Why do the sequels recieve criticism upon their initial release?

Every sequel, besides KOTCS, has gotten mixed reviews from critics. TOD and LC got mixed reviews from fans and critics alike upon release.

After a few years they are generally better reviewed and accepted.

Why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-Mixed to negative reviews from fans and critics. Years later, much, much better reviews and is now accepted.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade-Mixed reviews from fans and critics. Later, mid-90s, positive reviews from both.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull-Mostly positive reviews from critics. Mixed reviews from fans. In a few years...?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is up with the pattern here? TOD and LC didn't do "great" with critics and fans upon release, so why does the opinion change to high praise after a few years pass?

KOTCS did pretty good with critics but only so-so with fans. What will it be viewed like in a few years? Why is it the only sequel to be reviewed positive by critics upon release?

I find it confusing why the films aren't recieved as good upon release as they are after a few years.

Any theories?

It's the hype. Hype leads to high expectations. High expectations usually lead to disappointment when the film's released. Years pass and you get over your hype and you view the film just as a regular joe. Perhaps you change(get older) and enjoy it more that way. I know I love Raiders a hell of a lot more now then I did when I was 8.

KOTCS's downfall was it took way too long to get made. I believe fans would've been disappointed no matter what we got. So the hype buildup was so high that NO MOVIE could've sustained it. 10 years from now KOTCS won't be as hated just as PM isn't as hated now.

Die hard Indyfans won't have to accept KOTCS as a fantastic Indy movie, but at least get laid and realize their overreactions and see it as just a movie.

Is the Indy 4 hate better or worse than the SW prequels?

I don't remember since I don't pay attention to SW.

Well from what I've heard/seen the general public sees the 3 Indy films as a success. Though some may argue ToD gets some hate. But generally, people like the Indiana Jones films.

The SW prequels have gotten much more hate than Indy 4 in my eyes. Some liked PM, some did not. AotC was hated by many. And RotS was generally liked, though it's still not as good as any of the 3 originals in my opinion. RotS seems to be on the same level as Indy 4 regarding the critics and public. People liked it, but it's still not as good as the originals.

This is all my analyzation and opinion of course.

I think one reason has to do with the pulp nature of the series. It basically provides Lucas and Spielberg the chance to let their imaginations run wild- even more so than Star Wars did. But people tend to get a fixed idea of what they think an Indiana Jones film *should* be, and that naturally leads to disappointment.

Many fans expected TOD to be "Raiders II", and were unprepared for the comedy in LC or the sci-fi in KOTCS. Ask fans what they'd like in Indy 5, and chances are you'll get answers like Short Round, Sallah, or another Biblical MacGuffin.

I'm sure if they had made an Indy film about a haunted castle, the monkey king, or Indy encountering a giant snake, those would've divided opinions as well.

Dr.Jonesy said:

Is the Indy 4 hate better or worse than the SW prequels?

I don't remember since I don't pay attention to SW.

Click to expand...

so you have something to remember?? anyway, for me it's the acting in the SW prequels that destroys it. and some real bad dialogue, though revenge of sith is awesome imo.

Hype.

You're right about the hype, although The Dark Knight lived up to the hype and more lol.

To be honest, I think that the Star Wars prequels are a lot cleverer than many give them credit for, and there is probably a lot more cinematic and narrative progression in those movies than there is in any Indiana Jones movie. Personally, I would rather have something progressive that falls short, than something that just aims to deliver more of the same and achieves that objective.

I think for the general audiences, Lucas shot himself in the foot to some extent, as his desire to fill the Star Wars prequels with multiple layers and political exposition, left proportions of the movies emotionally cold and somewhat lacking in good ole? ?fun?. Still, I think if you want to see the value of a Star Wars prequel, you only have to ask a kid. Kids, on the whole, loved them. And I have quite a lot of respect for a man who can get kids into watching movies with a little more depth/production value, than your average summer churn (even if not as much fun for the fathers/uncles of those kids).

As for Indiana Jones movies, and the general perception of the sequels? There are 2 elements to consider. 1) Time relative to release of the original movie. 2) Emotional connections to the original movies and characters.

The immediate follow up/sequel to a popular movie (IMHO), always has the toughest job. It?s the movie that has to keep the flame burning by retaining those elements that made the movie a success, but it also must balance that by having a modicum of progression and by being it?s ?own thing?.

