I think we would have gotten a different film if ToD had been more universally accepted at the time. They were trying to repair whatever damage they felt had been done with ToD by making TLC more light-hearted.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Khev
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
I think we would have gotten a different film if ToD had been more universally accepted at the time. They were trying to repair whatever damage they felt had been done with ToD by making TLC more light-hearted.
Something Sexy
Super Freak
Haha maybe so. Outside of this forum and just people I talk to I think some of the PT gets more hate but maybe that is just people not caring as much about Indy.
Mad Old Lu
Super Freak
I was 16 when LC came out and the bad effects stood out like a sore thumb. It's not even comparing it to movies of that year, but just comparing it to Raiders which came out 8 years earlier, and used real locations as opposed to half-assed sets and fairly poor blue screen effects.
The script, story and acting really help LC, but the overall light tone and cheapy feel really take away from it.
I agree, Khev, the idea of the bridge is great, as were all the trials, and really I can't fault the movie for a good yarn. There's a lot to like in LC.
LOTRFan
The Grey Pilgrim
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 11,394
- Reaction score
- 0
I saw TOD in the theatre, but don't remember much; I vividly remember TLC esp the "wrong grail" scene 
, freaked me out. 
TLC is at the bottom of the original trilogy for me, actually TOD is neck and neck with Raiders; that might have something to do with Carl's age-assesment, I just really like the camp - as opposed to what seemed really forced in KOTCS.
, freaked me out. TLC is at the bottom of the original trilogy for me, actually TOD is neck and neck with Raiders; that might have something to do with Carl's age-assesment, I just really like the camp - as opposed to what seemed really forced in KOTCS.
Oh they do some. However, rational adults can allow for things to change and rearrange things.
I don't know. Folks who can't just simply let people enjoy the PT love making snide comments about at least as much as Indy Fans who want to diss KOTCS.
-----------------------------------------------------------
For me pesonally TOD is 4 on my list of Indy films. Its just not as impactful as Raiders or TLC and in someways not as fun as KOTCS. To me Raiders, TLC, and KOTCS are three films very closely related while TOD is the odd duck.
Keep in mind most of my criticisms are only when viewing TLC as a sequential episode in the genre laid out by Raiders and TOD. When taken as its own movie that reintroduces the character in a new genre its funny, heartwarming, and at times even exciting.
In rare cases movies can benefit from a little deconstruction. TLC is one of them, IMO.
Yep, case in point the taking down of the second German fighter plane. An awesome maneuver by Henry (and major kudos because it was actually a believable way to bring down the plane!) and then that cheap over the shoulder crash that takes place off camera. Come on now. Luckily the scene still ended on a high note with the poignant close-up on Indy after his father strolls by with the umbrella.
Last edited:
tylerdurden
Super Freak
i love the indy trilogy wholeheartedly. all 3 of em.
whatever issues tlc had, are to me relatively minor (overly-convenient origin stroy, sub-par effects, plot rehash) compared to the awesomeness of the film in totality.
i don't agree that indy's character itself did not see growth and that the movie was a reboot. to me it's a logical follow-up to the first 2 films. simply because this was the film where we finally got to know indy on a more intimate level, via the father-son dynamic. it was such an integral part of tlc, and thus it is a unique animal amongst the 3 films.
"absent fathers" has always been a common theme in spielberg's work, and this to me is one of the most poignant and affecting examples. indy the man, the adventurer was as much forged by his experiences as he was by his lack of a father figure. one line of dialogue by henry sr summed up their entire relationship and the reason indy turned out the way he did ("i taught you self-reliance.") the fact that indy grows from disliking his father to seeing him in a new light, to respecting him is a complete character arc for him. and it's vice versa for the way the father sees the son as well.
it's THE most personal indy film of all, and the one where his character grows the most thoughout the film. neither raiders nor doom had any of that, as good as they both were in their own right.
whatever issues tlc had, are to me relatively minor (overly-convenient origin stroy, sub-par effects, plot rehash) compared to the awesomeness of the film in totality.
i don't agree that indy's character itself did not see growth and that the movie was a reboot. to me it's a logical follow-up to the first 2 films. simply because this was the film where we finally got to know indy on a more intimate level, via the father-son dynamic. it was such an integral part of tlc, and thus it is a unique animal amongst the 3 films.
