Originally Posted by Sakis
Let's just hope this one, if it gets made, would follow Spielberg's Indy tradition and be an apology the same way Crusade was for Temple. No matter how good Temple was.
So another apology sequel, only this time it's actually merited?
I dunno...I love Last Crusade, but the reactionary nature of its design is kind the root of its problems for me. Bringing back the desert, the Nazis, the Judeo-Christian artifact, Sallah, Marcus, the college opening, etc. were clearly part of that mindset of returning to Raiders after the backlash of Temple. On an individual level, none of these reprisals are unwelcome, but together they make for a movie that feels warmed-over and a bit too interested in retreading what came before.
And you can see where that approach influenced Crystal Skull. With Last Crusade, you can kind of give the Beards a pass because they truly thought they were designing a finale, and so bringing back all these elements to round off the saga as a retroactive "trilogy" sorta makes sense in context. (Plus, unlike Crystal Skull, the movie had heart and great execution, so some weak story elements essentially didn't matter.)
But Last Crusade set a bad example, and Crystal Skull continued down that reflexive path, most glaringly when it was providing us with an ersatz Marcus or drawing unnecessary connections between characters with the whole Marion, Abner, Oxley, Mutt Williams family unit.
All that said, Crystal Skull's real flaws come down to the fact that the script didn't feel cohesive or energetic and was wall-to-wall with glaring missed opportunities. These are just Tier 1 writing issues and the threat of that happening once more is probably completely independent of whatever approach Spielberg ends up deciding to take with the material.