Ranking The Trilogy

[fight2004]

Shorty Round rules?! That's for sure!!

NUMBER 1 - Temple of Doom.

Entertaining scary and same time funny as hell visualisation of eternal battle between real goodness and pure evil!
Not only impressive and creative but also really emotionally engaging. This movie is keeping the spirit of loving friendship and joy among the crew members working together for ages and also a romantic story started behind-the-scences between Kate Capshaw (willie the singer girl) and director Spielberg. After the movie they've got married in real life and still remain together! The power of true romance is felt all through this movie.
Despite Spielberg level there are many director's mishaps in the movie- like there's nobody in the boat after it crashes from the rock into river - which is clearly seen even without frame playback, he he - and these errors only make this movie more perfect!

rating - 10/10

2 - Raiders of the Lost Ark

Genius indeed! Many interesting camera angles and movements.
Second place - just a personal choice because of the lack of emotionally touching romantic storyline.

rating - 10/10

3 - Last Crusade

Definitely Weakest of the series. I watched after Temple of Doom and contrast was felt immediately.
Battle with nazis here is more politic. Surprisingly high box-office.
Nothing new in visual effects. Very good but machanical sequel.

rating - 9/10 (due to honor of Mr. Lucas-Spielberg-Ford)

thanks for reading!

 

[Aaron H]

I wrote a paper on why ToD is one of the worst films ever made...I need to dig it up again.

 

[Colonel Vogel]

Shorty Round rules?! That's for sure!!

NUMBER 1 - Temple of Doom.

Not only impressive and creative but also really emotionally engaging.

rating - 10/10

You have good taste...

Welcome to the Raven...

 

[Jay R. Zay]

i prefer this one.

I wrote a paper on why ToD is one of the worst films ever made...I need to dig it up again.

 

[macwizard]

How can you say Temple of Doom is a good movie? Short Round is not understandable or funny (way better in Goonies), Willie is the worst Indy girl if not an absolute stuck up *****, and Indy was a total *****. Saving children? Why would he give f*** about kids? He should be kicking ass and saving mankind, not a few measly children. The random ultraviolence is unneeded and cultish. The supernatural aspect pointless and childish. It cannot compete with the divine powers of the first and third. I've watched the others countless times while Temple of Doom, well, it just makes me sick.

 

[Coronado]

How can you say Temple of Doom is a good movie? Short Round is not understandable or funny (way better in Goonies), Willie is the worst Indy girl if not an absolute stuck up *****, and Indy was a total *****. Saving children? Why would he give f*** about kids? He should be kicking ass and saving mankind, not a few measly children. The random ultraviolence is unneeded and cultish. The supernatural aspect pointless and childish. It cannot compete with the divine powers of the first and third. I've watched the others countless times while Temple of Doom, well, it just makes me sick.

Wow, a little vitriolic there macwizard, but you go! Can't say I disagree, certainly about Willie (does she even COUNT as an Indy Girl?).

 

[Colonel Vogel]

...Indy was a total *****. Saving children? Why would he give f*** about kids? He should be kicking ass and saving mankind, not a few measly children...

Is this a joke?

 

[Jay R. Zay]

why should it be? personally, i found this aspect of ToD very much out of place, too.

 

[macwizard]

Indy's importance to the world in TOD is nothing compared to Raiders and LC. The fate of the world is in peril, "If it is captured by the Nazis the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth." The cultists are a poor villain, with their cheesy supernatural powers and slavery, they are nothing compared to the Nazi's. The Nazi's are strongly remembered for their atrocities committed during WWII and their evil cannot be disputed. It seems the movie struggles to establish Indy's new villain. Obviously if you are going to be performing witchcraft, you are going to need to need to use slavery, and the obvious choice are kids(sarcastic.) The occult were dumbasses for using children. Also, I can't believe that Indy is transformed into a walking zombie from a little monkey blood, is he that weak? Their is not a moment in this movie that is in any way better than LC or Raiders. All I have to say is that killing children is [edit for content] compared to the killing of nazi's. The movie ends with him smiling at the thousands of children he saved? You cannot dispute the weak plot and cheesy dialogue. This movie cannot even touch the other movies in the trilogy. To sum it up, if you like TOD, you do not understand the true spirit of the Indiana Jones trilogy.

 

[Stoo]

Indy's importance to the world in TOD is nothing compared to Raiders and LC...The cultists are a poor villain, with their cheesy supernatural powers and slavery, they are nothing compared to the Nazi's.