"absent fathers" has always been a common theme in spielberg's work, and this to me is one of the most poignant and affecting examples. indy the man, the adventurer was as much forged by his experiences as he was by his lack of a father figure. one line of dialogue by henry sr summed up their entire relationship and the reason indy turned out the way he did ("i taught you self-reliance.") the fact that indy grows from disliking his father to seeing him in a new light, to respecting him is a complete character arc for him. and it's vice versa for the way the father sees the son as well.
it's THE most personal indy film of all, and the one where his character grows the most thoughout the film. neither raiders nor doom had any of that, as good as they both were in their own right.
d_jedi1
Super Freak
I'm right with ya here. While I enjoy TOD, it's far from my favorite. The thugees and cult of Kali were perhaps too dissimilar to the Nazis as enemies for my tastes. Perhaps it's more a matter of my relative unfamiliarity with them outside of the film. In any case, Indy felt like a different character in TOD than he did in any of the other three films and I never really felt like he was in any danger in TOD. (That said, I didn't really feel like he was in any danger in TLC either but his "Odd Couple" interaction with Henry Sr. more than made up for it.. to me)
I'll agree with you that in TLC I don't get a sense that Indy is in any danger. Same with KOTCS. Both are just popcorn films that take the viewer along for the ride just for the pure adventure of it. But with ToD, I feel that there are several tense moments where you wonder, "Gee, how is Indy going to get out of this jam?" Of course, when I first saw the film, I was 14, so it impacted me differently back then than it does now. But back then, I felt they took it up a notch from Raiders where Indy really got beat to hell and they really put Indy in some precarious situations: the fight scene in the mine, the rope bridge, the black sleep of Kali. It's one of the reasons why I fell it love with ToD then and why it's still my favorite behind Raiders to this day.
Terrific discussion, folks! Constructive and not too snarky! You guys rock! 
Mind if I throw a few cents in?
Here goes ... make of this what you will ...
For me TLC has always felt a bit like an attempt to win the audience back. An audience the filmmakers may have thought was slipping away after ToD.
As I recall, when it first came out, ToD was considered something of a creative misfire. (I was 19 back in 1989 ... yes, I know. I'm old!) It's true that it made tons of money, but I remember a lot of fans being pretty unhappy with it. (Thankfully, time has been kinder to ToD than some of our initial knee-jerk reactions at the time. I'm pleased to see that it holds up pretty well today.)
In any event, I always felt that because of negative fan reaction to ToD (or at least the filmmakers' perception of a negative reaction), TLC always felt like it was designed to win those fans back by giving them what they liked so much the first time around in Raiders. The Nazis were back, Marcus was back, Sallah was back, they returned to Judeo-Christian iconography ... hell, they even moved the movie back in time!
So for me, TLC has always kind of felt like a greatest hits album instead of a story on its own.
Don't get me wrong, there are elements of it that I absolutely love, chiefly the father/son relationship. I think TLC may well feature the most emotional growth Indy ever goes through on screen. It's great stuff. (And Connery is tremendous playing against his usual tough-guy type.)
But the obvious green screen effects often pulled me out of the movie. (A problem I had with ToD as well, but more on that in a minute.) And while I loved seeing Marcus and Sallah again, they really didn't get much to do. Certainly not enough to fill the screen time they got. Things just get too crowded for my taste.
As a rule, I find the more people you give Indy to look after ... the less interesting the movie gets. (A really big problem I had with KotCS, too.) When he's alone or just has one partner, that's great. For my money, that's Indy at his best. The more people you give him to protect, it just gets muddled and confusing. And it pulls focus away from Indy. My opinion, anyway.
But really, the thing that pulls me out of all the Indy sequels are the "big" effects sequences. And not just when the effects are done badly. For me, all three of the sequels lose me when the effects and the action sequences get too big.
