Indiana Jones Trilogy Blu Ray discussion/speculation thread - Page 3

This love hate for temple is very strange. I wonder how much it has to do with the age we were when we saw it? To me it had the same magic that Raiders had, where the last 2 didn't.

Just out of curiosity, how old were you when you first saw Temple of Doom (came out in 84') and did you like it?

I was 12 and loved it.

The first 30 minutes or so was great and the last 30 minutes was great, but the middle hour or so was merely repulsive and depressing.

if Lucas do that it must be fun,can't wait.

Raiders and Temple of Doom are IMO classics of the genre. Last Crusade is very good but doesn't have the same magic. Still trying to figure out where I stand on Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It had it's moments.

I'm not a hater. I will buy and enjoy these movies on Blu.

I only saw 4 recently and it wasn't as bad as I was expecting (mainly due to the fact that i'd read so much negative press about it).

Not in the same league as any of the other 3 though.

I agree. Still, I think Temple of Doom is badly flawed for the reasons I just mentioned. The other three are all outstanding. The only thing disappointing in Crystal Skull is the fact that ** SPOILER ** our hero had a son with Marion without being married. This tarnishes his image considerably.

On the downside, Spielberg seems to have a sick fetish for the repulsive: swarms of tarantulas, bugs, rats as well as monkey brains, eyeball soup, etc., etc. which really do not contribute anything desirable to these films.

I was 8 and loved it.

None of them beat Raiders though.

Thanks... if more could list your age when you saw it and if you liked it or not Id appreciate it.

I was 13 and loved it. I also enjoyed Indy4 (it was the least favorite of the series for me) but I think many people who did not like it was taking it way too seriously. Indy movies are not serious movies. They are supposed to be fun and campy. My favorite is still Raiders.

Raiders is a masterpiece.
Doom is flawed sequel that contains a child that gives even more annoying lines then Anakin did.
Crusade is a fun movie with great chemistry between Ford and Connery, but its not as good adventure movie as Raiders.
Skull is OK but it tries to please everyone and that never really works.

Your age?

30

I'm actually the opposite. As a kid, I found Temple to be deathly dull. It's only as I've gotten older (I'm 23) that I've come to love it.

1 & 3 for me.

2 & 4 aren't worth the discs they were pressed onto.

I agree with you 1 and 3 for me also. "Raiders" was a perfect movie, and I mean everything was perfect about that movie. I have to compare this series of movies with the "Die Hard" movies. The first "Die Hard" was special like "Raiders" both movies blew your socks off. But the sequels could never capture the "awe" you felt from seeing the original films.

I think part of it is, the characters went from being an everyman so to speak, to becoming an action hero that we knew couldn't be killed. In the original films, since the characters of both movies we're new to us, we didn't really know what there fate would be. In the sequels though you knew you could relax, because you knew in the end everything was going to work out ok for our hero's. Basically they went from human to super-human, and for me that killed the suspense of future films for me. No matter how bad the scenario was for Indy and officer Mcclane, you knew they would come out on top.

Good comparision

But of course there is always a risk that the character will get killed (like the studio would dare that)

But really, sequels have a big problem with suspense because of it, but there can be other characters you care about, that is just as important.

But both Raiders and Die Hard are real masterpieces in their respective genres.

1>3>>4>>2

although i did just recently see some of 2 again and it was better than i seemed to recall so i may have to move it up to, but i need to watch it through fully again:

1>3>>4>2

tarnishes his image
he's a wild adventurer

+1

People that lives their lives as a wild adventurer, usually have some offsprings at the age of 65.

Why does everyone hate Skull? It has lots of slam-bang action bits, it's good to see Karen again, and Cate is always a welcome ingredient to her films. Shia was okay, and though the ending was the usual stupidity of the secret mystic pieces coming together and whipping up on the vicinity- as if we haven't seen that trick enough- all in all I was thoroughly entertained. I think part of it is that people are seeing it with radically different eyes due to getting older, and maybe thinking the early ones in the series were better than they really were.

