What is your single LEAST favourite scene from the trilogy?

Dark Horse

New member
I thought the water tank bit in ToD was pretty dumb as well. Volume wise, the entire tank would probably just wash over Indy's/ Thuggees feet even if they were standing ten feet away. The retardation reaches dizzying new hieghts if you study the ToD's layout in the Ultimate guide. There's about a mile of track between the water tank and the exit. It would seriously have had to be a hundred times bigger to have made the wave that it did.
 

Robyn

New member
Dark Horse said:
I thought the water tank bit in ToD was pretty dumb as well. Volume wise, the entire tank would probably just wash over Indy's/ Thuggees feet even if they were standing ten feet away. The retardation reaches dizzying new hieghts if you study the ToD's layout in the Ultimate guide. There's about a mile of track between the water tank and the exit. It would seriously have had to be a hundred times bigger to have made the wave that it did.

I never would have given that a thought until you said something about it! lol
 

Darth Vile

New member
Dark Horse said:
I thought the water tank bit in ToD was pretty dumb as well. Volume wise, the entire tank would probably just wash over Indy's/ Thuggees feet even if they were standing ten feet away. The retardation reaches dizzying new hieghts if you study the ToD's layout in the Ultimate guide. There's about a mile of track between the water tank and the exit. It would seriously have had to be a hundred times bigger to have made the wave that it did.

LOL - I have to agree. For me that scene is the worst bit of physics in an Indy movie… even more distracting than jumping from a plane, escape by fridge, monkey swings and waterfall… :)
 
Dark Horse said:
I thought the water tank bit in ToD was pretty dumb as well. Volume wise, the entire tank would probably just wash over Indy's/ Thuggees feet even if they were standing ten feet away. The retardation reaches dizzying new hieghts if you study the ToD's layout in the Ultimate guide. There's about a mile of track between the water tank and the exit. It would seriously have had to be a hundred times bigger to have made the wave that it did.

Unless the tunnel was much steeper and continued to shrink...and then there's all that lava to contend with!
 

wolfgang

New member
Well, technically, the water didn't HAD to go through the lava. depending on what tunnel it took. However, I guess that doesn't change the fact that its still pretty unbelievable. But since I like it, those are the parts where I sit back and tr not to make much sense off it.
 
wolfgang said:
Well, technically, the water didn't HAD to go through the lava. depending on what tunnel it took. However, I guess that doesn't change the fact that its still pretty unbelievable. But since I like it, those are the parts where I sit back and tr not to make much sense off it.

Technically I'd say the branching off of the tunnel would cut the volume in half and maybe it wouldn't reach the lava, but I don't think the water could have made a concious choice when it came to the road less travelled.
 

Dark Horse

New member
Also, the lava pits were way below the actual temple. If anything ALL the water would have simply ran down the cracks and crevices and not even made it to the tunnels :D
 

Dark Horse

New member
I just remembered another bit that always bugs me. The bit where Indy "befreiends" the ticket guy on the zeppelin. So Indy subdues him and nicks his outfit. Um... Indy is like a foot taller and about 80 lbs heavier than tiny ticket bod, but the jacket fits perfectly lol.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Dark Horse said:
I just remembered another bit that always bugs me. The bit where Indy "befreiends" the ticket guy on the zeppelin. So Indy subdues him and nicks his outfit. Um... Indy is like a foot taller and about 80 lbs heavier than tiny ticket bod, but the jacket fits perfectly lol.

It is sort of a snug fit.... :)
 

Dark Horse

New member
Another couple I just remembered - In the Venice catacombs, Indy lights up a naked flame torch in rivers of gasoline!?!?!? WTF! and bits of the torch even fall into the gas! That place would have gone up like a bomb!
Another bit that is silly imo, is when Indy swims underwater (gas) to find the way out. Wouldn't that have stung his eyes?
 

BadDates

New member
Dark Horse said:
Another couple I just remembered - In the Venice catacombs, Indy lights up a naked flame torch in rivers of gasoline!?!?!? WTF! and bits of the torch even fall into the gas! That place would have gone up like a bomb!
Another bit that is silly imo, is when Indy swims underwater (gas) to find the way out. Wouldn't that have stung his eyes?

There's some discussion of that point in this thread. I think that the swimming part can be explained...but I agree with you about the burning bits falling onto the surface! (Though maybe even that is explained here. However, I guess that there'd have to be one heck of a breeze through the catacombs to disperse the vapour!)
 

TheDarkCrusader

New member
If there's anything I'd want to be changed, it would be in Temple of Doom with the introduction in the club and the escape from the airplane. I would have the movie start out with Indy in some location trying to fetch some ancient artifact and then show him in the college for a little bit. It would have been more like a usual Indy movie in my opinion.
 

The Drifter

New member
TheDarkCrusader said:
If there's anything I'd want to be changed, it would be in Temple of Doom with the introduction in the club and the escape from the airplane. I would have the movie start out with Indy in some location trying to fetch some ancient artifact and then show him in the college for a little bit. It would have been more like a usual Indy movie in my opinion.

