Indy McFly said: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
Sakis said:What bit did you find diminished?
John Bechet said: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.
John Bechet said: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".
Temple Raider said: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.
Sakis said: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.
Dr.Jonesy said: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.
Sakis said: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.
Sakis said: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.
Dr.Jonesy said: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.
Sakis said: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.
Sakis said: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.
John Bechet said:But of course movies are a business.
There's really no way to know that he is, eitherDr.Jonesy said:There's really no way to know that he's not supplementing his income by selling these items and motivated by that.
Sakis said: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.