TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones Trilogy
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-19-2016, 04:05 AM   #126
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy McFly
As a child of the 80's, I loved all of the original three. Once home video video came to be I could enjoy the film over and over.
The relationship and the character development of Indy and his Dad is an amazing parallel to me and my own dad. My dad has a PhD. and has worked as a college professor. My dad is definitely not a field agent.

I also love the message of the movie, and the fact that in the end they fail to acquire the Grail.

My Indy outfit has been done in the Crusade motif.

Currently I am working on a SR. outfit for my dad to cosplay.

Steve, Staff writer at IndyMag.com

My sentiments exactly
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2016, 06:53 PM   #127
Temple Raider
IndyFan
 
Temple Raider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 175
TLC is still a terrific film even if I enjoy it the least. Though I find it's the only one that seems to diminish a bit in quality sometimes when I watch it.
Temple Raider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2018, 04:19 PM   #128
Temple Raider
IndyFan
 
Temple Raider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 175
Bit of an older topic I know, but I'm curious to see if TLC is anyone else's least favorite Indy film. It's definitely not a popular or common opinion to rate it as such. It's still an entertaining movie, but of all the Indy films I find it's the one I take most issue with.
Temple Raider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 04:19 AM   #129
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
What bit did you find diminished?
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 05:00 AM   #130
John Bechet
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 18
I've enjoyed it over the years but it's my least favourite of the trilogy. There are a two big reasons why.

Firstly, it too obviously follows the structure of Raiders. I get that this is a common practice with sequels, its just not what I look for. For me, Temple was a great follow-up because it didn't do it.

Secondly, and a bigger reason, I prefer Indy the raider over Indy the mellowed academic who only uses his adventuring skills either to rescue artifacts from raiders, or because he's under duress.

A sticking point for me is that this core change is not done as character development but is done as a retrofit. That he doesn't care for fortune and glory anymore in 1938 would be a logical development, a sign of his character growing after Raiders and Temple. But saying he felt this way in 1912 messes that up and it removes the ambiguity I liked in his character in those movies.

At the start of Raiders, he talks of the "pieces" he acquires in terms of how much he can sell them for (to fund his continuing pursuit of the idol). That he is selling them to Marcus for the museum is secondary. I believe we are meant to see him as a rogue and a treasure hunter. The idol is gold. At the start of Temple, the piece he is after is literally a big diamond.

If the creators wanted to soften Indy, that's valid. I only wish they didn't do it by saying that Indy was always just about "this belongs in a museum".
John Bechet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 05:09 AM   #131
Temple Raider
IndyFan
 
Temple Raider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakis
What bit did you find diminished?


I find it just doesn't hold up as well as the others for some reason. It might be because it's the only one with a bit of a "been there, done that" feeling since it's using Raiders as it's template rather than trying something new as both Temple Of Doom and KOTCS did. Between that and also the amped up gags and comedy which isn't my preference in an Indy film. The films all have humor true, but TLC is the only one which tries to be deliberately comedic and for me it really undermines the tension.
Temple Raider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 09:02 AM   #132
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bechet
Firstly, it too obviously follows the structure of Raiders. I get that this is a common practice with sequels, its just not what I look for. For me, Temple was a great follow-up because it didn't do it.

Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion but if we are talking for the sake of talk, there are two ways you can do sequels. Do something completely new or follow the predecessor. Either way you choose you end up satisfying half the audience and disappoint the other half. As all Indyfans know the history of these films, we know that after the new approach tried in Temple and the disappointing result, for reasons that had nothing to do with structure, a return to the original was considered vital. Still, I believe, the return was successful, it had more interested characters and plot and the whole thing for renewed. It didn't look like a cheap copy. The comedic element is a notch up I agree but it doesn't work against the film, but yes it differs it a bit from Raiders. Things, like Indy falling down the stairs in the Brunwald castle or Brody's goofy change was not necessary, on that I share your sentiments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bechet
Secondly, and a bigger reason, I prefer Indy the raider over Indy the mellowed academic who only uses his adventuring skills either to rescue artifacts from raiders, or because he's under duress.