The real Thuggee were pretty nasty. They would wrap stones in the middle
of long cloths and approach victims from behind, whipping them around
their necks (as in the Pankot bedroom scene). Twisting the cloth behind
the neck would cause the stone to crush the wind-pipe. Afterwards,
the corpses would have their legs and arms snapped backwards, folded
towards the back and stuffed into little, square, graves which had already
been prepared! Everything would be covered up and they would walk away.
Thugs committed pre-meditated murder en-masse as part of their religion (!)
and their number of victims could contend with the Nazis' (but over a greater
period of time).

No, the Thuggee don't beat Nazis as *the most evil* but you must admit,
they weren't the nicest guys. In the film, the supernatural aspects are
as overplayed as the other ones but just imagine if these lunatics became
"all-powerful" like Mola Ram wanted...

All I have to say is that killing children is [edit for content] compared to the killing of nazi's.

???

To sum it up, if you like TOD, you do not understand the true spirit
of the Indiana Jones trilogy.

Crazy. It's a fun ride and my second favourite. "Raiders" is Numero Uno.
"Crusade" is a watchable, comedic, rehash of ROTLA with his fussy father.

 

[Jay R. Zay]

poor children are just the hollywood standard for touching scenes. terrorists can kill men, women, blacks, whites - nobody complains. but when they start killing children, the fun is over. in Aliens (alien 2) everything would be only half as exciting when we all weren't so deeply worried about that little annoying smartass girl. and it's really a bad joke that ToD comes down to the same level. saving children is ridiculous. it's this "let's show he is the good guy". you aren't the good guy if you save the world. or grownup people. if you save blacks you are a radical, if you save women you are a womanizer, if you save men you are a homo, if you save old people you are boring. but if you save these sweet little lovely children, you are the great hero.

unfortunately this family attitude is not what i expect or like about an action movie. this little girl in "aliens" is the only reason why i won't watch this movie again because it get's so terribly on my nerves. seriously, in my opinion, the whole ToD stuff isn't indy but a normal low quality action production. as somebody said - he isn't out to save the world, he saves a village and children. how nice of him. he falls in love with this terrible willie - how adventury. and all the time we have one bad joke after another.

 

[Aaron H]

macwizard, consider this a warning, your language is not acceptable.

 

[Deadlock]

poor children are just the hollywood standard for touching scenes. terrorists can kill men, women, blacks, whites - nobody complains. but when they start killing children, the fun is over. in Aliens (alien 2) everything would be only half as exciting when we all weren't so deeply worried about that little annoying smartass girl. and it's really a bad joke that ToD comes down to the same level. saving children is ridiculous. it's this "let's show he is the good guy". you aren't the good guy if you save the world. or grownup people. if you save blacks you are a radical, if you save women you are a womanizer, if you save men you are a homo, if you save old people you are boring. but if you save these sweet little lovely children, you are the great hero.

I think the common idea is the idea of killing the innocent and the powerless. Children probably are the demographic that are easiest to equate with innocence and vulnerability. (Frankly, I'm grateful that people haven't become so jaded as they aren't moved by the plight of those who can't help themselves).

I disagree with your idea that you aren't really a good guy unless you save children. Or, saying it another way, that it is only tragic when something happens to children. (I can cite examples if need be.) That said, I do agree that women and children are often used as shortcuts to emotional resonance.

The bottom line: a hero has to help people who can't help themselves.

 

[Jay R. Zay]

"I disagree with your idea that you aren't really a good guy unless you save children. Or, saying it another way, that it is only tragic when something happens to children. (I can cite examples if need be.)"

this of course was an exaggeration. yet children are usually used as an emotional addition to a movie such as in Aliens and ToD. how many mainstream films show children die? i don't remember a single one. there is no difference between black and white deaths, a little difference between woman and man but an enormous difference between grownup / child. and i don't like a movie, especially not indy, to run on this fake emotional line. and children ARE fake emotion. he loves marion, willie, elsa, in a way his father,... this is true emotion. but children are only fake emotion as he doesn't know them, he doesn't know whether they are "naughty nice" - but they are children and so they have to be saved. this is really cheap because children are the only characters that are just nice because they are young. there are many movies with good looking female villains (Die Another Day), old people (Smilla's Sense of Snow), hadicapped people (Unbreakable), black people (Black Hawk Down),... we can all imagine this. but children, fat or slim, female or male, black or white - have to be saved. we don't need to know them but they serve as well as the whole world. i mean indy doesn't assassinate hitler to prevent him from killing jews, he doesn't kill stalin or any small dictator. he doesn't save anybody, he saves:
-his beloved ones
-his friends
-the world
-children

which of these looks strange to you among the other three? exactly. everybody would save his beloved ones and friends. and heroes save the world because - well it isn't so unimportant. after all, he is among the citizens of this world, too. but children? ANY children? children he doesn't know or like? why?

