"For the last 1/3rd of the movie, Indy just stands around looking at ***"
- Thread starter Crusade>Raiders
- Start date
Udvarnoky said:
And surely you've picked up that not all of my answers are directed towards you specifically.
But you asked what I meant by that comment: Whether I enjoyed the theme, or the fact that it was subtle. And for me personally, I generally do respond more to films that let me reach my own conclusions. As I said, that may be why I derived more from KOTCS, and why I find it easier to overlook the script's flaws.
Note that I'm not trying to make an excuse for the film here. If anything, it's just further proof in my mind that this film was created solely for me.
Darth Vile
New member
Udvarnoky said:
I wasn?t. I like the interrogation scene; it underlines Indy sense of disillusionment and obviously helps explain why the college comes under pressure to oust Indy from his post. The Abner reference was to simply demonstrate that there are numerous sub text/plots in all the Indy movies that are not fully explored, nor require further exploration.
The scope (form a geographical sense) is derived from the fact they are in Peru. I understand the desire to show some of the journey, as far as the cemetery is concerned, but I disagree that it?s a necessary requirement. Otherwise the movie would risk becoming even more stop, start and ?episodic?.Udvarnoky said:
Udvarnoky said:
To be objective, I think it?s a matter of you disagreeing with me rather than not understanding. Having a Knight of the First Crusade entombed beneath a library in Venice is overworked and convoluted too. I personally didn?t struggle to understand what was going on in that section of TLC or KOTCS. I also found the logic of the applicable scene in KOTCS to be sound i.e. Indy looking for Ox, follows the trail to Peru, finds a marker to the cemetery, uncovers Orellana?s resting place and the Crystal Skull. It may be a little over ambitious for what is required, but it?s hardly Sudoku is it?
Udvarnoky said:
I don?t think its ?confusion? nor is it anyone?s ?fault?. It?s just that we disagree on it. I think my ?vagueness? is mirrored by yours somewhat. What do I mean by ?pace?? Velocity of speed (or lack of) in getting from point A to point B. What do I mean by ?purpose?? A rationale behind any given scenario or plot point e.g. Indy goes to Nazca on the back of the cryptic letter from Ox. You may not like it, but it?s not as if Indy opens his atlas and blindly sticks a pin in it to pick a destination.
Udvarnoky said:
Again, I think you are looking too deeply for an explanation. I?m fine with the fact that the cemetery scene didn?t cut it for you. My point is that I found it no more convoluted or confusing than the Venice catacombs scene, and in fact, found it a little more interesting because of various factors I found enjoyable e.g. the banter between Indy and Mutt, the lighting, Indy in archaeologist/adventurer mode etc. etc.
Darth Vile said:
Since we're all such fans of subtlety around here, why do we need a scene that underlines a message we can already infer from the scenes immediately following it? And why is it OK for with for Abner relationship to remain only hinted at, but Indy's federal problems needs a three minute, in-your-face explanation?
Darth Vile said:
Yes, there are. This isn't one of them.
Darth Vile said:
But scope is about more than geography.
Darth Vile said:
Not within the context of an Indiana Jones movie. It's a romanticized and exaggerated concept, sure, but there are catacombs beneath Italy. In fact, I don't see what's so convoluted about it. It's not very plausible, but that is not the same thing.
Darth Vile said:
The storytelling in that whole sequence is spotty, and you're jumping to conclusions when you suggest that logic is my central issue with it. The movie simply has too much too say at one moment, and even after you unravel it in your head there's no obvious reason why the info was presented in the way that it was. Indy's conclusion in the crypt about how the Spaniards wound up there, how the skull wound up with them, and that Oxley found the skull, took it somewhere, and then brought it back later felt like an overlong explanation to something that wouldn't have required so much effort if it was better handled in the first place. It truly felt to me like that monologue was the screenwriter talking rather than Indy. I don't think you could look me in the eye and honestly say that while Indy was making this speech, you followed his logic perfectly. It only makes sense afterward, which would have been fine, if there was any good reason for it. That there wasn't formed by opinion of bad screenwriting.
