I'm merely suggesting that some here may take exception to your views on Raiders. I can, however, see your point of view, and don't entirely disagree with some of your points.
I'm merely suggesting that some here may take exception to your views on Raiders. I can, however, see your point of view, and don't entirely disagree with some of your points.
LOL!!! I know... I wrote a bomb... and it's gonna explode soon... 't's only a matter of time.
P.S.
But hey... I think a lot of people is not even going to bother themselves by reading my post... because, as usual, it's too long.
I can’t really say that I have a least favorite per say. I’m quite fond of them all. I’ve always felt that Indiana Jones was one of the few film franchises that retained quality throughout. But if I was forced to chose a least favorite at gunpoint, I’d probably go with Last Crusade. Temple of Doom gets too much crap. I find most the Doom complains to be fairly irrational, but to each their own. Heck, dare I say it’s my favorite. I also find Dooms score to be leaps ahead of the others. I find myself humming Slave Children’s Crusade more then the Indiana Jones march itself. But it seems to have garnered a much larger fan base lately, as if it’s grown on people. That pleases me very much. I think I’ve actually heard more complaints on this board toward Last Crusade then I have Doom - though Doom is winning at the polls.
The biggest issue I have with Last Crusade is the fact that it brought very little original to the ballpark. For all intensive purposes, Temple of Doom was a risk. It was especially different compared to Raiders and unfortunately heavily criticized when first released. I think it’s safe to say that Lucas and Spielberg played it safe when it came to Crusade. They rehashed so much in the way of Raiders, a film they knew people adored. Part of the reason I like Doom so much is because, flat out, it’s so unique. Rats just didn’t compare to snakes and bugs. The tank and motorcycle scene, for as great as I find them, felt very familiar. The boat chase is just horrible in my eye. But the bright outweighs the dark, and might I add, we’re introduced to arguably the finest character in the series besides Indiana Jones himself - Henry Jones Sr. So I can’t really bash it…but it would be my least.
Spielberg said Temple of Doom is "too dark, too subterranean, and much too horrible."
Too dark? Its a little darker than Raiders, but not much.
Too subterranean? Thats just a matter of opinion, so I won't argue that, even though I disagree.
Much too horrible? The heart-ripping is the most horrible moment in the trilogy, but not by much. Also, aside from that moment the film is actually less gory than Raiders.
The climax in "Raiders", instead, I don't know... probably I don't like it because Indy and Marion are captured and they simply don't play any role in the scene. I don't know... but it's just me.
First of all, you're crazy for picking Raiders as your least favorite!
Just kidding...we're all entitled to our own opinions...it's just that yours is wrong.
That being said, I have to agree with you about the ending of Raiders. I've always thought that Indy in Raiders is basically worthless. The end of the movie would have been basically the same without him. Think about it...
If Indiana wasn't contacted to find the Ark, the Nazis would have eventually found it at Tanis. They would have taken it to the island as they still did, and the Ark would have still killed them all. Meanwhile, Indiana could have continued his classes. Although the Ark would have remained on the island instead of being "magically" brought back to the states to be stored in the warehouse.
I think Willie Scott said it best... "Magic rocks?"
Those shankara stones were weak. Temple of Doom is a GOOD movie but is my least favorite in the Indiana Jones entries.
I'm gonna have to say LC. I mean if ToD never came out, then LC is more of what I would have expected a sequel to Raiders be like. As much as I like LC, it just has this "We've been down this road before" feeling to it every time I watch it. Though, now that I'm older, I appreciate it a lot more then when I was a kid... like his relationship with his father, and the use of the mcguffin. Still, out of all of them that I would choose to pop in the dvd player and re-watch, LC would have to be the last. Also... after a long time of thinking "What could have been...", I kinda wish a different director was brought on board after ToD (What?! An Indiana Jones movie without Spielberg? Blasphemy! Burn in SW prequel hell!) for a fresh perspective...
