What is your single LEAST favourite scene from the trilogy?

sgttom

New member
My least favorite scene from Raiders was at the beginning when one of Indy's companions runs away screaming from some bats flying from a wooden statue's mouth. It just wasn't something a grown man would go running from screaming his head off. Doesn't ruin the beginning scene for me though, I just always thought it was funny.
 

JP Jones

New member
I strongly disliked last crusade. I mean everything leading to the tanks was awful, but if I had to pick one it would be indy dressed as a scottish lord. It was just strange. I have no clue why it was put there.
 

Zeppelin

New member
I don't much care for Indy as the Scottish guy either. The traveling scenes in Temple also don't really do it for me. I'm thinking, enough already, let's get to the heart-ripping stuff!
 

Indy86

New member
There's actually nothing in the original three that bothers me. They're classics, guilty pleasures. I think my least favorite part of Raiders must be the basket chase. In Temple there's not anything that bothers me. It's supposed to be wild, over the top, cheesy... Last Crusade didn't bother me either. It was for a long time the only Indy I was allowed to see. Maybe the broad daylight start and the comic beginning. Herman falling of his horse or Indy's horse taking a step right when he jumps. Though I thought that was a good one. It's a big difference though after everything that happened in Temple.

KOTCS, entire last forty minutes, including what Arizona Smith said. Marion being randomly hit by branches. And was the three time drop really necessary too?
 

Walecs

Active member
Honestly I can't really think about any scene from the trilogy that I don't like.

There are a couple of scenes I didn't like in Crystal Skull though, the tarzan scene (I understand it was meant as a homage to the monkey from Raiders but it's still very cheesy) and the rodents scene after Indy gets out from Hangar 51.
 

Indy86

New member
Dr.Sartorius said:
Every scene in LC involving a bumbling Marcus. (n)
How does one get off this thing? *Poink* *Dich*
Where's Marcus?

Come on, that's funny. :D

Or the gun in his face and he's looking cross-eyed and the gun pointing in which way he should go and he's mimicking that same move in the temple.

Those are good jokes. (y)
 

BadDates

New member
Indy86 said:
How does one get off this thing? *Poink* *Dich*
Where's Marcus?

Come on, that's funny. :D

Or the gun in his face and he's looking cross-eyed and the gun pointing in which way he should go and he's mimicking that same move in the temple.

Those are good jokes. (y)

For me, those scenes would be completely fine if Marcus had been a new character created for LC. However, the version of Marcus in ROTLA, who not so long ago would have gone after the Ark himself, is much more interesting.
 

Indy86

New member
It's indeed an odd transformation. Marcus from Raiders seemed not like a foolish man at all and in LC he stood more in the way than anything else or got lost in his own museum. I think changing him like that was another way for Spielberg to make up for Temple. Still I don't know why he was apologizing. You like it or you don't like it. I do have to say that Temple was perhaps Spielbergs darkest movie when it comes to action/adventure.
 

BadDates

New member
Yeah, I like all the films in their own way, and I agree that TOD is the darkest in tone (human sacrifice, blood drinking etc.). However for me there's something special about Raiders; it has an eerie, otherworldly quality that none of the other films quite managed to capture IMO.

I feel the same way about the original Ghostbusters - it has a special unsettling atmosphere that really enhances the film. I think that the soundtrack has something to do with it.

It's hard to put into words but for me, genre material is often strongest when it succeeds on more than one level e.g. Ghostbusters is a great supernatural comedy partly because it is genuinely eerie; Raiders is a great popcorn adventure film partly because it has this underlying seriousness.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Indy86 said:
It's indeed an odd transformation. Marcus from Raiders seemed not like a foolish man at all and in LC he stood more in the way than anything else or got lost in his own museum. I think changing him like that was another way for Spielberg to make up for Temple.

Actually, Denholm Elliot made it pretty clear that he believed Marcus was written more as comic relief in order to cede ground to the Henry Sr. character, who was playing the mentor role in the context of that story.

That said, I believe the old Marcus is still very evident in the scene where he and Indy find Henry Sr.'s office ransacked. "I'll tell him we'll take two." He is then immediately a bumbling character in the next scene. Of course, Elliot is such a great actor it doesn't matter.
 

BadDates

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Actually, Denholm Elliot made it pretty clear that he believed Marcus was written more as comic relief in order to cede ground to the Henry Sr. character, who was playing the mentor role in the context of that story.

That said, I believe the old Marcus is still very evident in the scene where he and Indy find Henry Sr.'s office ransacked. "I'll tell him we'll take two." He is then immediately a bumbling character in the next scene. Of course, Elliot is such a great actor it doesn't matter.

Both very interesting points!
 

Indy86

New member
I think Raiders is more serious than LC indeed. Indy losing the idol, but Marcus also despite he only he three major scenes. But you could rely on Marcus, I think in Raiders and less in LC. But I think Denholm is more a funny actor than a serious one, however in both movies he shows he's up for it an besides Raiders and LC there is not one movie I know him from.
 
My bug bear moment is the leap of faith.....

It only works if you are in exactly the right spot... and dont move. That means no head movements, no looking around and no moving backwards or forwards and you need to be exactly the right height for it to work as an optical illusion. Yet we see it from several different camera angles and it still seems to work.

Didnt like it.(n)
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I always interpreted the leap of faith as being that the bridge truly was invisible (rather than an angle-based optical illusion) and that the ILM effect is a way of communicating an abstract idea.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Udvarnoky said:
Actually, Denholm Elliot made it pretty clear that he believed Marcus was written more as comic relief in order to cede ground to the Henry Sr. character, who was playing the mentor role in the context of that story.

That said, I believe the old Marcus is still very evident in the scene where he and Indy find Henry Sr.'s office ransacked. "I'll tell him we'll take two." He is then immediately a bumbling character in the next scene. Of course, Elliot is such a great actor it doesn't matter.

There has always been much discussion on how Marcus Brody changes between the two films. I always felt his character was the same as Raiders in the start of LC in New York and Venice. He is at home in the big city world of academia and curatorial work in museums. Once we see him again in Alexandretta his character changes. Of course by this point in the movie we have already met Henry Sr and the mentor/father figure aspect of Brody is no longer needed as Indy now has his actually dad along for the ride. While the story clearly dictated that his character change into comic relief for the later part of the movie, you could also say maybe that he is out of his element. He is not a field man and up to that point in the series we have never seen him in a rugged local where much of Indy's adventures take him. While you could say this goes against his line from Raiders about the fact that if he was younger he would have gone after the Ark himself, you could also say maybe he just realized he no longer has the stomach for that kind of adventure as he got older. This is clearly evident in the Hatay scenes in LC. Or your could also say that he was just embellishing himself and field work in more rugged/remote locals was never his strong suit. That is how I have always looked at it.
 
Top