Meaning ... what I love about Raiders isn't JUST that most everything is shot in-camera with actual stuntmen in real locations. It's more than that. I love Raiders because almost everything Indy goes through is plausible. Until the Ark is opened in the end and the supernatural forces are unleashed ... nothing before that is impossible in our world.
Is it likely? Hell no! But it's plausible that one guy could physically survive an adventure like that. While the fights are certainly amped up a little (thanks to Ben Burtt's amazing sound work) they felt like they could be real fights. The chase sequences, while a little exaggerated, feel like they could be real chases. In short, Raiders is grounded in recognizable reality.
But when we get to ToD, things start to immediately get too big, too fantastical, and too cartoony. Regardless of the quality of the effects, the sequences just get too impossible. They're jumping out of an airplane with a raft then tobogganing down a mountain into a raging river. Too much for me to swallow. And then the mine car sequence is just insanely over the top for me. Impressive as an effect, but totally cartoony to the rational side of my brain. The bigger the sequences got in the sequels, the further they'd push me out of the movies.
In a way, it's kind of like Raiders was a Bourne movie and the sequels were Roger Moore Bond movies. (That's not a quality comparrison, but an stylistic one.) There's an immediacy to Raiders that comes from keeping the scale more human-sized and believable. And that's wrecked for me when the green screens and pixels take over.
That said, I have to admit they did pull back a little on the scale of the action sequences for TLC, which was good ... but the distracting green screen shots and Indy's growing pool of hapless old guys to protect ... well, those pull me out of the movie, too. (And you can multiply these issues by a factor of 10 for KotCS.)
Anyhow, I'm blathering at this point. Sorry about that!
The long and short is ... I love Indy ... especially when he's on his own and in very nitty-gritty action. I'd LOVE to see a more stripped down and more realistic approach to Indy 5 (check out aintitcool.com today for some tidbits) ... but I'm not gonna hold my breath too long!
Sorry for blathering!
Mind if I throw a few cents in?
Here goes ... make of this what you will ...
For me TLC has always felt a bit like an attempt to win the audience back. An audience the filmmakers may have thought was slipping away after ToD.
As I recall, when it first came out, ToD was considered something of a creative misfire. (I was 19 back in 1989 ... yes, I know. I'm old!) It's true that it made tons of money, but I remember a lot of fans being pretty unhappy with it. (Thankfully, time has been kinder to ToD than some of our initial knee-jerk reactions at the time. I'm pleased to see that it holds up pretty well today.)
In any event, I always felt that because of negative fan reaction to ToD (or at least the filmmakers' perception of a negative reaction), TLC always felt like it was designed to win those fans back by giving them what they liked so much the first time around in Raiders. The Nazis were back, Marcus was back, Sallah was back, they returned to Judeo-Christian iconography ... hell, they even moved the movie back in time!
So for me, TLC has always kind of felt like a greatest hits album instead of a story on its own.
Don't get me wrong, there are elements of it that I absolutely love, chiefly the father/son relationship. I think TLC may well feature the most emotional growth Indy ever goes through on screen. It's great stuff. (And Connery is tremendous playing against his usual tough-guy type.)
But the obvious green screen effects often pulled me out of the movie. (A problem I had with ToD as well, but more on that in a minute.) And while I loved seeing Marcus and Sallah again, they really didn't get much to do. Certainly not enough to fill the screen time they got. Things just get too crowded for my taste.
As a rule, I find the more people you give Indy to look after ... the less interesting the movie gets. (A really big problem I had with KotCS, too.) When he's alone or just has one partner, that's great. For my money, that's Indy at his best. The more people you give him to protect, it just gets muddled and confusing. And it pulls focus away from Indy. My opinion, anyway.
But really, the thing that pulls me out of all the Indy sequels are the "big" effects sequences. And not just when the effects are done badly. For me, all three of the sequels lose me when the effects and the action sequences get too big.
Meaning ... what I love about Raiders isn't JUST that most everything is shot in-camera with actual stuntmen in real locations. It's more than that. I love Raiders because almost everything Indy goes through is plausible. Until the Ark is opened in the end and the supernatural forces are unleashed ... nothing before that is impossible in our world.
