Re: You can't be serious..

[ Reply ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by INDIANA GJR from spider-wb071.proxy.aol.com on August 24, 1999 at 07:18:17:

In Reply to: Why those of us who were disappointed with "ToD" and "Last Crusade" still want to see Indy IV. posted by ROB T. on August 23, 1999 at 23:57:27:


: I think it was Thuggee Bear who asked why we still wanted more sequels if we were disappointed with the ones we have so far.
: I have been quite vocal about my disappointment with "Temple of Doom" and to a lesser degree "Last Crusade" but I still look forward to Indy IV. I'm not sure why since I hold no hope that Lucas and company will reproduce the magic of "Raiders" and it's very possible that Indy IV will be the weakest in the series. Still I dream.
: I think part of it is that the two sequels were near-misses. They weren't disasters and if a few elements had been changed they could have been sterling entries in the Indiana Jones saga. The problems with both films could easily have been fixed and it's possible that they will be corrected for Indy IV.
: "Temple of Doom" suffered from a weak villain. Mola Ram just is not in the same league as Belloq and Toht and Deitrich. They had a great villain in Lao Che but he's outta there after the first fifteen minutes.
: We also have an inferior love interest in Willie Scott. She's played more for laughs and comes off as irritating with her constant whining. Here we have a girl from Missouri who ends up singing in a nightclub in Asia and yet she's dull and whiny when she should have been quite exciting.
: Short Round also just doesn't work. There really isn't room for a kid in this story and he's only there for comic relief. I hate when filmmmakers do this. Humor should flow naturally from the situation and not be shoehorned in by some character who serves no other purpose. Notice the difference in "Raiders." Very little of the laughs in "Raiders" come from some character acting funny and yet this movie is much funnier than the other two.
: "Last Crusade" suffers from weak villain disorder as well. The Nazis in this film are not near as menacing as in "Raiders."
: The Sean Connery character is misplaced also. Henry Jones is almost as irritating as Willie Scott.
: The filmmakers also trashed the characters of Marcus Brody and Sallah.
: This film also has the worst ending sequence of the three. The Grail Knight thing is comically bad.

: All these things could be fixed for Indy IV. If the filmmakers would remember that all great movies have to start with the characters. Instead of concentrating on what toy to have Indy chase after they need to focus on the villain first. The villain needs to be brilliant, evil and motivated. He or she must be at least as smart and tough as Indy. They must also be a viable threat to mankind like the Nazis were. And there must be a logical reason for what they're doing.
: Then give them a good prize to go after and give Indy a desparate need to stop them from acquiring it.
: Give Indy a love interest who is worthy of his pursuit. A woman who is smart and strong and beautiful. And she must make an important contribution to the main story.

: If they'd just keep these things in mind then Indy IV could be a movie worthy of the example set by "Raiders."

I am in no way criticizing your opinions about Temple of Doom and Last Crusade, But i just cant seem to picture those sequals as near misses. They made a hell of a lot of money at the box office and I as well as most Indy fans wouldnt be hear as long if those sequals didnt exist. In all three films we saw different sides of Indy. Thats was one of many of Speilbergs and Lucas ideas. Personally, my favorite Indy was Raiders. I liked Temple of Doom for what it was, and loved Last crusade. I took it for what it was and loved it for the fact that it was" Indy."


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:  


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]