, on a ridiculously overblown budget of over 300M... this is set to be a historical money losing dumpster fire for Disney -- well north of 300 million loss on a flick that needed to rake in 800 M just to barely break even, and movies aren't made to just barely break even.

I don’t think it’s as much as people didn’t like what they saw, but more of a bad word of mouth and terrible trailers to back up the bad word of mouth. I think people are sick of the destroyed heroes. It works once in a while, but most of the time, it depresses the fan base. This movie from what has been said, even by those that liked it just hit every trope that people are sick of in movies and shows right now. The completely destroyed hero, the female character trying to take over, and the biggest thing people are sick of and that’s a time travel/ multiverse gimmick to fix the problem. They just didn’t want to try to give the fans anything new. And they have already seen that these plots don’t work and keep pumping out the same stories over and over.

[Dynaman]

2 hours ago, Big s said:

 the female character trying to take over

Would it be acceptable for the million times/franchises in the past where a male character tried to take over and failed?

[Big s]

13 minutes ago, Dynaman said:

Would it be acceptable for the million times/franchises in the past where a male character tried to take over and failed?

Right now, it would feel different at least. It’s not something I would have complained about 2 years ago, but it’s something that Disney is running into the ground over and over. It’s like a copy paste machine across all their franchises at this point. It’s also a problem when they can’t hire good writers for these franchises. I have no problem with the idea of a female lead, but when it’s an overdone gimmick and done poorly, then it’s just becomes boring and nothing to get excited over. If they want people to show up for a movie that’s got a copy paste feel, then they better bring some amazing writers to offset the weaknesses 

[Thom]

2 hours ago, Big s said:

I don’t think it’s as much as people didn’t like what they saw, but more of a bad word of mouth and terrible trailers to back up the bad word of mouth. I think people are sick of the destroyed heroes. It works once in a while, but most of the time, it depresses the fan base. This movie from what has been said, even by those that liked it just hit every trope that people are sick of in movies and shows right now. The completely destroyed hero, the female character trying to take over, and the biggest thing people are sick of and that’s a time travel/ multiverse gimmick to fix the problem. They just didn’t want to try to give the fans anything new. And they have already seen that these plots don’t work and keep pumping out the same stories over and over.

And yet nothing in the movie shows her 'trying to take over.' There's no point near the end where Indy's hat falls at her feet. To me she came off as exactly what she was, the female lead.

[jvmacross]

55 minutes ago, Thom said:

And yet nothing in the movie shows her 'trying to take over.' There's no point near the end where Indy's hat falls at her feet. To me she came off as exactly what she was, the female lead.

Helena was being presented as the next "Indiana Jones" type character to continue the franchise....same thing with mutt...that failed...time will tell if this attempt to create a new "Indiana Jones" with "Helena" will fail too...

The business goal from Lucasfilm/ Disney is obviously to come up with a new actor/character to continue with the IP....they need to keep the Indiana Jones brand relevant to keep making max profits from it...

I just didn't find her character interesting...but I may not have been the target demographic for this film or future tv shows or films...

 

[Big s]

29 minutes ago, jvmacross said:

I may not have been the target demographic for this film or future tv shows or films...

I get that feeling as well, but with all the recent failures there may be a change in formula sooner than later if Disney wants to stay relevant and earn money again. 

[mechaninac]

1 hour ago, jvmacross said:

...I may not have been the target demographic for this film or future tv shows or films...

1 hour ago, Big s said:

...with all the recent failures there may be a change in formula sooner than later if Disney wants to stay relevant and earn money again. 

The target demographic is the Twitter mob these checkbox obsessed studios, everything Disney being the most deluded, think represent the ever elusive, completely nonexistent, MODERN AUDIENCE; in order to appease and supposedly attract their white whale, they keep injecting THE MESSAGE -- to varying degrees, from mildly annoying to downright offensive -- in just about everything they produce, and it's costing them dearly, but they're too arrogant to course correct... I guess they haven't experience enough financial pain, yet.

Expanding the fanbase of legacy IPs requires making new content for the old fans who will, in turn, bring in new fans into the fold, who'll bring in others.  Pooping out generic, often disrespectful, drivel that disappoints, or worse... angers original fans (why is irrelevant; that it does is the salient point), breaks that bond and severs the passing-on of interest and attachment; the future of these franchises wither away and slip into irrelevancy, met with nothing more than apathy.  Is it possible to recover?  Sure, it's been done before, but current Disney does not seem to have the ability, or inclination, to do so any time soon.

[Thom]

10 hours ago, jvmacross said:

Helena was being presented as the next "Indiana Jones" type character to continue the franchise....same thing with mutt...that failed...time will tell if this attempt to create a new "Indiana Jones" with "Helena" will fail too...

