Montana Smith said:
Hype and expectation, coinciding with easy internet access.
It wasn't the
worst film ever made, but it deserved better taking care of.
And remember, don't believe everything you read.
TOD and LC were fun. KOTCS was hard work. Nobody looked like they were having fun in KOTCS, apart from the ants and monkeys.
My thread there wasn't my feelings. I have my share of gripes with KOTCS, depending on the day really, but if you go on places like IMDB, a lot of the posters act like it's as bad as Phantom Menace or Plan 9 from Outer Space. i was simply asking posters here if they shared that sentiment--asking Raveners if THEY feel it was really that bad. I don't feel KOTCS "raped" Indy and I don't feel it should continue to be excluded from the section of the "Indy films" on this site, treated as not a sequel to Indy but some spin off. I can see Young Indy having it's own section--it was a spin off. But KOTCS, like it or not, was a sequel, and this section or subform should probably be merged with the "Indiana Jones Trilogy" section.
I actually think it looked like most of the cast was having fun. I'd actually say Ford seemed like he was phoning it in more in parts of LC (except for the scenes with Connery) than in KOTCS. All of them genuinely seemed into it. Let's be brutally honest: Raiders of the Lost Ark is the only film in the Indy series which can be regarded as anything more than a fun summer B movie. It's basis was B movies, but it's much more.
The others all share in common slapstick humor to greater or lesser degrees, moments of total stupidity (see for a prime example the tunnel scene in LC), moments of total implausibility (The raft scene, heart scen and lava pit scene in TOD; the fridge and waterfalls in KOTCS); Any returning characters were dumbed down (Marcus, Sallah, Marion); All of the films after Raiders were pure B Movies, nothing more.
In each film, the Macguffin never touches on the greatness, power, mystery and glory of the Ark. None of them have the same impact. The Grail is mysterious and steeped in lore, but it isn't even really the heart of the story--Henry Sr. is. Where limit of the Ark's powers are relatively unknown and creepily hinted at throughout Raiders, we know already what the Grail does, the limit of it's power--and while the Ark is seen and chased for almost half the movie, we don't see the Grail until the very end. It isn't powerful in the way the Ark was, it wouldn't suffice as a weapon. And it's power is limited to nor further than beyond the Great Seal, so it's technically useless to anyone who wants to possess it unless they plan on hanging with the Knight. The Sankara Stones are interesting, but their mythos isn't really familiar in Western culture and thus doesn't have the mystique or effect that the Ark had, and their exact power isn't really clearly explained or shown in TOD. The Skull is a lot like the Sankara Stones in that respect. Both are rather unfamiliar to the West and to mainstream moviegoers, both have potentially great powers, powers that could've made them as fearsome a weapon as the Ark if they were presented correctly, but we never quite get to really know what they're all about.
The Sankara Stones are shown to be able to glow and set things on fire when Shiva's wrath is invoked, and MAYBE it gives you the power to rip out someone's heart and render them still alive--or is that the Dark Magic of Kali at play? It's never made clear. We're told the Stones will cause the Hebrew, Hindu and Christian Gods to fall and be forgotten--but we're never shown how that could be, what power it truly has beyond being Shiva's personal flamethrower. The Skull has power over the minds of man and animal and is potentially a VERY powerful weapon to any army who'd posses it--but again, it's a missed opportunity to showcase a dangerous artifact, like the Stones.
My point is, I don't think Lucas & Spielberg ever got it right after Raiders. Raiders has no "real" sequel in that it has no equal, none of it's sequels or prequels even come near it in quality, and none of it's sequels attempt at greatness. That film was lightning in a bottle. I think the rest of the films feel quite dumbed down in comparison to Raiders. Raiders perfectly rode this fine line between exposition, action, humor and intellect. It wasn't a boring film, nor simply a mindless action film, nor was it overly intellectual and Detective-ish, and neither was it overly humorous. It is a perfect action/adventure film that both redefined the genre, brought the Serial genre to a new generation, and is the film which all other adventure films are judged and inspired in some way by. It is the standard and it has not been surpassed or even equalled either by it's own sequels/prequels or by it's imitators or by films inspired by it.
LC attempts to be a remake of Raiders structurally, hoping to recreate the magic by hitting all the beats (Nazis, Christian artifact, Marshall College, Marcus, Sallah, Desert Chase scene, etc), but has none of the seriousness or grit or reality that makes Raiders both believable yet fantasy. I think each film after Raiders are
great popcorn films--but nothing more. And all are equally good in different ways. I don't really see a big difference in quality between the three because if you want to nitpick LC and TOD, like KOTCS was nitpicked, you could tear those films apart too.
TOD is a mess and can't decide whether it wants to be a slapstick comedy or a dark horror film. LC borders on buddy comedy and feels almost like a parody/remake of Raiders, with Sean Connery saving it from being average. KOTCS features an older Ford and has aliens. They're all flawed. But they're also all good.
I'll put it this way: I'd put every Indy film, including KOTCS, over any Mummy film or Lara Croft film or National Treasure Film. Even a "bad" Indy film is better than the best of those series.