If the creators wanted to soften Indy, that's valid. I only wish they didn't do it by saying that Indy was always just about "this belongs in a museum".

In Raiders Indy did the same thing, "And the museum? The Museum gets the Ark when we are finished." He was never in it for the money, Marion was for the $5.000. Maybe in Crusade this is heard a couple of times more but it was always there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Temple Raider
I find it just doesn't hold up as well as the others for some reason. It might be because it's the only one with a bit of a "been there, done that" feeling since it's using Raiders as it's template rather than trying something new as both Temple Of Doom and KOTCS did.

Raiders, Crusade, Kingdom share the same structure, with Kingdom being a clone to Crusade with the family motifs making it really dull, to me. Since we are talking about repeating structure, formula, whatever you call it, the James Bond films have managed to last for more than 50 years and 20+ films by serving just the same thing over and over again, whatever that means for the paying audience.
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 10:02 AM   #133
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakis
In Raiders Indy did the same thing, "And the museum? The Museum gets the Ark when we are finished." He was never in it for the money, Marion was for the $5.000. Maybe in Crusade this is heard a couple of times more but it was always there.

No, that's where you're wrong. He's about the money in Raiders absolutely.

"It's beautiful Marcus. I can get it. I got it all figured out. There is only one place you can sell it: Marrakesh. I need two thousand dollars."

He cares about selling whatever he collects (and obviously knows where stuff can be sold and wants to get there) - just because it's to a museum doesn't mean he wouldn't sell it by other means if they weren't interested, obviously.

In addition to that, just because he hopes that the Ark gets the museum can be explained that he's feeling ethical about it only because the U.S. government is paying him a flat fee upfront, from the get-go.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 10:39 AM   #134
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy
No, that's where you're wrong. He's about the money in Raiders absolutely.

"It's beautiful Marcus. I can get it. I got it all figured out. There is only one place you can sell it: Marrakesh. I need two thousand dollars."

He cares about selling whatever he collects (and obviously knows where stuff can be sold and wants to get there) - just because it's to a museum doesn't mean he wouldn't sell it by other means if they weren't interested, obviously.

In addition to that, just because he hopes that the Ark gets the museum can be explained that he's feeling ethical about it only because the U.S. government is paying him a flat fee upfront, from the get-go.

No way, you couldn't be more wrong on this. When he says that, he means that the idol can be sold only in Marrakesh, so this is where he can find it. He wants $2000 to fund this quest, his travel to Marrakesh. He is selling those "pieces" to the museum in order to raise the money he needs to go after that idol, not to support his life style. Whether he is selling pieces to a third party has not been mentioned or implied. He could have, yes. Maybe artifacts with zero significance but from the dialogue of the movie we know he sells to the museum.

On the case of the Ark, the government is willing to pay handsomely, but the rest of the deal is never mentioned. You don't even know about a flat upfront fee. A budget for his expenses must have be given but that's my speculation. The awe he feels in the map room comes from the excitement of discovery not the money he is going to receive.
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 10:43 AM   #135
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakis
No way, you couldn't be more wrong on this. When he says that, he means that the idol can be sold only in Marrakesh, so this is where he can find it. He wants $2000 to fund this quest, his travel to Marrakesh. He is selling those "pieces" to the museum in order to raise the money he needs to go after that idol, not to support his life style.

There's really no way to know that he's not supplementing his income by selling these items and motivated by that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakis
On the case of the Ark, the government is willing to pay handsomely, but the rest of the deal is never mentioned. You don't even know about a flat upfront fee. A budget for his expenses must have be given but that's my speculation. The awe he feels in the map room comes from the excitement of discovery not the money he is going to receive.

Yes - he's going to be paid handsomely. Because that's what he does.

Also, just because he's in awe of things he sees and enjoys discovery does not mean that he's not also motivated by selling stuff he finds.