Ironically, TOD (which is my least favorite Indy movie), is still the most suitable follow up to Raiders of the Lost Ark I think. The reason I say that is because I believe TOD to be the most radically different (within context) of the 3 Indy sequels. The fact that TOD is tangibly different to Raiders i.e. it removes nearly all exposition and ramps up the action to 100% and becomes a live action comic book, gives the character a new angle and allows a ?return? to the more traditional adventure/pace for movie number III.

The fact that circa 20 years have passed between TLC and KOTCS, means that the emotional connections people have made to the movies/character (specifically the emotional connections the ?fans? have), have been reinforced, Indeed, in some ways those feelings have been re-visited and revised (I hasten to add... not consciously). For example, I certainly feel that TOD is a better movie now than I did in the 1980?s. Is that because on reflection TOD is a better movie than I believed it to be, or is it that my values/views have changed over the years?

KOTCS is going through the same thing now. Some are comparing it to TOD and TLC, and stating that it's just not as good. But were the original sequels ever that good, or do we (over time) imbue the original movies with qualities that they may not actually possess? I'd agree that in some areas, KOTCS isn't as good as the original sequels... but it also has some areas that superceed them (IMHO). So it kind of evens itself out for me...

Mutt-Jones III said:

You're right about the hype, although The Dark Knight lived up to the hype and more lol.

Click to expand...

I find TDK to be the most disappointing movie of the last 10 years. I think it's a sub-standard action/adventure movie... but it's an admirable quirky crime drama type thing. I was disappointed because I thought 'Batman Begins' had laid the ground for a great action/adventure sequel. TDK (IMHO) never delivered this. That's not to say TDK isn't any good of course. It is good, but for me, hugely disappointing.

Every movie that comes after the orgianal is judged (right or wrong) off of that. Raiders is pretty hefty to be compaired to so.....

Darth Vile said:

but it also has some areas that superceed them (IMHO).

Click to expand...

One such area is the way in which it weaves together a great deal of myth and history. It's really quite a cleverly layered film- at least in comparison to something like TOD.

James said:

One such area is the way in which it weaves together a great deal of myth and history. It's really quite a cleverly layered film- at least in comparison to something like TOD.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I also think KOTCS uses its MacGuffin (the Crystal Skull) a lot more successfully than TOD and TLC, as it seems much more central to the plot and the protagonists.

Indy films "grow on you". Plain and simple.

Dr.Jonesy said:

Every sequel, besides KOTCS, has gotten mixed reviews from critics. TOD and LC got mixed reviews from fans and critics alike upon release.

After a few years they are generally better reviewed and accepted.

Why?

Click to expand...

I should probably say more if I'm going to chime in on the topic at all, but I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just briefly note my impression has always been that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade did in fact get quite good reviews upon its release, markedly better than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom did five years earlier (and even that one was more positively received than negatively, though it was certainly the most mixed of the original three). I made a point of seeking out several reviews of Last Crusade in '89, and all the ones I read then were very positive. Actually, my perception has been that if anything, the general regard for it appears to have been diminished in the years since it came out - not to a point where it's actually widely regarded as poor or anything like that, but certainly to a point where it's generally not considered to be as good as it was when it first came out. But that's just my personal perception, and not something based upon any scientific measurements or anything like that...

Crack that whip said:

I should probably say more if I'm going to chime in on the topic at all, but I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just briefly note my impression has always been that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade did in fact get quite good reviews upon its release, markedly better than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom did five years earlier (and even that one was more positively received than negatively, though it was certainly the most mixed of the original three). I made a point of seeking out several reviews of Last Crusade in '89, and all the ones I read then were very positive. Actually, my perception has been that if anything, the general regard for it appears to have been diminished in the years since it came out - not to a point where it's actually widely regarded as poor or anything like that, but certainly to a point where it's generally not considered to be as good as it was when it first came out. But that's just my personal perception, and not something based upon any scientific measurements or anything like that...

Click to expand...

I think you are correct in that TLC certainly wasn't bashed to the extent TOD was. I think 'Last Crusade' was seen by many as a "return to form", as it was closer in style/tone to Raiders.

Saying that though... a little like KOTCS, although people liked TLC, I think there was a general consensus that the more progressive action movies were being made by other people e.g. Batman, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard etc. etc. Even in 89, action/adventure movies were becoming darker and more violent (reflective of the times I think). TLC is quite light in every way... which isn't a bad thing.

