Indiana Jones IV

[bsu legato]

And since nobody else has posted it, here's the third of those leaked pics. Ford may be showing his age in the first two, but this one could almost pass as something from Last Crusade.

[Fly4victory]

WoW! Thanks for the better photos.

Can see the handle of the whip has changed and Indy now has a backpack.

New market for the Indy costumers!!!!!!!!

Wonder if the same companies were used for the costume and equipment.

Yet, I think I will stay stuck in the Raiders TOD period.

This is going to be a fun movie just for all the fans to dress up.

The fellow with the poncho in the background brought back memories of Bolivia.

Edit: Does Indy finally have a watch in this movie?

Edited December 1, 2007 by Fly4victory

[Vermillion21]

Anyone hear the supposed "title"? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is what I've heard... has that been confirmed as "true" or is just more internet speculation?

That's the real, actual movie title???

Meh .....

[Mog]

Regarding bluecyclone's pic, am I the only one hoping that pic is right after Indy's popped a cap into another fancy-schmancy, sword-wielding fool?

[UN Spacy]

[misterryno]

Okay....I'll see it.

[Warmaker]

Sweet, I'll be back in the states when this movie is released!

[Hurin]

I hope this will be good ... I'd hate to see another cool franchise end on a really lame a$$ note like Matrix and X-Men ....

Sorry, but that's already happened to this franchise. Have you watched Last Crusade as an adult?

Most people I know who say that Last Crusade was their favorite (or even good) haven't seen it since they were fourteen. And upon watching it, they're amazed at how downright cheezy, hokey, and outright bad it is.

Yet, the majesty that is Raiders will never fade.

[eriku]

Sorry, but that's already happened to this franchise. Have you watched Last Crusade as an adult?

Most people I know who say that Last Crusade was their favorite (or even good) haven't seen it since they were fourteen. And upon watching it, they're amazed at how downright cheezy, hokey, and outright bad it is.

Yet, the majesty that is Raiders will never fade.

I agree to an extent, but it's still easier for me to watch than Temple of Doom with that shitty b!itch screaming at EVERYTHING through the whole movie. Here's Temple of Doom in a nutshell:

"Doktah Jone!"

"AHHHHH!"

"Doktah Jone!"

"EEEEEEEK!!"

"Doktah Jone!"

"BWAAHHHH!!"

"Doktah Jone!"

"EEEEEEEE!!!!"

End Credits

[JsARCLIGHT]

Personally I feel Temple of Doom is the cheesiest, hoakiest Indy movie. Short Round is to blame for that. At least Last Crusade had a ton of Nazi punching and even a little face melting. Plus Last Crusade is the most quotable of all the Indy movies.

They've got a tank... with a six pound gun... Don't worry dad we're well out of range.

A big question that I have for the new Indy movie is what does everyone think will be the big "gross out swarm" in this movie? Raiders had snakes, Temple had bugs, Crusade had rats... what else is there?

[Mr March]

Naturally, I'll end up going to see this. I liked Raiders and Last Crusade (yes, even as an adult) and since it's a Spielberg film, at least it will be well made on a technical and aesthetic level. Even the worst of his films (example, War of the Worlds) are much more tolerable to watch than average box office fodder just because they are so well put together and look great. As for this film itself, Harrison is too old, the franchise freshness is long gone, yadda, yadda, yadda. But I guess we all have our guilty pleasures.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Mr March

[eriku]

A big question that I have for the new Indy movie is what does everyone think will be the big "gross out swarm" in this movie? Raiders had snakes, Temple had bugs, Crusade had rats... what else is there?

Hippies?

[JsARCLIGHT]

Too soon.

It would be beatniks if anything, then again the modern movie going public public wouldn't know the "beat generation" from much else.

[Chowser]

It's supposed to take place in the 50s right?

it'll be a swarm of cheesy singing and dancing.

[eriku]

Too soon.

It would be beatniks if anything, then again the modern movie going public public wouldn't know the "beat generation" from much else.

LOL, "Beat generation? You mean like Run DMC and all those 80's rappers?"

Hell, the modern movie going public probably wouldn't even know Run DMC.

I'm guessing the next gross-out swarm will be snakes again. Bring it all full-circle.

[kalvasflam]

I know I'll see it, but to me, Indy 4 is still everything that is wrong with Hollywood, they can't help but resurrect older series and drag out has beens like Harrison Ford to do sequels.

