Raiders vs. its sequels and prequel

R

Raiders90

Well-known member
I love ToD, LC and KOTCS--All for different reasons mind you--But I kind of miss the serious, mystical, mysterious tone in the sequels and prequel. I can't explain it, but the movie has a certain atmosphere to it that the others lack. I think it's that the sequels become increasingly humorous and in LC Indy becomes this larger than life figure rather than mysterious, dry humored and cynical guy of ToD and LC, and of course KOTCS he's just an older man--and nowhere near as fierce or energetic.

I just think that there's a certain innate greatness in Raiders, an inexplainable atmosphere which makes it quite different from the others, especially LC and KOTCS. Temple has that similar sort of raw, mythical greatness about it, and had it not had so humorous a first half it'd probably equal with Raiders.

My personal ranking is something like

1) Raiders
2) Temple
3) LC
4) KOTCS

Sometimes Temple and Raider switch and Temple is number one--They are literally neck and neck in quality in my opinion, and in terms of Indy. Indy is at his most awesome, mysterious and most bada** in these two.
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
I love ToD, LC and KOTCS--All for different reasons mind you--But I kind of miss the serious, mystical, mysterious tone in the sequels and prequel. I can't explain it, but the movie has a certain atmosphere to it that the others lack. I think it's that the sequels become increasingly humorous and in LC Indy becomes this larger than life figure rather than mysterious, dry humored and cynical guy of ToD and LC, and of course KOTCS he's just an older man--and nowhere near as fierce or energetic.

I just think that there's a certain innate greatness in Raiders, an inexplainable atmosphere which makes it quite different from the others, especially LC and KOTCS. Temple has that similar sort of raw, mythical greatness about it, and had it not had so humorous a first half it'd probably equal with Raiders.

My personal ranking is something like

1) Raiders
2) Temple
3) LC
4) KOTCS

Sometimes Temple and Raider switch and Temple is number one--They are literally neck and neck in quality in my opinion, and in terms of Indy. Indy is at his most awesome, mysterious and most bada** in these two.
Click to expand...

There's something about the first movie in a series that cannot be repeated: the first time a character is presented, without any reference to any other appearances, sets the standard. At that stage the creators can only guess how their project will be received, like working blind.

Once the character is in the public domain, the writers have the opportunity to assess the situation and then take him in new directions. ROTLA then becomes the reference point, from which any deviations will be noted. It ultimately holds a special place, but three duplicates would appear stale, so the differences in the other three films serve to define a more expansive world, exploring different angles of the character.

For those reasons I have a hard time putting the films in order. Each film has great moments in it that define Indy. ROTLA will always be special; I'll always have a nostalgic feeling for TOD; TLC was the end of an era (a false end in the light of KOTCS).

Even the flawed KOTCS has some classic Indy moments, and along with the 'original trilogy' it still forms a valuable part of the story.
 
I

Indy's brother

New member
Raiders112390 said:
Sometimes Temple and Raider switch and Temple is number one--They are literally neck and neck in quality in my opinion, and in terms of Indy. Indy is at his most awesome, mysterious and most bada** in these two.
Click to expand...

The reason you view it this way (and rightly so) is because LC, from the opening act reinvents Indy as a traditional "Good Guy", instead of the mercenary grave-robbing antihero that he was in the first two. This take on the character continued with KOTCS. Also, ROTLA has the best ending of any of the 4 films. It ends with an unsettling view of the macguffin, being left in the care of an incompetent bureaucracy.

The other three had the more traditional feel-good "hero" endings that are designed to assure you that the movie you just watched was worth seeing.

The way Indy's character was written for TOD and ROTLA was the kind of guy that might just punch you in the face if he wasn't sure of what else to do. The Indy of LC and KOTCS was more definitively "good".

Anyway, there are no absolutes with this sort of thing. While ROTLA is in my opinion the best of them all, if I'm honest with myself about it, I've probably watched LC the most....
 
R

Raiders90

Well-known member
Indy's brother said:
The reason you view it this way (and rightly so) is because LC, from the opening act reinvents Indy as a traditional "Good Guy", instead of the mercenary grave-robbing antihero that he was in the first two. This take on the character continued with KOTCS. Also, ROTLA has the best ending of any of the 4 films. It ends with an unsettling view of the macguffin, being left in the care of an incompetent bureaucracy.

The other three had the more traditional feel-good "hero" endings that are designed to assure you that the movie you just watched was worth seeing.

The way Indy's character was written for TOD and ROTLA was the kind of guy that might just punch you in the face if he wasn't sure of what else to do. The Indy of LC and KOTCS was more definitively "good".

Anyway, there are no absolutes with this sort of thing. While ROTLA is in my opinion the best of them all, if I'm honest with myself about it, I've probably watched LC the most....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't like the "kinder, gentler" Indy of LC and KOTCS as much as I do the Indy of ToD and Raiders. I understand part of Indy being a good guy in LC is that he's around his father, but still...Don't get me wrong, LC is great, but I just prefer the darker take on Indy's character of the first two. And I do think LC too often drifts into the area of comedy as does KOTCS. I like the serious tone of Raiders and the epic, almost horror feel of the second half of ToD.
I hope they return to the anti-hero Indy if there is an Indy V. We need to have that angry, mercenary anti-hero back. Perhaps Marion could be killed off or something. That would give a reasonable basis for an older, fierce Indy. Have the MacGuffin be tied into a revenge story. Indy first pursuing the bad guys for revenge, and somehow gets wrapped up in the MacGuffin. It's not unreasonable to have an older antihero.
 
