Ranking the movies
-
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(April 04, 2016 11:49 AM)
The order in which I first saw them has very much influenced what I think of them. I saw them in this order:
- Temple of Doom (I was 9 or 10)
- Last Crusade (must have been 12 or 13)
- Raiders of the Lost Ark (age 14 or 15)
- Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I absolutely loved Temple when I first saw it, but Crusade was pretty much my favourite as soon as I saw it. I was a bit disappointed with Raiders at first, as I felt it wasn't as exciting as the other two. As I matured, however, so did my tastes. And at this point, I rank the movies in the following wise: - Last Crusade
- Raiders of the Lost Ark (almost a shared 1st, actually)
- Temple of Doom (I like this one less and less as the years go by - more action than substance)
- Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (this could have been a decent Indy-film until they started with the aliens, rather than the supernatural which was the common denominator up to this point)
-
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 04, 2016 04:59 PM)
Just doing a little data compiling right here, I added up everyone's rankings and basically scored it like a cross country meet (lowest score wins). If someone ranked Raiders 1st that movie got 1 point, if someone ranked Crystal Skulls last then that movie got 4 points, well here is what we got:
Raiders - 9 (2 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 2)
Temple - 11 (4 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 3)
Crusade - 13 (1 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 1)
Crystal Skulls - 17 (3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 4)
Well what do you know, both Raiders and Temple beat Crusade, LOL.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(April 04, 2016 11:20 PM)
Let's see According to the IMDb rankings:
- Raiders of the Lost Ark: 8,5 (640 787 votes)
- Last Crusade: 8,3 (498 789 votes)
- Temple of Doom: 7,6 (319 080 votes)
- Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 6,2 (325 435 votes)
And you have a sample data of 5. You were saying?
-
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 05, 2016 04:26 PM)
If Crusade was so obviously better than Temple like you claim it was then you'd think that you'd have overwhelming support. Doesn't really look that way though.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 12:34 AM)
If Crusade was so obviously better than Temple like you claim it was then you'd think that you'd have overwhelming support. Doesn't really look that way though.
I just presented you with overwhelming support for that. Did you not see the rankings, as provided by several hundred thousands of voters? You might have missed it, it was only 67% of my post. Well, here it is again:- Raiders of the Lost Ark: 8,5 (640 787 votes)
- Last Crusade: 8,3 (498 789 votes)
- Temple of Doom: 7,6 (319 080 votes)
- Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 6,2 (325 435 votes)
The difference between Raiders and Crusade is only 0,2. The difference between Crusade and Temple, however, is 0,7. So if I were to attempt a graphical representation, it would actually be something like this: - Raiders
. - Crusade
.
.
.
.
.
. - Temple
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. - Kingdom
-
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 01:21 PM)
Dude I understand the IMDB ratings and yes they rank Crusade higher, but there are other sources like I just mentioned that rank Temple higher. Based off of this thread Temple beat Crusade and I want you to acknowledge that, clearly some people think that Temple is better and I can completely understand why, Temple had a story, Temple had characters you cared about, and Temple didn't have cringe worthy stale acting and dialogue.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 01:32 PM)
Dude I understand the IMDB ratings and yes they rank Crusade higher, but there are other sources like I just mentioned that rank Temple higher.
Other sources? The only source you mentioned was
this thread
, in which there were a grand total of five voters - you and me included.
Based off of this thread Temple beat Crusade and I want you to acknowledge that, clearly some people think that Temple is better and I can completely understand why, Temple had a story, Temple had characters you cared about, and Temple didn't have cringe worthy stale acting and dialogue.
Oh man you really think a sample size of five is in any way significant? This thread shows that
some
people like Temple better, and
some
people like Crusade better. But the sample size is way too small to say anything about anything other than the people posting in this thread.
As for cringe worthy and stale dialogue how about Indy's lame flirting with Willy, talking about mating rituals and the like? Straight from hate to lust just like that. Hey, that's what you didn't like about Kazzim, isn't it? Honestly, I have never encountered anyone with a more selective memory than you.