The lack of creativity is just sad.

That said, I wonder if they'll do a 3-D version of this movie. Technically, those are quite spectacular.

[JsARCLIGHT]

LOL, "Beat generation? You mean like Run DMC and all those 80's rappers?"

Hell, the modern movie going public probably wouldn't even know Run DMC.

I'm guessing the next gross-out swarm will be snakes again. Bring it all full-circle.

You don't know the beat generation? Beatniks? Jack Kerouac? On the Road? Damnation Peak? Some good reading if you ever want to get into it.

Run DMC would be the "Beat Box" generation.

[eriku]

You don't know the beat generation? Beatniks? Jack Kerouac? On the Road? Damnation Peak? Some good reading if you ever want to get into it.

Run DMC would be the "Beat Box" generation.

Heh, my own joke gets me in trouble! I was giving voice to the average movie-going public, thus the quotes. I'm quite familiar with Kerouac, Ginsberg, etc.

[JsARCLIGHT]

No smiley, me takey seriously.

Back on topic, I'm also kind of interested to see where they take the Shia angle... his character shows the signs of being a greaser and I wonder if he is a "young Indy" like River Phoenix was, rebellious but smart, or if he's just a bratty "rebel" punk kid who "learns to respect his pop" in the movie.

[bsu legato]

Last Crusade is by no means a perfect movie, but it does have some strong points in its favor. The Ford/Connery chemistry is only denied by those viewers who are truly dead inside. But deeper than the banter between them is the father son dynamic and the maturation of that relationship, something I've appreciated more and more in my adult years. It's easy to dismiss the young Indy prologue (alas, poor River Phoenix...) but taken as a whole it's an essential part of the film, illustrating Henry Jr's eventual patterning of himself after the man he wishes his father was. Then you get the payoff when Indy slowly reconcinles with his estranged father. Is that not thematically pleasing? In addition to that, there's some great, snappy delivery by Ford, harkening back to the Han & Leia byplay.

"Are you crazy? Don't go between them!"

"Go between them? Are you crazy?"

There's a goodly amount of action, but for me the tank chase is the standout. Nevermind the fact they manufactured a full scale Mk 8 tank replica for the movie, but the whole scene comes close to rivaling the truck chase in Raiders in terms of staging. You also get a decently involving treasure hunt, a hot femme fatal (head and shoulders above Kate Capshaw) and plenty of Nazi face-punching. The worst crime that Last Crusade commits (along with Temple) is that it's not as good as Raiders. And let's face it, this isn't even a fair comparison because Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the best action movies ever filmed. Next to it, nearly everything pales. Sure there's more humor than the previous films (probably a deliberate choice after the darkness of Temple) but is that really such a bad thing? These films were never intended to be as serious as some fans would believe them to be. To me, the humor allows Crusade to be it's own animal, distinct from Raiders. If a seqeul doesn't bring anything new to the table, then what's the point?

It's not the best film, for all parties involved, but I'll gladly take another Last Crusade over 100 Van Helsings or Mummy Returns.

[Fort Max]

A big question that I have for the new Indy movie is what does everyone think will be the big "gross out swarm" in this movie? Raiders had snakes, Temple had bugs, Crusade had rats... what else is there?

Reality TV "stars"

[eugimon]

Last Crusade is by no means a perfect movie, but it does have some strong points in its favor. The Ford/Connery chemistry is only denied by those viewers who are truly dead inside. But deeper than the banter between them is the father son dynamic and the maturation of that relationship, something I've appreciated more and more in my adult years. It's easy to dismiss the young Indy prologue (alas, poor River Phoenix...) but taken as a whole it's an essential part of the film, illustrating Henry Jr's eventual patterning of himself after the man he wishes his father was. Then you get the payoff when Indy slowly reconcinles with his estranged father. Is that not thematically pleasing? In addition to that, there's some great, snappy delivery by Ford, harkening back to the Han & Leia byplay.

"Are you crazy? Don't go between them!"

"Go between them? Are you crazy?"

