Star Wars vs. Indiana Jones-Which trilogy is better?

I know that during the years there was a little argument about that... some of us liked the good old rebels,some liked that weep... but to be honest-Which trilogy is better?(as a trilogy only!) and which movie of which trilogy is the best?

I wanna hear your opinion,then i'll tell u mine

 

Star Wars

 

Honestly, I would definately say Star Wars. Star Wars is one big story, while Indiana Jones is adventure after adventure.

1. Star Wars Trilogy
2. Indiana Jones Trilogy
3. Back To The Future Triolgy

 

Both are too different to compare.

 

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" was a better movie than any of the individual "Star Wars" films, but SW was the better trilogy. "Temple of Doom" and "The Last Crusade" were good movies, but they weren't great. Like the "James Bond" movies, the "Indiana Jones" series was intended as separate adventures by the same hero. They followed a similar formula (Indy fights evil villains in exotic locations for religious relic with aid of bickering love interest and humourous sidekicks), but were all different in tone. TOD was very dark and violent, TLC was lighter and more comedic, and ROTLA was a good balance between the other two.

SW, on the other hand, was one big story, with a clear beginning and ending. Differences in tone between the movies matched the arc of the story. We got to see the characters change and develop. In SW each episode, regardless of its own merits or flaws, is an integral part of the whole saga and must be viewed in this way.

As for rating trilogies in general, "Star Wars" is first, followed by "The Godfather", and then "Indiana Jones". I don't really understand all the fuss about "Back to the Futures II & III". I'll wait and see if "The Lord of the Rings" is worth all the buzz. I don't understand why more film companies don't concentrate on making three very good films in a trilogy instead of spreading the series thin with the latter sequels. "Rocky IV", "Batman & Robin", "Lethal Weapon 4", "Alien Resurrection", "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace", and "Jaws the Revenge" are all good examples of once-strong franchises that should have quit while they were ahead.

-Dubya Fett

 

I share your opinion about the trilogys,Dubya. I think that ROTLA is the best movie from the 6,though as a trilogy, SW is better as a complete stoy.

Has anyone found a blooper in ROTLA?

 

It depends what you mean by blooper. Do you mean like when the door in the South American ruin is closing quickly, and the camera cuts away to Indy, and when the camera cuts back the door is in the same position as the last shot? Or how about how in a medium shot, the angry Amazonian natives seem to be about 15 feet behind Indy, but in the subsequent long shot Indy has more than doubled his distance from them?

There's the scene where Indy has the small bag of sand, which he plans to exchange with the golden idol so as to not trigger a booby trap. However, Indy lets some sand out of the bag before laying it down. The weight is not equal and the trap is sprung. The problem is that gold is very heavy. It would take several bags of sand to equal the weight of the golden idol. Surely, Indy must know this.

There are also little bits like Indy managing to remain undetected atop the Nazi U-boat as it travelled for a few hours, Nazi soldiers being able to excavate an ancient ruin in 1936 Egypt unsupervised even though Egypt had a strong British military presence at the time, and Indy threatening to blow up the Ark with a Nazi rocket launcher that is actually a post-World War II Soviet model. There's also a bit when Indy and Marion emerge from the Well of Souls. You can see an Arab digger "sleeping" on the ground. In the original edit, the Arab was going to see Indy and Marion emerge from the mummies' tomb, and thinking they are ghosts he faints. This scene was cut because it was considered too slapstick and an insult to Arabs, but you can still see the Arab lying on the ground. There are a few more film flubs throughout the movie, but that doesn't take away from ROTLA's greatness, because everything else that is important - acting, action, dialogue, plot, music, and direction - is all there. Heck, Spielberg and Lucas were even able to get away with the monkey giving a "Heil Hitler!" salute and saying "Uh-oh!" (according to Spielberg, the Nazi monkey was Lucas's idea).

-Dubya Fett

 

*lol*yeah,that's what i ment ...anything else?



BTW, is it true what they say about the princess Leia/R2-D2 Heirogliph at the wale of souls's wal? I'm curious!!

 

There actually is a heiroglyph with R2-D2 and C-3PO on it in the Well of Souls, but it's a really subtle in-joke and I've never being able to spot it (it was, however, confirmed by Lucasfilm).

I don't understand how the Inca who built the South American ruin in ROTLA could devise a trap where by putting your hand in a beam of light, it causes spikes to jut out of the wall. The fact that Indy's clothes and skin would be torn by him being dragged behind the speeding Nazi truck is not really a blooper, but a big stretch (it still looked cool, however). The Nazi BMW trucks are actually just American trucks with BMW symbols put on them (Again, no biggie. Lots of other, supposedly more serious historical films, do the same thing.)

Now he's one I'm not entirely sure on, so I'll have to double check, but I think the Nazi flying wing featured in ROTLA was not invented yet in 1936. Also, the Nazis have a secret U-boat base on a Greek island, which seems highly unlikely as this is before World War II and the Nazis have not yet occupied Greece. As well, US Army Intelligence would probably be not too concerned with Hitler looking for ancient religious relics, as before World War II the US military was isolationist and unprepared for war. Again, if the Americans were so concerned about Nazis being in Egypt, wouldn't the British, who had bases there, be even more so?