I'm gonna have to say LC. I mean if ToD never came out, then LC is more of what I would have expected a sequel to Raiders be like. As much as I like LC, it just has this "We've been down this road before" feeling to it every time I watch it. Though, now that I'm older, I appreciate it a lot more then when I was a kid... like his relationship with his father, and the use of the mcguffin. Still, out of all of them that I would choose to pop in the dvd player and re-watch, LC would have to be the last. Also... after a long time of thinking "What could have been...", I kinda wish a different director was brought on board after ToD (What?! An Indiana Jones movie without Spielberg? Blasphemy! Burn in SW prequel hell!) for a fresh perspective...
Last Crusade is the Sequel to Raiders
Temple is the Prequel
I think Temple of Doom gets a bum wrap. Every time I watch it...its great. I mean yes if you look deep into the character and such things are a bit shaky, however the acting is great, the action is great, and the story is a bit different. Of course the stones wouldn't be as powerful an icon as the Ark, but for where they were (India) the stones were the equal to the Ark there; divine power from a higher entity.
I've heard people bash short round, but if you look at the other movies...Indy has to have his own personal R2-D2 handy to get him out of the tight spots (like Marion and Connery from the others). Plus they presented Shorty with a believable back story that affirmed his right to be there. (what happened to him after...I don't know). Plus he was needed for comical relief, which he did well.
And getting back to the action, I think the ending sequence to ToD is by far superior to the other two. You got Freeing the Children, Fighting the Temple Guard, Mine Car Chase, Escaping the Water Wall, and The Bridge Scene. NO BREAKS!! The action just keeps flowing! Whereas the others (Grail Scene and Ark Scene) yes they were powerful endings...but no where near held us on the edge of our seats as ToD.
I voted RotA because while it is the original with great scenes and storyline...I find myself not enjoying it as the other two, because ToD and LC each add an additional element to the storyline (Indy's Mercenary Side/Beginnings and Father/Son) which makes them more fun to watch.
Finally, the biggest complaint I've heard is that people don't like the darkness of ToD. The think its too much for the caliber of the Indy character and what he stands for. But if movies have shown us anything, and specifically I'm thinking of Empire Strikes Back, its that darker can be better, and that sometimes the best stories are where everything just goes to hell!
No way man. I don't even think in those terms. I love all three. I guess I could say I don't like the opening song to Temple of Doom, or the opening young Indy scene in Last Crusade. But both those movies are way too awesome later on and make up for anything I don't like in the beginning. Forget what I just said. Al three movies are perfect.
I think Temple of Doom gets a bum wrap. Every time I watch it...its great. I mean yes if you look deep into the character and such things are a bit shaky, however the acting is great, the action is great, and the story is a bit different. Of course the stones wouldn't be as powerful an icon as the Ark, but for where they were (India) the stones were the equal to the Ark there; divine power from a higher entity.
I've heard people bash short round, but if you look at the other movies...Indy has to have his own personal R2-D2 handy to get him out of the tight spots (like Marion and Connery from the others). Plus they presented Shorty with a believable back story that affirmed his right to be there. (what happened to him after...I don't know). Plus he was needed for comical relief, which he did well.
And getting back to the action, I think the ending sequence to ToD is by far superior to the other two. You got Freeing the Children, Fighting the Temple Guard, Mine Car Chase, Escaping the Water Wall, and The Bridge Scene. NO BREAKS!! The action just keeps flowing! Whereas the others (Grail Scene and Ark Scene) yes they were powerful endings...but no where near held us on the edge of our seats as ToD.
I voted RotA because while it is the original with great scenes and storyline...I find myself not enjoying it as the other two, because ToD and LC each add an additional element to the storyline (Indy's Mercenary Side/Beginnings and Father/Son) which makes them more fun to watch.
Finally, the biggest complaint I've heard is that people don't like the darkness of ToD. The think its too much for the caliber of the Indy character and what he stands for. But if movies have shown us anything, and specifically I'm thinking of Empire Strikes Back, its that darker can be better, and that sometimes the best stories are where everything just goes to hell!
Well done sir, well done
I've always been a great advocate of Temple of Doom
I've always found it deeper and more meaningful then Crusade
Well, it's hard to pick least fav film. But, my hate is on TOD. I did like the beginning in shanghai, but then got bored so i give it and. Oh, But I liked the heart ripping scene and the bridge scene
. Oh, But I liked the heart ripping scene and the bridge scene
