What is your single LEAST favourite scene from the trilogy?

Gabeed

New member
For me, it's probably the "X marks the spot" part in LC in the Venice library. Don't get me wrong, I love the scene with Indy smashing the floor tile in tandem with the librarian's stamping his books.

But the Venice library scene in its entirety feels very rushed. The search for III, VII, and X is kinda insipid (Alison Doody looks like she's looking REAL hard there :rolleyes:), and lacks an explanation as to why those certain numbers are on there other than there to be an X on the floor. It also irks me that Indy has to climb the stairs to see the X. I know it's an effect and all . . . but c'mon. Harrison's peripheral vision isn't that bad.

I love LC, but it's during this scene that a very "rushed" feeling, which I feel permeates throughout the entire movie, is at its most obvious.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Gabeed said:
For me, it's probably the "X marks the spot" part in LC in the Venice library. Don't get me wrong, I love the scene with Indy smashing the floor tile in tandem with the librarian's stamping his books.

But the Venice library scene in its entirety feels very rushed. The search for III, VII, and X is kinda insipid (Alison Doody looks like she's looking REAL hard there :rolleyes:), and lacks an explanation as to why those certain numbers are on there other than there to be an X on the floor. It also irks me that Indy has to climb the stairs to see the X. I know it's an effect and all . . . but c'mon. Harrison's peripheral vision isn't that bad.

I love LC, but it's during this scene that a very "rushed" feeling, which I feel permeates throughout the entire movie, is at its most obvious.

I wouldn't disagree with your comments. To use a culinary metaphor, it's like the movie is trying to rush through the starters and get to the main course i.e. Sean Connery's introduction. From that point in, I think the movie is kinda wonderful.
 

TheLastCrusader

Active member
Anyone who thinks LC has bad dialog is a complete and utter moron. The conversations between Indy and Henry Sr (and also with Elsa) have the best dialog possible. There's a '30s - '40s slapstick quality to them that really make the whole movie hilarious. Specifically all of Connery's lines are just brilliant, and the way he pulls them off... damn, I need to see this movie again right now!

EDIT:
PS. I definitely believe that good dialog could have saved KOTCS.
 

graz

New member
I really don't like the end of TOD. I know its supposed to be corny and old fashioned but I just find it squirmy and embarrassing. Made worse by the fact that after all he's been through i would imagine Indy would want to get as far away from Willie as possible.
 

Arizona Smith

New member
Marion getting hit by a branch in KotCS. I know directors sometimes like to sneak in quick, pointless scenes just for the hell of it but Marion randomly getting hit by a branch is a whole new level of pointless. Unless I missed something that would add some significance to this.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Yeah, Indy as a mercenary for organized crime is real sophistication!:rolleyes:

Indy starts out greedy and selfish. "Fortune and Glory." At the end of the movie, he's nice. Saves kids, gives diamonds away to poor villagers.

It's called a "character arc", son.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
graz said:
I really don't like the end of TOD. I know its supposed to be corny and old fashioned but I just find it squirmy and embarrassing. Made worse by the fact that after all he's been through i would imagine Indy would want to get as far away from Willie as possible.

You know what, as much as I love TOD, I can't entirely disagree with you here.

The other movies have quieter, elegant endings. ToD is noisy and corny as all hell.

I know that we needed to see the village saved, the kids returning home and Indy giving the stone back. But part of me wishes we could ended with Indy, Willie and Shorty in a long shot walking back to the village with the kids out in front. Quieter, classier and more subdued.
 

Kevin

Member
Lance Quazar said:
Indy starts out greedy and selfish. "Fortune and Glory." At the end of the movie, he's nice. Saves kids, gives diamonds away to poor villagers.

It's called a "character arc", son.

This is why TOD is so great; its the only one of the four where Indy's actions "matter."

In ROTLA, if Indy had not been there, Nazis still would have gotten the Ark and been killed when they opened it.

In LC, if Indy had not been there, Donovan would have still aged to dust, and Elsa probably would have been killed trying to take the Grail past the seal. This is assuming Elsa and Donovan would have made it past the traps without Indy's help, which is doubtful.

In KOTCS, Spalko would have still been incinerated by alien knowledge if Indy had not been involved.

But in TOD, Indy actually accomplishes something worthwhile, something that would not have occurred but for his involvement.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Arizona Smith said:
Marion getting hit by a branch in KotCS. I know directors sometimes like to sneak in quick, pointless scenes just for the hell of it but Marion randomly getting hit by a branch is a whole new level of pointless. Unless I missed something that would add some significance to this.

I believe it was to show that no one was in control of the duck whilst Mutt was straddling both vehicles. As it is in the movie, it's clearly looks a bit out of place.

Lance Quazar said:
Indy starts out greedy and selfish. "Fortune and Glory." At the end of the movie, he's nice. Saves kids, gives diamonds away to poor villagers.

It's called a "character arc", son.

You really believe that's a discernable character arc? I don't see a horrible Indy at the start of TOD... so I'm struggling to see where his emotional journey of discovery is.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
You really believe that's a discernable character arc? I don't see a horrible Indy at the start of TOD... so I'm struggling to see where his emotional journey of discovery is.

Absolutely. They don't beat you over the head with it, but it's there.

Indy doesn't have to start out as "horrible" to have a meaningful degree of growth.

In the beginning of the film, Indy is selling a priceless, historically relevant artifact for a chunk of bling.

Willie pointedly tells Indy he's giving up "fortune and glory" at the end of the film, but he makes the selfless choice to give up the stone because it's the right thing to do.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Kevin said:
This is why TOD is so great; its the only one of the four where Indy's actions "matter."