The business goal from Lucasfilm/ Disney is obviously to come up with a new actor/character to continue with the IP....they need to keep the Indiana Jones brand relevant to keep making max profits from it...

I just didn't find her character interesting...but I may not have been the target demographic for this film or future tv shows or films...

 

Though I wouldn't mind that, I usually go with what I see on screen and ignore all the other krup that comes along, either for or against. Most often than not, what is hyped hardly makes it onto the screen and has very little impact within the story itself.

[Raikkonen]

10 hours ago, jvmacross said:

Helena was being presented as the next "Indiana Jones" type character to continue the franchise....same thing with mutt...that failed...time will tell if this attempt to create a new "Indiana Jones" with "Helena" will fail too...

Whatever was planned with her, it has failed. Bringing in only 27 mil on second weekend is a disaster of which every aspect involved, even the good, will likely be scrapped in any future projects. (So logic says, BTW)

 

10 hours ago, jvmacross said:

I just didn't find her character interesting...but I may not have been the target demographic for this film or future tv shows or films...

She was too insufferable and arrogant for me. Cruel and selfish too. I like characters that I can relate to from my life experiences, that may have flaws, but also have arcs of becoming better people or overcoming challenges while doing so. 

Also, I'm with the percentage that wants to watch physically beautiful or at least charismatic characters, of which, she is neither. Undoubtedly, if she at least looked like a Scarlet J with the same charm, many would have closed an eye to her poorly written character. 

 

8 hours ago, mechaninac said:

The target demographic is the Twitter mob these checkbox obsessed studios, everything Disney being the most deluded, think represent the ever elusive, completely nonexistent, MODERN AUDIENCE; in order to appease and supposedly attract their white whale, they keep injecting THE MESSAGE -- to varying degrees, from mildly annoying to downright offensive -- in just about everything they produce, and it's costing them dearly, but they're too arrogant to course correct... I guess they haven't experience enough financial pain, yet.

This. Disney and many others want to please a tiny minority that is extremely loud on keyboards while waving their barbaric hummer of "cancel culture". 

 

[TangledThorns]

It's ironic that another film, SOUND OF FREEDOM, did really well in the box office against DoD last weekend was originally owned by Disney but shelved it for years before practically giving it away to another studio to be released last week. This has to be the biggest studio blunder since Paramount sold Yellowstone to Peacock. Amazing how some people in Hollywood still have their jobs after making those kinds of mistakes.

Edited July 11, 2023 by TangledThorns

[Raikkonen]

32 minutes ago, TangledThorns said:

It's ironic that another film, SOUND OF FREEDOM, did really well in the box office against DoD last weekend was originally owned by Disney but shelved it for years before practically giving it away to another studio to be released last week. This has to be the biggest studio blunder since Paramount sold Yellowstone to Peacock. Amazing how some people in Hollywood still have their jobs after making those kinds of mistakes.

There's a whole more behind that film from it's initial shelving to it's 'timely' release, as well to the mass media attacks it's receiving for content no where in the film itself, which is raising eyebrows. 

[jvmacross]

4 hours ago, Thom said:

Though I wouldn't mind that, I usually go with what I see on screen and ignore all the other krup that comes along, either for or against. Most often than not, what is hyped hardly makes it onto the screen and has very little impact within the story itself.

I can't imagine any way to have made it more obvious that the whole point of the last 2 movies was to establish a "passing of the torch"....first to "Son of Indiana"...now to God-DAUGHTER of Indiana".....these movies don't break the fourth wall so they couldn't have made it any clearer for the audience....it's not like either Mutt or Helena "in-universe" were going to have the opportunity for a line where they declare their intent to take over the role of globe-trotting adventurer!...lol

[Dynaman]

18 hours ago, Big s said:

Right now, it would feel different at least. 

The point was that when it was a male character (Mutt) taking over nobody felt obliged to specifically mention it was a male character that bombed.  

[kajnrig]

I was talking to a coworker who actually professes to love the Indy franchise - me I'm meh on it entirely, don't think I've ever seen one all the way through - and I asked them if they should have just... recast Indy. Y'know, like long-running (and not so long-running) movie franchises have done plenty of times in the past. Cast a younger actor, so you can tell a younger story.

I mean heck, it was already done before, in the 90s. Brendan Frasier took over the Indiana Jones role, and they called it The Mummy, and it was fantastic.

The coworker was adamant, incensed even. "No, Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones!" they insisted. And if that's the case, then I think it would have been prudent to simply leave the franchise dormant.

Anyone else? Would you have preferred a new cast? For as much as some people here like to go on and on about wokeness being the industry's downfall, what really crippled this movie to me was its counting solely on nostalgia to drive sales in a movie culture in which nostalgia (or at least this particular brand of nostalgia) was already waning.