There's a goodly amount of action, but for me the tank chase is the standout. Nevermind the fact they manufactured a full scale Mk 8 tank replica for the movie, but the whole scene comes close to rivaling the truck chase in Raiders in terms of staging. You also get a decently involving treasure hunt, a hot femme fatal (head and shoulders above Kate Capshaw) and plenty of Nazi face-punching. The worst crime that Last Crusade commits (along with Temple) is that it's not as good as Raiders. And let's face it, this isn't even a fair comparison because Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the best action movies ever filmed. Next to it, nearly everything pales. Sure there's more humor than the previous films (probably a deliberate choice after the darkness of Temple) but is that really such a bad thing? These films were never intended to be as serious as some fans would believe them to be. To me, the humor allows Crusade to be it's own animal, distinct from Raiders. If a seqeul doesn't bring anything new to the table, then what's the point?

It's not the best film, for all parties involved, but I'll gladly take another Last Crusade over 100 Van Helsings or Mummy Returns.

yup yup.. for all Crusade's faults, there's real, genuine chemistry between ford and connery and it just can't be denied.. hell, the whole cast just works together so well.

I still maintain temple of doom is the lame duck out of the series.

[Hurin]

Last Crusade is by no means a perfect movie, but it does have some strong points in its favor. The Ford/Connery chemistry is only denied by those viewers who are truly dead inside. But deeper than the banter between them is the father son dynamic and the maturation of that relationship, something I've appreciated more and more in my adult years. It's easy to dismiss the young Indy prologue (alas, poor River Phoenix...) but taken as a whole it's an essential part of the film, illustrating Henry Jr's eventual patterning of himself after the man he wishes his father was. Then you get the payoff when Indy slowly reconcinles with his estranged father. Is that not thematically pleasing? In addition to that, there's some great, snappy delivery by Ford, harkening back to the Han & Leia byplay.

"Are you crazy? Don't go between them!"

"Go between them? Are you crazy?"

There's a goodly amount of action, but for me the tank chase is the standout. Nevermind the fact they manufactured a full scale Mk 8 tank replica for the movie, but the whole scene comes close to rivaling the truck chase in Raiders in terms of staging. You also get a decently involving treasure hunt, a hot femme fatal (head and shoulders above Kate Capshaw) and plenty of Nazi face-punching. The worst crime that Last Crusade commits (along with Temple) is that it's not as good as Raiders. And let's face it, this isn't even a fair comparison because Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the best action movies ever filmed. Next to it, nearly everything pales. Sure there's more humor than the previous films (probably a deliberate choice after the darkness of Temple) but is that really such a bad thing? These films were never intended to be as serious as some fans would believe them to be. To me, the humor allows Crusade to be it's own animal, distinct from Raiders. If a seqeul doesn't bring anything new to the table, then what's the point?

It's not the best film, for all parties involved, but I'll gladly take another Last Crusade over 100 Van Helsings or Mummy Returns.

I wasn't aware that in order to bring something "new to the table" that the "something new" had to be corniness, morons as side-kicks, and humor aimed at eight-year-olds.

Taking a look at the (bsu-acclaimed!) tank scene that "rivals the truck chase in Raiders". . . the part that ruins it for me (because I'm dead inside) is the multiple times in this scene alone that we take a break in the action to repeatedly demonstrate that everyone in the movie but Indy is a total f'ing idiot. Just about everything Sallah, Marcus Brodey, or Jones Sr. do in that scene reveals them to be complete morons. From the secret society (or college club) greeting in the tank, to Sallah with the camels, to the "pen is mightier than the sword" lameness. . . not to mention Indy knocking multiple people out with one punch. . . and shooting a pistol through 4-6 nazis at once (and then mugging for the camera). And, this is merely one scene. The rest of the movie is replete with this ass-hattery as well.

That type of idiocy is totally lacking in Raiders. And, contrary to assertions that such idiocy was necessary to distinguish a sequel from its predecessors, I don't think you need to introduce idiot characters (or make pre-existing characters retroactively idiotic) in order to make an interesting sequel.

Honestly, I blame Beverly Hills Cop. Yes. Yes I do. After that movie, Hollywood seemed to have decided that just about every film must have dollops of "humor" thrown in. But, as we've seen with just about every Lucas (and to a lesser extent Spielberg) vehicle since Raiders/Empire, when asked for "humor". . . they just introduce some characters who acts like idiots for "comic relief" or have people fall down a lot. . . and then the kiddies (young and old) squeel with glee. But since Bev Hills Cop predates RotJ, I suppose I have to also mention that this turn for Lucas began a bit early. . . apparently when he became a father and started making movies ("for the kids!"). . . leading to Marcus Brodey having a lobotomy, ewoks, Howard the Duck. . . and finally to Jar-Jar himself.

