Does the finale hold up to the original 3? (thoughts & opinions)

[StoneTriple]

. . .and I keep thinking that if LC had not had the amazing Sean Connery, I would think TOD a superior movie.

I would agree with that. Other than Connery, Crusade is really just a comedic rehash of Raiders - beat Nazis to powerful religious artifact hidden in the desert.

 

[Gabeed]

I would agree with that. Other than Connery, Crusade is really just a comedic rehash of Raiders - beat Nazis to powerful religious artifact hidden in the desert.

I would perhaps toss in the caveat that TOD make the sidekicks less annoying before I state that it's superior , but overall I feel that it has more tension and adventure than LC. Has anyone noticed that there's no airplane-map-red line scene in LC between the bird-umbrella scene in Europe and the Jones' arrival in Iskenderun? It bugs the hell out of me, and it represents how the movie seemed like too much of a rush from one locale to the other.

 

[Darth Vile]

I actually like the scenes in Peru a lot. I see them as the last good scenes before the crapfest in the jungle with a Marion character that does sadly little, the monkeys, etc. And although finding Orellana's Tomb is a bright spot in this movie for me, the audience is only exposed to the idea of "Orellana's Cradle" at Indy's house, so it feels like mere minutes later that he solves that riddle with a quick "Oh, btw, there's a second definition for 'cradle.' lol." Nevertheless, it's not a scene I dislike, I was rather criticizing the riddles in the second half of the movie, starting in the Amazon.

I think the pace of the first half better underpins the air of mystery. Once we get to the jungle, we basically know what the skull does, how Ox fits in and how they are going to get to Akator. Again this sort of fits the template of Raiders and TLC i.e. first half mystery/intrigue. Second half, all out race to get to the prize. So I think it would be a little unfair to single KOTCS out for following the formula, pretty much to the letter, of the previous movies (although obviously Raiders does it better).

But Henry Sr. didn't know what his clues entailed. There was musing on what exactly the clues meant all the way back on the road to Berlin, so I felt like we were really "with" Indy in this case. We hear of them again on the blimp. The diary's contents are wondered over for a good part of the movie, unlike most of the "riddles" in KOTCS, where obstacles are encountered and then immediately addressed, usually, again, by Oxley's crazy talk. I realize that Indy does solve the riddles rather quickly once in Petra, but at least we are familiar enough with them by the climax of the movie that we can actually muse, "Ah, so that's what that meant!" rather than being immediately introduced to them. Finding the rock outcropping that looks like a face is a good example of the latter, and provokes an eye-rolling.

Hmmm? Don?t get me wrong, I like TLC, I just think that the clues/riddles (no matter how many times they are referenced in the movie) are just basically contrived conveniences for Indy to later say ?Aha, this is where I?m supposed to duck and roll?. The only real difference I see between the two movies, is that TLC nails its colours to the mast early on i.e. it?s an out and out treasure hunt/quest? where KOTCS seems more like a search and rescue (slower, more deliberate, not as fast paced).

You're right about the overall similarity between LC and KOTCS, though. Honestly, it's brought down LC in my mind in the past year or so. . .and I keep thinking that if LC had not had the amazing Sean Connery, I would think TOD a superior movie. I still love the movie, but I can't help but state that the riddles and adventure, although superior to KOTCS, feels lackluster and rushed.

I personally feel TLC is superior to TOD because it has some semblance of narrative structure (though that?s not the be all and end all). Furthermore, TOD (IMHO), has very little sense of mystery/suspense. There are no riddles or clues for Indy to solve (or none of any substance/significance). ?Follow in the footsteps of Shiva??? Hardly. TOD feels as if it?s simply Indiana Jones playing Superman. Of course what TOD does have going in its favour is wall-to-wall action? but I?d posit it?s rather mindless, and the action (whilst hugely entertaining) is nothing more significant/meaningful than high-octane action. TLC feels like it has some direction, some heart, some pathos (IMHO).

 

[Darth Vile]

I would agree with that. Other than Connery, Crusade is really just a comedic rehash of Raiders - beat Nazis to powerful religious artifact hidden in the desert.