As for story - Crusade has Temple beat by a long shot. People you care about - again, Crusade on top. There is nothing that Temple does better than Crusade. Temple is more densely packed with action, yes - but to the detriment of the story. Both Raiders and Crusade have extensive scenes which give exposition to the quest object, but Temple does not. What does Temple have? Loads of action and - let's face it - juvenile humour. There's even a roller-coaster scene, for crying out loud. There's a reason I loved this movie when I was 10 and place it last of the first three films now at 38. -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 03:46 PM)
how about Indy's lame flirting with Willy
HAHAHAHAHA, Give me a break dude, nothing is worse than Indy and Alison Doody starting to make out and Indy goes "I don't like fast women", then says in a James Bond manner "aw Venice". That was flat out pathetic, it was so obvious they were trying to rip off James Bond and it came off as flat and pathetic. Thanks for the laugh dude I needed that.
Crusade has Temple beat by a long shot.
OMG you are even dumber than I thought you were, CRUSADE RECYCLED THE PLOT FROM RAIDERS!!! Temple was at least original and if you even care I would much rather watch Indy take down a cult in a badass Temple who have enslaved a bunch of innocent kids rather than watch Sean Connery make one bumbling slapstick joke after the next. I guess the Jar Jar antics though appeal to people with an IQ of less than 50 like yourself.
Both Raiders and Crusade have extensive scenes which give exposition to the quest object, but Temple does not.
First of all they clearly explained the legend behind the stones, secondly your argument makes Crusade the less intelligent movie, you are saying that Spielberg had to spoon feed his audience with a bunch of exposition because they were too stupid to figure it out.
juvenile humour.
The humor in Temple was very dark, like jokes about a guard getting run over by a mine cart and receiving a very brutal death, that is very consistent with the humor in Raiders and what did we get in CrusadeMICKEY MOUSE JOKES! That's right and he even changed it from a Jesse Owens joke because he figured the audience would be too stupid to know who Jesse Owens was. Face it, Crusade was a movie for CHILDREN.
As for the sample size, all I was saying was if Crusade was so obviously the better film you'd think that it wouldn't get the ass kicking that it did on this thread, I know plenty of people who also hate Crusade but love Temple. Temple was a film for mature adults, Crusade was a film for little children. I'm guessing you aren't very smart, makes sense that you like Crusade.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 07:35 AM)
HAHAHAHAHA, Give me a break dude, nothing is worse than Indy and Alison Doody starting to make out and Indy goes "I don't like fast women", then says in a James Bond manner "aw Venice". That was flat out pathetic, it was so obvious they were trying to rip off James Bond and it came off as flat and pathetic. Thanks for the laugh dude I needed that.
That's not the scene where he says "ah, Venice". In the love-making scene, he says "I love Venice". And no, that was nowhere near as bad as the flirting in Temple, which made far less sense. At least in Crusade, they had already flirted with each other. But in Temple, they had been hostile to each other - up to the beginning of that very scene!
OMG you are even dumber than I thought you were, CRUSADE RECYCLED THE PLOT FROM RAIDERS!!!
But you liked Raiders, didn't you?
Temple was at least original and if you even care I would much rather watch Indy take down a cult in a badass Temple who have enslaved a bunch of innocent kids rather than watch Sean Connery make one bumbling slapstick joke after the next.
Sean Connery did not have any slapstick parts. You are thinking of Willy. She was one slapstick joke after another.
I guess the Jar Jar antics though appeal to people with an IQ of less than 50 like yourself.
Jesus, not even your insults show any sign of effort.
First of all they clearly explained the legend behind the stones
They BRIEFLY explain the legend behind the stones. Besides, the movie can't really make up it's mind whether the plot is to retrieve the stones, or free the children. The enslaved children were necessary because the Sankara stones weren't interesting enough, due to lack of exposition.
secondly your argument makes Crusade the less intelligent movie, you are saying that Spielberg had to spoon feed his audience with a bunch of exposition because they were too stupid to figure it out.