Is it likely? Hell no! But it's plausible that one guy could physically survive an adventure like that. While the fights are certainly amped up a little (thanks to Ben Burtt's amazing sound work) they felt like they could be real fights. The chase sequences, while a little exaggerated, feel like they could be real chases. In short, Raiders is grounded in recognizable reality.
But when we get to ToD, things start to immediately get too big, too fantastical, and too cartoony. Regardless of the quality of the effects, the sequences just get too impossible. They're jumping out of an airplane with a raft then tobogganing down a mountain into a raging river. Too much for me to swallow. And then the mine car sequence is just insanely over the top for me. Impressive as an effect, but totally cartoony to the rational side of my brain. The bigger the sequences got in the sequels, the further they'd push me out of the movies.
In a way, it's kind of like Raiders was a Bourne movie and the sequels were Roger Moore Bond movies. (That's not a quality comparrison, but an stylistic one.) There's an immediacy to Raiders that comes from keeping the scale more human-sized and believable. And that's wrecked for me when the green screens and pixels take over.
That said, I have to admit they did pull back a little on the scale of the action sequences for TLC, which was good ... but the distracting green screen shots and Indy's growing pool of hapless old guys to protect ... well, those pull me out of the movie, too. (And you can multiply these issues by a factor of 10 for KotCS.)
Anyhow, I'm blathering at this point. Sorry about that!
The long and short is ... I love Indy ... especially when he's on his own and in very nitty-gritty action. I'd LOVE to see a more stripped down and more realistic approach to Indy 5 (check out aintitcool.com today for some tidbits) ... but I'm not gonna hold my breath too long!
Sorry for blathering!
Mad Old Lu
Super Freak
Very well put, Bucky! The comparison with Raiders and the Bourne movies is apt. I agree it would be great to see a more stripped down Indy. I also think Lucas and Spielberg work at their best when they have restrictions put upon them. SW was great because Lucas had to make do with a very limited budget, and Spielberg's Jaws is arguably a better movie because they couldn't get the shark to function and had to work around that. Raiders was proposed as a small budget picture with a tight deadline, and I think everyone involved rose to meet the challenge.
There where moments I felt like he was in trouble in TOD. It just didn't feel like an Indy movie as much to me as the other three. I love Indy, Short Round, And Mola Ram. However, I think Kate Capshaw is really not good at all. She kills a lot of the flow of the movie with how she acts. Not in every scene but many of them for me. I enjoy the movie but for me as I said my main issue it just didn't feel like an Indy movie. Like you said he felt like a different character and that just didn't work for me.
The comparison with Raiders and the Bourne movies is apt. I agree it would be great to see a more stripped down Indy. I also think Lucas and Spielberg work at their best when they have restrictions put upon them. SW was great because Lucas had to make do with a very limited budget, and Spielberg's Jaws is arguably a better movie because they couldn't get the shark to function and had to work around that. Raiders was proposed as a small budget picture with a tight deadline, and I think everyone involved rose to meet the challenge.
I totally agree, Jim. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. Not limitless cash.
From a creative standpoint I'm a big believer in NOT actually getting every single thing you could ever want. I really believe limitations challenge you to be more creative. You're absolutely right. The non-working shark made Jaws a much better movie. The barrels are scarier. Because they force you to imagine the shark. And the shark in your mind is going to be far creepier than the one they built.
But if he'd had the money and the time ... Spielberg would have filmed the shark all the time. And if he'd done that, I don't think we'd be talking about that movie 35 years later.
Last edited:
d_jedi1
Super Freak
You were forgetting one VERY important thing in regards to the "danger" aspects... TOD was a prequel. For me, it's VERY hard to feel that a character is in any sort of danger when I already know what comes later in their life and to be honest, I WANTED Willie to die and didn't care about Short Round.
Well, yeah its a prequel but I dont know how much that played into it at least for me it didn't. With willie that might not have been a bad thing.
Short Round though I loved that kid.