And other than just repeatedly insisting that it's also convoluted and overworked without really explaining how, I don't really see your connection between the Sir Richard's tomb sequence and this one, at least with regard to what we're actually talking about.
Darth Vile said:
So how is the pacing similar in the cemetery scene to the catacombs scene? Did Indy grind the movie to a halt with a "I've gotta account for these plot holes so we can move on!" explanation when he was with Elsa that I'm forgetting about?
Darth Vile said:
This is the second time you've brought up the trip to Peru. I never had a problem with Indy's logic behind going there. You compared the purposes of the cemetery scene as being similar to that of the catacombs scene. That's what I'm hoping you can elaborate on.
Darth Vile said:
And I'm fine with the fact that you found the catacombs scene equally convoluted. The difference is, I'm saying why I feel the way I do, and you aren't. You haven't once attempted to explain why the catacombs sequences is so similar other than simply saying that it is, as if that's all that I need to know.
Darth Vile
New member
Udvarnoky said:
You can’t have it all ways… You talk about convoluted plot points and ask for more subtlety, yet you require the opposite elsewhere. The interrogation scene served a central purpose for me. Removing it would simply risk more of what you criticize KOTCS for… e.g. people would be confused and scratching heads saying, “How come Indy has been sacked? He was fighting the Russians two minutes ago”.
Disagree for the points already raised.Udvarnoky said:
Too vague for a full response.Udvarnoky said:
Udvarnoky said:
Again I think you are simply imbuing movies you prefer with things that are not necessarily there. I don’t really see that much of a difference between the Venice catacombs scene and the Nazca cemetery scene. They serve a similar narrative purpose e.g. expositional/sub-quest related to the main Macuffin (with a piece of action tagged on the front/end). In my opinion the Venice library/catacombs scene cuts too fast, is too convenient and has the potential to confuse e.g. What was the initial clue to determine that the Knight was under the library? Why did Elsa not find the clues hidden in the library (or was she pretending to get Indy to lead the way)? Why does Indy remove the pages from his diary at that particular moment (does he not trust Elsa)? Why do the Brothers of the Cruciform sword allow Indy/Elsa to enter the tomb? Why do they not try and kill Marcus, but try and kill Indy/Elsa? How do Indy/Elsa escape the fiery catacombs? How the Brothers of the Cruciform Sword know Indy and Elsa have escaped the inferno?
Udvarnoky said:
You are pushing against an open door. I’ve already stated that I think the scene tries too hard to be mysterious, which in turn results in unnecessary complexity. However, I like the scene. And as already mentioned, I prefer the cemetery scene to the Venice library/catacombs scene (which is the most similar/appropriate scene from the other movies to compare/contrast against).
Udvarnoky said:
Oh it does. The majority of the library/catacombs scene is expositional… and up until the dropped match, it’s pretty slow wouldn’t you agree? In fact, I think it suffers more than the cemetery scene for not having a “booby trap”… as the moment Elsa and Indy drop through the hole; the expectation is that they will encounter something more deadly… At least in the cemetery scene they had hidden levers/secret doors and pivoting floors to fathom. Which is intrinsically more “Indy” wouldn't you say?
Udvarnoky said:
Mainly because I don’t have any desire to pick holes in a movie I really like… but I think I’ve outlined a couple of things above that wouldn’t hold up to the scrutiny placed on KOTCS.
Last edited:
WeAreGoingToDie
New member
Watching the movie and special features last night, I realized how much action Indy goes through during the first 3/4 of the film. No he doesn't do a lot in the finale, but he sure doesn't stand around staring at s***. He acts as a guide and transport for the Skull, then gets he and his friends the hell out of there once the s*** hits the inter dimensional portal. If anything, Irina stands around looking at s*** which ultimately leads to her demise. 
Crusade>Raiders
New member
Last section of Raiders Indy sneaks into a secret Nazi Island, beats up some dudes, and holds everybody up with a RPG.