First of all, what you are saying here is that Raiders is the less intelligent movie, as that too had significant exposition of the Ark and its significance. Second, it doesn't work that way. Even if people know what the Ark and the Grail are, you still need exposition to 1) make it clear what the plot is and 2) instil a sense of importance to the plot. It wouldn't do to simply have the characters say, "hey, let's go look for the ark/grail/whatever!" "Yaaay, let's!" No - you
need
scenes like the one with Musgrove, Eaton and Sallah in Raiders, and with Donovan, Marcus and Henry in Crusade. You need exposition in order to make it at all interesting. It's not about "figuring out" what the quest object
is
, but about exposition. Like the first sacrifice scene in Temple: that was exposition to show us the evil of the cult, and of Mola Ram. They could have
told
us and we would have understood, but it was still better to show us.
The humor in Temple was very dark,
Give me a single example of dark humour in Temple. There was none. On the contrary, the humour was all very light and juvenile.
like jokes about a guard getting run over by a mine cart and receiving a very brutal death,
How on earth is that a joke?
that is very consistent with the humor in Raiders and what did we get in CrusadeMICKEY MOUSE JOKES!
THERE WAS NO MICKEY MOUSE JOKE. There was a mere MENTION of Mickey Mouse. And even so, there's nothing juvenile about that. On the other hand, from Temple:
"This Nurhachi must have been a
real
small guy!"
"Okey dokey, Dr. Jones, hold on to your potatoes!"
"That wasn't so bad, was it? AAAAAAaaaa!"
"Oooh, I need to call my agent! Do you have a phone? Anyone, I need a phone!"
"I hate that elephant."
"Awww, I broke a nail."
"Water! Water! Water! WATER!!!!!"
And what is it you have on Crusade, exactly? "That man said "Mickey Mouse!" Yes, he did. So what? I still have no idea why you would have even the slightest problem with that.
Face it, Crusade was a movie for CHILDREN.
TEMPLE was a movie for children. The whole dinner scene had only one purpose, and that was to appeal to the humour of youngsters, who love that sort of icky stuff. Same thing with the bugs. And Temple even had a
roller-coaster
scene, for crying out loud. It was like watching the Goonies. Don't get me wrong, I like the Goonies too, but its main appeal is for kids. That you attack Crusade for being a kids movie while at the same time
liking
Temple, just makes you look ridiculous. Either you have to forfeit your pitiful criticism of Crusade, or you will have to hate Temple even more. Anything else would be hypocritical.
As for the sample size, all I was saying was if Crusade was so obviously the better film you'd think that it wouldn't get the ass kicking that it did on this thread,
You do not understand sample size and statistical significance. Flip a coin. Heads or tails? Flip it again. Heads or tails? Keep flipping. The probability is 0,5 for either heads or tails, correct? How many times do you need to flip it before the results match the odds? Allow me to do the experiment for you.
Tails. 0/1
Tails. 0/1
H -
WallaceHasLanded — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 01:11 PM)
Did this f/cking moron just try to use a 5 day old thread with 5 whole response from the message board of Temple to try to prove that Temple is the better movie??? Seriously?!?!
That would be like going to the Burton Batman message boards and asking who they like as Batman better, Keaton or Balethen after 5 replies noticing that it's going the way YOU want it to go and calling it.
F/cking idiot. I pity you for getting pulled into his trolling. Consider yourself lucky that you haven't had to engage him in conversations about how he loves to tongue f/ck Christopher Nolan's ass or how he worships Walter White from Breaking Bad. You definitely don't want to get him going on all his creepy rape fantasirs that he has about TV characters either. -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(April 08, 2016 12:07 AM)
You're right, I've wasted far too much time on someone who is clearly not all there. This is not meant as a joke or anything; I am absolutely serious: I am undecided whether he is just a child or mentally challenged.
-
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 08, 2016 04:50 PM)
Wow, so you're willing to insult mentally challenged people to prove your point about Indiana Jones??? That just shows how desperate you are.