Temple of Doom is also widely despised, which I also cannot understand. The pacing is generally lightning-quick, and the dance number at the first, the bugs and the walls coming together, and the mine-car chase were peerless as far as action pieces. I didn't even mind Short Round, though Mrs. Spielberg would tax the patience of Job, and the climax on the rope ladder and the alligators just wasn't a good enough topper. And it is rather politically incorrect on a number of issues.

Crusade is just a re-do of the first film, only with Sean. Lucas seems to like to re-do stuff. The best he could come up with in Return of the Jedi was to have the bad guys rebuild the Death Star.

And as for Raiders, I dunno. I saw it with several youngsters I used to take to films (they're in their thiries now), at a sneak preview, so we got the jump on the rest of creation in seeing the film... it contained those reliable bad guys, Nazis, and had a terrific opening sequence. The rest of the film just didn't do it for me. I guess it helped to be exposed to it when you were really young. Maybe I need to see it again.

I suppose I would go for a tie for 2 and 4, then 1 and 3. So shoot me.

+1

This is exactly how I feel about the Indy movies.

I think I'm one of few who likes all four films -- I genuinely love the first three, and think Crystal Skull is a pretty good adventure flick that happens to have one of the greatest movie characters of all time to elevate it. And call me nuts, but I liked Shia LaBeouf, too. I'd probably rate 'em as such:

Raiders of the Lost Ark - A
The Last Crusade - A-
Temple of Doom - A-
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - B

Last Crusade is Raiders redux, but it's a lot of the fun and the Harrison Ford/Sean Connery chemistry works wonders.

Not at all. Skull, quite simply, has a terribly constructed screenplay. It pads the set-pieces with long, drawn-out stretches of expository dialogue that can work on the page in something like The DaVinci Code (the novel), but it just doesn't work on screen. Koepp ignored the first rule of screenwriting: Show. Don't tell.

Compare this to Raiders, where the bulk of the exposition is handled in that early scene where Indy is commissioned to go after the Ark. In that scene, we learn everything we need to know about the Ark and why the Nazi's want it. For the rest of the movie, all exposition is handled either in the midst of action or in scenes of character building.

People nitpick the small elements of things they don't like about Skull, but the reality is that you're right: all the films have their annoying little quirks. Skull just makes the annoyances more apparent and insufferable because the screenplay is so plodding that there's nothing to distract away from them.

For me it goes like this

1>>2=3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(ad naseum)4.

The first is of course the best, 2 and 3 are equal and 4 is whats underneath whale crap.

I'll buy them though even if its a boxed set.

I'm 35 and I hated 4, and not because of the aliens. The CG totally took me out of the movie, whereas the other movies had actual stunts and practical effects to make the exaggerated action look real. I'd hate to see how Speilberg would make the mine cart scene from ToD look today.

I didn't like the Professor that was all affected by the skull, the script didn't develop him into anyone I cared about. I needed more backstory than what we got, or introduce him and than have him affected. I guess this is just one example of how I found the script to be very lacking. If I didn't love Raiders and the other movies so much maybe I would have been a little more forgiving, but Skull just doesn't come close to matching the others.

I'm 36 and I loved TOD when I saw it and now - great fun

honestly , my ranking of TOD and Raiders as to which one's best , changes from time to time

the same goes for the Star Wars movies - Empire vs AOTC

funny how I ONLY judge these great flicks against their other installments

- they are in a league of their own, I guess

Congrats, you have chosen wisely...

This I totally agree with. Even though Temple has a ton of FX they kinda looked retro and what you might see in an old serial just done better. Also they were done when you just couldn't do a live scene, like when the minecar is going insanely fast and leaping gorges.

The CGI in Skull was SO out of place... That whole jungle car chase scene is incredibly dull for me because I kept thinking, green screen, CGI... Raiders did virtually the whoe truck chase "Live" and it works like a charm.