Why'd this have so much less action than ToD?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
bigpapapumpct — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 12:39 AM)
I love LC, don't get me wrong, but the one thing I always sorta nitpick about is the lack of action compared to Temple of Doom. That one was batsh*t crazy over the top with action and I loved every second of it. This one was more restrained and although it had action, it just seemed so much less extreme than the previous film.
I know Spielberg wanted to tell a more intimate father/son story, but there's no reason why he couldn't have kept the action on par with ToD.
The whole finale of the film where Indy must go through the three challenges to get to the Grail was about as bland as you can get. He should of had to go through a LOT more inside that place to get to the cup than what he ultimate did. It literally took him 3 minutes to bypass everything. They could have easily added an extra 10 minutes to the movie of him having to make it through some crazy action packed tests. -
wittmann73 — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 12:42 AM)
- train chase
- motorboat chase
- motorbike chase
- blimp/plane chase
- tank chase
ok, less over-the-top action than in TOD, but anyway, good action. I think the three challenges were meant to be spiritual ones. not big problem for me.
-
ravi02 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 11:48 AM)
You didn't find the opening train setpiece, the boat chase through Venice, motorcycle escape from the Nazi castle or the tank battle to be exciting? There was some dramatic heft to those scenes too as Indy had to find his father and reach the Canyon of the Crescent Moon before the Nazis and also dealing with the Cruciform Sword.
He should of had to go through a LOT more inside that place to get to the cup than what he ultimate did. It literally took him 3 minutes to bypass everything.
Oh come on. You could make a similar argument about Indy just randomly stumbling into a hidden passageway in Temple of Doom and it just happens to lead him into the titular temple?
There's more to the ending of Crusade. Unlike the other film's endings, Henry's life is in the balance so there's a sense of urgency that Indy must find the grail soon. He also has to rely on his skills as an archaeologist to crack clues and the actor playing the Grail Knight does a great job. Any hero could have rescued the children at the end of Temple, but the ending of Crusade makes special use of Indy's talents. -
buddyboy28 — 9 years ago(October 26, 2016 10:48 AM)
That one was batsh*t crazy with over the top action
Really? Once the shanghai sequence is over there's no action again until Indy is attacked in his room and they go through the spiked room. Then the action stops again until he comes out of his possession.
there's no reason why he couldn't have kept the action on par with ToD
I'm glad he didn't. The tank sequence beats anything in ToD. One of the things thing I don't like about ToD is not seeing a lot of Harrison Ford or his double up close and personal amongst the action like in Raiders and Last Crusade.
Watching a rubber dinghy fall out of a plane with dummies in it or a mine cart jump from one track to the other where you can't see them inside just isn't as tense as seeing him struggling on the truck or tank. -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 02:11 AM)
I know Spielberg wanted to tell a more intimate father/son story, but there's no reason why he couldn't have kept the action on par with ToD.
Packing a film too dense with action makes it cartoony. With Crusade, they wanted to return to the formula of Raiders, which had significantly less action than Temple. Less action means more time for plot exposition. So there was indeed a very good reason not to keep the action on par with Temple. And looking at the ratings, this was the right decision.