In ROTLA, if Indy had not been there, Nazis still would have gotten the Ark and been killed when they opened it.

In LC, if Indy had not been there, Donovan would have still aged to dust, and Elsa probably would have been killed trying to take the Grail past the seal. This is assuming Elsa and Donovan would have made it past the traps without Indy's help, which is doubtful.

In KOTCS, Spalko would have still been incinerated by alien knowledge if Indy had not been involved.

But in TOD, Indy actually accomplishes something worthwhile, something that would not have occurred but for his involvement.

Another lovely piece of analysis!
 

Darth Vile

New member
Kevin said:
This is why TOD is so great; its the only one of the four where Indy's actions "matter."

In ROTLA, if Indy had not been there, Nazis still would have gotten the Ark and been killed when they opened it.

In LC, if Indy had not been there, Donovan would have still aged to dust, and Elsa probably would have been killed trying to take the Grail past the seal. This is assuming Elsa and Donovan would have made it past the traps without Indy's help, which is doubtful.

In KOTCS, Spalko would have still been incinerated by alien knowledge if Indy had not been involved.

But in TOD, Indy actually accomplishes something worthwhile, something that would not have occurred but for his involvement.

Good point, but I'm not sure of the true ramifications... Wouldn't Henry Jones Senior have been killed if Indy had not got involved in the search for the Grail? Wouldn't Marion and Oxley have been done away with if Indy had not gone to find them? Those specific examples show that the ramifications were personal to him. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why I don't feel much emotion for TOD i.e. the events just sort of happen. And whilst I appreciate the fact that Indy does give the stone back to the village (and helps them with their issue), it's all a bit emotionally cold.

Lance Quazar said:
Absolutely. They don't beat you over the head with it, but it's there.

Indy doesn't have to start out as "horrible" to have a meaningful degree of growth.

In the beginning of the film, Indy is selling a priceless, historically relevant artifact for a chunk of bling.

Willie pointedly tells Indy he's giving up "fortune and glory" at the end of the film, but he makes the selfless choice to give up the stone because it's the right thing to do.

Similar to the other thread... The examples you give are just lip service examples within the movie. For example, it's like arguing that there was significant character development in 'Batman Forever' i.e. at the start of the movie Batman is a loner, broody and works alone. By the end of the movie, he’s come to terms with his psychosis and is partnered (not in the biblical sense) with ‘Robin’. You could argue that, in simplistic terms, there is actually more character development for Batman/Bruce Wayne in ‘Batman Forever’, than there is in ‘The Dark Night’… but we know that would be absurd (a bit like arguing ‘Batman & Robin’ has the best use of neon lighting). ;)
 
Last edited:

wolfgang

New member
To say that TOD is to Raiders what Batman Forever is to The Dark Knight is not a valid argument because of the fact that TOD is IN THEORY, a better than sex movie!
 

Darth Vile

New member
wolfgang said:
To say that TOD is to Raiders what Batman Forever is to The Dark Knight is not a valid argument because of the fact that TOD is IN THEORY, a better than sex movie!

Not sure what the "better than sex" thing is??? But, yes, I think Raiders is a more qualitative movie than TOD. That's not to say that TOD isn't well made or enjoyable... just that it' not quite up there with your Raiders, The Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future, Terminator II or The Lord of the Rings etc. Therefore, I do think that the gap in quality between Raiders and TOD is similar to The Dark Night and Batman Forever (although that particular example was just off the top of my head).

I'm sure someone will disagree though... ;)
 

Kevin

Member
Darth Vile said:
Good point, but I'm not sure of the true ramifications... Wouldn't Henry Jones Senior have been killed if Indy had not got involved in the search for the Grail? Wouldn't Marion and Oxley have been done away with if Indy had not gone to find them?

Absolutely right, indeed there are many things that would have been different in each story had Indy not been there. I guess my point was that TOD is the only film in which his actions have any effect on the bad guys in relation to their ultimate end, and in relation to the macguffin.
 
Kevin said:
This is why TOD is so great; its the only one of the four where Indy's actions "matter."

In ROTLA, if Indy had not been there, Nazis still would have gotten the Ark and been killed when they opened it.

In LC, if Indy had not been there, Donovan would have still aged to dust, and Elsa probably would have been killed trying to take the Grail past the seal. This is assuming Elsa and Donovan would have made it past the traps without Indy's help, which is doubtful.

In KOTCS, Spalko would have still been incinerated by alien knowledge if Indy had not been involved.

But in TOD, Indy actually accomplishes something worthwhile, something that would not have occurred but for his involvement.
Those are all very good points. However, we do not know whether Irina and the soldiers were incinerated or interdimensionally transported. Fewer of Jones' enemies would have died, had he not been involved, but they would not have been able to complete their missions either. The German government would have gotten hold of the Ark, but, much like its American counterpart at the end of the film, would not have been able to do much with it.
 
Last edited:

thehero21

New member
Lance Quazar said:
You know what, as much as I love TOD, I can't entirely disagree with you here.

The other movies have quieter, elegant endings. ToD is noisy and corny as all hell.

I know that we needed to see the village saved, the kids returning home and Indy giving the stone back. But part of me wishes we could ended with Indy, Willie and Shorty in a long shot walking back to the village with the kids out in front. Quieter, classier and more subdued.

i LOVE tod's ending,becuase unlike the other films, it was becuase of Indy that the village is prosperous again,and that all those children are now free, and after all that dark,evil temple for the majority of the film we get Indy,who got the girl and saved the day. I just love how it ends with Indy kissing willie surrounded by the now free children as the raiders march blasts. just a great way to end the "indiana jones goes to hell" film on a happy upbeat note.
 
Top