Well, since I saw them as "movies already made", I loved every single second of all three movies. I saw them for the first time in 1999. I saw Last Crusade first and loved it (without knowing or caring of who was the cast, director etc.)

Then I saw ToD with my mom (casually) and I think it was better that way. It was a terrifying experience, but at the same time one of the best experiences ever to me while watching a movie. I thought they weren't gonna get away. I literally thought the good guys were going to die! And that IS A MOVIE to me.

KoCS was the only one I saw with some expectations. And it met pretty much all of them and surpassed others! So yeah.

Conclusion: It depends on the conditions you see them. I'm glad I saw them the way I did.

wolfgang said:

Well, since I saw them as "movies already made", I loved every single second of all three movies. I saw them for the first time in 1999. I saw Last Crusade first and loved it (without knowing or caring of who was the cast, director etc.)

Then I saw ToD with my mom (casually) and I think it was better that way. It was a terrifying experience, but at the same time one of the best experiences ever to me while watching a movie. I thought they weren't gonna get away. I literally thought the good guys were going to die! And that IS A MOVIE to me.

KoCS was the only one I saw with some expectations. And it met pretty much all of them and surpassed others! So yeah.

Conclusion: It depends on the conditions you see them. I'm glad I saw them the way I did.

Click to expand...

I'm the same way I saw ROTLA for the first time in early 2007 and loved every minute of it. I was real hesistant in watching the sequels because of the initial reviews of them but when I watched all three films on my home theater system one rainy day I had a complete blast. TOD while over the top had some of the best action pieces of the 4 films so I loved it. LC was just as good for me. I came with KOTCS with high expectations and it pretty much met my expectatios so I came out satisfied when I walked out not grumbling like most fans did.

Seconded.

Indy's Fist said:

Indy films "grow on you". Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

I second that. The fourth one is much "bigger" on me now, and it was my favorite when I first saw it at 12:00 A.M. on May 22. Amazing night/morning.

Mutt

Dr.Jonesy said:

Every sequel, besides KOTCS, has gotten mixed reviews from critics. TOD and LC got mixed reviews from fans and critics alike upon release. After a few years they are generally better reviewed and accepted. Why? I find it confusing why the films aren't recieved as good upon release as they are after a few years. Any theories?

Click to expand...

Everyone has hit on it in one way or another.
For people who saw The theatrical release of Raiders they had three long years to watch and rewatch Raiders. It was in theaters for a year...a big deal even now and "Re-released" the next year, (We didn't get Raiders on DVD six months later).

For every new generation the films become more bubblegum...to be chewed up and spit out. I had an argument with a friend about the "artistic merit" of Tim Burton's first Batman. I thought the choice of vehicles was a stark contrast to the rest of the films' set design/direction and argued it was a budgetary decision that brought the WHOLE production DOWN...VERY distracting to me. He initially contended it was artistic but couldn't provide a reasonable defense and changed.

I say this because, after all the interviews, to the contrary, supporting and themselves contradictory I believe ToD was "slapped together". In the editing room you have to work with what you get...I'm paraphrasing Michael Kahn, which is why the movie is so bipolar. It's the best they could do with what they had. I've mentioned it elsewhere...if they had devoted the same time to development it would have been different. The subsequent interviews are a best case/best take on the material and meant to promote the film. The apologies for the film is simply one supporting fact.

It's probably why Raiders fans are so militant. To be a Fan(atic) back then took more devotion then searching the internet.
Raiders raising/setting the bar is one reason, the changing market, another. Age/sensibilities and compromising of the writers/directors/producers another...the list goes on.

Movies were not the disposable media they are today...Ernest got a movie, and sequels, movies have moved into television territory...commonplace.
Bigger, faster, jammed packed in a movie isn't always better, but that's what they tried in ToD. They moved away from that in LC, and tried to find the Raiders balance in CS but they all fell short in being as accessible.
That’s my theory…

Rocket Surgeon said:

For every new generation the films become more bubblegum...to be chewed up and spit out. I had an argument with a friend about the "artistic merit" of Tim Burton's first Batman. I thought the choice of vehicles was a stark contrast to the rest of the films' set design/direction and argued it was a budgetary decision that brought the WHOLE production DOWN...VERY distracting to me. He initially contended it was artistic but couldn't provide a reasonable defense and changed.

Click to expand...

As someone who really appreciates Burton's take on 'Batman', I'm interested in understanding the gripe. Not sure what you mean by the "choice of vehicles"? Do you mean that you think the design of the Batmobile was poor?