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

Henry W Jones

New member
RKORadio said:
Sean Connery fitted Henry Jones Sr. like an ill-fitting suit.
Maybe 20, 30 years earlier he could have done it, but in 1989? No.

20-30 years earlier? Playing Indy's father? So, you are saying they should have hired a 30-40 year old actor to play a 39 year old Indy's father? How would that have worked? If they hired any younger, Indy would be older than his father. Who would have been better? A young Leonardo DiCaprio? A fetus maybe? Would that be young enough?
 

RKORadio

Guest
I'm just saying that Connery was past his peak acting-wise. A Connery with the skils of the 1962 Connery would have been better.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
RKORadio said:
I'm just saying that Connery was past his peak acting-wise. A Connery with the skils of the 1962 Connery would have been better.

Acting ability decays with age, rather than growing with the understanding that one acquires over the years?

Look: if you mean physically demanding acting, then that is certainly possible. But he's not meant to be a young man in the film. He's a father of a man well on his own way into middle age.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Acting ability decays with age, rather than growing with the understanding that one acquires over the years?

Look: if you mean physically demanding acting, then that is certainly possible. But he's not meant to be a young man in the film. He's a father of a man well on his own way into middle age.


Exactly!!!! If they were going for James Bond then she is right but playing the father of a 39 year old man is a different story. He is by nature a book worm and not a field guy so he would be out of his element. The fact he is Indy's father puts him at roughly 60-70 years old. I am 37 and my father is 62


RKO: How was he not well fitted for the role since Indy is the action star of the films?
 

Temple Raider

Active member
I think he could've at least passed for up to mayb 72 years old, tops. It's not that implausible to think he could've fathered Indy when he was in his early-to-mid 20s or very early 30s, as Indy is 40ish during TLC. I could buy Connery in the film as being at least 25-30 years older than Harrison.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
RKORadio said:
I'm just saying that Connery was past his peak acting-wise. A Connery with the skils of the 1962 Connery would have been better.
Sorry, my dear RKORadio, but this is a ridiculous claim. Some of Sean's most notable performances of his entire career were between 1986-1990. The same year that he was filming "Crusade", he received his 1st & ONLY Oscar award for "The Untouchables" in 1987. Winning an Oscar in 1988 was a crowning acheivement and a good example of his 2nd peak (which he is personally proud of).
Temple Raider said:
I first saw TLC when I was about 8 or 9, caught it on the USA Network. I saw TOD first when I was probably just a year or two old and ROTLA not long
after that. I'd spent my childhood with ROTLA and TOD, and didn't even know TLC existed until I caught it on USA. Imagine my surprise when I found out about another IJ film
existing.

---snip---

About the dog moment, it's not that I forgot about it in the film, I just forgot to mention it before in the discussion. It doesn't really bother me per say but it does strike me as a little odd that Indy's namesake comes from the family dog of all things, but it's actually not a negative for me, mind you. Just something I find bizarre.
This is why I want to know WHEN you first saw "Crusade" (as in, what year). You talked about your age but never mentioned what year...and this detail is rather important in order to fully understand your frame of mind at the time. (Personally, I think it's vital to know how old Raven members are...)

In 2013, if you still find Indy's namesake to be bizarre, then perhaps you're unaware that the character was named after Lucas' own dog*? Indiana, the dog, was mentioned as early as 1977 in "The Making of Star Wars" TV special and the reference was repeated over & over since that time. By 1989, it was a known fact amongst Lucas fans that Indiana Jones was named after his dog and the line in "Crusade" was an inside, tip-of-the-hat. (If you didn't know about this until now, then I can understand why you find it bizarre.;))

*Here at The Raven, the REAL ownership of the dog was uncovered by Rocket Surgeon. It belonged to George's wife-at-the-time. It was actually Marcia's dog!
AndyLGR said:
I think overall TLC takes the comedy angle a bit further than Raiders ever did.
Too right, Andy. "Last Crusade" could be categorized/classified as a comedy because it's over-loaded with jokes.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
I may have seen that special but don't remember for sure if I ever did or not. If I did I definitely have long forgotten that detail.

It was definitely a nice surprise when I saw TLC for the first time, finding out another Indy movie existed. I'm not sure why we never owned TLC on VHS before, I remember we had ROTLA and TOD, and both always had constant rotation.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Temple Raider, please answer this question: WHEN were you born? :confused: (This information will really help me to communicate with you.) If your first time seeing "Crusade' was on the USA network when you were 8 or 9 (and you didn't know that a 3rd Indiana Jones film existed before that), then you certainly could not have seen the original broadcast of "Making of Star Wars" on TV.