Last section of Temple, well what DIDNT Indy do? Beat up Thugees, swing around, minecart chase, confrantation with swordsmen, and the whole bridge scene.
Last section of Last Crusade, he goes through the three trials and finds the Holy Grail.
Last section of Kingdom? He's just staring at ****. Theres some drawings, some running from natives for all of 30 seconds, some puzzle thing that Ox already figured out, the worst booby trap EVER, some more staring at stuff, Spalko comes and he's still just staring at stuff. They jump through some gate and literraly WALK out of what could have been a cool escape scene. *sigh*
Last section of Temple, well what DIDNT Indy do? Beat up Thugees, swing around, minecart chase, confrantation with swordsmen, and the whole bridge scene.
Last section of Last Crusade, he goes through the three trials and finds the Holy Grail.
Last section of Kingdom? He's just staring at ****. Theres some drawings, some running from natives for all of 30 seconds, some puzzle thing that Ox already figured out, the worst booby trap EVER, some more staring at stuff, Spalko comes and he's still just staring at stuff. They jump through some gate and literraly WALK out of what could have been a cool escape scene. *sigh*
WeAreGoingToDie
New member
But couldn't you lump in the entire chase to Akator with the "last section" of KOTS and equal or trump Raiders? If we're comparing the true last sections we'd begin at the Ark opening ceremony, in which Indy stares at s***.Crusade>Raiders said:
Crusade>Raiders said:
I'll give you this one, even if you consider the last section to be Indy at the bridge, it's quite a lot of action for the guy.
Crusade>Raiders said:
Another certain point of view, the last section could be said to begin when Indy enters the grail room.
In any case, when the three trails begin, Indy just ducks. Pretty quick "escape" from the first trap. Could have been much more intense of a scene. Next he misspells a word. Yawn. Finally he walks on top of a matte painting and enters a room guarded my some old guy. Couldn't the "knight" be more of a challange? The guy basically falls over! The the villians enter, making it through the "puzzles" Indy had already solved. Then theres some talking and Indy stands around and then drinks a cup of water. *grrroannnnn....*
See? I made the ending to Crusade sound just as lame as you did to KOTS (see below), it's all in how you write it.
Crusade>Raiders said:
Darth Vile said:
Since when is the opposite of subtlety convoluted?
Darth Vile said:
I'm happy that the interrogation scene served a central purpose for you, but I disagree. I also disagree that it would have left people scratching their heads (especially with the inclusion of an extra line of dialogue), but obviously, the movie was not cut that way so we'll never know. I will say though that your logic as to why the scene was necessary compared to your logic as to why other things weren't don't gel with me. But clearly we're unable to reconcile that.
Darth Vile said:
Then lemme offer an example. In Temple of Doom, once Indy, Willie, and Shorty reach India they stay there for the rest of the film, right? Yet, the movie has a decent feeling of scope (though, obviously, by nature of its story it's more claustrophobic than Raiders or Crusade). Where, then, does this scope come from? From the fact that the movie has an interest in actually showing the journey from the village to Pankot, which, like the cemetery from the Peru marketplace, couldn't have only been a hop, skip and a jump away even if they're within the same continental border.
If Temple was written like Indy4, we would have just cut straight from the village to Pankot Palace, after Indy is told that is quest is to retrieve the stones from there. Your argument is that showing Mutt and Indy getting to the cemetery is unnecessary, so what was necessary about showing Indy and co. actually riding elephants to reach Pankot? The answer: nothing, at least not from a story perspective. We don't learn anything plot crucial in the journey to Pankot, except for the bit about Shiva in the campfire scene, and that could have easily be relocated. But story and storytelling, a comment I'm aware I've made at least eight billion times now, are not the same. The journey to Pankot is made up of gags (Willie getting thrown into the water, the snake) and character bits (the interaction between Shorty and Indy during the card game), in addition to some fun if unnecessary imagery (the vampire bats, the random bloody shrine thing).
