Is Indy 4 that bad?

Mac feels borderline unnecessary, but I think I know why he's in the movie. They needed a character to lead the Russians to Akator. That's it. He serves no plot or even narrative purpose before he drops the trackers, and then he dies right afterward.

 

Do I think that "Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" is the worst Indiana Jones movie? No. I think it's a good take on the B-movies of the 1950s, with a sprinkling of the archaeological aspect of the franchise. I like all of the franchise's four movies, but "The Last Crusade" is my least favorite. For me, it's not as original as the other three.

 

Last Crusade had a nice twist in the formula though: Adding Indy's dad to the story and make him Indy's motivation in the story instead of the treasure.

The first section of the story with River Phoenix as young Indiana Jones also added more originality to TLC.

In my opinion TLC was original enough like the other 3 movies.

 

I think all of them after Raiders do that, though - throw in a human motivation that's bigger than the treasure. In TOD it's freeing the slave children and saving their village (the movie could have ended an hour in with him high tailing it out of the temple after finding the stones; it doesn't because that's not the most important thing). In Crusade it's saving his father. In Crystal Skull it's Oxley. (And, in the latter two cases, following their quests through to the end after catching up to them).

None of this is to disagree with you on the important part. I thought Crusade was the best and have never really understood the low rankings it gets nowadays. I just don't think that in particular makes the movie stand out. (Though the fact that the human motivation in this case is his actual dad, rather than a colleague or innocent bystander, does).

 

TLC wasn't original for me . But I still enjoyed it.

 

Am I the only that doesn't get people that say that "Fate Of Atlantis is the real Indy 4 !" ?

FOA plot barely had any originality at all.(And it was widely predictable.)

Also it doesn't help that Indy acted more like Guybrush Threepwood in that game than Indiana Jones.

 

Have you ever seen RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS?

 

It was a very good movie. I don't think anyone should be embarrassed to be associated with it. It has a few moments that are a little silly, but overall, it is a fun adventure movie. It doesn't reach the heights of the earlier films, but it doesn't hurt their legacy, and it is nice to see Indy end up with Marion.

 

I've just started listening to the Indiana Jones podcast, Indycast, which seems to be quite prolific given that there hasn't been a new film for 12 years. But someone made a great point about Crystal Skull in that there are no stakes to the macguffin and its like Indy is just along for the ride as a passenger, which in comparison to the other 3 films, I thought was a great point.

 

What? There are loads of stakes, the Russians getting a hold of psychic skulls that can warp men's minds aren't stakes? The scene in the tent with Indy being exposed to the power of the skull sets up exactly what Spalko wants. The stakes are potentially global, no less than any of the other mcguffins. In fact, since the skull enters the plot much sooner, its effects are felt more keenly than any others, which usually only show up nearer the climax and don't affect the plot til they do.

 

I find the core of the film and the macguffin quest is muddled and unconvincing. Its a quest to find a skull and to return a skull (but why). To find Ox and to find Mutts mum people who on the face of it Indy doesn't really know. Then they decide to briefly throw in some psychic aspect too. They may show this, but it doesn't resonate with me and I don't think they build the story enough for it to mean anything. It seems to me that Indy isn't motivated in the stakes, nowhere near what he is in the other 3, hes like a supporting character in an ensemble. I sit through the film not particularly caring about whats going on, why they're doing it and who's involved. I don't feel like that with the others.

 

I get the feeling that many wanted "Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" to be a take on a 1930s movie serial . . . despite it being set in 1957. The main complaint about this film seemed to center on the aliens that Indy and the others discover in South America, instead of some religious artifact. Why is the lack of originality so celebrated today?

 

Nothing wrong at all with them taking the films in another direction. My issue is with a poorly executed story, core macguffin and too many under developed sidekicks. Swap the skull for a Excalibur or something else historic and I still would feel the same if it was done in the way KOTCS was.

 

Too many underdeveloped sidekicks? The only real "sidekick" in this movie was Mutt. But . . . to each his or her own. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" isn't my least favorite Indy movie. I would rank it at three out of the four films.

 

Once they get to the jungle Indy has 4 people in tow with him, Ox, Marion, Mac and Mutt. That’s way too many and they’ll all vying for screen time.

 

I agree. It's entertainment and mostly makes me happy these days. With Indy 5 especially, we have a clear evolution arc for the character. I am expecting 5 to clean up the issues people had with KOTC in any case, particularly the CGI.

 

I have a soft spot for Indy 4. I love the father/son dynamic, the greasers vs the preppies, and the motorcycle chase through the college. I think Shia did a great job.

Is it flawed? Absolutely. I've heard there are interesting fan edits that address some of my issues. So I'd love to check those out at some point.

 

Indy’s reaction on the bike being the same as his father’s is character development gold.

 

All of them are. Every last Indiana Jones movie in existence. I love all four movies, but they are flawed.

 

I'd rather the next Indiana movie be closer in tone to Temple of Doom,lean more horror - but I don't think they have the pills for it and likely will play it safe again.

 

I would like something like TOD as well, and think it would suit Harrison’s age as well if the plot was more thriller/acting based.

 

No, you're not. I don't get this opinion either.

 

Some kind of Indy/Short Round reunion would be awesome.

 

And Willie Scott.

 

I think relying too much on the past is a bad idea if you want to make a movie that feels fresh, and not just a nostalgic trip to a golden age long past (which is part of the reason why Indy 4 feels a bit .... less. It is a bit too nostalgic).
The best move is always to think of a movie that is fresh, original, and offers some new direction.It may create more controversy than a safe trip to the past, but it will age better.

That being said, I doubt a fifth Indy is ever going to be made. And honestly, I prefer they don't make it.
Lucas is out, Spielberg is out... We had a great trilogy and a fun epilogue, where Indy ends up being married. I think it's a great way to end the series!