One of you has to go...who's it going to be?

Which Indiana Jones adventure do you kill?

  • Raiders of the Lost Ark

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Temple of Doom

    Votes: 17 21.3%

  • Last Crusade

    Votes: 13 16.3%

  • Crystal Skull

    Votes: 49 61.3%
  • Total voters
    80
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Well here's the premise. You have to kill one of the Indiana Jones movies. There can only be three. Which do you sacrifice?

Are you tired of hearing that Raiders is the be all end all?

Would you be happy to be rid of Willie once and for all?

Do you want to remember Marcus as a distinguished gentleman?

Would you like to drop a bomb right on top of on an Alien inside a fridge?

Whatever your reasons...one of them HAS TO GO.
 
Last edited:
Attila the Professor

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
I like this one.

I voted Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. There's a lot of good reasons for that, but there's one that I'll put forth that I'm not sure anyone else will: if you eliminate Temple of Doom, the quality of Last Crusade goes down. So much of what I like in Last Crusade as a story, apart from the dialogue and the addition of Connery, is the way it serves as a revision on Raiders, a redemption of Indy as a character as he was in the first film. But if you jump directly from Raiders to Last Crusade, you don't get that elegant (intentional or not) revision, but rather something more akin to Ghostbusters II. And, of course, that revision is rendered less powerful with the epilogue we're given in the form of Crystal Skull.
 
U

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
To me, objectively speaking, there's no question that Crystal Skull is both the least necessary and the one of the lowest quality. The choice is easy.

I will say though, as a protracted aside, that as superbly made as Last Crusade is, its absence would make the series way less formulaic and (unnecessarily) interconnected. The original idea for the Indiana Jones movies was for it to be Lucas and Spielberg's answer to James Bond, with each adventure being self-contained and allowed to go in its own direction. If you just look at Raiders and Temple, you can see that - the two movies are unmistakably part of the same series, but there's a different tone, leading lady, structure, influence, etc. etc. When Temple got trashed for being too dark, Spielberg chickened out and just made Last Crusade a really well made rehash of Raiders, using a template that isn't colored outside of nearly enough. We get the Christian artifact, we get Marcus and Sallah, we get the Nazis, we cut to a college in New York after the prologue, etc. Things suddenly became staples of the series that didn't have to be. Spielberg made a great movie with Last Crusade, but he didn't make an original one. It's really Last Crusade's fault that so many fans treated Indy4's new 50s influences like they didn't belong, because Last Crusade helped imply that Nazis and biblical artifacts were the only "right" features of the Indy universe by being traditional. (When you only have three movies, two is a majority.) Temple of Doom only became the series' black sheep retroactively.

Of course, I consider Indy4 to be way worse of a movie than Last Crusade, and it has plenty of unneeded ties to what's come before anyway, but I can at least appreciate that the movie, like Raiders and Temple, had its own story to tell. I can list direct outside influences to the storyline and style of Raiders, Temple, and Crystal Skull. For Last Crusade, the only obvious inspiration I can think of is...Raiders of the Lost Ark. The movie's inbred. It's actually sort of interesting to think about how the series might feel if you knocked out Last Crusade and made Crystal Skull the capper to the trilogy. I wouldn't prefer it in a million years, but it would be interesting for certain reasons.
 
Last edited:
DocWhiskey

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
KOTCS.

Without it, every time you mention Indiana Jones you won't hear the same old "Why are there aliens?" "George Lucas took over" crap from everyone. And it IS the weakest of the four films.
 
Crack that whip

Crack that whip

New member
Attila the Professor said:
I like this one.

I voted Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. There's a lot of good reasons for that, but there's one that I'll put forth that I'm not sure anyone else will: if you eliminate Temple of Doom, the quality of Last Crusade goes down. So much of what I like in Last Crusade as a story, apart from the dialogue and the addition of Connery, is the way it serves as a revision on Raiders, a redemption of Indy as a character as he was in the first film. But if you jump directly from Raiders to Last Crusade, you don't get that elegant (intentional or not) revision, but rather something more akin to Ghostbusters II. And, of course, that revision is rendered less powerful with the epilogue we're given in the form of Crystal Skull.
Click to expand...

Most interesting. I'm particularly interested in how your rationale compares to Udvarnoky's:

Udvarnoky said:
To me, objectively speaking, there's no question that Crystal Skull is both the least necessary and the one of the lowest quality. The choice is easy.

I will say though, as a protracted aside, that as superbly made as Last Crusade is, its absence would make the series way less formulaic and (unnecessarily) interconnected. The original idea for the Indiana Jones movies was for it to be Lucas and Spielberg's answer to James Bond, with each adventure being self-contained and allowed to go in its own direction. If you just look at Raiders and Temple, you can see that - the two movies are unmistakably part of the same series, but there's a different tone, leading lady, structure, influence, etc. etc. When Temple got trashed for being too dark, Spielberg chickened out and just made Last Crusade a really well made rehash of Raiders, using a template that isn't colored outside of nearly enough. We get the Christian artifact, we get Marcus and Sallah, we get the Nazis, we cut to a college in New York after the prologue, etc. Things suddenly became staples of the series that didn't have to be. Spielberg made a great movie with Last Crusade, but he didn't make an original one. It's really Last Crusade's fault that so many fans treated Indy4's new 50s influences like they didn't belong, because Last Crusade helped imply that Nazis and biblical artifacts were the only "right" features of the Indy universe by being traditional. (When you only have three movies, two is a majority.) Temple of Doom only became the series' black sheep retroactively.