By the way I'm a teacher and I teach a lot of special needs children so I'll thank you to stop using that kind of dialogue, it's a little offensive.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 02:56 PM)
\That's not the scene where he says "ah, Venice". In the love-making scene, he says "I love Venice". And no, that was nowhere near as bad as the flirting in Temple, which made far less sense. At least in Crusade, they had already flirted with each other. But in Temple, they had been hostile to each other - up to the beginning of that very scene!
Doesn't matter dude, the point is they tried to turn Indy into James Bond and it failed miserably, Harrison Ford seemed bored and uninterested the entire performance, he seemed to be reading his lines off a teleprompter, he wasn't the scoundrel he was in the first two, he seemed to just be going through the motions so he could get his paycheck. It was a bad line plain and simple.
But you liked Raiders, didn't you?
Raiders was at least original and it executed the plot far more effectively.
Sean Connery did not have any slapstick parts. You are thinking of Willy. She was one slapstick joke after another.
Oh he had plenty of slapstick parts, like the scene with the pen, or the scene where he accidentally sits in a chair that gives them a way out while almost falling over backwards (way too convenient and stupid), or shooting the tail end of the plain like a dumbass, or the pelican scene, or hitting the Nazi in the head which results in a cartoon sound effect.
Jesus, not even your insults show any sign of effort.
It's not an insult, there is a clear similarity between Jar Jar Binks and Marcus/Henry, it was an objective observation.
They BRIEFLY explain the legend behind the stones. Besides, the movie can't really make up it's mind whether the plot is to retrieve the stones, or free the children. The enslaved children were necessary because the Sankara stones weren't interesting enough, due to lack of exposition.
LOL you are so f-cking pathetic, you need the plot spoon fed to you like a f-cking child. First Indy just wanted to get the stones and then get out but when he saw the abuse the kids were really taking he changed, that's called a character arc, that's called good writing, Crusade had none of that because it's focus was on the Mickey Mouse jokes.
.
First of all, what you are saying here is that Raiders is the less intelligent movie, as that too had significant exposition of the Ark and its significance.
No, I'm saying Crusade is the less intelligent movie. Any pre-schooler could follow the plot and the slapstick humor is definitely geared towards that age group.
Second, it doesn't work that way. Even if people know what the Ark and the Grail are, you still need exposition to 1) make it clear what the plot is and 2) instil a sense of importance to the plot.
Temple did fine establishing the significance of the stones and how evil the cult was. In fact I remember an entire dinner conversation where they are talking about it and there were plenty of scenes in the village where they are discussing it. If you seriously need more exposition than that then you aren't smart enough to handle a film like Temple.
. You need exposition in order to make it at all interesting.
Yeah I get it, you need to have every last detail spoon fed to you or else you won't understand, I completely understand why Crusade is your favorite now.
Give me a single example of dark humour in Temple. There was none. On the contrary, the humour was all very light and juvenile.
Guy getting pulled under the rock crusher, guy getting schiscobobbed (sp???), guy getting run over by the mine cart, Indy getting his feet burned only to have a flood over water come charging at him. All great examples of black comedy, much better than an idiotic Mickey Mouse joke.
How on earth is that a joke?
Apparently it went right over your head. But since you just love exposition it was such an over the top death that it was humorous especially considering how evil that guy really was. Kind of like how when Marvin gets shot in the face in Pulp Fiction.
THERE WAS NO MICKEY MOUSE JOKE. There was a mere MENTION of Mickey Mouse. And even so, there's nothing juvenile about that.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, now that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Dude I'm just about to give this to you, you win, you obviously aren't being serious, but thanks it's been a really good troll job and you deserve it. But no in all honestly it was a joke about Mickey Mouse and the reason it was changed from Jesse Owens (and I knew who he was ever since 3rd grade) was because CHILDREN wouldn't understand the joke.
And what is it you have on Crusade, exactly? "That man said "Mickey Mouse!" Yes, he did. So what? I still have no idea why you would have even the slightest problem with that.