because they are so sweet. because hollywood thinks they are sweet. why don't these stupid aliens kill this annoying girl that goes on everybody's nevers? my favorite example, i know. because it's sweet. children can be annoying, they can be displayed unrealistic (either at the age of 16 like a child of 6 or at the age of 6 like a rocket expert), it doesn't matter. all that we need to see is their sweet little face - and we love them. or at least we are supposed to.

 

[Deadlock]

this of course was an exaggeration. yet children are usually used as an emotional addition to a movie such as in Aliens and ToD. how many mainstream films show children die? i don't remember a single one.

Most movies shy away from actually show children being killed. But there are mainstream movies with dead kids (Gladiator and Schindler's List are all that are coming to me at the moment...).

there is no difference between black and white deaths, a little difference between woman and man but an enormous difference between grownup / child. and i don't like a movie, especially not indy, to run on this fake emotional line. and children ARE fake emotion. he loves marion, willie, elsa, in a way his father,... this is true emotion. but children are only fake emotion as he doesn't know them, he doesn't know whether they are "naughty nice" - but they are children and so they have to be saved. this is really cheap because children are the only characters that are just nice because they are young.

As I said before, this relates to Indy's status as a hero: he saves those who cannot save themselves. While I'm not the biggest fan of Temple of Doom, I don't think this as "cheap" as you portray it. Indy knew about the children's plight from the Shaman in the village. Even if he hadn't, I think the situation was pretty black and white. Evil cult, chained up kids, big guys clobbering them. Doesn't seem like much of a grey area. Indy may not be so jaded as to need to have a prior emotional attachment as a motivation.

which of these looks strange to you among the other three? exactly. everybody would save his beloved ones and friends. and heroes save the world because - well it isn't so unimportant. after all, he is among the citizens of this world, too. but children? ANY children? children he doesn't know or like? why?

Why does he save anybody? Because they can't. I don't think it is any more ludicrous for Indy to save random Indian kids than to save the world. (Besides, can you really argue that saving the world was ever Indy's primary motivation in any of the films?)

because they are so sweet. because hollywood thinks they are sweet. why don't these stupid aliens kill this annoying girl that goes on everybody's nevers? my favorite example, i know. because it's sweet. children can be annoying, they can be displayed unrealistic (either at the age of 16 like a child of 6 or at the age of 6 like a rocket expert), it doesn't matter. all that we need to see is their sweet little face - and we love them. or at least we are supposed to.

Because human beings who aren't jaded beyond hope, still feel a sense of injustice when the helpless are wronged by those with power. The reason why helpless victims are used is because this says something not only about the hero, but also the villain: the villain knows no bounds of decency. Obviously, your beef is with kids. I think that women have been used FAR more frequently; old/sick people are right up there too (Spiderman comes to mind).

 

[Jay R. Zay]

"As I said before, this relates to Indy's status as a hero: he saves those who cannot save themselves."

yes but: there are so many more people who need help. take hitler: 4 million dead jews - they didn't die just for fun. the russians killed many people, too. but indy doesn't stop people who kill hundreds of thousands of people, he stops one guy who enslaves... 500 children? 1000?

"(Besides, can you really argue that saving the world was ever Indy's primary motivation in any of the films?)"

in a way. at least there was some motivation. either the fact that he hates nazis or his archaeological eagerness. but why is he so fond of kids? i don't imagine indy like a loving daddy - he isn't this father type. i can't even imagine him married, similar to james bond. james bond doesn't save children either. because that's not his kind of quest. i don't mean that indy gives a **** about children. but his adventures are made for him. perhaps IF he was in india, he would save these children. but the point is - that's not the indy we want to see in the movies. if james bond was asked to do a mission without any attractive women, big explosions, sci-fi cars or really *evil* bad guys, just stealing a few plans for nuclear weapons from the russians and bring them to the U.K. . okay - he would do it. but is this the james bond we want to see? nope. because we don't imagine james bond like an ordinary spy. nothing he does is ordinary - evil people, sexy women, guns, explosions,... .

