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

IndyBuff

Well-known member
I've always enjoyed TLC but one thing that has always bothered me is the editing and the fact that some of the scenes just feel out of place. For instance, the scene where Indy is hanging from the satchel strap on the tank is a great scene but how did it get stuck there? He would have had to have wrapped it around the end of the blown out current and then when he pulls himself up his bag magically comes with him. It takes me out of a cool stunt because it all happens randomly. The same thing happens with the traps at the end, where one minute Indy is in danger and then we suddenly cut to a scene where everything seems to be okay. They're minor gripes but I feel that Indy seems to "teleport" a bit too much in-between cuts and it feels like there should be another shot in there to explain what happened.

Other than that I think it's a solid film.:whip:
 

Tank Driver

Member
I went back and forth on this for the last couple of years. It was a neck to neck race between this and Temple. If it wasn't for the fact I love medieval lore/history; Temple would edge it.

What's ironic... I actually left the theater with that kinda "ho-hum" feeling after I watched it opening weekend. It wasn't till it was released on home video where it really excelled for me.

I do notice now over time... I just skip the young Indy introduction. It's actually got to that point where I find it dull:eek:

And over this time, I'm adlibing here... Maybe do a quest for the first marker? Make Donovan more of a poignant character in the beginning... I don't know, maybe show him more chums w/ Indiana. Make us hate him more when he finally reveals us his Nazi guise.
 

Indy McFly

New member
Last Crusade is my favorite.

As a child of the 80's, I loved all of the original three. Once home video video came to be I could enjoy the film over and over.
The relationship and the character development of Indy and his Dad is an amazing parallel to me and my own dad. My dad has a PhD. and has worked as a college professor. My dad is definitely not a field agent.

I also love the message of the movie, and the fact that in the end they fail to acquire the Grail.

My Indy outfit has been done in the Crusade motif.

Currently I am working on a SR. outfit for my dad to cosplay.

Steve, Staff writer at IndyMag.com
 

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
Indy McFly said:
As a child of the 80's, I loved all of the original three. Once home video video came to be I could enjoy the film over and over.
The relationship and the character development of Indy and his Dad is an amazing parallel to me and my own dad. My dad has a PhD. and has worked as a college professor. My dad is definitely not a field agent.

I also love the message of the movie, and the fact that in the end they fail to acquire the Grail.

My Indy outfit has been done in the Crusade motif.

Currently I am working on a SR. outfit for my dad to cosplay.

Steve, Staff writer at IndyMag.com

My sentiments exactly (y)
 

Temple Raider

Active member
TLC is still a terrific film even if I enjoy it the least. Though I find it's the only one that seems to diminish a bit in quality sometimes when I watch it.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
Bit of an older topic I know, but I'm curious to see if TLC is anyone else's least favorite Indy film. It's definitely not a popular or common opinion to rate it as such. It's still an entertaining movie, but of all the Indy films I find it's the one I take most issue with.
 

John Bechet

New member
I've enjoyed it over the years but it's my least favourite of the trilogy. There are a two big reasons why.

Firstly, it too obviously follows the structure of Raiders. I get that this is a common practice with sequels, its just not what I look for. For me, Temple was a great follow-up because it didn't do it.

Secondly, and a bigger reason, I prefer Indy the raider over Indy the mellowed academic who only uses his adventuring skills either to rescue artifacts from raiders, or because he's under duress.

A sticking point for me is that this core change is not done as character development but is done as a retrofit. That he doesn't care for fortune and glory anymore in 1938 would be a logical development, a sign of his character growing after Raiders and Temple. But saying he felt this way in 1912 messes that up and it removes the ambiguity I liked in his character in those movies.

At the start of Raiders, he talks of the "pieces" he acquires in terms of how much he can sell them for (to fund his continuing pursuit of the idol). That he is selling them to Marcus for the museum is secondary. I believe we are meant to see him as a rogue and a treasure hunter. The idol is gold. At the start of Temple, the piece he is after is literally a big diamond.

If the creators wanted to soften Indy, that's valid. I only wish they didn't do it by saying that Indy was always just about "this belongs in a museum".
 