Why does everyone get in a uproar because ToD did not follow a set formula? It boggles my mind that people want the same tired scenes played in almost the exact same way in every Indy movie.

I liked how ToD was set up. It shows Indiana's more sophisticated side. We see that he is more than just a professor and adventurer. We see him dealing with the Yakuza. And Indy's a snappy dresser also!
 
Lonsome_Drifter said:
Why does everyone get in a uproar because ToD did not follow a set formula? It boggles my mind that people want the same tired scenes played in almost the exact same way in every Indy movie.

I liked how ToD was set up. It shows Indiana's more sophisticated side. We see that he is more than just a professor and adventurer. We see him dealing with the Yakuza. And Indy's a snappy dresser also!

It breaks the heart...

Yeah, Indy as a mercenary for organized crime is real sophistication!:rolleyes:

Guess that's how he can afford those snappy dresses!:rolleyes:


...or was it his snappy dress that showed off his cultivated side?:rolleyes:
 

The Drifter

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
It breaks the heart...

Yeah, Indy as a mercenary for organized crime is real sophistication!:rolleyes:

Guess that's how he can afford those snappy dresses!:rolleyes:


...or was it his snappy dress that showed off his cultivated side?:rolleyes:

Just look at his actions! He knows his way around a classy club.
 
Last Crusade

Joe Brody said:
Donovan's study in Last Crusade -- heavy-handed exposition, soap-opera quality set, clumsy movement -- and it's boring.

I just rewatched Last Crusade with my kids. I still enjoy the movie, but 90% of the dialogue is HORRIBLE!

In addition to the reasons mentioned in previous posts, the Young Indy opening does not get you on the edge of your seat like the openings of the other two, either. And the whole movie looks like it was filmed on sets built inside a warehouse. For example, the ship scene immediately after Young Indy, the catacombs beneath Venice, the castle, streets of Berlin with the book burning, and the interior of the Grail temple. I know that sets had to be used, but why do they look so realistic in the other two movies and so blatantly fake in LC?

ToD has a couple of scenes where the sets and matte paintings look very fake, but for the most of the movie it holds up and looks realistic.
 
Catacombs of Venice

BadDates said:
There's some discussion of that point in this thread. I think that the swimming part can be explained...but I agree with you about the burning bits falling onto the surface! (Though maybe even that is explained here. However, I guess that there'd have to be one heck of a breeze through the catacombs to disperse the vapour!)

The river isn't made entirely of petroleum, obviously. It is mostly water with petro mixed in. But, yeah, if the fumes can be lit by a match, the torch would have done the same thing. It was kind of a dumb scene.

I have to say, as much as I liked this movie when it came out, I now consider it the worst of the series. Yes, I said it: KotCS I like better than LC! I guess you can say LC lowered the bar for me.

Don't get me wrong, I still love all of the Indy movies. I like elements of LC. It just doesn't hold a torch to Raiders and Temple, in my opinion.
 

Darth Vile

New member
punisher5150 said:
I just rewatched Last Crusade with my kids. I still enjoy the movie, but 90% of the dialogue is HORRIBLE!

In addition to the reasons mentioned in previous posts, the Young Indy opening does not get you on the edge of your seat like the openings of the other two, either. And the whole movie looks like it was filmed on sets built inside a warehouse. For example, the ship scene immediately after Young Indy, the catacombs beneath Venice, the castle, streets of Berlin with the book burning, and the interior of the Grail temple. I know that sets had to be used, but why do they look so realistic in the other two movies and so blatantly fake in LC?

ToD has a couple of scenes where the sets and matte paintings look very fake, but for the most of the movie it holds up and looks realistic.

I have to say that I completely disagree with your comments about the sets in LC. I think some of the sets in LC, be it Donovan?s penthouse apartment, Donovan?s Venice apartment, the catacombs, Brunwald castle, the huge set that was the Grail temple etc. are exceptionally designed and intricately detailed. Indeed, seems to me that many modern moviemakers could learn a thing or two about LC?s set design, and how to use sets accordingly. And if you consider that the penthouse apartment/Venice apartment only appear for a few brief minutes, it further conveys how much effort was put into this particular element of the movie.

One could argue that LC has too many locations and interior/sound stage shots? that would be another thing entirely... but I think the majority of set work/design is pretty much beyond reproach.
 
punisher5150 said:
... the Young Indy opening does not get you on the edge of your seat like the openings of the other two, either.

And the whole movie looks like it was filmed on sets built inside a warehouse. For example, the ship scene immediately after Young Indy, the catacombs beneath Venice, the castle, streets of Berlin with the book burning, and the interior of the Grail temple.

I know that sets had to be used, but why do they look so realistic in the other two movies and so blatantly fake in LC?

Three words: No Norman Reynolds (I don't think the Temple Ineteriors were all that convincing)

The LC opening was outside and the music was light hearted as opposed to Raiders which was confined and dark, which lent itself to hidden dangers and made it difficult to know what was around the corner/in the shadows.
 
Top