Indiana Jones - I believe this is worthy of its own thread.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
TLC>>>ROTLA=KOTCS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TOD

but that's just me.

I can't wait to pick this up honestly.
 
TLC>>>ROTLA=KOTCS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TOD

but that's just me.

I can't wait to pick this up honestly.

Yeah, that is just you.

The order of the sequels is debatable to me. I mean, Connery makes Last Crusade as awesome as it was, but I love the general insanity that is Temple of Doom and certain elements of Crystal Skull. Nothing, however, can top the brilliance of Raiders of the Lost Ark - it's perfect entertainment from start to finish.
 
To be honest, I've only seen Raiders start to finish like once. So yes, my opinion is biased towards Crusade cause I've seen it a LOT. I own Raiders now though, so as soon as I get myself a new VCR (yes I own it on VHS) I am having myself an Indiana Jones Marathon, and I'm sure that I'll end up loving it just as much, if not more, then Crusade
 
To be honest, I've only seen Raiders start to finish like once. So yes, my opinion is biased towards Crusade cause I've seen it a LOT. I own Raiders now though, so as soon as I get myself a new VCR (yes I own it on VHS) I am having myself an Indiana Jones Marathon, and I'm sure that I'll end up loving it just as much, if not more, then Crusade

I used to consider Crusade right up there with Raiders for the longest time... then I watched them back-to-back, and to me, there's no comparison. They're two different films, I understand, but Raiders blended the humor, action, character, and plot better than Crusade. Crusade's an intentional retread on a lot of the things that worked in Raiders because of the reception of Temple of Doom... so that takes something away a bit, for me.

That's not to say it's a bad film by any means, it just has greater flaws than Raiders - at least in my opinion, it does. I still enjoy watching it and the other sequels, that's for sure.
 
I re-watched Crusade right before Crystal Skull was released, and liked it better than I remembered....but for me, Raiders is head and shoulders better than not only Crusade, but than any action movie outside of my beloved Empire.
 
I probably won't change my mind about ranking, just because Crusade has been my favorite as long as I can remember, but I'd probably rank Raiders above Crystal Skull, and possibly equal with Crusade if I could just catch it all the way through. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the beginning, or just the end, etc. I always catch it on, but never have enough time to watch the whole thing .
 
I probably won't change my mind about ranking, just because Crusade has been my favorite as long as I can remember, but I'd probably rank Raiders above Crystal Skull, and possibly equal with Crusade if I could just catch it all the way through. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the beginning, or just the end, etc. I always catch it on, but never have enough time to watch the whole thing .

Cos you're too busy posting on interference? :wink:
 
No, I finally got a hold of it this summer, but then gave my VCR/DVD combo to my sister, thinking I'd be buying a new one that could record my VHS to DVD when I got to school, but instead I spent my birthday money on a Bruce Springsteen concert, so, until I have a steady income again, I have no VCR, hence, my inability to watch Raiders whenever I feel like it. But I *could* always netflix it
 
For me, it's:

ROTLA>>>TLC>TOD=KOTCS

There's no question about Raiders' supremacy. I've always liked TLC mainly for the Dad-Junior interaction. Indy vs. Nazis is always a plus, as well. Temple..I rarely watch. I appreciate various aspects of it now more than I used to. The weak parts are mainly Capshaw and the randomness of the story; its strong point is really that it's the 'dark' Indy film. It may be a notch above Skull, or I may even underappreciate Skull---I only saw it once in the theater, so repeated viewings may improve its standing. Its main flaws are 1). a hit-and-miss script in terms of Indy's character (here's where the Darabont script hits it on the head), 2). physically seeing the alien jumped the shark for me, and 3). Lucas' unabashed, corny Ewokiness (flying fridges, groundhogs, ants, social monkeys, tarzan).
 
Speaking of Indy:

Harrison Ford says George Lucas in 'think mode' on another 'Indiana Jones' film | Hero Complex | Los Angeles Times

If there was less CG, a tighter story, and as little Lucas moments as possible, I wouldn't mind seeing a 5th one, honestly... but I definitely wouldn't be as excited as I was to see Crystal Skull though.



I think that this may actually be a good idea. With the Star Wars prequels, we saw that Lucas let his 8-year-old-boy self ruin Episode I, only to get consistently better with Eps II & III. KOTCS was clearly Lucas getting too excited about returning to Indy after 20 years. Just like with Episode I, he spent too much of the Indy IV preparations talking about how the series is designed for an 8-year-old boy's Saturday matinee. By the time he got to Episode III, however, he finally recognized the importance the series has on pop culture and its fandom.

Potentially, the same thing could happen with Indy. The main obstacles I see are:
1). Spielberg's ability to reign Lucas' giddiness in
2). Ford's age and agility--both physically and in line delivery
3). The need to drop Mutt from the series faster than Jar-Jar Binks fell from Eps II & III.
 
Exactly.

To me, it felt like Lucas and Spielberg had two different visions for the same movie. My favorite section of the film, which others here seemed to respond to the most, was when we saw Indy back in his environment, trying to adjust to the current social and political climate. That was the direction I wanted to see the last film take... the old guy trying to fit into "modern" society - not by the same heroics of the '30s, but with wisdom, intellect, and a bit of that old toughness. Maybe it's not right to peg all of the success on Spielberg, and all of the failures on Lucas, since they're both in it together, but I still think there's a noticeable divide in different sections of the film in tone and overall quality - yet for me, it was still enjoyable.

Mutt's staying, which sucks. I'm not a big fan of The Beef, but he didn't grate on me in a Jar Jar-esque way like he did for some.

Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford need to go in this together, with one idea, and focus on that... not try to condense 20 years of lost time into one film. Hell, bring Lawrence Kasdan back into the fold or another strong screenwriter who understands the character and his situations. The Darabont script was better than what we got, but not by much; there were too many recalls to specific events in the previous films, a lack of a compelling villain/villainous group, and a blah ending.

I'd rather the series end, if it ever does, on as high of a note as Last Crusade, instead of a meh one, you know?
 
Back
Top Bottom