And yet, I wouldn't trade those moments from Temple for anything, because even if it could have all been cut from the film without sacrificing the story in any way, it definitely added something to the film, the kind of thing that Indy4 has no interest in. Pacing is related to this, because Temple gives us bits and pieces of the plot along the way without shoving it down our throats. Indy4 saves its exposition for sudden, prolonged, concentrated bursts. That's a function of pacing, which is what I was getting when I said that it was about more than the movie "moving fast or slow" instead of it just being my trying to be a smartass.
Darth Vile said:
Okay, seriously, re-read that last sentence of yours. When you use terms that broad, you can essentially describe any given scene in an Indiana Jones movie. Most importantly though, the exposition in the Venice catacombs is nowhere near as protracted. Like most Indy sequences, it may be relatively self contained, but it just doesn't have that "obligatory" feeling that the cemetery scene does for me.
Darth Vile said:
These questions are either easily answered (of course he doesn't trust Elsa - he tells her so himself later) or don't matter within the parameters of this kind of movie. I'm sure the first thing you'll do is shoot back with "AHA! Then why is OK in the cemetery scene?!?!?!!?" - but the cemetery scene really isn't that comparable, at least in the way that we're really talking about, and you've done nothing to convince me otherwise.
I really don't know what you mean by cuts too fast and is too convenient, but your "potential for confusion" examples are pretty laughable in comparison to the Orellana crypt speech. Elsa tells us she and Henry Sr. weren't able to find the tomb. Maybe you were thinking about "Why?" (Hell, I wouldn't even call that Indiana Jones logic...that's just plain movie logic. If you can't accept I don't understand how you can put up with most entertainment) but most people took it and moved on. And there's a big difference between leaps in logic (which I've already told you is not at all the issue here, but I guess you hope that if you say something enough times you think it'll magically become true) and something that will cause confusion. Why Elsa couldn't figure out the riddle is not on the same level as trying to understand the tangled web that is the conquistador subplot, because the latter is actually substantially important to the film.
I'm still not seeing how I'm holding Indy4 to a different standard than the other ones. We both know that plot contrivances and thin excuses to do fun set pieces are part of this series' territory. If you think my opinion is wrong or misguided then fine, we're totally cool. But when you keep insisting that I'm excusing things in the original films that I'm not in Indy4, you're skirting on insulting.
Darth Vile said:
I hear you. But in the end I appreciate what the cemetery scene was trying to do rather than what it actually did. The "secret door" stuff seemed very perfunctory to me, like they were saying "Wait, this is an Indiana Jones movie, we need him to pull a lever at some point and uncover a secret passage!" It just didn't feel like it fit. Like any related Indy sequence, the Venice scene is filled with contrivances and obstacles that are presented more for entertainment than because they make sense, but you know, there are rats in sewers and skeletons in catacombs. Indy4 just wanted to put a Temple of Doom type bit in there to force-feed us a cliche Indy moment without even trying to put any reason behind it. True, it's no more sensible than the random spike chamber in Temple of Doom, but compare the two scenes in terms of excitement, and I think you'll see why the scene in Temple earns its existence.
Obviously though, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the cemetery sequence. But I'm an Indiana Jones fan, I'm going to watch anything Spielberg and the writers can think up. But that's exactly what the scene felt like - anything they could think up. Like I say, I like the whole cemetery sequence in a self-contained sort of way. But I know in my heart it wasn't what it should have been, and so while the fan will eat this stuff up in all of the hundred times I will watch this movie, the objective side of me will come complain about it on the internet.
Darth Vile said:
Erm...I dunno about that. I mean, I guess it's expositional in the sense that Indy is explaining to Elsa (and by extension the audience) where they are and some history behind it, but it is nothing on the same level as the cemetery scene once that skull is found. I wish I could see where you're coming from when you think it's so similar in the way the scene plays out, even if they're both "A scene where Indy and a sidekick go into an Indiana Jones like location to find an artifact."