There's also a retroactive blooper, since "Temple of Doom" was a prequel set a year before ROTLA. Before he leaves in search of the Ark, Indy tells Marcus he doesn't believe in mystical powers and superstition, but in TOD he experiences magic firsthand. However, this is not as much a problem with ROTLA as it is with TOD.

-Dubya Fett

 

You'r right...never thought about this things!
There are still some mistakes i couls think of...

In ROTLA...after the Nazis catches Indy in that snake pit,they also catch Salah...so how can it be possible they meet him after they get free from there??(aka where he says:"oh,my friends..i'm so happy to see u alive!")Shouldnt the Nazis had captured him or something?...after all,he was cauporating with the enemy!

I have more,but i will say it later

 

It's a long time since I saw Indy...
I believe that both are good trilogies, though SWT wins!

 

As much as I enjoy Indiana Jones (especially ROTLA) I think Star Wars wins this one.

I would also like to add the ALIEN trilogy to the best trilogies ever -- yes I call it trilogy 'cause I believe it should 've stopped at "Alien - Aliens - Alien3". The resurrection was not a good idea.

 

Mmm...I think your right.That was a bad idea...

Now,back to the trilogies.

Where did the characters had more debt?

 

Excuse me?

 

I mean in the trilogies ...in which trilogy the characters where better?

 

Well, Mr Ford has the same air about him! Only in Indy, he behaves more like Han should have!

 

My opinion is that ESB has more to show as far as characters are concerned... check out Vader and Luke in the revelation scene, or Leia and Solo when the latter is to be encased in carbonite. I think that ESB scenes in general are more intense than the other two episodes and that's due to the accting...

 

Right on VaGG!

 

Indiana Jones was more complex and developed than any of the SW characters, but SW had a greater range of characters that interacted with each other. Again, both movie series are different. IJ is about Indiana Jones, and his supporting cast is interchangeable. SW is about multiple characters and their relationships with each other.

-Dubya Fett

 

Right on Dubya!

I also think that,naturaly TESB was the best...but ROTLS is such an interesting movie..it's not all about adventures and shooting, it has his own special humor and logic..it complexes History with the present... inner conflicts...ha, dang it's just one hell of a fun movie to watch

 

Well, strictly speaking, [i[Raiders[/i] ain't a trilogy. It's a series of (currently) three movies. It could've been a trilogy. In my view, it should have been a trilogy. But it's not even a serial, strictly, which is what I think GL was trying to make. Because TOD is a prequel to ROTL, it's actually just a series. So as a trilogy, SW obviously is better, cause it's the only one in the running.

 

Very difficult to say, actually. I love both of them, but I wouldn't call the Indiana Jones films a trilogy, as there's not all that much progression in character between the three films, so in terms of character development, I'd go for Star Wars, but the good thing about Indiana Jones is that as it was something that both Steven Spielberg and George Lucas created, they both had the same amount of control over it, so they could both control each others silly side, which is something that George got carried away with in Return of the Jedi, and The Phantom Menace.

 

Actually, I saw the Steven Spielberg "Biography" special on A & E, and Spielberg said it was Lucas who kept him from injecting more comedy into "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Also, according to screenwriters Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, it was Lucas who wanted "The Temple of Doom" to be really dark and scary. The lighter and funnier "The Last Crusade" probably represents how Spielberg wanted to portray the Indiana Jones character.

I think it shows how good the SW and IJ films really are in that fans can actually have a good debate over which is the better series, and which is the best film within each series. Some fans prefer the darker and more violent episodes, like "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Temple of Doom", others prefer lighter, more family-friendly fare like "Return of the Jedi" or "The Last Crusade", and still others like a balance, as with "A New Hope" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It's all a matter of taste.

As far as making sequels go, SW and IJ have the best track records. The list of sequels as good as or better than the originals is pretty short: "The Bride of Frankenstein", "The Godfather, Part II", "Superman II", "Aliens", "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", "Toy Story 2", "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", "The Road Warrior", "Lethal Weapon 2", a few of the early "James Bond" films, and a couple of others. Even some of the franchises I just cited ran into trouble with later sequels. I hope all three movies of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy are successful, although I have to admit, I've got a bad feeling about "The Matrix" sequels.

By the way, the IJ series doesn't have too much character development, but there are some subtle changes in Indy in all three films. The Indy of ROTLA was a flawed hero whose methods were somewhat controversial. TOD, which was a prequel, showed an Indy who was even more ruthless (notice how he threatens to stab Willie Scott in the Shanghai nightclub unless Lao Che gives him the antidote), and at first he seems more motivated by personal greed (finding the Sankara Stones), than helping others (he eventually does, however, by going back to save the kidnapped children). The Indy of TLC is a far cry from the one of TOD. Indy risks his life to retrieve the Cross of Coronado, the artifact he lost as a boy, not for "fortune and glory" but because "it belongs in a museum". We also learn from the young Indy sequence that opens TLC that Indy had two role models that shaped him: his studious, proper professor father and the roguish fortune hunter in the fedora hat. In TLC, Indy comes to terms with both his light and dark sides.

-Dubya Fett