Crusade>Raiders
New member
agentsands77 said:I think KINGDOM is of the same ilk as TEMPLE or CRUSADE (which, let's face it guys, are both mediocre films in their own right).
Sorry, thats just wrong.
agentsands77 said:I think KINGDOM is of the same ilk as TEMPLE or CRUSADE (which, let's face it guys, are both mediocre films in their own right).
Darth Vile said:Not sure about that. You do know that there are many people who would rate TOD and TLC as "crap" right?
As much as one may like TOD and TLC, I don't think I could ever rate them as great movies or even excellent (unless the bar is set quite low). They have good production values of course; good ideas and some heart... but they are not exactly the pinnacle of movie making. And I think it's precisely this reason why the comments from Shia have some merit i.e. how can one logically try and overcome the opinion of those who honestly believe TOD is an excellent masterpiece of cinema (as that’s what you’d believe if you read some of the comments on these boards)?
I think one could make the case that the respective "sins" you mention aren't as great as the sins of LAST CRUSADE (which are numerous), or that at any rate, despite some flaws they accomplish greater things than CRUSADE manages. But I won't, since this isn't a Bond thread.emtiem said:TLC's a little ragged, but it doesn't go on too long like Casino Royale; have a major element like a love story swept under the carpet with a montage like OHMSS; have Indy completely inactive like Bond in Goldfinger etc. I do love those films and I'll defend them to the hilt but I do think each is a little more flawed than any of the Indys.
That's certainly a fair evaluation. It's not necessarily one I share (I haven't made up my mind how the sequels shake out... right now, I'd say they're all about as equally flawed as each other), but at least it's not claiming KINGDOM is somehow miles worse than the two sequels that came before it.emtiem said:I apologise; yes, I take your point- the sequels are pretty much on a level with each other; it's hard to take seriously claims that Skull is so much worse than Temple.
Skull is the weakest, I'd say, as I don't think Spielberg is as fresh or as interested as he used to be; but that's not to say that it's as far removed quality-wise as the Star Wars prequels are to the proper Star Wars films- Skull is clearly a proper Indy film and stands alongside the others easily.
Bvance said:Perhaps a comparison between TOD, LC and KOTCS is a better vantage point. I cannot think of ONE superior quality that KOTCS has over TOD or LC. The bar is set quite low with KOTCS, hence the quality of TOD and LC is enhanced by a reverse comparison. We can at least say, TOD and LC are better than KOTCS.
That is certainly one of the reasons why I don't like it as much as the other three... but I can certainly still enjoy it.Bvance said:But I know there still are those who hate TOD because it wasn't Raiders II.
agentsands77 said:I think one could make the case that the respective "sins" you mention aren't as great as the sins of LAST CRUSADE (which are numerous), or that at any rate, despite some flaws they accomplish greater things than CRUSADE manages.
Steven [Spielberg], George [Lucas] and Harrison [Ford] are the only fans that I care about.
IndyFan89 said:He claims that we have changed if this is true why do we still enjoy the movies.
IndyFan89 said:He claims that we have changed if this is true why do we still enjoy the movies.
The Man said:Because it's not true - not really. Just more apologism, only now tinted with condescension...
OmegaSeamaster said:That, and "don't bite the hand that feeds."
If Shia trashed SKULL for the crap that it is, he wouldn't be in Transformers 3,4 & 5, Eagle Eye 2, and the next Indy spinoff film..."Mutt Williams goes to Woodstock."
Personally, I don't blame Sean Connery for staying home for this one.
Darth Vile said:Like all things (if viewed objectively), the reality is somewhere in the middle i.e. the first three Indiana Jones movies are viewed, by many, with rose tinted spectacles and KOTCS could have been better...
Darth Vile said:KOTCS could have been better...
Darth Vile said:For example, I still enjoy some of the Roger Moore Bond movies I first saw as a kid e.g. Moonraker, View to a Kill... but I also understand that some of the fun I can get from watching them is not reflective of the actual quality.
The Man said:True. Understated, yet very true.
IndyFan89 said:He claims that we have changed if this is true why do we still enjoy the movies.
[mtv]But while LaBeouf embraced the silliness of nuking the fridge as consistent, screenwriter David Koepp already seems to be distancing himself a little from the center of the fanboy bull's-eye. Asked whether he would defend "nuking the fridge" to his dying day, Koepp was quick to point out that that moment "wasn't even my idea." (Indeed, a similar scene was in Frank Darabont's earlier version.)
"I thought the fridge was kind of cool, and I thought that was a lot of fun," Koepp said. "There's going to be stuff in movies that people like and don't like. Going into that one, I knew I was going to get hammered from a number of quarters. That movie is owned by millions and millions of people. What I liked about the way the movie ended up playing was it was popular with families. I like that families really embraced it."