Because it was a slap in the face to anyone who loved the first two movies. The first two movies were dark and geared towards adults and Spielberg pussed out, he made a kiddie film because he was tired of the backlash from Temple being too dark and scary for children.
TEMPLE was a movie for children. The whole dinner scene had only one purpose, and that was to appeal to the -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(April 08, 2016 12:02 AM)
Doesn't matter dude, the point is they tried to turn Indy into James Bond and it failed miserably,
They tried that since Raiders. That was what Spielberg had always intended with the character: a James Bondian type adventurer. At any rate, there was nothing out of character about that scene. However, what always
did
strike me as out of character was when, in the opening of Temple, he threatened to kill Willie in order to bargain for the diamond, and then the antidote. That whole scene was meant to be like a James Bond scene, except the action was too comical for a James Bond movie.
he wasn't the scoundrel he was in the first two,
How was he a scoundrel in Raiders?
Raiders was at least original and it executed the plot far more effectively.
Raiders followed the same formula as the old adventure serials on which it was based. As did Crusade, and that is the extent of its plagiarism.
Oh he had plenty of slapstick parts, like the scene with the pen, or the scene where he accidentally sits in a chair that gives them a way out while almost falling over backwards (way too convenient and stupid), or shooting the tail end of the plain like a dumbass, or the pelican scene, or hitting the Nazi in the head which results in a cartoon sound effect.
*Ink pen: not slapstick by any stretch of the imagination.
*Chair revealing secret passage: ok, I'll give you that one.
*Shooting the tail of the plane: doesn't qualify as slapstick. Not all humour which includes physical interaction is slapstick, and this was actually one of the most iconic moments of all three films. The punch-line is not physical, by the way, but when Henry says, "Son, I'm sorry - they got us."
*Pelican scene - I think you mean the seagull scene. That wasn't slapstick either, I think you need to look it up.
It's not an insult, there is a clear similarity between Jar Jar Binks and Marcus/Henry, it was an objective observation.
First of all, that would be a
subjective
observation, not an objective one (clue: you are the only one who manages to see that link - have you considered that maybe YOU are the one who is wrong?)
But second, more importantly, that's not what you said. Here is what you said:
"I guess the Jar Jar antics though appeal to people with an IQ of less than 50 like yourself."
That was not an observation, that was just a very slightly refined way of saying "you're stupid".
First Indy just wanted to get the stones and then get out but when he saw the abuse the kids were really taking he changed, that's called a character arc
"Character arc" - that's another term you need to look up. The missing children was part of the plot since they arrived at the village. Just getting a stone back from Pankot Palace would not have been sufficient motivation. It was only with this line:
"Children. They say they stole their children."
You couldn't have
just
the children, because an Indy-film needs a physical quest object. However, in this case, the Sankara stones did not provide sufficient motivation.
Crusade had none of that because it's focus was on the Mickey Mouse jokes.
Qualify that claim. Explain how the focus of Last Crusade was on a character who appears in one single scene and doesn't even have a name. Explain how the movie was NOT about the race to find the grail first.
No, I'm saying Crusade is the less intelligent movie. Any pre-schooler could follow the plot and the slapstick humor is definitely geared towards that age group.
Your criticism applies to Raiders in equal measure, which is why you are insulting Raiders as well. If you have a problem with slapstick, however, then Temple is the one you should hate more than anything else. And you STILL have not addressed that.
Temple did fine establishing the significance of the stones and how evil the cult was. In fact I remember an entire dinner conversation where they are talking about it and there were plenty of scenes in the village where they are discussing it. If you seriously need more exposition than that then you aren't smart enough to handle a film like Temple.
They
mention
the village's Sankara stone at the dinner conversation. They do not "talk about" it. Oh, they do fine establishing the significance of the stones - as subordinate to saving the children. But you never get the impression that the Sankara stones are anywhere near as grand or significant as the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail. In Raiders or Crusade, you definitely get the sense that the artifact has real and serious significance, whereas in Temple Mola Ram
claims
that the five Sankara stones would give them power to take over the world, but we are never given any reason to actually believe that.
Guy getting pulled under the rock crusher, guy getting schiscobobbed (sp???), guy getting run over by the mine cart,
Those weren't jokes, goldfish-brain. If you laughed at that, particularly the thug getting crushed in the grinder, you are either a kid or there is something seriously wrong with you. Indy tried to
save
him from tha -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 08, 2016 04:38 PM)
They tried that since Raiders. That was what Spielberg had always intended with the character: a James Bondian type adventurer. At any rate, there was nothing out of character about that scene. However, what always did strike me as out of character was when, in the opening of Temple, he threatened to kill Willie in order to bargain for the diamond, and then the antidote. That whole scene was meant to be like a James Bond scene, except the action was too comical for a James Bond movie.
The action was too comical for a James Bond movie??? Have you ever seen Diamonds are Forever??? That is one of the most campy films I have ever seen in my life (on the level of Crusade and Batman and Robin). And Indy was never meant to be James Bond, Spielberg wanted to direct For Your Eyes Only but when he was turned down he decided to do Indiana Jones who was a James Bond like character but still had his own unique characteristics. James Bond has a no kill in cold blood code while Indy clearly kills in cold blood (ie the Swordsman). In Crusade however they were merely ripping off James Bond and it didn't come off well, Ford isn't Bond, he's Indy.
How was he a scoundrel in Raiders?
Using Marion for cheap sex, leaving her behind while he went after the ark
As did Crusade, and that is the extent of its plagiarism.
The plot for Crusade was flat out lazy, in Temple they attempted to do something original like Indy discovering the adventure by accident, the villains already having the artifact, etc. Crusade did everything that Raiders did just much much worse. I will never forgive Spielberg for reusing the Nazis, that was the laziest thing I have ever heard of. Face it buddy, they are the exact same movie, kind of like Home Alone and Home Alone 2 were the same movie just one was in Chicago and one was in New York.
*Ink pen: not slapstick by any stretch of the imagination.
Sure it is, we have a trained killer attempting to kill Henry and he is taken down by a pen, that is juvenile and slapstick. That scene totally made me think of Harry and Marv getting hit in the face with a paint can.
*Chair revealing secret passage: ok, I'll give you that one.
Thanks, another point for me.
*Shooting the tail of the plane: doesn't qualify as slapstick. Not all humour which includes physical interaction is slapstick, and this was actually one of the most iconic moments of all three films. The punch-line is not physical, by the way, but when Henry says, "Son, I'm sorry - they got us."
Sure it was, Henry's buffoonery contributed to the pathetic attempt at humor.
*Pelican scene - I think you mean the seagull scene. That wasn't slapstick either, I think you need to look it up.
Once again, trained killers being taken down way too easily, the entire setup was way too convenient and easy, I find it impossible to believe that Indy and Henry would have survived that situation, and of course let's not forget the German fighter actually trying to fly into a tunnel and not dying immediately, that was flat out stupid.
First of all, that would be a subjective observation, not an objective one (clue: you are the only one who manages to see that link - have you considered that maybe YOU are the one who is wrong?)
But second, more importantly, that's not what you said. Here is what you said:
"I guess the Jar Jar antics though appeal to people with an IQ of less than 50 like yourself."
That was not an observation, that was just a very slightly refined way of saying "you're stupid".
Of course it's an objective observation, both Henry and Jar Jar managed to get out of a sticky situation merely by pure dumb luck and their own stupidity. You cannot deny that there is a striking similarity between Jar Jar Binks and Henry Jones Sr.
"Character arc" - that's another term you need to look up. The missing children was part of the plot since they arrived at the village. Just getting a stone back from Pankot Palace would not have been sufficient motivation. It was only with this line:
Of course he underwent a character arc, he went from a guy who just wanted his fortune and glory and was even willing to hold an innocent woman hostage for it to a guy who was willing to sacrifice everything to do the right thing (freeing the kids).
You couldn't have just the children, because an Indy-film needs a physical quest object. However, in this case, the Sankara stones did not provide sufficient motivation.
That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard, having the kids trapped in the mine greatly emphasized just how evil the Kali Cult was, in Temple the quest wasn't just about getting the artifact, it was about defeating evil and saving the innocent. So you would just have Indy fight over the stones??? Thank god you weren't in charge of the script, the movie really would have been boring. I guess by your logic in Schindler's List we didn't need to see the Jews being executed and abused by the Nazis.
Qualify that claim. Explain how the focus of Last Crusade was on a character who -
EmpireKing — 9 years ago(September 05, 2016 06:43 AM)
Wow, you really passionately hate Last Crusade don't you?
If you're not slamming it on here, you're on the Last Crusade board itself.
Indy was never meant to be James Bond
And yet, Spielberg tried to turn him into Bond in Temple Of Doom, with a Bond entrance, complete with white blazer and black bow tie.
James Bond has a no kill in cold blood code
I don't think you've watched a Bond movie properly.
while Indy kills in cold blood (ie the swordsman)
Which Temple ruined by having him trying to save a guy from going under the crusher who just tried to kill him. Indy in Raiders would've left him.
Using Marion for cheap sex
In Last Crusade, he goes into Elsa's room and forces himself on her. So he still has that quality.
we have a trained killer attempting to kill Henry, and he is taken down by a pen. That is juvenile and slapstick.
And nowhere near as bad as Short Round kicking the crap out of the bad guys who are supposed to be ruthless child slave owners. The movie contradicts it's own plot for a cheap laugh. That's juvenile.
Henry's buffoonery contributed to the pathetic attempts at humor
A bit like Willie then.
Once again, trained killers being taken down way too easily
Like the Chinese gangsters who just sit around, literally doing nothing but watching as Indy throws a skewer into one's chest. Or the big bad slave owners who somehow become powerless against weak children that they've enslaved for plot convenience?
Only saw Spectre twice
And he mentions Mickey Mouse. Indy didn't even actually say Mickey Mouse, Bond did.
the quest didn't matter
Yeah, it didn't. That's the point of the movie. Henry realises his life long obsession didn't matter compared to his son.
I have watched it many times
You hate a movie but you keep watching it? Wow. -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 02:54 PM)
The action was too comical for a James Bond movie??? Have you ever seen Diamonds are Forever???
Diamonds Are Forever made way too much out of the two gay assassins, but came nowhere close to the juvenile humour in Temple of Doom.
And Indy was never meant to be James Bond, Spielberg wanted to direct For Your Eyes Only but when he was turned down he decided to do Indiana Jones who was a James Bond like character but still had his own unique characteristics.
Contradicting yourself within the same breath.
James Bond has a no kill in cold blood code
Have you seen even a single James Bond movie? James Bond kills in cold blood all the time. He has a license to kill, for heaven's sake, and he is never afraid to make good use of it, having no qualms killing women in cold blood either (as he was threatening to do in Live and Let Die right after sleeping with the same girl: "Oh James, you wouldn't - not after what we've just done." "I certainly wouldn't have killed you
before
.").
while Indy clearly kills in cold blood (ie the Swordsman).
How is it in "cold blood" when a big brute is threatening to chop you to pieces with a huge sword?
In Crusade however they were merely ripping off James Bond and it didn't come off well, Ford isn't Bond, he's Indy.
Where did they ripping off James Bond in Crusade? Again, that would be the opening of Temple, and nowhere at all in Crusade. But even in Temple I wouldn't call it "ripping off", just affirming what Spielberg had wanted all along: to have Indy as a James Bond type character. There is nothing Bondian at all, however, about Crusade.
Using Marion for cheap sex, leaving her behind while he went after the ark
I don't know why I bother since you obviously haven't seen the movie. At no point does he use her for cheap sex - we just get to know that he
had
used her, at one point long before the events of this movie, in the back-story. He never uses her in this film. And when he leaves her behind while going for the ark, that's not
leaving her behind- he didn't want to, but knew that if he cut her loose, the Germans would start looking for them. Come on, he explicitly states as much, how were you able to miss it? We clearly see that he hates having to leave her behind.
The plot for Crusade was flat out lazy, in Temple they attempted to do something original like Indy discovering the adventure by accident, the villains already having the artifact, etc. Crusade did everything that Raiders did just much much worse. I will never forgive Spielberg for reusing the Nazis, that was the laziest thing I have ever heard of. Face it buddy, they are the exact same movie, kind of like Home Alone and Home Alone 2 were the same movie just one was in Chicago and one was in New York.
True, Temple tried something new and Crusade played it safe. The whole reason Crusade exists in the first place is as an apology for Temple. And Crusade worked so much better as an Indy-film than Temple. There's a reason why Indy-fans can pretty much be divided into two camps: those who like Raiders the best, and those who like Crusade the best. Few would place Temple second, and even fewer would place it at the top.
Sure it is, we have a trained killer attempting to kill Henry and he is taken down by a pen, that is juvenile and slapstick. That scene totally made me think of Harry and Marv getting hit in the face with a paint can.
He's a soldier, not a "trained killer". The latter term is typically reserved for assassins. And no, there is nothing slapstick about it. The slapstic bit comes later, when Marcus bops the same soldier on the head with a shell casing.
Once again, trained killers being taken down way too easily,
Oh, you mean like when Short Round defeats Thuggee swordsmen with ease? The German pilot flying into the tunnel does qualify as slapstick, but not the pilot who flies into the flock of sea-gulls. Even though that was a pretty stupid death, realistically speaking, we see nameless villains acting stupidly all the time in action films. This is simply so the hero(s) will survive. If movies were realistic, we wouldn't have very many happy endings.
Of course it's an objective observation
An objective observation is one which everyone will agree on, because everyone will see the same thing. Since we disagree, this proves - rather conclusively - that your observation is subjective, not objective.
You cannot deny that there is a striking similarity between Jar Jar Binks and Henry Jones Sr.
Of course I can, because they are completely different characters - in every conceivable way.
That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard, having the kids trapped in the mine greatly emphasized just how evil the Kali Cult was, in Temple the quest wasn't just about getting the artifact, it was about defeating evil and saving the innocent. So you would just have Indy fight over the stones???
How on earth did you manage to read the exact opposite of what I wrote?
The focus was on the humor, as I said earlier in Crusade it
- he didn't want to, but knew that if he cut her loose, the Germans would start looking for them. Come on, he explicitly states as much, how were you able to miss it? We clearly see that he hates having to leave her behind.
-
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 03:07 PM)
It's better to think of Crusade like Monty Python (which I do find to be hilarious by the way), the quest doesn't matter, the story doesn't matter, all that matters is that you have a good laugh along the way. Honestly if Spielberg wanted to make a movie like that I wouldn't have a problem with it, my only issue is the humor should have actually been funny and they shouldn't have connected this film with two of the greatest adventure movies ever made, that is where I am legitimately pissed off.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 03:57 PM)
It's better to think of Crusade like Monty Python (which I do find to be hilarious by the way), the quest doesn't matter, the story doesn't matter, all that matters is that you have a good laugh along the way.
There is no way you have seen Last Crusade. -
WallaceHasLanded — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 01:06 PM)
Well how about this
I've seen you mention the Mickey Mouse line at least 100 times on IMDB. Then I had I good laugh last night while watching Spectre
Bond approaches a guard who asks for his credentials, and guess what Bond snarky and jokingly says his name is??? M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E!!!!!
That's right, your precious James Bond drops in the EXACT pop culture reference in nearly an exact context as from Last Crusade.
Where's your campaign against Spectre?? You rated it a 10.with a Mickey Mouse joke in it??? Where's all the backlash?!? Where's your campaign that Bond is now for kids???
You f/cking hippo-crite