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

Henry W Jones

New member
replican't said:
And yet you seem to be quite bigoted towards my posts.

I don't recall launching ad hominem attacks upon you recently - I could be mistaken of course, so feel free to highlight any.

I dont really understand why you get so defensive when all I am doing is pointing out the rather obvious flaws in a couple of films. I love Raiders - its faultless and a stone-classic. Temple is great fun, despite its dodgy racism. But Last Crusade and KOCS are both sub-par and ridiculously rubbish, retrospectively.

And its not bigoted to say Americans are a bit thick and geographically-challenged. It's fact:
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/events/dep...gnorance-and-disinclination-to-travel-abroad/

?How long does it take to cross the bridge from Australia to New Zealand?" ?Why on earth did they build Windsor Castle on the flight path of Heathrow?? The geographical (and historical) ignorance evinced in these American tourist questions is legendary, and the National Geographic Society confirmed it in 2002 with a study showing that, among Americans aged 18 to 24, almost 30 percent could not identify the Pacific Ocean on a map. More than half could not locate India, and 85 percent could not find Iraq. The young people of America, the richest and most powerful country in the world, ranked next to last in the nine countries surveyed (source).

While American geographic education has improved in the last decade, most Americans still do not even have a passport. ?The number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2011, is 114,464,041. Given the country?s population of 307,006,550, about 37% of the population has one, compared to Canada's 60% and the United Kingdom's 75%. This means that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can?t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world (although new rules currently allow about 3.5 million Americans with ?Passport Cards? to travel to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean and Bermuda, but these cards are not allowed to be used for international air travel)? .

No highlighting necessary, you haven't launched an attack on me, I just don't like your garbage attitude. You can dislike all the films for all I care, I am not defensive, I just feel making the same repetitive negative post is worthless to this site. You say the same things over and over while sounding like an obnoxious bratty child. Also me not liking you is whole lot different than you slandering a whole country. You are a hateful little person full of **** and vinegar. Good luck with that. Maybe if you contributed something besides the same old "this sucks, that sucks" posts and were a little nicer, you wouldn't have people constantly telling you what a jerk you are and complaining to the mods about you.
 
The only person who seems to constantly - repetitively and monotonously, rather ironically - comment on what "a jerk" I am is you.

At least you are the one who seems to have the biggest issue with me.

Sorry that I seem to press your buttons so. Perhaps if I were to word my issues with the Indiana Jones films more eloquently, you would be less aggrieved?

I am sure there are those here who posts many varieties of the same thoughts over time - after all, how much can one realistically be expected to say about something as culturally unimportant as a bunch of Indiana Jones films? Profundity-wise, it's hardly on a par with the works of Dostoevsky, Malick, Picasso or Scott Walker.
 
Last edited:

Henry W Jones

New member
replican't said:
The only person who seems to constantly - repetitively, ironically - what "a jerk" I am are you.

At least you are the one who seems to have the biggest issue with me.

Sorry that I seem to press your buttons so. Perhaps if I were to word my issues with the Indiana Jones films more eloquently, you would be less aggrieved?

I am sure there are those here who posts many varieties of the same thoughts over time - after all, how much can one realistically be expected to say about something as culturally unimportant as a bunch of Indiana Jones films? Profundity-wise, it's hardly on a par with the works of Dostoevsky, Malick, Picasso or Scott Walker.

You must have selective memory. You have people tell you all the time you are rude. I am just the most recent. I am not even defensive, I just find you obnoxious. Like I said, you can hate the films all day but posting "KOTCS is crap" all the time has no substance. I think the way you are turning this into I am being defensive about the films and not looking at what I am really saying (your approach is horrendous), and that for some reason you have forgot all the others who have said the same is very immature. Didn't you just come off a suspension? So, am I really the only one who has issue with you? Come on, really?


I am done feeding the troll.
 
Last edited:
Read my posts above - I say far more than just 'KOCS is crap'. My language is far more obscene and colourful than that.

I think you'd be better served, timewise, if you devoted less attention to me and more to things that actually mean something. Because my view on an Indiana Jones forum, no matter how often I make it or how bitterly - is pretty worthless in the scheme of things.

Back on topic, anyone else find the 'comedy' in Last Crusade far too broad and unfocused? The movie would be better served with more restraint and a darker tone.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
I also hated/loathed/despised the existence & inclusion of the Grail Knight. (I've seen photos of DORKS dressed up as this character and don't understand why they decide to do it.)

For me it's the lowest point in the film. A face/palm on a par with the snake in the sandpit.

After the heady heights of decapitation, the reveal of the pathetic knight was a decidedly low point.

replican't said:
Back on topic, anyone else find the 'comedy' in Last Crusade far too broad and unfocused? The movie would be better served with more restraint and a darker tone.

I think the film was made as an antithesis to TOD. The broad comedy is almost an apology for taking viewers on a trip to hell last time out.

While I like TLC I wouldn't have minded more restraint and a darker tone. The first time we see uniformed SS in an Indy film, and the only Dantean aspect about them is that the commanding officer is as camp as hell!
 

Henry W Jones

New member
:
replican't said:
Read my posts above - I say far more than just 'KOCS is crap'. My language is far more obscene and colourful than that.

I think you'd be better served, timewise, if you devoted less attention to me and more to things that actually mean something. Because my view on an Indiana Jones forum, no matter how often I make it or how bitterly - is pretty worthless in the scheme of things.