Being in awe and also trying to turn a profit are not mutually exclusive things.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 11:02 AM   #136
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy
There's really no way to know that he's not supplementing his income by selling these items and motivated by that.

Yes - he's going to be paid handsomely. Because that's what he does.

Also, just because he's in awe of things he sees and enjoys discovery does not mean that he's not also motivated by selling stuff he finds.

Being in awe and also trying to turn a profit are not mutually exclusive things.

I believe this side of a gambler, if true, would have been presented in the film in a more apparent way. Like the ladies man part that was cut. Still, up to now I never managed to read such motivation to the character but if you did that's fine by me.
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 12:33 PM   #137
John Bechet
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakis
There are two ways you can do sequels. Do something completely new or follow the predecessor. Either way you choose you end up satisfying half the audience and disappoint the other half. As all Indyfans know the history of these films, we know that after the new approach tried in Temple and the disappointing result, for reasons that had nothing to do with structure, a return to the original was considered vital.

Yes, you'll never get unanimously positive reception. That should be a given. You tell your story and hope only that enough people like it. At risk of being off-topic to talk about Temple a bit more, I'm in the minority who likes it so I don't see the pull-back to mirroring Raiders as necessary. I didn't even know until Spielberg did promotion for Last Crusade that there was so much dislike for Temple. At the time Temple came out, I was only aware of positive reception. But then this was long before the internet let us hear the opinions of so many. I was disappointed to learn that even the creators did not care for it in hindsight.

I don't dispute that Last Crusade is sucessful in the sense that it is very enjoyable. So mirroring Raiders does not make it fail. I criticise that only because I fall into the camp that wants a sequel to be something new. And if the result isn't good, then my ideal is next time try something else that's new rather than revert to copying the original. But of course movies are a business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakis
Since we are talking about repeating structure, formula, whatever you call it, the James Bond films have managed to last for more than 50 years and 20+ films by serving just the same thing over and over again, whatever that means for the paying audience.

I happen not to like James Bond movies. As I think you are saying, audiences at large liking them enough for the series to continue, despite being so repetitive, is neither here nor there when it comes to what each of us likes.
John Bechet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 02:47 PM   #138
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bechet
But of course movies are a business.

And films are just products. No matter what we think about them.
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 03:51 PM   #139
JasonMa
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy
There's really no way to know that he's not supplementing his income by selling these items and motivated by that.
There's really no way to know that he is, either
JasonMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2018, 03:56 PM   #140
Temple Raider
IndyFan
 
Temple Raider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakis
Raiders, Crusade, Kingdom share the same structure, with Kingdom being a clone to Crusade with the family motifs making it really dull, to me. Since we are talking about repeating structure, formula, whatever you call it, the James Bond films have managed to last for more than 50 years and 20+ films by serving just the same thing over and over again, whatever that means for the paying audience.


Yes but KOTCS at least differs things considerably whereas TLC tries to parallel Raiders in a lot of ways and IMO too much so. The Nazis again, another Christian artifact, the desert setting, etc. it has a very deja vu feeling compared with the others.
Temple Raider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2018, 02:03 PM   #141
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temple Raider
Yes but KOTCS at least differs things considerably whereas TLC tries to parallel Raiders in a lot of ways and IMO too much so. The Nazis again, another Christian artifact, the desert setting, etc. it has a very deja vu feeling compared with the others.

I can't say that I don't understand your point, it has solid basis. The Christian artifact we all know how it came to be, even Spielberg didn't want it but it served the plot brilliantly. As for Kingdom, it differs minimal. Too bad we spent two decades with no Indy adventure, we could have to much more to talk about.
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2018, 09:57 PM   #142
Temple Raider
IndyFan
 
Temple Raider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 175
Thing with TLC is that of all the Indy films, it's the only one with a "been there, done that" feeling. Raiders is the first and both TOD and KOTCS both feel unique and different, even if to some they weren't successful at what they attempted (I feel TOD was and KOTCS less so but still more often than not). TLC very much feels like it's trying to be Raiders 2.0 and when I watch it I can't help but think there's so much I'd do differently. The element of Indy's Dad was a great one though and did a ton to elevate the film. In some ways it almost feels like a different movie when Jones, Sr. gets involved.

