Bashing Crusade on IMDb

Found this.
Quite sad but true Didn't change my views of the movie though

LostArk said:

Found this.
Quite sad but true Didn't change my views of the movie though

Click to expand...

It's very typical for some to deliberately lower their opinions of the originals in order to make Crystal Skull seem somewhat better in comparison. Textbook 'fanboy' behaviour. Who are they trying to convince, exactly?

And people say us KOTCS detractors are nitpicking KOTCS. That post the OP linked to is nitpicking, complaining about CGI monkeys and the fridge is just stating the obvious problems.

If you think Last Crusade bashing is bad on IMDB, the ToD bashing is sadly far worse.

Pathetic to be honest, I think all 4 are great films. I would, I admit, make some alterations to Crystal Skull (make it feel darker being a main one). I hate seeing Indy film fans dragging other Indy films down though to place their favourite one on a podium. All of them are good, fun adventure films.

That's funny. I think I'm in the opposite boat. Crystal Skull has made me re-examine the original trilogy in terms of more or less a family focus.

In Raiders Indy was a pretty freewheeling dude, but he had a past. Temple pretty much featured that same character, tho by now they were giving him a whole nuclear family as traveling companions. Crusade obviously brought the family theme front and center with the introduction of Henry Sr. And now we've come nearly full circle with the new one.

I've long regarded Temple as my slight favorite of the franchise, even tho i can acknowledge Raiders was an instant classic in the same breath. Temple always edged it out just slightly due to its being such a thrill ride. That scene with the mine car just put it over the top, really. But now, looking at the progression of the films, i can see they work on an entirely different level.

The human element could be seen as increasingly becoming the core of the story, with the action/adventure plot being almost a backdrop for the character development. That could really be said for both Skull and Crusade. For a long time, that dragged down my opinion of Crusade. But now it just gives an added layer of appreciation for me. It makes me care a lot more for the characters, really.

The only problem now is i no longer have a favorite!

Well, I do have to say that the rose-colored glasses with which the originals have been so consistently revered do need to come off if we're going to examine them fairly. The original trilogy isn't perfect.

Now, saying that doesn't mean that KINGDOM is therefore on the level of the original trilogy. But it does mean that we can then attempt as best we can to evaluate KINGDOM on fair grounds, rather than appealing to this false, nostalgic vision of a perfect franchise.

None of the films stands up to much literal scrutiny. If they did, they'd be boring.

vf wing said:

But now it just gives an added layer of appreciation for me. It makes me care a lot more for the characters, really.

The only problem now is i no longer have a favorite!

Click to expand...

I've noticed with the new movie release, I have began to appreciate all the movies more, because it only goes to show just how different each film is to the other, but still retaining that Indy spirit. I have a big urge to watch T.O.D at the moment.

I also agree with Agentsands, but the only reason one (me, especially) needs to remove them rose coloured glasses to examine fairly, is because of constant haters ranting "this isn't realistic" etc, when in reality, all of them have those kind of moments. Though in reality, I don't view through rose coloured glasses, I love all the movies anyway.

Strange how our society is these days. Not liking something just isn't enough anymore. Now there has to be repeated bashing of the film and the belittling of it's fans - and with as much venom as possible.

I don't understand that level of hate. What emotional need is being met when someone spends that much time and energy bashing a movie and it's fans?...or when someone spends that much time and energy making sure everyone knows how much they hate something?

Is swimming in petroleum really any less believable then surviving a nuke? Please! There are levels of improbability?and then there?s blatant fiction. The former films never had such heightened scenarios and escapes. Plus the fire from the torch dripping into the gas isn't so much in the film purposely as much as it's more so a continuity error. Whilst they?re obviously still in the realm of Hollywood and not realistic, probability would state they are mildly possible and within achievability, however unlikely the feat may be. Crystal Skull just had obvious fantasy action moments. This is the only argument Skull pushers ever have. When worst comes to worse, belittle the former films. Pssh! I?m not going to lie though, I found it rather funny.

At the end of the day, all 4 of them are fantasy adventures, and it gets boring seeing people bashing one films stunts, to the other. Though I agree, Indy's escapes in Crystal are more "Bigger and crazier", they still would result in probably death in reality, like some of them in the previous films. Bothers me? No, cause I love the films, and I figured the unrealisticness was what made part of the films interesting and fun.

IMDb user said:

OMG, worst movie eva!!

Click to expand...

If you say that... well, maybe it's because you haven't actually seen ANYTHING...

IMDB user said:

[]... horrible, horrible implausibilities... []

Click to expand...

Oh... c'mon...
Surviving a NUCLEAR BLAST thanks to a stupid fridge... THAT's what I call an HORRIBLE IMPLAUSIBILITY... and... oh, well... let me just think for one second... what about swinging with nonchalance from the vines of a rainforest and landing perfectly (!!!) on a jeep that was running like Hell on a track 10/20 meters below??? Now... what about THAT???
Somebody said Spider-Man?? Uhm... maybe I haven't heard right, it's just me...

IMDB user said:

You CAN walk through an enclosed subterranean passage completely filled with petroleum with a flaming torch and not ignite the fumes. You can even drop bits of burning cloth into the petroleam without igniting it. However, one guy doing the same with a match will cause an inferno. Not to worry, because submerging yourself in said petroleum underneath a sarcophagus will protect you. Also, petroleum is completely clear and you can see underwater without burning your eyes out.

Click to expand...

It's NOT petroleum... it's water. Petroleum was only at the entrance of the catacomb, and almost surely well insulated from the rest of the tunnels.

Oh... my...

LC bashed? that's sad... oh well, it's still my favourite Indy!

Benraianajones said:

I also agree with Agentsands, but the only reason one (me, especially) needs to remove them rose coloured glasses to examine fairly, is because of constant haters ranting "this isn't realistic" etc, when in reality, all of them have those kind of moments.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. They do all have those moments. Some more silly & unbelievable than others. To me, the silliest of all the Indy moments is in Last Crusade - when the airplane flies into the tunnel, loses only its wings, slides upright in a straight line all the way through, and passes Indy - while the pilot looks out of the window. That scene reeks of some sort of silly James Bond sight gag.
Yet there are people bashing the car-drives-into-tree-the-into-river scene in Crystal Skull? Please.

But I don't hate it, or bash it, or belittle the fans of it, or claim it's ruined the franchise. I cringe a little, suspend belief, and go on enjoying the adventure.

I have a feeling Mrs.Fedora is secretly Alison Doody...

But seriously, I don't see how anyone can bash any Indy movies. They have errors, and parts that stretch realism - what films don't!

And agreed StoneTriple.

Benraianajones said:

I have a feeling Mrs.Fedora is secretly Alison Doody...

But seriously, I don't see how anyone can bash any Indy movies. They have errors, and parts that stretch realism - what films don't!

And agreed StoneTriple.

Click to expand...

Shoot! you've found me! haha

Mrs_Fedora said:

Shoot! you've found me! haha

Click to expand...

Oh Mrs. Doody, I have hundreds of questions

It's times like this where I feel like I'm the only person in the universe who can appreciate each film equally, but for different reasons, without necessarily regarding any one as being fundamentally "better" than the other.

'Course I know lots of you guys feel the same way, but I meant amongst non-Raveners, like the cesspool of stupidity that is IMDB.

Kooshmeister said:

It's times like this where I feel like I'm the only person in the universe who can appreciate each film equally, but for different reasons, without necessarily regarding any one as being fundamentally "better" than the other.

Click to expand...

No, don't worry, I do too.

That's weird about LC getting bashed. It was one of the best Indy flicks next to Raiders.