I would posit that "beating Nazi's to powerful religious artifact hidden in the desert" is simply a backdrop to a story far more emotionally significant than that of TOD's. That's why TLC was worth doing, it was telling a different story but within similar context.

 

[Morning Bell]

The scene with the UFO taking off is amazing and it's a beautiful shot. Overall, I thought the finale to KOTCS was pretty solid and holds up well with the other three, although I think LC is still my favorite.

 

[StoneTriple]

I would posit that "beating Nazi's to powerful religious artifact hidden in the desert" is simply a backdrop to a story far more emotionally significant than that of TOD's.

I absolutely agree. Temple isn't a deep story by any stretch. I was just pointing out that Connery is what makes Crusade significantly different than Raiders - well, that and the comedy routines.

 

[JP Jones]

I absolutely agree. Temple isn't a deep story by any stretch. I was just pointing out that Connery is what makes Crusade significantly different than Raiders - well, that and the comedy routines.

There's another thread all about LC and RotLA. Anyway Connery is what makes the 2 different, but he doesn't really change the overall plot which if you look is nearly identicle except for the first few locations (Venice and Berlin). He is a great part of the film, but if they had some unique story like the other 3 I could have really loved it.

 

[Darth Vile]

I absolutely agree. Temple isn't a deep story by any stretch. I was just pointing out that Connery is what makes Crusade significantly different than Raiders - well, that and the comedy routines.

Agreed....

 

[Udvarnoky]

You asked me if I thought the scene should be something more. I guess to put it plainly......I don't judge movies like that.

Let's tone down the holier than thou attitude and get back to how I am supposedly not judging the movie on its own merits.

Any movie is going to be disappointing compared to the one you've created in your own head.

Don't presume to know what's in my head. Thanks.

And all in all, it's not huge scene. If it wasn't the most exciting to you, I don't think it's a make-or-break. That's why I said take it or leave it.

Why are you so hell bent on blocking in-depth discussion? No one said the scene makes or breaks the movie, but dissecting it does help me articulate my opinion, which otherwise wouldn't be worth sharing. Yes, we are analyzing the film far beyond the point of casual viewing...why else would we be on an Indiana Jones forum discussing it well over a year after the fact? Implying that people should just "take it or leave it" and then shut up is about the most nonconstructive thing I can think of.

 

[Cole]

I'm not trying to block anything, but this thing is going in circles now and nothing constructive is being added to the conversation. I was trying to put it to rest.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Why are you so hell bent on blocking in-depth discussion? No one said the scene makes or breaks the movie, but dissecting it does help me articulate my opinion, which otherwise wouldn't be worth sharing. Yes, we are analyzing the film far beyond the point of casual viewing...why else would we be on an Indiana Jones forum discussing it well over a year after the fact? Implying that people should just "take it or leave it" and then shut up is about the most nonconstructive thing I can think of.

...a fine addition to the boards.

 

[Cole]

As long as we're bringing this back up.....

How would you have ended the retracting stairs case scene?

It's my opinion that people expected some big epic scene from it - maybe then just enjoying it for what it is.

The drama of the scene is them trying to outrun the stairs - which they narrowly do. What would you have done differently?

 

[Darth Vile]

As long as we're bringing this back up.....

How would you have ended the retracting stairs case scene?

It's my opinion that people expected some big epic scene from it - maybe then just enjoying it for what it is.

The drama of the scene is them trying to outrun the stairs - which they narrowly do. What would you have done differently?

I do think the scene is a little rushed... so perhaps the steps don't start retracting straight away, which gives us (the audience) and characters, time to take in the surroundings. To up the peril stakes? Perhaps have an expendable character with them who could plunge to their death prior to the stairs retracting???

 

[Udvarnoky]

My issue when watching it the first time was that I didn't understand what actually made the situation so dangerous, when it being dangerous was clearly part of the intent. After all, they did fall before making it all the way down, and all that happened was exactly what it seemed like would - they landed in some shallow water. The stone spikes were so sparse that they were more like decoration rather than a threat. And that effectively destroys any suspense/excitement the scene might have theoretically generated.