[Tking22]

22 minutes ago, kajnrig said:

Anyone else? Would you have preferred a new cast? For as much as some people here like to go on and on about wokeness being the industry's downfall, what really crippled this movie to me was its counting solely on nostalgia to drive sales in a movie culture in which nostalgia (or at least this particular brand of nostalgia) was already waning.

I was sort of on board when it was rumored Chris Pratt would be the reboot Indy, I probably would've watched that. As for Dial of Destiny? I haven't seen it yet, I like the Indy films just fine but not enough to go brave the theaters for a new one. Maybe if it gets included at Sunset Station's $5 Tuesday deal, but other then that I'll probably wait for it to release on D+.

[Big s]

1 hour ago, Dynaman said:

The point was that when it was a male character (Mutt) taking over nobody felt obliged to specifically mention it was a male character that bombed.  

Back then it didn’t feel like it was happening in every single movie. Definitely Die hard tried with two kids, but I don’t think they were marketed as the takeover character and Mutt was in a less than great movie, but it just feels like right now it’s every film franchise that Disney owns that they want to do the crushed heroes with the female taking over. I don’t think anyone would say much if it was only once every few years and I also get that in the case of Wakanda forever that it was done out of a tragic necessity, but it was a bit overdone by now only replacing Black Panther, but Iron Man as well in the same film. It’s just way too overdone all within only a few years. Disney just doesn’t have the writers to handle these stories.

Prey was a great example of an exception to the female taking the lead, it didn’t have a broken heroe story and some simple writing, but it worked really well. It shows that the concept can work if you don’t follow the same checklist routine.

As far as the male characters before that taking over, it wasn’t that often. Either that or it could have been that movies just weren’t pumped out like crazy back then, so it felt like someone tried an experiment that failed and a couple years later someone tried and failed. Maybe they just shouldn’t replace the characters in the first place and just do something original, but we know they won’t.

 

[Thom]

3 hours ago, kajnrig said:

I was talking to a coworker who actually professes to love the Indy franchise - me I'm meh on it entirely, don't think I've ever seen one all the way through - and I asked them if they should have just... recast Indy. Y'know, like long-running (and not so long-running) movie franchises have done plenty of times in the past. Cast a younger actor, so you can tell a younger story.

I mean heck, it was already done before, in the 90s. Brendan Frasier took over the Indiana Jones role, and they called it The Mummy, and it was fantastic.

The coworker was adamant, incensed even. "No, Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones!" they insisted. And if that's the case, then I think it would have been prudent to simply leave the franchise dormant.

Anyone else? Would you have preferred a new cast? For as much as some people here like to go on and on about wokeness being the industry's downfall, what really crippled this movie to me was its counting solely on nostalgia to drive sales in a movie culture in which nostalgia (or at least this particular brand of nostalgia) was already waning.

With @Tking22 on this. There was a fanart done with Pratt as Han Solo and it looked awesome! 

I think a recast could have been done, and done well, such as the Mummy idea. 'Indian Jones and the Curse of the Mummy!" But they never did that, and Crystal Skull cemented Old Indy back under the hat.

 

5 hours ago, jvmacross said:

I can't imagine any way to have made it more obvious that the whole point of the last 2 movies was to establish a "passing of the torch"....first to "Son of Indiana"...now to God-DAUGHTER of Indiana".....these movies don't break the fourth wall so they couldn't have made it any clearer for the audience....it's not like either Mutt or Helena "in-universe" were going to have the opportunity for a line where they declare their intent to take over the role of globe-trotting adventurer!...lol

I have no idea what was said on social media from the producer or directors or actors about what was intended. Again, I don't follow social media and I count myself blessed with that wise choice. Most people would probably be better off ignoring social media and all the krup on it. As to her being his god-daughter, I think it was just that. They wanted a close pairing with the female lead and Harrison is way too old for audiences to accept a sexual relationship with a woman so young. Heck, I think they were pushing it with Elsa in Last Crusade as she was half his age!

An idea I had for a movie after Crystal Skull came out would have been Indy going on adventure with a granddaughter! That could have been fun!

Edited July 11, 2023 by Thom

[Raikkonen]

57 minutes ago, Big s said:

Prey was a great example of an exception to the female taking the lead, it didn’t have a broken heroe story and some simple writing, but it worked really well. It shows that the concept can work if you don’t follow the same checklist routine.

The film lost me when her levelled up axe throwing skills tripped over basic physics. 

[Dynaman]

The reason replacing leads with younger cast was not a thing was mainly due to the sequel Box Office becoming a thing in the eighties (Superhero franchises being more recent) so the stars from those movies are just now getting too old to continue in the part.  So studios have the choice of recasting (which doesn't work), passing the torch (which also doesn't work), or coming up with new stuff (which is currently unthinkable).

 

Note - all three options have exceptions.