Is it just me or do I like least of all, LC?

John Bechet

New member
Something not mentioned yet that's always bothered me is Fedora putting his hat on Young Indy at the end of the prologue. I get that it's a pleasing way to transition into 1938 but what is actually happening?

Is Fedora giving this boy his hat? Why would he do that? (And are we meant to think adult Indy wears that exact same hat in all three movies?)

If Fedora is not giving him the hat, then why put it on his head?

It's a nice scene transition but it raises these distracting questions (for me at least).
 

Temple Raider

Active member
That actually reminds me how I never liked the revelation Indy stole his signature look from Fedora at the beginning. Something about it just cheapened the character for me, to think his signature look wasn't even originally his own but something he stole from someone else.
 

JasonMa

Active member
John Bechet said:
Something not mentioned yet that's always bothered me is Fedora putting his hat on Young Indy at the end of the prologue. I get that it's a pleasing way to transition into 1938 but what is actually happening?

Is Fedora giving this boy his hat? Why would he do that? (And are we meant to think adult Indy wears that exact same hat in all three movies?)
I thought he was giving Indy the hat. Kind of a sign of respect to Indy as someone who could actually give him a challenge for his age. I don't think we're supposed to take from it that its exactly the same hat throughout Indy's life.
 

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
Pure sign of admiration and respect from both sides. Fedora gave away his hat to Indy for his dedication and tenacity for his cause, Indy adopted, he didn't steal, Fedora's style because Fedora realized his motivations and respected him. He didn't treat him like the kid who stood in the way but as an equal adversary. Besides, everyone is influenced from many things throughout his life let alone when he is a teenager. This scene was so wonderful in conception and offered real character development. I know many people wanted Indy's past to be a mystery because it gave him a different aura but this is what the creators wanted and that's about it.
 

John Bechet

New member
I get that giving the hat is an expression of respect. I should clarify that what I mean when I ask why would he do that, is was giving away your hat normal? Especially in a time when people wore hats more than today.

A couple ot stray thoughts relating to this:

Fedora's hat must have been sweaty with associated smells.

I remember an old man telling me, when I was young, that back when people wore hats all the time, being seen outside without your hat was like being without your trousers/pants. While I take this to be a perception not a rule (for I have seen photos taken back then of men outside hatless), I guess giving away your hat on the spot would mean more back then than it would today.

I accept the explanation offered. I just find it a distractingly strange thing to do.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
I still feel that moment cheapened Indy overall, revealing his signature look wasn't even originally his own. Made him seem inauthentic.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Temple Raider said:
I still feel that moment cheapened Indy overall, revealing his signature look wasn't even originally his own. Made him seem inauthentic.

I agree...

It's not just that he copied an outfit which is an odd thing to do, anyway.

But I always thought that Indy's outfit was simply the clothes he felt were the most suited for what he did and he threw it together over a few years of him doing what he does and such.

What I loved about Raiders is that the clothes felt organic. It wasn't deliberate - it just was. Whereas in the three sequels, it felt like he was throwing on a purposely thought out costume.

I never wanted Indy's outfit to be a "costume" in his own universe and The Last Crusade revealed that it was a deliberate costume on his part.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
I think in TOD his outfit still had that organic feel you mentioned, like it was what he wore when he was exploring or adventuring. In TLC it became more like a costume when you learn he stole the look.
 

John Bechet

New member
The outfit looked lived-in in Raiders and Temple. Less so in Crusade maybe because it looked smarter with the tie. By Crystal Skull it really looked like a costume, to my eye too clearly cared for by the wardrobe dept when not being used on camera. The first two movies leave a strong impression that clothes are being sweated in. I don't have that impression of the second two (but a fresh rewatch might correct me).
 

Temple Raider

Active member
It's a minor thing but the tie Indy wears in TLC with the outfit is an odd choice, too. It'd be impractical in either scenario of the first two films.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Temple Raider said:
It's a minor thing but the tie Indy wears in TLC with the outfit is an odd choice, too. It'd be impractical in either scenario of the first two films.

The tie irked me. Just looked bad.

And the Last Crusade fedora is really bad, in my opinion. It's just too small.

John Bechet said:
The outfit looked lived-in in Raiders and Temple. Less so in Crusade maybe because it looked smarter with the tie. By Crystal Skull it really looked like a costume, to my eye too clearly cared for by the wardrobe dept when not being used on camera. The first two movies leave a strong impression that clothes are being sweated in. I don't have that impression of the second two (but a fresh rewatch might correct me).

A re-watch of the later two films won't change your perception much. Definitely feels like a composed costume. I still say all three sequels feel that way, not just the later two.