No, the Indiana Jones films are not supposed to be "serious". . . Raiders is an adventure/action movie. But Raiders has no trace of corniness to it. There are no "Jar Jar" (or even "Short-Round") moments anywhere to be found in it (closest comes from a momentary glimpse of someone's face through the windshield during the truck chase). And I don't think it's accurate or even makes a lot of sense to say that the latter films needed to be more cheezy or hoaky to distinguish themselves. But, they sure were.

As for the "chemistry" between Ford and Connery. . . I'd be more impressed with had I any real urge to see the dark anti-hero from Raiders and the Lost Ark spend two hours trying to impress his father and be repeatedly referred to as a "boy scout" (not to mention that for the opening sequence he is literally a boy scout). Silly me, I just wanted him to kill nazis and act like a bad-ass without a bunch of buffoons bopping around beside him. Ya know, like the first movie, but with some new twists rather than an entirely different sensibility and target audience.

Having said all that, I used to think Temple of Doom was the worst of the three, until --on the advice of bsu (if memory serves)-- I re-watched it and changed my tune.

[lord_breetai]

As for the "chemistry" between Ford and Connery. . . I'd be more impressed with had I any real urge to see the dark anti-hero from Raiders and the Lost Ark spend two hours trying to impress his father and be repeatedly referred to as a "boy scout" (not to mention that for the opening sequence he is literally a boy scout). Silly me, I just wanted him to kill nazis and act like a bad-ass without a bunch of buffoons bopping around beside him. Ya know, like the first movie, but with some new twists rather than an entirely different sensibility and target audience.

You forgot the scene where he was dressed up like a Hitler Youth which is like an evil boyscout .

Anyway the slapstick, didn't bother me much but maybe I should rewatch the movies (I've never even seen temple of doom).

BTW I thought Howard the Duck was a pretty good adaptation of the Marvel comic.

Edited December 13, 2007 by lord_breetai

[GobotFool]

The reason some younger folk love last crusade so much, myself for example, is because it was the 1st indianna jones movie they watched. Nostalgia's a powerful thing.

[Vermillion21]

I like the teaser movie poster ... sweet.

And I liked Last Crusade too, not as good as Raiders, but definitely better than Temple of Doom IMHO.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Taking a look at the (bsu-acclaimed!) tank scene that "rivals the truck chase in Raiders". . . the part that ruins it for me (because I'm dead inside) is the multiple times in this scene alone that we take a break in the action to repeatedly demonstrate that everyone in the movie but Indy is a total f'ing idiot. Just about everything Sallah, Marcus Brodey, or Jones Sr. do in that scene reveals them to be complete morons. From the secret society (or college club) greeting in the tank, to Sallah with the camels, to the "pen is mightier than the sword" lameness. . . not to mention Indy knocking multiple people out with one punch. . . and shooting a pistol through 4-6 nazis at once (and then mugging for the camera). And, this is merely one scene. The rest of the movie is replete with this ass-hattery as well.

That type of idiocy is totally lacking in Raiders. And, contrary to assertions that such idiocy was necessary to distinguish a sequel from its predecessors, I don't think you need to introduce idiot characters (or make pre-existing characters retroactively idiotic) in order to make an interesting sequel.

You know, I actually sat down and watched Raiders today all the way through due to lack of other meaningful things to do (plus it snowed a lot here and I prefer to stay inside until Monday) and I have to really disagree with Hurin on his points.

Raiders is chock full of hammy, corny goof-ball one takes, goofy characters and outrageously bad dialog.

No, the Indiana Jones films are not supposed to be "serious". . . Raiders is an adventure/action movie. But Raiders has no trace of corniness to it. There are no "Jar Jar" (or even "Short-Round") moments anywhere to be found in it (closest comes from a momentary glimpse of someone's face through the windshield during the truck chase). And I don't think it's accurate or even makes a lot of sense to say that the latter films needed to be more cheezy or hoaky to distinguish themselves. But, they sure were.