Speaking of the dropped match, that gets me thinking that where the cemetery really needed a random thrill moment, it was at the very end. Usually the formula of an Indy scene is that he gets from one mess into a worse one. When Indy gets the idol the ball starts rolling, when he escapes from the plane he falls off a cliff, when he gets to the tablet the whole damn sewer becomes a fiery inferno. I'm thinking a kind of last second moment of "Uh-oh!" to punctuate the exposition about the Skull would have helped the scene. (And yes, I say this knowing there's a deleted scene of just such a nature.
I probably would have cut the secret door before that. )Darth Vile said:
It definitely is intrinsically more Indy, but that's the problem, it felt like a ready made, prepackaged Indy idea - it's forced. The amount of rats as well as the other contrivances in the Venice are what they are, but the fact is that encountering rats in sewers and skeletons in catacombs is reasonable enough. The stuff in the cemetery was more like, "We better put a secret door because we need a secret door somewhere in the movie." Why is it there? Yes, you can ask the exact same questions about the booby traps and passages at the beginning of Raiders and in the middle of Doom and the end of Crusade, but the difference is they were thrilling. Indy4 was like, "This is an Indiana Jones movie, so here's your goddamn secret door and whimsical pivoting stone circle." I felt more like a checklist was being completed than I did like the movie was really trying engage me.
I do not scrutinize Indy4 any more than I've scrutinized the other sequels. Maybe someday you can believe that. Until then, let the (I must say really enlightening) arguments continue!
Last edited:
That everything would had happened the same way at the end without Indy being there is nonsense! Indy was the only one who was able to understand Oxley. Partially because they both had looked into the skull. But Indy had a greater resistance to the SKulls effects. This was setup by the fact that Spalko could not read Indy earlier in the film. While not immune to Psychic powers, Indy had a greater ability to endure it. Also due to Indy's own knowledge. Not just of Archeology but of Oxley himself. Spalko never would have figured out that Oxley was trying to draw a map.
While Oxley never would have gotten into the throne room on his own.Indy was deciphering Oxley. The same way he would decipher a map or ancient text. Yet some how this has been used to make Indy seem useless. Indiana Jones was the only one who could return the Skull.
While Oxley never would have gotten into the throne room on his own.Indy was deciphering Oxley. The same way he would decipher a map or ancient text. Yet some how this has been used to make Indy seem useless. Indiana Jones was the only one who could return the Skull.
WeAreGoingToDie
New member
Well said Avilos! Good points all around.
Avilos said:
I can only speak for me, but my issue was less that Indy was useless than it was that he had opportunities to do more interesting things that were utterly missed. I've brought up the natives and the obelisk more than once. The point is, story-wise it could have been handled exactly as it was in the final film, but the specific ideas should have been better. The door to the throne room comes to mind. That door opening is one of the most impressive effects in all four movies, and it was all practical, but it was a payoff to something that didn't really deserve it. All Indy does is hold the damn skull up. I mean, yes, it does makes sense from a story perspective, but in the context of it being a movie moment as well, why couldn't there have been more to it? Why couldn't there have been some danger or detective work involved? Why not design a classic Indy situation where one is obviously called for? The effect of the door opening would have been a million times more rewarding if the effort needed for Indy to gain entry would have been greater. It's the exact same issue as the obelisk. Amazing effect that is all set work, yet we didn't care because it simply happened and nothing more.
Again, I felt like it was movie saying, "You will like this because this is the sort of thing that happens in an Indy movie" rather than giving us a real reason to care. And it's not like I need much, but it truly felt like getting us involved was not a priority.
Last edited:
Crusade>Raiders
New member
You can write the last section of Kingdom as boring, but I have the DVD and I can actually watch it. The last 30 mins is DULL. Akator is suppose to be this lost city with amazing technology and ****, and yet all we see are a couple of cool pyramids and natives that inexplicably pop out of statues and chase Indy/Mutt/superfluous characters for all of 30 seconds.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but I still stand by my point. Indiana Jones, the greatest character in cinema history, is reduced to an old travel guide with Mutt and Friends. There's no suspense and wonderment of the last 30 mins like Raiders/Last Crusade. There's no well-paced action thrills of the last 30 mins of Temple.