It feels less like a deliberate, less lived-in costumed during the graveyard and catacomb section in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
I didn't even notice that but comparing the fedora with the ones in the other films, yeah. Something about it by comparison does seem just a tad bit off.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
I think I mentioned before but I also think TLC suffered from having the dullest villains of the series. After awesome adversaries like Belloq, Toht and Mola Ram, the likes of Donovan, Elsa and Vogel were just so lame by comparison. Sometimes I even forget these three are the villains of the film until I see it again, which goes to show how forgettable they were. They just don't resonate with memory at all after I see the film unlike the other villains of the series. For all of KOTCS' faults, it has a much more memorable and enjoyable villain with Spalko.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
I'm sure there's some others here who rate TLC as their least favorite, any others? It's not a popular opinion but occasionally there's somebody who rates it at the bottom. It's easily my least rewatched for sure and I find I almost never watch it outside of marathons of the whole series. Not to say it's bad because it's not, but for some reason it doesn't grab me in the way the first two do.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
I watched it the other night and it's still a lot of fun. It's my wife's favorite Indy film and I know a number of others who consider it at the top. I do wish some of the comedy had been toned down a bit, as it's clear that they're walking on eggshells to avoid doing anything too controversial, but that's a minor gripe in the grand scheme of things. It still ranks as my least favorite of the original three films, though over time it has started giving Temple a run for second place.

And in this sort of race there's no silver medal for finishing second.;)
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
The tie irked me. Just looked bad.

I like the tie. And it's funny: he's meeting his dad (who he still calls 'sir') so he wears a tie :)



Dr.Jonesy said:
A re-watch of the later two films won't change your perception much. Definitely feels like a composed costume. I still say all three sequels feel that way, not just the later two.

It feels less like a deliberate, less lived-in costumed during the graveyard and catacomb section in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though.

To be fair, at that point in Skull it probably is less-lived in. He'd been involved in an atomic incident in the opening of the film: his original clothes would've been cremated. He's on his third fedora of the movie by then :)
 

emtiem

Well-known member
I do get why Crusade could be seen the lesser of the first trilogy though: it doesn't feel as tightly crafted as the first two. There's a sweep to those which is missing here: LC feels scrappy and more an assemblage of lots of different scenes, occasionally feeling like it's put together with a little less care. A Venetian boat chase... through London Docklands? And a hastily stuck-in motorbike chase? It's good, but it feels a lot more ragged than the first two. I'd say Skull actually probably feels a bit more cohesive.
Add to that a score where it feels like John Williams just wasn't quite in the mood. It's still brilliant, obviously, but he's more interested in the classical twiddlings of the Scherzo for Motorcycle than he is the pure epic exuberance that makes Temple of Doom come alive. There's nothing quite as crazily energetic and exciting as the musical opening of Temple, with the plane flying into the sunset, the map and the liferaft escape.

I think Crusade is brilliant and utterly enjoyable in every way and better than pretty much any other adventure film, but next to the other two Indys it is lacking ever so slightly.

The worst crime it commits though is that because it's a retread of Raiders, stories starring Indiana Jones from that onwards seem to only be retreads of Raiders. There's nothing about Indy which says he has to be involved in races against time to beat an army in their attempt to capture an all-powerful artefact, which in the end will destroy the baddie. Temple doesn't follow that template at all: there are plenty more stories in Indy but for some reason Crusade thought there was only one.
 
Last edited:

Temple Raider

Active member
The confined, claustrophobic and oppressive feeling of TOD IMO was part of it's strengths and worked since it was a different type of adventure from Raiders. Funny thing is even though TOD has less locations they feel much more vibrant and "alive" for lack of a better description due to the designs and lightings. Something about most of the locations in TLC by comparisons feel bland despite the larger scope.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I don't think Last Crusade is bland-looking, but I agree that Temple of Doom did an excellent job of leveraging the small but crucial location work they did in Sri Lanka, so that even with a storyline that was narrower in scope, you still got that sense of being in another place. Compare that to Crystal Skull, which is on paper a more sprawling story yet never feels like it because there's no South America location work to seal the illusion.

Last Crusade's biggest issue is its over-familiarity, but it's still a top-notch adventure movie. And if it reprises too many elements from Raiders, at least there was the rationale that they thought they were making a finale, and wanted to bring the retroactive trilogy full circle. I think it makes up for its weaknesses in story with the Ford/Connery dynamic and a fully engaged Spielberg. I rank it the least of the trilogy, but not by any significant degree. Anyone who thinks Last Crusade is what an Indy movie looks like on autopilot clearly has not seen Crystal Skull.
 
Top