Well, just to add in all the corny stuff you left out, Raiders contains:

- the "sieg heil" monkey who says "uh oh" when ducking into the truck

- the girl in his class who wrote "Love You" on her eyelids

- The big curly haired guy in Karen Allen's bar who just falls over drunk with a big goofy smile on his face

- the Cairo muggers who accidentally impale their cohort only to have two apples stuck on their sword along with him shish kebab style

- Karen Allen's whole "frying pan" fight with one of the muggers

- The constant whining and screeching "Iiiiiiiinddyyyyyyyy" of Karen Allen closely matches Kate Capshaw

- The whimpering Gestapo guy who runs out into the snow to put his flaming hand out

- The "screaming" mummies in the well of souls that surround Karen Allen

- The lead SS guy throws a melon at an off screen dog in frustration

- Sullah was (and still is in Crusade) a big goofy lummox who walks around singing songs from HMS Pinafore, gets scared by the statue in the Well of the Souls and mugs, steps and fetches for the SS and Waffen troops when they goose him

- pretty much everyone but Indy is an idiot (his south American "comrade" falls into the light trap, he plugs the Cairo swordsman, the army intel guys are played off as "bureaucratic fools" (Indy's own words), Belloch is only "one step ahead" of Indy out of chance and dumb luck, as are the Nazis)

... and these are only the ones I remember.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that every single Indy movie is chock full of goofy, corny bits. While I agree that Crusade seems to have a lot more of them and they are more, shall we say "everyman" than the ones in Raiders, you can't deny that Raiders is not "goofy free". I mean come on... a monkey throws a nazi salute and the nazi returns it. But that is just part of the corny haw haw flair of the Indy movies. It wouldn't be Indiana Jones if it did not have this child-like whimsy about it. I think that is what makes the movies so entertaining is that they don't take themselves seriously... such as the scene you mentioned with the guy on the windshield. That in and of itself is goofy, but the "Indy moment" of that scene follows the guy on the windshield when Indy and the Waffen Sargent exchange this brief "huyck huyck" smiling glance at each other in recognition that that poor dope on the windshield was funny. And of course everyone has to laugh when he just shoots the Cairo swordsman... but you have to admit that that scene was goofy. Not so much "duh" goofy but still it was corny goofy and it gets a laugh out of the audience. And in the end that is all it's about... getting the audience to laugh. To diffuse the seriousness of it all. If the Indy movies did not have all their goofy nuttiness they'd probably be kind of depressing.

[Warmaker]

- The lead SS guy throws a melon at an off screen dog in frustration

I'm sorry, but this part sounds hilarious. I'd have to dig out and watch this scene

[JsARCLIGHT]

It's the end of the big truck scene when Indy drives the truck into Omar's and Beloch and the Nazis drive up only to have completely lost him. A street vendor shoves his melons in the head nazi's face, you hear a barking dog off screen (thank you, foley artist) and he snatches the melon from the vendor and chucks it at the unseen dog resulting in some nice splat and whimpering foley.

Edit: On afterthought I probably should have included the whole "basket chase" scene in the goofy list as well. I mean, come on... it's plain ham. Indy tipping over everyone's laundry.

[EXO]

I'm with Hurin with this one... though there was comic relief in Raiders, the sequels were a bit too tongue and cheek for me. I enjoyed the third one a lot more than the second one but some of it really kinda messed with the original. To me Sallah and Brody seemed like they were adventurers that had many jobs with Indy. It was almost like there were these sub-culture of people that made a living being bad ass archaeologists, like the three mentioned, Belloq and Indy's dad. But in the third one they made Brody and Sallah such goofballs. It really did seem like they were aimed at kids where Raiders was more meant for the Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Aliens, The Fly, and Highlander type audience. (a few of which had crappy sequels also.) The point is, the last 2 crossed the line between comic relief and goofy for myself. And I'll probably skip this new one. I'm happy with the Indy that I grew up with and don't want to screw it up any further. I got a feeling this is probably going to be as good as Die Hard 4, which was decent... but it just wasn't the same John McLane trapped in the Nakatomi...

[JsARCLIGHT]

I agree with you both that Crusade and Temple drastically upped the goofy-crap-o-meter with the series, I was only taking issue with Hurin's blanket statement that Raiders was somehow "goofy free". Raiders is filled to the rim with tons of physical comedy and goofy stuff. One needs look no further than "uh oh sieg heil monkey". That monkey was the Short Round of Raiders... but thankfully they had the good sense to kill him off. I'd pay good money to see the mangled, poisoned corpse of Short Round in an artsy "through the ceiling fan" shot.