It's definitely unfortunate we didn't get anything new with Indy during the 90s and earlier 2000s (barring the Young Indy TV show, of course). I think there was room for a new film or two during that timeframe.
Temple Raider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 03:43 AM   #143
John Bechet
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temple Raider
The element of Indy's Dad was a great one though and did a ton to elevate the film. In some ways it almost feels like a different movie when Jones, Sr. gets involved.

When I read Connery saying that Henry Sr was originally a much smaller part, it gave me the impression that the character was first conceived to have a function similar to Aber in Raiders - a person from Indy's past who has already begun the search and is in trouble. (Oxley is obviously the equivalent in KOTCS.)

So had they not expanded the role of Henry Sr to win Connery's involvement, Last Crusade might have resembled Raiders even more. As it stands, the Indy and Henry Sr scenes are the highlights of movie and - it should be noted - they have no equivalent in either Raiders or Temple.
John Bechet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 05:10 AM   #144
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Jones Sr. was the grail and that was actually a big introduction that has been cloned in many films since that. Along with Indy's character development making it much too personal and different although following the same pattern. If you put Raiders and Crusade side by side they look similar but the truth is they are not.
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 05:19 AM   #145
Temple Raider
IndyFan
 
Temple Raider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 175
Still, the basic similarities and parallels they share are certainly there and pretty undeniable. There's enough that's different true, but still, TLC retreads much of Raiders and is the only one of the post-Raiders films to do so.
Temple Raider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 08:47 AM   #146
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Of course it is, I don't think anybody ever denied that.
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:44 PM   #147
micsteam
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Florida
Posts: 310
I have to say the first three movies LC was my least favorite for years, although not a bad movie at all just that it was my least favorite. I'm not ignoring KOTCS ( 4th out of all of them IMHO) but staying with the thread. The 16 yr old micsteam in 1989 I felt the item of which Indy was going after was not as strong as the Ark or Shankara Stones, I was looking for another Ark of the Covenant item. Well older and wiser 45 yr old micsteam has knowledge of the " cup that caught the blood of Christ", plus The Crusades history and other interpretations of the " Holy Grail " I'm over that issue, it's very interesting. I left this movie alone for a long time, it wasn't until 2003 when I really got back into Indy and more recently like the last two-three years that I really have a much better appreciation of this movie. First of all it is really well done.. great acting by everybody.. but Connery was exceptional !! This is definitely an Indiana Jones movie !! My negatives ( not strong but noticeable) the Nazis weren't as bad as in Raiders ( not as threatening or ominous) and I didn't like that they made Brody almost a buffoon. Overall I love it !! I think I can understand why people are back and forth with ranking it second or third between Temple.
micsteam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 01:47 PM   #148
micsteam
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Florida
Posts: 310
Last Crusade is not a Raiders retread, sorry I don't agree. There are some similarities but not a retread. There was much more humor in LC, it felt looser plus what I've mentioned before.
micsteam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 03:04 PM   #149
Temple Raider
IndyFan
 
Temple Raider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 175
The increased humor IMO was a mistake. The other films are all humorous sure, even TOD, but TLC is the only one that goes for straight-up comedy and slapstick. For me this really undermined the tension and made the movie not have the same feeling of danger and foreboding as the others. Plus the villains in it were the dullest of the series for me.
Temple Raider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 07:39 AM   #150
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temple Raider
The increased humor IMO was a mistake. The other films are all humorous sure, even TOD, but TLC is the only one that goes for straight-up comedy and slapstick. For me this really undermined the tension and made the movie not have the same feeling of danger and foreboding as the others. Plus the villains in it were the dullest of the series for me.

Truth is pure adventure films is a lost form. Now they are trying to fit everything in a film and the outcome is never pleasant.
Sakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 PM.