J

James

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
three duplicates would appear stale, so the differences in the other three films serve to define a more expansive world, exploring different angles of the character.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it just boils down to Lucas, Spielberg, and (especially) Ford not wanting to repeat themselves. The character can exist in a vacuum- and fans can live in the past- but the filmmakers age and invariably end up wanting to try different approaches.

So even though fans may consider Indy's portrayal in ROTLA to be badass/awesome/fierce/etc., to Ford it's just "thirty-year-old acting". If he had been asked to play Indy the same way in every film, I'm not sure he would've agreed to do so. I'm also not sure how genuine it would have been. The themes explored in LC and KOTCS were a much better fit for an actor in his late forties and mid-sixties(!), respectively.

Most franchises avoid this issue by switching creative hands after a certain point. The kids that saw the originals grow up, then get the chance to say, "Okay, now I'm going to make the sequel I always wanted to see." Yet Indiana Jones has always been the same two guys making films about stuff they loved while growing up in the 1950s. It lends the series its own unique feel and identity, even as it leaves many wondering why they didn't try to make all the sequels exactly like Raiders.
 
Gear

Gear

New member
Lonsome_Drifter said:
Temple of Doom is the best.
Followed by Crusade, Raiders, and then Skull.
Click to expand...


Hm. I admire that ranking. :hat:


I don't know that Indy was any "kinder and gentler" in Last Crusade. A dark side reveals itself several times in the film. It always felt to me that Indy was simply awkward around Henry Sr; he's stuck adventuring with his dad, who he hasn't been involved with most of his life.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
James said:
Yes, I think it just boils down to Lucas, Spielberg, and (especially) Ford not wanting to repeat themselves. The character can exist in a vacuum- and fans can live in the past- but the filmmakers age and invariably end up wanting to try different approaches.

So even though fans may consider Indy's portrayal in ROTLA to be badass/awesome/fierce/etc., to Ford it's just "thirty-year-old acting". If he had been asked to play Indy the same way in every film, I'm not sure he would've agreed to do so. I'm also not sure how genuine it would have been. The themes explored in LC and KOTCS were a much better fit for an actor in his late forties and mid-sixties(!), respectively.

Most franchises avoid this issue by switching creative hands after a certain point. The kids that saw the originals grow up, then get the chance to say, "Okay, now I'm going to make the sequel I always wanted to see." Yet Indiana Jones has always been the same two guys making films about stuff they loved while growing up in the 1950s. It lends the series its own unique feel and identity, even as it leaves many wondering why they didn't try to make all the sequels exactly like Raiders.
Click to expand...

I think that's true. It was inevitable that Indiana Jones would become more 'hero' than 'anti hero' as the franchise progressed. His character in Raiders may be the definitive version of how we may want to see him, but that doesn't always correlate with the movie makers and wider audience?s views of the character going forward. To use a similar example, even the character of Han Solo softened considerably during TESB. He was less roguish mercenary and more romantic lead.

Also, and again this was one of KOTCS unavoidable challenges/obstacles, how do you portray a much older character (and actor) as an 'action hero' or 'romantic lead' with a degree of realism? The problem is... you can't... He was never going to be a 'bad ass' or 'loveable rogue' Indy in KOTCS as that moment had gone.
 
M

Mickiana

Well-known member
I know what you are saying, but I'm going to dig my heels in and say it was more of a case of the character going backwards. I just love that skulking, roguish, amoral, treasure-seeking, adventurer/academic mix that is the character of Indiana Jones in RotLA. In ToD he was largely the same, but by CS he was not the same man. Fair enough, he might have changed, but that wasn't shown in any intermediary movies.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Mickiana said:
I know what you are saying, but I'm going to dig my heels in and say it was more of a case of the character going backwards. I just love that skulking, roguish, amoral, treasure-seeking, adventurer/academic mix that is the character of Indiana Jones in RotLA. In ToD he was largely the same, but by CS he was not the same man. Fair enough, he might have changed, but that wasn't shown in any intermediary movies.
Click to expand...

I thought TLC worked quite well as an intermediate in that it was clearly the same man who appears in both Raiders and KOTCS (i.e. both Raiders and KOTCS show Indy either side of his TLC middle age persona). Take TLC out of the equation and leap straight from Raiders to KOTCS and, yes, I'd agree... apart from the name and hat (and because of Ford's age), one may find it difficult to see him as the same character.

However, I think that is more reflective of Ford's physical age (and the necessity to reflect that in the story) than it is about wanting to soften Indy's character per se. If Ford was circa 20/30 years younger, I'm pretty sure that would have been reflected in a more dashing, charming and dangerous characterisation of Indy. For me, it's one of the reason why bringing Ford back as Indy was always going to be somewhat problematical (regardless of script quality etc.), as I'd argue, like James Bond, the character works better when portrayed in the prime of his life (rather than teenager or pensioner).
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Mickiana said:
I just love that skulking, roguish, amoral, treasure-seeking, adventurer/academic mix that is the character of Indiana Jones in RotLA. In ToD he was largely the same...
Click to expand...

That's also the way I like to think of Indy. However, he undergoes a Han Solo type of progression from uncaring rogue towards a compassionate hero-type. It's as though Lucas can't bear to live with a rogue for too long, and feels the need to make them more morally acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top