the way indy treats the children shows some father character about him. but indy isn't a "father". he doesn't usually want to take care of somebody. but in ToD that's what he does even twice - he takes care of willie and of those children. indy Raiders he is somebody who appreciates people around him that can take care of themselves and in LC, in a way he has to look after his father and marcus, but on the other hand, both of them have situations where they show that they can deal with the situation. PLUS they are his old friends. but willie is just annoying and she isn't the sort of woman most indy fans would expect to be his partner. and these children - as i've said - who are they? nobody. children are the only people that can be used as an emotional victim without being introduced. you don't feel sorry about grownup people this way. before indy saves anybody else, we have to be explained that there is something nice about his father or marcus or elsa. but we don't get any explanation about the character of these children - they are children and that is a good enough reason to save them.

but this (again) would imply some fatherly feelings, if you like a child just because it is a child. and i don't see indy as a father.

 

[Gary]

Away...the first is the best and the other two don't even deserve to be mentioned with it.

 

[Deadlock]

yes but: there are so many more people who need help. take hitler: 4 million dead jews - they didn't die just for fun. the russians killed many people, too. but indy doesn't stop people who kill hundreds of thousands of people, he stops one guy who enslaves... 500 children? 1000?

The reason why Indy doesn?t do those things is because no one has written a story putting him in those situations.

There is such a thing as a local hero... Most heroes don?t go looking for the mightiest of heroic situations; they simply do what they can in situations they are put in. That to me is Indy. He's not Superman; he's not a righter of wrongs on a cosmic scale.

in a way. at least there was some motivation. either the fact that he hates nazis or his archaeological eagerness. but why is he so fond of kids? i don't imagine indy like a loving daddy - he isn't this father type. . . the way indy treats the children shows some father character about him. but indy isn't a "father".

I think the idea that only fathers care about children is pretty absurd. I think care for the helpless is one of the more common noble traits in human beings.

Indy isn?t being a father to those Indian slave kids... He?s not teaching them important life lessons or undertaking long-term responsibility for their welfare and upbringing. He?s just unshackling them from slavery to an evil cult! That doesn?t really strike me as needing much in terms of outstanding moral character or strong paternal instincts. Besides, there?s a serious contradiction to your ideas about Indy as a father figure... His name is SHORT ROUND.

children are the only people that can be used as an emotional victim without being introduced. you don't feel sorry about grownup people this way. before indy saves anybody else, we have to be explained that there is something nice about his father or marcus or elsa. but we don't get any explanation about the character of these children - they are children and that is a good enough reason to save them.

Once again, this WAS explained. The Shaman explained that the Thuggees came and stole their children. Do you need a long and drawn out exposition to know that stealing kids from their families is wrong?

but this (again) would imply some fatherly feelings, if you like a child just because it is a child. and i don't see indy as a father.

No, this would imply that Indy has:
1. some sense of human decency
2. and the guts to act on it in extreme situations
Number 1 really isn?t all that unique. It?s number 2 that makes him an action hero.

 

[Jay R. Zay]

"The reason why Indy doesn?t do those things is because no one has written a story putting him in those situations. There is such a thing as a local hero... Most heroes don?t go looking for the mightiest of heroic situations; they simply do what they can in situations they are put in. That to me is Indy. He's not Superman; he's not a righter of wrongs on a cosmic scale."

i know this and i agree to this but this has one consequence - that indy's character consists of the situations he is placed in. they could place him in a great battle as a soldier. of course he would fight then. but would we like to see it? i wouldn't. you could place him at the age of 60 as the director of a museum helping a little child that lost his key in the large building. this would be possible. but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

"I think the idea that only fathers care about children is pretty absurd. I think care for the helpless is one of the more common noble traits in human beings."

reactions that are not explained are basic reactions. if he helps willie because he loves her, love is the explanation. but one step furthere - where is the explanation for this love? mostly, it's a basic instinct.

and for the children. help them? why? they aren't important, he doesn't have a reason to like/love them. so the explanation is... a basic instinct. a father's instinct. if he helps women it may be a male instinct and if he saves the world it is the instinct of all life to make sure your race survives. but 500 children aren't the future of the human race. there can be hardly any doubt that the worry about children appeals to the parental instincts in the audience. which, as a logical consequence, makes indy the father character. and i have a problem with this indy.

"He?s not teaching them important life lessons or undertaking long-term responsibility for their welfare and upbringing."

this isn't a "father". in the most basic situation a father creates and protects children. in modern human ways, a father also is responsible for education but we have schools, too. and we aren't so far away from our animal ancestors as we prefer to believe.