Its just the most generic looking aliens ever and Indy starring @ the big CGI UFO flies away into space.
Oh, I mean the space between space.
Yes, I have jumped on the Kingdom hate-train. I watched it again last night, and so many flaws jump at @ me
I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but I still stand by my point. Indiana Jones, the greatest character in cinema history, is reduced to an old travel guide with Mutt and Friends. There's no suspense and wonderment of the last 30 mins like Raiders/Last Crusade. There's no well-paced action thrills of the last 30 mins of Temple.
Its just the most generic looking aliens ever and Indy starring @ the big CGI UFO flies away into space.
Oh, I mean the space between space.
Yes, I have jumped on the Kingdom hate-train. I watched it again last night, and so many flaws jump at @ me
WeAreGoingToDie
New member
Crusade>Raiders said:You can write the last section of Kingdom as boring, but I have the DVD and I can actually watch it. The last 30 mins is DULL. Akator is suppose to be this lost city with amazing technology and ****, and yet all we see are a couple of cool pyramids and natives that inexplicably pop out of statues and chase Indy/Mutt/superfluous characters for all of 30 seconds.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but I still stand by my point. Indiana Jones, the greatest character in cinema history, is reduced to an old travel guide with Mutt and Friends. There's no suspense and wonderment of the last 30 mins like Raiders/Last Crusade. There's no well-paced action thrills of the last 30 mins of Temple.
Its just the most generic looking aliens ever and Indy starring @ the big CGI UFO flies away into space.
Oh, I mean the space between space.
Yes, I have jumped on the Kingdom hate-train. I watched it again last night, and so many flaws jump at @ me
LALALALALALALALALA!!!
Darth Vile
New member
Udvarnoky said:I hear you. But in the end I appreciate what the cemetery scene was trying to do rather than what it actually did. The "secret door" stuff seemed very perfunctory to me, like they were saying "Wait, this is an Indiana Jones movie, we need him to pull a lever at some point and uncover a secret passage!" It just didn't feel like it fit. Like any related Indy sequence, the Venice scene is filled with contrivances and obstacles that are presented more for entertainment than because they make sense, but you know, there are rats in sewers and skeletons in catacombs. Indy4 just wanted to put a Temple of Doom type bit in there to force-feed us a cliche Indy moment without even trying to put any reason behind it. True, it's no more sensible than the random spike chamber in Temple of Doom, but compare the two scenes in terms of excitement, and I think you'll see why the scene in Temple earns its existence.
Obviously though, I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the cemetery sequence. But I'm an Indiana Jones fan, I'm going to watch anything Spielberg and the writers can think up. But that's exactly what the scene felt like - anything they could think up. Like I say, I like the whole cemetery sequence in a self-contained sort of way. But I know in my heart it wasn't what it should have been, and so while the fan will eat this stuff up in all of the hundred times I will watch this movie, the objective side of me will come complain about it on the internet.
Ultimately it comes down to a preference for one over another. I don’t dislike any of the scenes mentioned… and the bottom line is that they are all playing on the riff of the original ‘Idol Temple’ scene in Raiders.
It’s not like we’re discussing some work by Chekhov or Tolstoy where we can peel back layer after layer…Udvarnoky said:
I’d understand your resistance to the comparison if I were comparing the cemetery scene to the Raven bar scene in Raiders, or the tank chase in TLC… but these are simply generic templates within an Indiana Jones movie e.g. vehicle chase scene, fist fight scene, dank cave/tunnel expositional scene. I think the scenes either work for the viewer or they don’t.