Now that you've been told about the origin of Indy's name & the inside joke in "Crusade", is the dog-name still so bizarre?:confused:

Hate to break it to you, Temple Raider, but your reasons toward why "Crusade" is inferior are pretty lame. Correct me if I'm wrong but, according to you, the film wasn't that great because Indy's dad wasn't a two-fisted, fightin', duplicate of his own son.

---
For me, "Last Crusade" was disappointing because it was, essentially, a re-hash of "Raiders".
 
Last edited:

Temple Raider

Active member
Sorry I overlooked the question, I was born in 1987. I recall I first caught TLC on the USA network probably around 1995 or 1996.

Regarding the dog's name being Indiana, I said it's not something I have an issue with, it just seems a little strange that the family dog is where he would've gotten his name that people know him by, although it's not totally senseless since I can see him being attached to the dog and he could've taken the name as a means of honoring him.

And actually my reasons for finding TLC to be an inferior film to the rest doesn't have much to do with Henry, Sr. at all, I even said I really like his character. I just felt he had some goofy moments his character would've been better without. I wasn't expecting him to be a total copy of Indy and didn't even want him to be, I just expected him to be a more serious and stern character. Hope this clarifies everything. I probably should've just been a bit more detailed and thorough.

My reasons for finding TLC to be weaker than the rest for me among a few things is yes, it was definitely a Raiders retread in so many ways. After how well TOD showed Indy can work without Nazis and a different mythology, the film going back to retreading Raiders and with a much lighter and sillier tone was definitely disappointing. I generally don't have problems with sequels that are overly similar to the originals so long as they at least vary things up enough that they still feel fresh enough, but I think TLC much of the time was far too much of a mirror image of Raiders.

Other problems I have with it is that is also lacks the feeling of danger and peril ROTLA and TOD both have in spades that helps to make them that much more exciting and thrilling, a lot of the humorous moments are silly and take me out of the film sometimes, the villains are the least interesting and least menacing of the series, the climax is somewhat disappointing and I think the way it reduced Brody to a bumbling cartoon character was totally unnecessary. The way a lot of people tend to feel about Willie, Short Round and Mutt is very much applicable to how I feel about TLC's version of Brody and for some reason, Elsa is also a character I never liked and always found annoying and unlikeable, even though she's not a screaming and whining type like Willie. And as I also said, I really dislike the revelation how Indy stole his look from the explorer at the beginning. It just cheapens his character to me, to think his famous look with the fedora and jacket was something he stole from someone else.

I still love the film, it's fun and I always have a good time watching it, but of the original trilogy it definitely holds up the least well IMO, and overtime I've grown to enjoy KOTCS slightly more as I like that Indy at times feels more like his proper ROTLA/TOD self, the overall tone isn't as comical and the storyline was more creative and interesting to me. It has silly moments in it that are jarring yes, such as the fridge and swinging monkeys, and I won't argue or deny it's other flaws, but overtime it just feels like a tad more satisfying to watch than TLC these days.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Temple Raider said:
Sorry I overlooked the question, I was born in 1987. I recall I first caught TLC on the USA network probably around 1995 or 1996.
Thanks for the clarification, Temple Raider!:hat: I really like to know who I'm talking to. (Blind conversation is frustrating, in my opinion.)
Temple Raider said:
And actually my reasons for finding TLC to be an inferior film to the rest doesn't have much to do with Henry, Sr. at all, I even said I really like his character. I just felt he had some goofy moments his character would've been better without. I wasn't expecting him to be a total copy of Indy and didn't even want him to be, I just expected him to be a more serious and stern character. Hope this clarifies everything. I probably should've just been a bit more detailed and thorough.
Yeah, detail helps so your explanation lets us know where you're coming from. My previous remark was because you wrote that Henry's actions weren't right for the character. What I didn't realize at the time was that you were talking about YOUR idea of the character.
Temple Raider said:
Other problems I have with it is that is also lacks the feeling of danger and peril ROTLA and TOD both have in spades that helps to make them that much more exciting and thrilling, a lot of the humorous moments are silly and take me out of the film sometimes.
Agreed. There is too much humour during the action parts.

For me, the worst parts of the film are the boat-chopping sequence with the ship's propellor (so embarassingly bad) and the part where Indy suddenly becomes free from being caught on the tank's side cannon. Upon seeing that cannon bit back in '89, I said to my girlfriend-at-the-time, "This is sh*t!". Truth be told, it was sh*t then and still is now.(n)

I also hated/loathed/despised the existence & inclusion of the Grail Knight.:sick: (I've seen photos of DORKS dressed up as this character and don't understand why they decide to do it.)
Temple Raider said:
And as I also said, I really dislike the revelation how Indy stole his look from the explorer at the beginning. It just cheapens his character to me, to think his famous look with the fedora and jacket was something he stole from someone else.
The beginning of "Crusade" has never bothered me. I actually LOVE it, simply because of the amazing music.
 