Temple Raider

Active member
Sakis said:
What bit did you find diminished?:confused:


I find it just doesn't hold up as well as the others for some reason. It might be because it's the only one with a bit of a "been there, done that" feeling since it's using Raiders as it's template rather than trying something new as both Temple Of Doom and KOTCS did. Between that and also the amped up gags and comedy which isn't my preference in an Indy film. The films all have humor true, but TLC is the only one which tries to be deliberately comedic and for me it really undermines the tension.
 

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
John Bechet said:
Firstly, it too obviously follows the structure of Raiders. I get that this is a common practice with sequels, its just not what I look for. For me, Temple was a great follow-up because it didn't do it.

Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion but if we are talking for the sake of talk, there are two ways you can do sequels. Do something completely new or follow the predecessor. Either way you choose you end up satisfying half the audience and disappoint the other half. As all Indyfans know the history of these films, we know that after the new approach tried in Temple and the disappointing result, for reasons that had nothing to do with structure, a return to the original was considered vital. Still, I believe, the return was successful, it had more interested characters and plot and the whole thing for renewed. It didn't look like a cheap copy. The comedic element is a notch up I agree but it doesn't work against the film, but yes it differs it a bit from Raiders. Things, like Indy falling down the stairs in the Brunwald castle or Brody's goofy change was not necessary, on that I share your sentiments.

John Bechet said:
Secondly, and a bigger reason, I prefer Indy the raider over Indy the mellowed academic who only uses his adventuring skills either to rescue artifacts from raiders, or because he's under duress.

If the creators wanted to soften Indy, that's valid. I only wish they didn't do it by saying that Indy was always just about "this belongs in a museum".

In Raiders Indy did the same thing, "And the museum? The Museum gets the Ark when we are finished." He was never in it for the money, Marion was for the $5.000. Maybe in Crusade this is heard a couple of times more but it was always there.

Temple Raider said:
I find it just doesn't hold up as well as the others for some reason. It might be because it's the only one with a bit of a "been there, done that" feeling since it's using Raiders as it's template rather than trying something new as both Temple Of Doom and KOTCS did.

Raiders, Crusade, Kingdom share the same structure, with Kingdom being a clone to Crusade with the family motifs making it really dull, to me. Since we are talking about repeating structure, formula, whatever you call it, the James Bond films have managed to last for more than 50 years and 20+ films by serving just the same thing over and over again, whatever that means for the paying audience.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Sakis said:
In Raiders Indy did the same thing, "And the museum? The Museum gets the Ark when we are finished." He was never in it for the money, Marion was for the $5.000. Maybe in Crusade this is heard a couple of times more but it was always there.

No, that's where you're wrong. He's about the money in Raiders absolutely.

"It's beautiful Marcus. I can get it. I got it all figured out. There is only one place you can sell it: Marrakesh. I need two thousand dollars."

He cares about selling whatever he collects (and obviously knows where stuff can be sold and wants to get there) - just because it's to a museum doesn't mean he wouldn't sell it by other means if they weren't interested, obviously.

In addition to that, just because he hopes that the Ark gets the museum can be explained that he's feeling ethical about it only because the U.S. government is paying him a flat fee upfront, from the get-go.
 

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
Dr.Jonesy said:
No, that's where you're wrong. He's about the money in Raiders absolutely.

"It's beautiful Marcus. I can get it. I got it all figured out. There is only one place you can sell it: Marrakesh. I need two thousand dollars."

He cares about selling whatever he collects (and obviously knows where stuff can be sold and wants to get there) - just because it's to a museum doesn't mean he wouldn't sell it by other means if they weren't interested, obviously.

In addition to that, just because he hopes that the Ark gets the museum can be explained that he's feeling ethical about it only because the U.S. government is paying him a flat fee upfront, from the get-go.

No way, you couldn't be more wrong on this. When he says that, he means that the idol can be sold only in Marrakesh, so this is where he can find it. He wants $2000 to fund this quest, his travel to Marrakesh. He is selling those "pieces" to the museum in order to raise the money he needs to go after that idol, not to support his life style. Whether he is selling pieces to a third party has not been mentioned or implied. He could have, yes. Maybe artifacts with zero significance but from the dialogue of the movie we know he sells to the museum.