I realize that the scene is, design-wise, fundamentally different from something like the spike scene in Temple of Doom in that the objective is to Run As Fast As You Can rather than Find the Lever, but I still feel that the spike room is useful as a comparison because it shows you what this scene is lacking - clear danger. Even if time doesn't seem to pass consistently in Temple's scene (how many times do the spikes seem to be "almost" getting Indy and Shorty from the same ceiling height?), the key to what makes it work is that we understand what the solution is: Willie getting to the lever before Indy and Shorty get skewered. We're into the scene because we're given the solution before, and not after, the problem is solved. Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that the staircase sequence is intended to be more of a smaller, sudden type of scene. That's not an excuse for confusion.

How would I have changed the staircase, scene, then? I guess I would simply have made it so that the consequences of the heroes not getting to the bottom (or close enough) was more obvious. Maybe make it so that the retracting stairs lead directly to an entrance, with there being a bottomless pit instead of a floor. Or, make the floor entirely made of spikes so that we know that if they fall, they're screwed. Then when they do fall you can have Marion or somebody grab a stone extension for support which turns out to be the release lever or something. (That does not change the purpose of the scene from "Outrun the steps" to "Find the lever!") As it is in the movie there's no last minute escape/save because I wasn't sure if there was anything they had to escape from! I mean, okay, if you want to pretend these movies are photorealistic you could easily argue that falling from any height greater than they did would have potentially caused broken bones, but I think we can all agree that if "they would have broken their bones" is offered as a justification for something in an Indiana Jones movie, that person has gone off the deep end. Spikes, bottomless pits, pool of sharks, vat of lava, etc. are what's called for in a pulp adventure, not a freaking puddle.

By the way, I don't think my earlier complaint about the cost of the set is unfair, because the original trilogy was made with intentionally low budgets, with the sets and props being used to their fullest potential, because they had to be. They had to go through actual trouble to get that Nazi plane in Raiders, and Spielberg milked it for all it was worth with the Pat Roach fistfight - no machine gun, cement triangles, or propeller went unused, because Spielberg used that toy in every way a little kid might with a model plane. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had a much bigger budget than the previous movies, and I do believe that holds true with inflation adjusted. (It is also, I believe, the first movie that wasn't finished under budget.) This movie has some of the most impressive sets in the whole series. So yes, I will be critical when I see a giant pyramid complete with a hundred armed Indian extras used for a perfunctory and wasted "action sequence," when you know damn well that in the 80s such expenses would have been the first thing Lucas would have cut from the budget if nothing creative or meaty was going to be done with it. Same goes with fully functional jungle cutters, giant obelisks that actually come together in an elaborate practical effect, and real retracting staircases built to scale. The production values in this movie are higher than the material deserves. Yes, the retracting staircase does work, if that's what your bar is, and it is not some horrible scene that I would ever cite as some gigantic failing that sinks the movie. It is, however, extremely representative of a problem that the movie suffers from in general, and it does contribute to a quality that I think separate Indy4 in spirit (rather than era, age, or special effects) from the other films.

I write a lot.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

It is, however, extremely representative of a problem that the movie suffers from in general, and it does contribute to a quality that I think separate Indy4 in spirit (rather than era, age, or special effects) from the other films.

There's a great quote from Spielberg regarding not being able to indulge and just having to tell the story of Raiders. I think your post echos this sentiment perfectly.

There was no tension to the movie, all the threats were veiled in some manner.
Once again, when a truckload of Soviet special forces with automatic weapons can't hit a target, even by ACCIDENT it's the perfect example of how soft the subject matter has become. There's just NO consequence and that taps the tension and turns it into a cartoon.

It doesn't make me happy to say it, but it's true.

That combined makes the ending unrelatable and unemotional. Indy and Mutt didn't have the same impact because their "father/son" relationship begins towards the end of the film.