Last edited:

RKORadio

Guest
Sorry Stoo.

Remember im a teenager. Britpop and the Spice Girls are ancient history to my generation. I'm too young to remember The Phantom Menace coming out
 

Henry W Jones

New member
RKORadio said:
Sorry Stoo.

Remember im a teenager. Britpop and the Spice Girls are ancient history to my generation. I'm too young to remember The Phantom Menace coming out

What does that have to do with Connery's acting ability or LC? Just curious.

@ Stoo: I was aware about the "real life" naming of Indiana but naming him after the dog *on screen" was terrible. I remember thinking it ruined the character in some way to me.
 
Last edited:
Connery was embarrassing in Lost Crusade. The whole "Junior?" schtick is cringeworthy.

And onshe again, we have Connery doing his mashterful method acting approacsh to acshents.

Spare me. If one could digitally remove the joke that is his role from the film, it would be so much better.

And while you're at it, ditch the cheesefest imagination-crushing prologue, erase any glimpse of that tool Marcus, and obliterate Alexi Sayle.

Any mention of "Venice, Italy" needs editing too. Anyone with a brain (i.e. a non-American) knows exactly where Venice is. Christ.

In fact, Lost Crusade is so patchy that the whole film would be infinitely improved if done as a half hour episode and shoved between Coronation Street and I'm A Washed Up Nobody Get Me Out Of Here.
At least then the Made-For-TV cinematography would fit right then.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Replican't was embarrassing on the Raven. The whole "every thing sucks" schtick is cringeworthy.

And onshe again, we have Replican't doing his mashterful method poshting. Inshult to inshult

Spare me. If one could digitally remove the joke that is his role from the Raven, it would be so much better.

In fact, Replican't's posts are so patchy that the whole site would be infinitely improved if he was done between his first post and the one's shoved between all the others. He is Washed Up. Somebody Get Him Out Of Here.

A little rewording says a lot. :gun:
 
Last edited:

Henry W Jones

New member
replican't said:
Any mention of "Venice, Italy" needs editing too. Anyone with a brain (i.e. a non-American) knows exactly where Venice is. Christ.

Anyone with a brain knows anti-America comments are rude and knows one should not be judged by their race or where they live. If I did that I would be a bigot like you. You are unpleasant many fronts. At least you are constantly ugly.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
Stoo said:
I also hated/loathed/despised the existence & inclusion of the Grail Knight.:sick: (I've seen photos of DORKS dressed up as this character and don't understand why they decide to do it.)


I don't care for that sequence either and to me it's the single most unbelievable moment in the series. The raft falling from the plane and nuke the fridge have nothing on this IMO, in terms of being completely unbelievable.
 
Henry W Jones said:
Anyone with a brain knows anti-America comments are rude and knows one should not be judged by their race or where they live. If I did that I would be a bigot like you. You are unpleasant many fronts. At least you are constantly ugly.

And yet you seem to be quite bigoted towards my posts.

I don't recall launching ad hominem attacks upon you recently - I could be mistaken of course, so feel free to highlight any.

I dont really understand why you get so defensive when all I am doing is pointing out the rather obvious flaws in a couple of films. I love Raiders - its faultless and a stone-classic. Temple is great fun, despite its dodgy racism. But Last Crusade and KOCS are both sub-par and ridiculously rubbish, retrospectively.

And its not bigoted to say Americans are a bit thick and geographically-challenged. It's fact:
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/events/dep...gnorance-and-disinclination-to-travel-abroad/

“How long does it take to cross the bridge from Australia to New Zealand?" “Why on earth did they build Windsor Castle on the flight path of Heathrow?” The geographical (and historical) ignorance evinced in these American tourist questions is legendary, and the National Geographic Society confirmed it in 2002 with a study showing that, among Americans aged 18 to 24, almost 30 percent could not identify the Pacific Ocean on a map. More than half could not locate India, and 85 percent could not find Iraq. The young people of America, the richest and most powerful country in the world, ranked next to last in the nine countries surveyed (source).

While American geographic education has improved in the last decade, most Americans still do not even have a passport. “The number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2011, is 114,464,041. Given the country’s population of 307,006,550, about 37% of the population has one, compared to Canada's 60% and the United Kingdom's 75%. This means that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world (although new rules currently allow about 3.5 million Americans with ‘Passport Cards’ to travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean and Bermuda, but these cards are not allowed to be used for international air travel)” .
 
Top