On the case of the Ark, the government is willing to pay handsomely, but the rest of the deal is never mentioned. You don't even know about a flat upfront fee. A budget for his expenses must have be given but that's my speculation. The awe he feels in the map room comes from the excitement of discovery not the money he is going to receive.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Sakis said:
No way, you couldn't be more wrong on this. When he says that, he means that the idol can be sold only in Marrakesh, so this is where he can find it. He wants $2000 to fund this quest, his travel to Marrakesh. He is selling those "pieces" to the museum in order to raise the money he needs to go after that idol, not to support his life style.

There's really no way to know that he's not supplementing his income by selling these items and motivated by that.

Sakis said:
On the case of the Ark, the government is willing to pay handsomely, but the rest of the deal is never mentioned. You don't even know about a flat upfront fee. A budget for his expenses must have be given but that's my speculation. The awe he feels in the map room comes from the excitement of discovery not the money he is going to receive.

Yes - he's going to be paid handsomely. Because that's what he does.

Also, just because he's in awe of things he sees and enjoys discovery does not mean that he's not also motivated by selling stuff he finds.

Being in awe and also trying to turn a profit are not mutually exclusive things.
 

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
Dr.Jonesy said:
There's really no way to know that he's not supplementing his income by selling these items and motivated by that.

Yes - he's going to be paid handsomely. Because that's what he does.

Also, just because he's in awe of things he sees and enjoys discovery does not mean that he's not also motivated by selling stuff he finds.

Being in awe and also trying to turn a profit are not mutually exclusive things.

I believe this side of a gambler, if true, would have been presented in the film in a more apparent way. Like the ladies man part that was cut. Still, up to now I never managed to read such motivation to the character but if you did that's fine by me.
 

John Bechet

New member
Sakis said:
There are two ways you can do sequels. Do something completely new or follow the predecessor. Either way you choose you end up satisfying half the audience and disappoint the other half. As all Indyfans know the history of these films, we know that after the new approach tried in Temple and the disappointing result, for reasons that had nothing to do with structure, a return to the original was considered vital.

Yes, you'll never get unanimously positive reception. That should be a given. You tell your story and hope only that enough people like it. At risk of being off-topic to talk about Temple a bit more, I'm in the minority who likes it so I don't see the pull-back to mirroring Raiders as necessary. I didn't even know until Spielberg did promotion for Last Crusade that there was so much dislike for Temple. At the time Temple came out, I was only aware of positive reception. But then this was long before the internet let us hear the opinions of so many. I was disappointed to learn that even the creators did not care for it in hindsight.

I don't dispute that Last Crusade is sucessful in the sense that it is very enjoyable. So mirroring Raiders does not make it fail. I criticise that only because I fall into the camp that wants a sequel to be something new. And if the result isn't good, then my ideal is next time try something else that's new rather than revert to copying the original. But of course movies are a business.

Sakis said:
Since we are talking about repeating structure, formula, whatever you call it, the James Bond films have managed to last for more than 50 years and 20+ films by serving just the same thing over and over again, whatever that means for the paying audience.

I happen not to like James Bond movies. As I think you are saying, audiences at large liking them enough for the series to continue, despite being so repetitive, is neither here nor there when it comes to what each of us likes.
 

JasonMa

Active member
Dr.Jonesy said:
There's really no way to know that he's not supplementing his income by selling these items and motivated by that.
There's really no way to know that he is, either
 

Temple Raider

Active member
Sakis said:
Raiders, Crusade, Kingdom share the same structure, with Kingdom being a clone to Crusade with the family motifs making it really dull, to me. Since we are talking about repeating structure, formula, whatever you call it, the James Bond films have managed to last for more than 50 years and 20+ films by serving just the same thing over and over again, whatever that means for the paying audience.


Yes but KOTCS at least differs things considerably whereas TLC tries to parallel Raiders in a lot of ways and IMO too much so. The Nazis again, another Christian artifact, the desert setting, etc. it has a very deja vu feeling compared with the others.
 
Top