"Besides, there?s a serious contradiction to your ideas about Indy as a father figure... His name is SHORT ROUND."

true, the relactionship between indy and shorty is different. there is no father-son connection between these two characters, it's friendship. but i wasn't talking about shorty, was i?

"Do you need a long and drawn out exposition to know that stealing kids from their families is wrong?"

not "wrong". i never said it was right - read what i write. i asked why indy would want to save them. there are so many wrong things in this world but you don't get involved with them. it's a MOVIE. of course you can make dozens of movies with Indiana Jones fighting against people who do "wrong" things. no explanation necessary. the ark doesn't have to be powerful - the nazis steal it, stealing is not right, so indy has to get it back. these kali people steal the stones - nobody has to need them, just stealing is wrong so he does the best he can to get them back. Last Crusade: the nazis kidnap some old weird guy. indy doesn't know him, he isn't his father - but kidnapping is wrong so indy risks his head and hat to get him out.

sensible? no. i wouldn't be interested in seeing indy rescuing some insignificant old guy. it IS exciting if he rescues his father. but why should he rescue some old man he doesn't know? and now: there are millions of kidnappings in the world - why would indy have to save THESE children? there are so many jobs to do at home in the USA, right in his backyard. he could join the police and save kidnapped children if that's what he likes doing. but no: he doesn't even offer his help there. he isn't interested in the kidnappings there, not even if they happened in front of his house. but when he's crashed in india anyway, he can save a couple of children while he's there, can't he?


"No, this would imply that Indy has:
1. some sense of human decency
2. and the guts to act on it in extreme situations"

of course. that's why he doesn't kill hitler.

 

[Deadlock]

i know this and i agree to this but this has one consequence - that indy's character consists of the situations he is placed in. they could place him in a great battle as a soldier. of course he would fight then. but would we like to see it? i wouldn't. you could place him at the age of 60 as the director of a museum helping a little child that lost his key in the large building. this would be possible. but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

True. Internal consistency is a very large issue, especially when following a character through seemingly episodic adventures. The primary source we have to go off of in trying to determine the character of Indiana Jones is the films. Whether you enjoy Temple of Doom is your prerogative, but I don?t think that it is outside of the bounds of Indy?s character to undertake that adventure. (Apparently, neither did Steven, George, or Harrison...)

reactions that are not explained are basic reactions. if he helps willie because he loves her, love is the explanation. but one step furthere - where is the explanation for this love? mostly, it's a basic instinct.

and for the children. help them? why? they aren't important, he doesn't have a reason to like/love them. so the explanation is... a basic instinct. a father's instinct. if he helps women it may be a male instinct and if he saves the world it is the instinct of all life to make sure your race survives. but 500 children aren't the future of the human race. there can be hardly any doubt that the worry about children appeals to the parental instincts in the audience. which, as a logical consequence, makes indy the father character. and i have a problem with this indy.

Your explanation that Indy?s ?basic reaction? is stemming from a father?s instinct is only one explanation. Many are possible. A basic preference of justice and freedom over cruelty and slavery seem like an equally reasonable explanation.

this isn't a "father". in the most basic situation a father creates and protects children. in modern human ways, a father also is responsible for education but we have schools, too. and we aren't so far away from our animal ancestors as we prefer to believe.

How are ?protecting children? and ?responsibility for their welfare? different? Besides, I don?t think that most people hold to your simplistic definition of ?father? (a strictly biological sense).

true, the relactionship between indy and shorty is different. there is no father-son connection between these two characters, it's friendship. but i wasn't talking about shorty, was i?

I think that Short Round is relevant (and indeed any other character, as you have already felt free in mentioning several others). Their relationship has distinct father/son overtones.

not "wrong". i never said it was right - read what i write. i asked why indy would want to save them. there are so many wrong things in this world but you don't get involved with them.

Why don?t you drop the snarky tone, Jay? It?s not needed.

You were talking about Indy not having any reason to lift a finger to help the kids. You were saying that it?s okay that he helps other people because we know something about them. I?m not getting into the morality, I?m simply saying that the Shaman?s explanation (and the following scene as the child stumbles into the village) is a quick way of establishing why Indy would do something about the situation.

I agree, Indy isn?t supposed to be parading around doing good deeds; he?s supposed to do it almost begrudgingly or by accident. I think that is the way it should be. However, where we disagree is that I don?t see it being a big deal that he rescues the kids and you do.