That's why "Raiders" is the best of all 4. The movie doesn't have a hammer landing on a bad guy's head (in "Temple of Doom"/Warner Brothers cartoon fashion) but that's a good thing! I remember that you consider it to be slow and your least favourite Indy film but do you also think "Raiders" is inferior because it's not as funny as the others?Phlip said:All the films after Raiders do have a noticeable amount of cartoony, campy humour, which I love. Is it just me whose noticed Raiders is the least funny? It has a couple of moments, but not in the same campy style.
I don't disagree with this agreement.Indy's brother said:I agree with Goodeknight about nobody disagreeing with you.
Goodeknight said:Then lighten it up later in the series.
Right, the SERIES (not that other word). Hats off.Montana Smith said:Raiders may just have had the some of best humour in the series...
Stoo said:"Raiders" has a modicum of funny moments and it's just enough. "Crusade" has too many, in my opinion. Its humour is well executed but the overall buffoonery is a vast difference from the original movie.
Dear me, that is such a backwards way of thinking.kongisking said:There's a decent argument to be made that in some ways, Raiders feels like it belongs to a totally different universe than the sequels and prequel. The lack of overtly silly humor and increasingly-over-the-top plot points and action scenes, makes Raiders seem remarkably gritty in comparison. That's why when I finally saw Raiders for the first time as a kid, after having already seen TOD and LC, I was very underwhelmed by how, um, not-as-fun it was.
Stoo said:"Raiders" has a modicum of funny moments and it's just enough. "Crusade" has too many, in my opinion. Its humour is well executed but the overall buffoonery is a vast difference from the original movie.
Stoo said:Dear me, that is such a backwards way of thinking.
As I've said many times before (even with Phlip), the preferences probably boil down to:
- what year you first saw the movies
- what age you were at the time
- MOST ESPECIALLY, what order you saw them in.
Newcomers in the 1990s (& beyond) who saw "Crusade" as their first film were introduced to Indiana Jones in entirely different way -- at his goofiest. Their introduction to the character was totally different from the audiences of 1981.
Right. During the brainstorming sessions for "Raiders", when Spielberg suggested that Indy should wrap the whip around a girl's waist to spin her back into his arms (& a guy's pants falling down), Lucas interjected by saying, "it's important that it be a dangerous weapon" and "any time it strikes it's a real threat". Not a device for tom-foolery like Spielberg envisioned.Montana Smith said:As you know, my first introduction to Indy was through the novelization. In those first few pages I thought of him in the same terms as The Man With No Name. In fact the writing was similar to Frank Chandler's A Fistful of Dollars, in the manner in which Indy overcomes Barranca with his almost superhuman speed and skill with the bullwhip.
He's immediately a dangerous character, not to be messed with lightly.
As much as people like to malign Lucas, there's a lot to show that Spielberg is responsible for the series' eventual goofiness.Goodeknight said:Had to set the tone first and get to know the character as gritty and tough. Then lighten it up later in the series.
Hey, InVader. Good to see you again. Indeed, the humour in "Raiders" is much more subtle but also more clever. It'd been interesting to see a joke-per-minute graph of all 4 films and see how they compare.InVader said:I think that Raider's humor was just a bit more subtle. Not paying attention and ya miss it. Still quite a bit of it in there though,
No, it probably wouldn't have. Lots of people (including myself) saw "Raiders" first and don't think that the 4th movie "disgraced" the earlier ones.kongisking said:If Raiders had been my introduction. I'd probably join Smiffy in calling it a degenerate piece of cartoony trash that disgraces its ancestors...
Well, that's someone like me. However, in my opinion, "Skull" had less humour than "Crusade". Sure, there were some ridiculously silly moments but the overall, intended jokes were cut back. It wasn't an overt comedy like Indy 3 was!kongisking said:And even if you did see them in proper order, you'd likely be off-put by how the sequels kept dipping into more and more cheese as they went.
Maybe that's why KOTCS doesn't bother me.
Phlip said:All the films after Raiders do have a noticeable amount of cartoony, campy humour, which I love. Is it just me whose noticed Raiders is the least funny? It has a couple of moments, but not in the same campy style.
indytim said:Which is why (in my humble opinion) Raiders is by far the best and only true Indy film. The following three movies gradually diluted the gritty, violent storytelling with ever-increasing 'family friendly' buffonery. Unfortunately, now the franchise is in the hands of Disney I doubt we'll ever see future films return to Indy's darker origins.
Duaner said:I don't think anyone would really consider Temple of Doom to be "family friendly", but yes it does have more silly moments in it (the jungle scenes for example).
When I first saw Raiders on video back in 84 I was only 10 and I thought Raiders was an adult film, with some subtle humour that hit the mark, so I agree that back that it is a more gritty, darker film.indytim said:Which is why (in my humble opinion) Raiders is by far the best and only true Indy film. The following three movies gradually diluted the gritty, violent storytelling with ever-increasing 'family friendly' buffonery. Unfortunately, now the franchise is in the hands of Disney I doubt we'll ever see future films return to Indy's darker origins.