[Mr March]

I do agree with Hurin to a degree; though I enjoy Last Crusade, it is more corny and silly than Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, I'm afraid I don't see a huge leap in "ham and cheese" between the first film and it's sequels. The way some are talking it's analgous to LOTR vs. Harry Potter when the truth is more in the middle. Raiders was firmly set in a silly, vapid genre to begin with, an homage to low brow action/adventure serials of the 1930s and 1940s. Though Raiders is an entertaining and exceptional example of that genre, it's still what it is. Temple of Doom and Last Crusade add more mysticism and humor respectivley than the first installment, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing any major departures that drives the sequels into Spy Kids territory.

I think EXO's opinion, and his Die Hard analogy in particular, is more in line with my own. As good as the sequels may be, they failed to improve upon the original and offer only diminishing returns.

[Hurin]

I agree with you both that Crusade and Temple drastically upped the goofy-crap-o-meter with the series, I was only taking issue with Hurin's blanket statement that Raiders was somehow "goofy free". Raiders is filled to the rim with tons of physical comedy and goofy stuff. One needs look no further than "uh oh sieg heil monkey". That monkey was the Short Round of Raiders... but thankfully they had the good sense to kill him off. I'd pay good money to see the mangled, poisoned corpse of Short Round in an artsy "through the ceiling fan" shot.

Well, obviously, we largely agree. It's matter of degree, not total absence in Raiders. But as much as I overstated that there was "no trace" of hokeyness in Raider, I think you're also engaging in a bit of hyperbole when you say that Raiders is "filled to the rim" with "tons of of physical comedy and goofy stuff." And I'm not sure that I'd consider that list entirely fair as it really does pale in comparison to Crusade's list of corniness. . . in both quantity and "quality."

So, I'll modify my original statement and say instead that there is no trace of that degree of corniness in Raiders (relative to Crusade).

I mean, say what you want about the monkey. . . but at least it was an attempt at commentary while injecting a little humor. I'll take that over the 30-60 seconds where we see Indy getting confused because he thinks his father is concerned for him instead of the vase he just broke. . . all while they should have been escaping. In fact, just to play devil's (monkey's?) advocate, Monkeys do mimic people. . . and the point to the "joke" was that Nazis might be so used to "heiling" everyone that it might be an unconscious response. No, I'm not saying it's not hokey. . . but it's nowhere near as hokey as the stuff wedged into just about every scene of Last Crusade. From the Librarian with the stamp. . . to the Nazi pilot who inexplicably flies his plane into a tunnel (there's a mountain around those, ya know). . . and then stoically looks down at the "Jones boys" as his plane skids beside them all while he heads to his fiery death. . . to the "no ticket" scene in the blimp. . . to everything Marcus Brody does or says. . . the list goes on and on. . . I just don't see a guy in the sound room adding the sound of a yelping dog to be on the same level as the dollops of ass-hatery that take place in nearly every scene of Crusade.

I mean, half that list, I'm thinking. . . what's the problem? A perfect example is the "love you" on the eyelids. Compare that subtle moment in Raiders to how, in Last Crusade, they have his all-female class swooning at him (some looking almost like zombies) both in class and in his office shortly thereafter. So, once again, it's a question of degree. Though you can sit down and watch Raiders with an eye for the hokey, for every moment in Raiders there are several moments in Crusade that are much more egregiously "over the top" in ways that Raiders (to my mind) never even approaches.

A great example of the difference in tone and the emphasis put on "humor" between the three movies are the love scenes. The scene in Raiders takes place on the ship and simultaneously makes Indy look bad-ass and vulnerable, it's realistic (showing what we then think to be the aftermath of the adventure. . . all his wounds, aches, and pains), and becomes quite touching. It begins with some humor, and ends with some humor. But the humor isn't the point of the scene. Compare that to the love scenes in the other two movies which are pure slapstick. They're both paced like action sequences and accompanied by the "goofy" music to let us know that it's all supposed to be fun (and funny!) while the particpants make attempts at "Moonlighting" banter.

-Sullah was (and still is in Crusade) a big goofy lummox who walks around singing songs from HMS Pinafore, gets scared by the statue in the Well of the Souls and mugs, steps and fetches for the SS and Waffen troops when they goose him.