Of course, I consider Indy4 to be way worse of a movie than Last Crusade, and it has plenty of unneeded ties to what's come before anyway, but I can at least appreciate that the movie, like Raiders and Temple, had its own story to tell. I can list direct outside influences to the storyline and style of Raiders, Temple, and Crystal Skull. For Last Crusade, the only obvious inspiration I can think of is...Raiders of the Lost Ark. The movie's inbred. It's actually sort of interesting to think about how the series might feel if you knocked out Last Crusade and made Crystal Skull the capper to the trilogy. I wouldn't prefer it in a million years, but it would be interesting for certain reasons.
Click to expand...

I have to say that some of the same aspects discussed in both posts here are what would force me to choose Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, actually, in large measure because it's less closely associate with the others than any of them are with one another. I'm well aware the series was originally intended as a series of disconnected, episode adventures à la James Bond, but to me it became a lot more interesting once it deviated from that template (and I say this as someone who loved the series to begin with, as well as someone who recently listed elsewhere on this board a whole series of reasons why I love and adore Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom). Truth be told, these days I actually enjoy The (Adventures of) Young Indiana Jones (Chronicles) even more than any of the movies that don't have "Raiders" in their names, anyway (and that's saying a lot), and the character arc it helped established for Indy, and the way the movies dovetail into it, is something I find immensely rewarding. I'd absolutely hate to excise any of the adventures from that, but if I were forced at gunpoint to do so I guess I'd go with Temple, simply because doing so would eradicate less of the character history, Peacock's Eye connection notwithstanding.

Though as noted, it's a really bizarre question, and one struggles to imagine the scenario which would necessitate such a choice, so I feel safe in saying I really wouldn't "kill" any of them (I mean, really - why?); I very nearly made a point of saying "none" for that reason, but upon seeing the two responses quoted here, I felt compelled to note the difference of my approach and reasoning, and with it some selection.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
I had to vote for TOD. It's the movie I still find the weakest (although I no longer dislike it as I did). It's the movie where Indy is portrayed almost as a superhero (which cheapened the movies from there on in), has the weakest supporting characters, has the least chemistry between actors, has the worst/most pointless Macguffin of the series, is far too cartoonish and outlandish (even more so than KOTCS IMHO), does not seem very politically correct in it?s portrayal of both woman and Indian?s, and I don't particularly like Williams' overuse of the Raiders March leitmotiv (which seems like somewhat of a cheap trick).
 
Dr Bones

Dr Bones

New member
No brainer...KOTCS.

If it never existed, we all would be on here hoping for Indy 4 and praying it will live up to expectations and not dissapoint...instead we are now doing that with Indy 5.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Crack that whip said:
I'd absolutely hate to excise any of the adventures from that, but if I were forced at gunpoint to do so I guess I'd go with Temple...

Though as noted, it's a really bizarre question, and one struggles to imagine the scenario which would necessitate such a choice, so I feel safe in saying I really wouldn't "kill" any of them (I mean, really - why?); I very nearly made a point of saying "none" for that reason, but upon seeing the two responses quoted here, I felt compelled to note the difference of my approach and reasoning, and with it some selection.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for saying SOMETHING, consider it Sophie's Choice.

Even saying "none" says something about you, but at least we've learned something about YOU. Struggle is a good word, and it's told us something , as the great philosopher David Lee Roth would say, " a little bit more...(than one night stands).";)
 
U

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I thought it went without saying that giving up one of the movies isn't a scenario anyone would want, and that the thread is about if you hypothetically HAD to. Seems to me the whole point of the exercise is to generate some interesting discussion, which it has.
 
A

avidfilmbuff

New member
I know this is hypothetical, but really, I couldn't possibly let any one of them go. Its the only series where I love all the films equally. Although I still haven't seen the Godfather Part III.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
avidfilmbuff said:
I know this is hypothetical, but really, I couldn't possibly let any one of them go. Its the only series where I love all the films equally. Although I still haven't seen the Godfather Part III.
Click to expand...

There's a first! I can't recall ANYONE saying they loved them equally. Usually one outshines another...hmmm.

Which one would you say you've watched the most?
 
D

deckard24

New member
avidfilmbuff said:
I know this is hypothetical, but really, I couldn't possibly let any one of them go. Its the only series where I love all the films equally. Although I still haven't seen the Godfather Part III.
Click to expand...
I find this interesting as well, you really can't pick one over another, not even in the slightest?

I honestly would've thought with a name like avidfilmbuff, Raiders would've been your #1.




For me, it's just way too easy, the Skull gets offed.

Of the remaining 3, the only two I couldn't part with would be Raiders or TOD. LC on the other hand, as much as I still enjoy watching it, is the weakest of the original 3 films in my opinion, mainly for the reason that it's a major rehash of Raiders. TOD at least took a different road, as cartoonish as it may be, and it's a welcome change from it being as formulaic as LC.
 
kongisking

kongisking

Active member
This is harder than ****. I love them all, and each is a fantastic film on their own. Raiders is an important landmark of cinematic history, Temple is a pure trip, Last Crusade has heart and soul and features very strong performances, and Crystal Skull has a terrific MacGuffin. In the end, much as I loath to, I'd have to delete TOD: why? Because Raiders is too important, LC is the soul of the series and KOTCS is just way too much damn fun to deny it existence. I'ts made even worse by the fact that TOD is my favorite of the classic trilogy! AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top