Of all the Indiana jones trilogy DVDs, I watched the TOD least compare to ROTLA and LC. It is not that I do not enjoy it but I watch it less compare to the other two. I might do just the same with Indy 4 DVDs.
As for Indy 4 , GL wanted to take it to a new dimension and recreate a the 50's genre of space alien B movies with the back bones of 30's B movies. This is not different when SS brought Indy to a 'darker side' when he direct the TOD. In LC, the two of them decided to go back to ROTLA with introduction of the background and the father who made Indy who he is. That was just nice and the ending was really good. Having waited 20 years, most audiences are expecting similar line of stories like ROTLA and LC.
However, I do not fault them for trying to merge the 30's B movie genre to 50's B movie. As that is what makes them the iconic figures of movie-making and greatness in transforming the world of movies. If they have stick to similar previous formula, what is the difference between Indiana Jones and The Mummies movies?
At the same time, they also introduce the son and marion back which I think is very good. The presence of Oxley and Mac however has kind of diluted the chemistry and character development between Indy and his son, even with that of Marion. It would have been nice though if GL and SS fill us in the gap: what happen to Indy after LC and up until 1957.
The even number of Indiana jones movies are always the odd one out. The good news is given that, if they are going to make Indy 5, it will be definitely better than Indy4 and if there's any chance that it will be the 'last' Indy movie (not counting possibility of future Mutt Jones movie), given HF age; I think they will do a fantastic job wrapping it up like they did in LC.
As for Indy 4 , GL wanted to take it to a new dimension and recreate a the 50's genre of space alien B movies with the back bones of 30's B movies. This is not different when SS brought Indy to a 'darker side' when he direct the TOD. In LC, the two of them decided to go back to ROTLA with introduction of the background and the father who made Indy who he is. That was just nice and the ending was really good. Having waited 20 years, most audiences are expecting similar line of stories like ROTLA and LC.
However, I do not fault them for trying to merge the 30's B movie genre to 50's B movie. As that is what makes them the iconic figures of movie-making and greatness in transforming the world of movies. If they have stick to similar previous formula, what is the difference between Indiana Jones and The Mummies movies?
At the same time, they also introduce the son and marion back which I think is very good. The presence of Oxley and Mac however has kind of diluted the chemistry and character development between Indy and his son, even with that of Marion. It would have been nice though if GL and SS fill us in the gap: what happen to Indy after LC and up until 1957.
The even number of Indiana jones movies are always the odd one out. The good news is given that, if they are going to make Indy 5, it will be definitely better than Indy4 and if there's any chance that it will be the 'last' Indy movie (not counting possibility of future Mutt Jones movie), given HF age; I think they will do a fantastic job wrapping it up like they did in LC.