Back on topic, anyone else find the 'comedy' in Last Crusade far too broad and unfocused? The movie would be better served with more restraint and a darker tone.

Agreed. LC's comedy is way over the top. I think tbe series took a horrible turn at that point. I also believe it is to blame for the problems in CS as well. CS and LC are not at all as good as tbe first two.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
If TLC and KOTCS were on the downward spiral, and some would argue that the downward trend began with TOD, it would seem that ROTLA was the benchmark that Lucas and Spielberg couldn't surpass.

While fumbling about in the dark with a new character they struck gold. Three further attempts to replicate the perfect balance of adventure, comedy and horror couldn't match the original. Though I would say that #2 and #3 were closer than #4.

This will upset a few members, but putting Indy back on track would have required a revamp of Nolanesque proportions. Less comedy, more mystery, more threat, but without losing the wry sense of humour and irony that permeated Raiders.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Raiders is a great film and in the attempt to outdo it they made TOD. While it is not Raiders as far as a copy, it tries to hard at points and is a lot less believable because of over the top moments. Last Crusade tries to hard to be Raiders while at the same time is so lighthearted and full of jokes it changes the tone of the series entirely and makes it far less gritty. Also, the named after the dog bit and Marcus behaving like a buffoon ruin the characters in my opinion and makes Indy seem a little less cool. CS takes the tone of LC and amps it up to where it is not just campy but campy to the point of it takes you out of the moment and makes you say I am watching a movie and not part of it.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Henry W Jones said:
@ Stoo: I was aware about the "real life" naming of Indiana but naming him after the dog *on screen" was terrible. I remember thinking it ruined the character in some way to me.
I'm interested to know why you think so, Dubya. How could the origin of his name "ruin" his character?:confused:
RKORadio said:
Sorry Stoo.

Remember im a teenager. Britpop and the Spice Girls are ancient history to my generation.
RKO, there's no need to apologize. Learning & discussing all-things-Indy is the main point of The Raven!;) (By the way, Brit-pop has been constant for 50 years now and the Spice Girls were an inconsequential blip on the overall radar of musical history).

In my opinion, Sean Connery filled his role very successfully.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Stoo said:
I'm interested to know why you think so, Dubya. How could the origin of his name "ruin" his character?:confused:
RKO, there's no need to apologize. Learning & discussing all-things-Indy is the main point of The Raven!;) (By the way, Brit-pop has been constant for 50 years now and the Spice Girls were an inconsequential blip on the overall radar of musical history).

In my opinion, Sean Connery filled his role very successfully.

To me, the name Indiana was intriguing and mysterious. I thought, what a cool name to give your kid. Then, to see on screen the named after the dog thing makes the name a joke and makes Indy a little bit of a joke at that point by taking the awesome name away for the sake of a gag. A grown man calling himself Indiana when his real name is Henry comes off hokey to me.

I also agree Connery is great in that fiim.
 

RKORadio

Guest
<b>Stoo</b> and <b>Henry W. Jones</b>
They are now making 1980s nostalgia flicks. Having been <i>born</i> at the end of the 1990s it's going to be weird in 20-30 years when they have nostalgia movies for my childhood and teen years in the 00s and 10s.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
RKORadio said:
<b>Stoo</b> and <b>Henry W. Jones</b>
They are now making 1980s nostalgia flicks. Having been <i>born</i> at the end of the 1990s it's going to be weird in 20-30 years when they have nostalgia movies for my childhood and teen years in the 00s and 10s.

:confused: ???????????:confused:
 

indytim

Member
I have always liked the movies in the order in which they were released, with Raiders standing head and shoulders above the rest. That movie just had the right amount of edge to make it a grown-up cinematic adventure story without pandering to the summer blockbuster crowd.
 

Temple Raider

Active member
I think it's still a great film and I always enjoy it, but I find it's the one that seems to diminish more with repeat viewings overtime for me.
 
last crusade is the best one to me, i love it, its packed full of action and great scenes, and is in my top 4 films of all time.

I admit i do have a few problems with it though.
1 why did the make Brody into a cabbage/bafoon, i dont get it? he goes from a respected professer in raiders to a idiot in crusade.?:(

2 In Raiders and temple Indy was a total bad ass, but in crusade not so much to the silly sometimes goofy moments. still a great film though...no ticket.:)
 

RKORadio

Guest
LC could have used Hitler better. Like those old computer games where Hitler is the Big Bad, I would have used Hitler as the major villain.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
RKORadio said:
LC could have used Hitler better. Like those old computer games where Hitler is the Big Bad, I would have used Hitler as the major villain.

He is. There is no way he is going to be part of the action. He is the ruler of Germany. Do you really believe that he would be on the front line or out in the field? I personally believe that would have made the movie way too hokey. Hitler is the main villain, as it is Hilter who sent his troops after the grail.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
RKORadio said:
LC could have used Hitler better. Like those old computer games where Hitler is the Big Bad, I would have used Hitler as the major villain.

Hitler wouldn't have been able to put up much of a fight when it came to fisticuffs with Indy.

It would also set a precedent for the next film. Khrushchev would be gunning his way into Hangar 51 and running around the Peruvian jungle in 1957!

Maybe psychic Spalko told him that he'd be barred from Disneyland in 1959.

Disneyland_grande.jpg
 
Top