 

[Darth Vile]

There was no tension to the movie, all the threats were veiled in some manner.
Once again, when a truckload of Soviet special forces with automatic weapons can't hit a target, even by ACCIDENT it's the perfect example of how soft the subject matter has become. There's just NO consequence and that taps the tension and turns it into a cartoon.

That's evident in all the movies for me (less so in Raiders and possibly more so in TOD). In fact, I'd go as far to say that KOTCS replicates that approach/principle quite well. It's difficult to justify a criticism of a factor that's so prevalent in the previous three (unless its a generic criticism of the whole lot).

That combined makes the ending unrelatable and unemotional. Indy and Mutt didn't have the same impact because their "father/son" relationship begins towards the end of the film.

I'd agree re. the emotional elements. I think that the movie never fully evolves the relationship between Indy/Mutt post the truck/jungle scene. This is somewhat of a missed opportunity to up the emotional stakes at the end. Therefore it lacks that emotional resonance that TLC had. It's a shame because I think it could have been worked in quite easily via a paragraph of dialogue...

 

[Darth Vile]

I realize that the scene is, design-wise, fundamentally different from something like the spike scene in Temple of Doom in that the objective is to Run As Fast As You Can rather than Find the Lever, but I still feel that the spike room is useful as a comparison because it shows you what this scene is lacking - clear danger. Even if time doesn't seem to pass consistently in Temple's scene (how many times do the spikes seem to be "almost" getting Indy and Shorty from the same ceiling height?), the key to what makes it work is that we understand what the solution is: Willie getting to the lever before Indy and Shorty get skewered. We're into the scene because we're given the solution before, and not after, the problem is solved. Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that the staircase sequence is intended to be more of a smaller, sudden type of scene. That's not an excuse for confusion.

I think the retracting staircase is more akin to the boulder chase than it is to the spike room (besides - you know how much I undervalue the spike room scene). That said, I?d agree that where it?s evident that Indy will be squished if he doesn?t outrun the boulder, the fall (or consequence of a fall) from the retracting staircase (as it?s played) seems less specific. Therefore, the stakes simply don't seem as high...

 

[Udvarnoky]

Again, regarding the boulder chase in Raiders: it's a capper to a full-fledged, well designed set piece that it's riding the wave of. The staircase is self-contained. The boulder would have been infinitely less effective if it wasn't in the wake of all the rest of the temple sequence in the Raiders' prologue. Same principle as the booby trap being set off one last time in the spike chamber in Temple of Doom and the characters having to get out in time - that's what the staircase sequence was, a "one last jam" appended to a set piece that didn't exist.

 

[JP Jones]

I think the retracting staircase is more akin to the boulder chase than it is to the spike room (besides - you know how much I undervalue the spike room scene). That said, I?d agree that where it?s evident that Indy will be squished if he doesn?t outrun the boulder, the fall (or consequence of a fall) from the retracting staircase (as it?s played) seems less specific. Therefore, the stakes simply don't seem as high...

The spikeroom vs. the retracting staircase vs. the boulder. Well Darth Vile your absolutly right. The boulder was just a small part of the opening scene. You worry that he's going to get crushed but then he doesn't. It's the same thing as the retracting staircase. You worry he's going to fall but he doesn't. as for the spikeroom there was a whole scene based off of Willie being afraid of the bugs.
As for tension the boulder scene was a pretty tense moment, and so was the staircase. You saw their feet and the stairs coming in, and mabye it's just me but I was like .

 

[Darth Vile]

Again, regarding the boulder chase in Raiders: it's a capper to a full-fledged, well designed set piece that it's riding the wave of. The staircase is self-contained. The boulder would have been infinitely less effective if it wasn't in the wake of all the rest of the temple sequence in the Raiders' prologue. Same principle as the booby trap being set off one last time in the spike chamber in Temple of Doom and the characters having to get out in time - that's what the staircase sequence was, a "one last jam" appended to a set piece that didn't exist.

Yes - I agree that the boulder was the payoff to the entire scene within the temple. KOTCS did lack the build up to the staircase and, as I've mentioned before, seems somewhat out of place... and could have been better placed (or something similar) within the Orellana's tomb section of the movie.