Darth Vile said:
I’m singling out the jungle chase, as it’s the set piece most reminiscent of the truck/tank chase. I think you’d argue that it’s a weaker set piece because there is no emotional investment in the characters or narrative drive to the action… whereas I’d argue that it’s significant weakness is simply that it’s all been done before. Unfortunately is difficult for us to prove either way because we can't take back time and see what would happen if...
I don't think that's what I would argue, although those things wouldn't have hurt. Certainly, it's got no less narrative drive than other, better sequences in the previous films. I think what's missing are clear and interesting obstacles for the characters to deal with admist the flurry. There's an odd passiveness to the whole thing - it doesn't feel like characters are ever really making calls so much as just being subjected to a series of a prescribed events they're not quite surprised enough by.
There's always some sort of struggle or goal within the set pieces for the audience to latch onto in the other movies. The spike chamber is really about Willie getting to the lever. In the conveyor belt scene, the goal is Shorty getting to that voodoo doll in time. The mine cart chase has the heroes forced to solve a bunch of little problems along the way - Indy has to figure out how to lose that cart on his tail and starts using the environment to his advantage. The tank chase has Henry Sr. and Marcus having to deal with the guy in the tank, Indy having to hang onto his dad before he slides off, Indy having to find a way to extracate himself before he gets smacked against the rock wall, etc. These little mini-conflicts with immediate stakes are the things we're really involved in when watching the scene - the frenetic stuff surrounding it heightens the entertainment, but alone it would just amount to audiovisual assault. There's a lot of serendipity in the original trilogy's action, but also a lot of
decision-making.
The jungle chase doesn't really have that element. The goal is "hold on to the skull and drive faster than the Russians." It plays out like a really inconvenient game of hot potato and nothing more. It's missing those individual moments of setup and payoff. Stuff just happens. Mutt engages Spalko in a duel, Indy punches a bunch of dudes, Marion slams the breaks, vertiginous cliffs are straddled and there's a lot of flying bullets but it's all got a very blithe feeling to it that none of the comparable scenes in the previous movies exude so exclusively. Shorty gets to the maharaja after an ascent that we see him make every step of the way. The fortune that allows Mutt to befriend a group of monkeys and effortlessly glide to the vehicles in time to save the heroes from being pushed off the cliff (our heart is in our mouth at this point!) requires more black magic than any of the hocus pocus in Temple of Doom. The silliness of the image is secondary to the fact that Mutt is charmed enough to wind up in the circumstances.
Darth Vile said:
I think the passing of time and the fact that Spielberg/Lucas are being regressive, as opposed to progressive, with KOTCS is very significant. What was once the definitive style for a modern action movie (in 1980) can now appear slow and pedestrian. The more time elapses, the further away you are from the source you’re trying to copy/emulate… and of course audience perception, taste and attitudes change. For example, most people (IMHO) would not now be gob smacked by the effects in the original King Kong or scared by Bela Lugosi’s Dracula. What followed immediately after those particular movies was a natural progression of that style/genre… be it The Bride of Frankenstein or The Mummy etc. etc. KOTCS is not a natural progression of the modern action movie (IMHO); as it’s taken a step backwards not forwards (unlike Raiders and TOD).
This paragraph is part of a worthy, completely separate discussion. I'm talking about why Indy4's set pieces may or may not hold up favorably to what came before in the same series. In doing this we're looking at these movies in a vacuum, comparing them only to each other, and therefore public tastes/attitudes/perception are irrelevant. They should be irrelevant to us anyway, since we understand that this movie is following a particular style that might not necessarily still be in vogue.
And I'm going to have to give in to temptation here and say the obvious: Bringing up the original King Kong's special effects as an example for what you're saying here is completely ridiculous because a) the subject of directorial action style has nothing to do with special effects, and b) Indy4 completely embraced modern special effects just as the other movies did.
Darth Vile said:
It's a weaker set piece largely because... 1) It’s a tired largely unoriginal sequence (mainly due to the other movies). 2) I don’t think Spielberg is quite as good at directing the rollercoaster type action as he used to be (or at least he’s out of practice).
You've shifted away from "it's dated" in your reasoning, which I think is sensible. I will say though that if the scene is unorignial (I'm not sure if that's a problem, myself), blaming the other movies is a bit of a weak defense.