Udvarnoky said:Speaking of the dropped match, that gets me thinking that where the cemetery really needed a random thrill moment, it was at the very end. Usually the formula of an Indy scene is that he gets from one mess into a worse one. When Indy gets the idol the ball starts rolling, when he escapes from the plane he falls off a cliff, when he gets to the tablet the whole damn sewer becomes a fiery inferno. I'm thinking a kind of last second moment of "Uh-oh!" to punctuate the exposition about the Skull would have helped the scene. (And yes, I say this knowing there's a deleted scene of just such a nature.
I agree in that some form of booby trap in the cemetery would have added to it… but from a comparison perspective (as the movie stands today), the action in the cemetery scene is flipped i.e. the short fight with the tomb protectors is the start of the scene… whereas with TLC, the action commences at the end.
Udvarnoky said:
Well it’s a conundrum…. as the Indy movies are highly contrived… and personally speaking, I find TLC to be the most contrived one of the lot. Yet TLC is the one I most enjoy… It doesn’t figure…
I’m not sure if it’s an age thing… but the only Indy movie I found to be truly “thrilling” (in the sense I think you mean) and where there was a real sense of “tension” and “peril” was Raiders. The other three I find more to be about spectacle. For example, (discussed in another thread too), I find the tank chase from TLC to be the best action sequence from any Indy movie (as well as one of the best action sequences in modern cinema), but it never “thrilled” me or made me “tense”… I just loved (and still love) the spectacle and imagination involved in getting that idea on the big screen. I never thought Indy was in any sense of danger… but I enjoyed the contrivances immensely because they were fun… and because it was relatively clever. I don't think any action scene in KOTCS matches or exceeds that one TLC, but it aspires to it.
Agreed.Udvarnoky said:
Darth Vile said:
Well, to me that's hardly the bottom line if one scene place significantly better than another. Even if the inspiration was along the same lines, the fact that from my perspective one works and the other doesn't is surely the main point? Or is something automatically good for what it was influenced by, rather than for what it actually is?
Darth Vile said:
The problem with this line of thinking is that it seems to render the actual quality irrelevant. Your point seems to be that, if a scene in Indy4 has similar motivations than one in the previous movie, it stands to reason that it will be just as good. And that's simply not the case. It's not even an issue of drop-off interest or repetition. You're refusing to even consider what makes those scenes tick, and why they work on an execution level. You're just saying, "Since they're both scenes where Indy and a sidekick are in a cavern looking for something, they're both equally good!" A generic template is the start of the creation of a scene, not the end of it.
Darth Vile said:
It's an interesting point about age. Certainly I consider Raiders to be the most successful in this regard, but I'd also put Temple of Doom and Last Crusade way higher than Indy4 on the danger level. It's true that all of the sequels are significantly more comical than Raiders, but the first two of them seemed to play up the threat of life a lot more (for the bad guys and the good guys - recall Indy's three in one kill with the Nazi gun atop the tank). More importantly though, I think Indy4 just in general really lacked situations where we're like, "How is Indy going to get out of this?! (with the fridge scene actually being an exception). The situations in Indy4 that had the potential to be like that sort of resolved themselves before the audience even had time to get involved. I thought, for example, the moment where Indy has Mac's gun pointed at him and he's totally on his own was a great setup for some creative escape that never happened. Having him just drop his gun to the floor and run didn't seem very Indy like (especially since it wasn't played for laughs). The water gears at the end could have been staged as a close call, but it was opted to go for two loose shots of the characters literally walking casually through them with such indifference that I did a double take.
All of the movies have a generally light tone, but this one embraces it without ever looking back. Indy4 brought the series to a point where holding characters at gunpoint was beyond the joke it usually is in this sort of movie. No one was worried about Marion in the campfire scene, and the quicksand was never going to swallow up anybody. With the exception of the ant scene and the climax, the worst threat that ever faced a character was falling out of a jeep. The movie was unable to achieve a balance between lighthearted fun and actual thrills, and so it ended up being entirely about the former. Which, you know, is fine on its own, but it can certainly disappoint those with the expectation of the movie being more like the others
Last edited: