Hello :)
-
ravi02 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:33 AM)
Look at the old adventure movies and comics from the 30s and 40s. There was a strong hero fighting and exploring, smoking cigarettes etc.
There was also a lot of cartoonish (many times quite racist) caricatures of minorities and sexist portrayals of women in those films. Just because those qualities worked then doesn't necessarily make them
good
.
For me the appeal of Indiana Jones is less about fighting and kicking lots of ass. If that's all you want, then watch a Steven Seagal, Jean Claude Van Damme or Chuck Norris film. I like Indy because he's smart, resourceful, gets by through sheer luck, has a dry sense of humor and most of all, he's human.
The inclusion of Indy's dad works because he's a great character who's portrayed well by Sean Connery. His relationship with Indy shows a vulnerable side to Indy that we never saw in the earlier films. Indy and Henry both studied archaeology throughout their lives, but both have a different approach to their work. They both undergo a character arc throughout the film and they both grow to respect each other over the course of their adventure. Their relationship veers from being funny, dramatic and sad and adds a good heart to the film.
If all you want is non-stop mindless action, then OK look somewhere else, but for me, and other fans, a balance between a good story and character elements is needed to go with the action-adventure. -
-
michaelward15 — 9 years ago(June 15, 2016 09:38 AM)
I didn't like Last Crusade either, but for me it was that it tried to hard to be funny and the jokes were too forced and the whole thing just seemed cobbled together.
Raiders is the only one I really love. I saw it again in the theater last week, and it just seems even better every time I see it. -
Klein_Returns — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 09:55 AM)
I liked all of them. I liked Raiders best, Last Crusade next, then Kingdom and even though I still liked it, Temple of Doom was the one that I liked the least.
Raiders and Crusade are both tied for first place for me, then Kingdom then Temple. -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(September 11, 2016 01:49 PM)
But in the third movie, Spielberg decided not to make another IJ movie, but to tell about his favourite theme: a father-son story. He does that all the time, in Hook, in E.T., in Jurassic Park, all the time!
The movie is not just a great adventure movie, no, theres too much talking about father-son relationships. I dont want to hear Indy complaining about not being interesting for his father, I want to see him fighting bad guys and explore dungeons! A character like Indiana Jones is like a comic figure - its not a family drama!
That was
one
scene. One
small
scene. So small, in fact, I can recount it right here, right now, from memory:
H: You know, sharing your adventures is an interesting experience.
I: It's not all we shared. It's disgraceful. You're old enough to be her her grandfather.
H: I'm as human as the next man.
I: I
was
the next man.
H: (chuckles) Ships that pass in the night.
I: Remember the last time we had a quiet drink? I had a milkshake.
H: What did we talk about?
I: We didn't talk. We never talked.
H: Do I detect a rebuke?
I: A regret. It was just the two of us, dad. It was a lonely way to grow up; for you too. If you had been an ordinary average father like the other guys' dads you'd have understood that.
H: Actually, I was a wonderful father.
I: When?
H: Did I ever tell you to eat up, go to bed wash your ears, do your homework? No: I respected your privacy, and I taught you self-reliance.
I: What you taught me was that I was less important to you than people who'd been dead for 500 years in another country, and I learned it so well we hardly spoke for twenty years.
H: You left just when you were becoming interesting.
I: Dad
H: Well, I'm here, now. What do you want to talk about?
I: I can't think of anything.
H: Then what are you complaining about? Look, we have work to do.
And the rest of the conversation is plot-related. So that's five minutes, perhaps, of a two hour long movie.
Look at the ending of Raiders, great effects, the villains die. Ending of Temple - Indy and Mola Ram fighting on that broken bridge! Very suspenseful to watch! And whats the ending of Crusade? "Indiana. Indiana. Let it go". "Awww, he calls him Indiana, how sweet".
I don't see how you can complain about that when in Temple, you had
"Indy, I love you!"
by Short Round while Indy was under the spell of the blood. Awwww, how sweet! Didn't complain about that, did you? Personally, I don't see what was wrong with either. But you have no right to complain about the Crusade sappiness if you are going to excuse the same in the other films.
You also seem to have missed the rest of the ending of Crusade, what with the temple collapsing and villains dying. And
main characters
dying as well, though Henry was saved in the nick of time.
Even the last three traps in the temple were boring. Two blades, then stepping on the right tiles on the ground, and then stepping on a bridge. Thats it.
The stepping on the right tiles was done in the opening sequence of Raiders, when Indiana steps on the tiles that are not dangerous - otherwise there are darts coming out of the wall. This was just one little part of that adventure - but here it is one of the deadly traps?
Again, considering Raiders didn't have any traps
at all
at the end, I don't see what you're complaining about. You found the traps boring, too bad. That doesn't seem to be a very common complaint. Remember, too, that Indy was working against the clock during those trials. Most people - myself included - have several complaints against each of the three trials at the end, but none of the complaints include how "boring" they allegedly are. The way you simplify those trials, by the way, you can do for the other Indy-films as well. You can make anything sound trivial. The ending of Temple? Collapsing a bridge, villains falling off and that's it. Raiders? Opening a box, ghosts come out and that's it.
See how that works? The arguments you are bringing to the table are dripping with bias, and you make no attempt to make a fair representation of this movie. -
Blueghost — 9 years ago(November 13, 2016 07:18 PM)
Spielberg had a real zest and passion for Raiders of the Lost Ark. You can see it in the shot setups and overall direction. The follow on films came across as "jobs", or lacked the amount of energy and attention to artistic detail.
It's like Raiders had a level or production that really hits you and makes you say "Wow, this is an impressive movie." The number of extras, the renting of a submarine and merchant ship, the size of the location sets, the action scenes done without few special effects compare that with Temple of Doom, Crusade and Crystal Skull, and you see SFX creeping in more and more.
But because it's Spielberg, his skill off sets some of that "let's get this done" vibe and feel that some of the scene in the follow on films give off.
With Raiders I felt like they wanted to make a great film. With the other I felt like they wanted to make a good sequel. I hope that's not too insulting to them.
Oh well. -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 03:55 AM)
The number of extras, the renting of a submarine and merchant ship,
Just a side note here they never rented that submarine. They borrowed it from the Das Boot production, and I don't think they paid a dime for it.