-pretty much everyone but Indy is an idiot (his south American "comrade" falls into the light trap, he plugs the Cairo swordsman, the army intel guys are played off as "bureaucratic fools" (Indy's own words), Belloch is only "one step ahead" of Indy out of chance and dumb luck, as are the Nazis)

In both movies, Indy is the "best" (though more bad-ass in the first). But I really don't see where everyone but him are "idiots" in Raiders. Most folks are just. . . average. . . and not doing anything terribly idiotic. Indy is just the hero among "the norms." Sallah, far from being an idiot, takes moments out to be genuinely creepy (his somber warning about the Ark). . . or warm. . . Brody also gives a somber warning to Indy and comes off as educated, intelligent, and a good friend. In the end, he's outraged and stern. I can't recall Marion engaging in any slapstick either or betraying herself to be a moron. In Crusade. . . they're not even characters. They're just there to fall down or make puns. Indy is still the hero. . . but hell, among those idiots, I could be the hero!

Indeed, even the two guys with Indy at the beginning of Raiders aren't idiots. They're selfish schemers, but even they don't engage in slapstick or behave like idiots. I'd put Sapido (the guy who won't throw Indy the whip) from Raiders up against Marcus Brody from Crusade any day of the week and twice on Sunday! I think that says something.

Belloq seems to me to be a pretty bright guy who never acts the buffoon. He's obviously educated in archeology and does a darn good job at it. He's just not as good as Indy. So he's always stealing Indy's glory and hard work ("Once again Dr. Jones we see that there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away.") The bar scene where he (rather hamfistedly) points out that there is not much difference between him and Indy shows a depth of character totally lacking in any of Indy's adversaries in the Last Crusade. Indeed, in Raiders, we had several minor adversaries. . . and occasions where we'd think "this guy might be a match for Indy". . . Toht, the swordsman, and the airplane mechanic. Who do we have in Crusade? Faceless Nazis falling down and lining up to be punched/shot comically.

Mr. March said that the latter two films are more mystical. I'd actually diagree with this as well (surprised?). Raiders was more mystical than Crusade. It just handled it in a much more subtle way. I love all the subtle cues we get that the Ark really is going to be more than a golden crate. . . so that by the end, we're not surprised when it melts eveyone's face. From the music when we first see it pictured in a book, to Brody's warning to Indy. . . and Sallah's warning ("If the Ark is there at Tanis. . . then it is something that man is not meant to disturb. . . death has always surrounded it. . . it is not of this earth."). . . the way the wind kicks up and the wind chimes start as the old man reads the other half of the headpiece for the first time in millenia. . . the storm as they dig. . . and finally. . . in case you weren't getting it. . . the burned Nazi symbol on the crate. It all leads up to you thinking. . . "I'm ready for some sh*t to go down" when they finally open it at the end. So it doesn't seem all that supernatural or crazy when it does happen.

Now, just because it's fun (and I'm dead inside). . .Compare that to Crusade. . . a bunch of pratfalls and buffoonery until we walk into a room and find a thousand-year-old knight standing there. . . Sure! Why not!?! Not exactly subtle, is it? I remember, even as a fourteen year-old kid thinking, "that's pretty lame."

[Warmaker]

It's hard to improve over an original. Raiders of the Lost Ark stands very well as an adventure movie to this day. On the way to Iraq, a bunch of us were gathered around someone's laptop, watching this movie. The 18, 19 year olds were into the movie just as much as the older ones were who saw it long ago.

As for this upcoming Inday movie, I'm aboard with >ESO< on this. It may very well be good in the same way as Die Hard 4 was to it's own franchise, but it won't surpass the original. I can only hope this movie surpasses the original due to the big names involved, but that IMO is blindly reaching for something in the bag.

But please... no screeching women or "Doctah Jones." But do include at least 1 scene with a "Wilhelm Scream." After all, the Indy movies do have a history of it

Edited December 17, 2007 by Warmaker

[JsARCLIGHT]

So, I'll modify my original statement and say instead that there is no trace of that degree of corniness in Raiders (relative to Crusade).

And that is really all I was looking for. I mean, it's easy to spot the hoakiness in Crusade but the hoaky corniness in Raiders is subtle... but it's still there and it's there in some large quantities. I think it is on par with the shift from the subtle ham humor in the original Star Wars movies to the more blatant burp and fart jokes of the new movies.

I blame Lucas. The man can't write. He can barely direct. Raiders of the Lost Ark was "thought of" by Lucas but it was actually written by Lawrence Kasdan... Whereas Temple of Doom and Last Crusade were directly written by Lucas. Lawrence Kasdan has had no further involvement with the Indy franchise... strange that all this "buffoonery" started with Temple of Doom. I wonder why?

It should also be pointed out that Kasdan wrote the screenplays for Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as well... but I have a feeling Lucas was the one who inserted the Ewoks.