Is Indy 4 that bad?

Except for the fact that Short-Round's presence cannot be explained if Temple happens after Raiders.

 

How so? Other than the year it is set in, I don't recall any continuity that prevents it, as a story, from being set after Raiders.

 

That was such a dumb reason. There were Nazis in 1935, too. Maybe if the movie was set at the beginning of the decade they'd have a point. But really, it's a big world, there are all kinds of bad guys in it, and there's no reason the Nazis should be the bad guys of every adventure set during their time in power.

 

Sure it can. Indy has multiple friends and acquaintances and they're not all going to show up in the same stories.

 

Sorry, post was meant for another thread.

 

Rewatched on 4K recently. It's a great movie, and kind of an anomaly. I really like how it feels supercharged with the Lucasfilm prequel-era style- see the scene in the opening when Indy and the Russian get blasted off on rails. The opening, nuketown (such a weird atmosphere), and truck chase in the jungle are highlights. No Shia LaBeouf fan, but I liked him as Indy's son. The characters are all written in a pretty peppy and engaging way, without feeling like it's just retreading tropes of the 80s action-adventure films. At the time, Lucas had said that he was trying to push the movie into the future, and Spielberg was trying to keep it in the past. It's a cool collision of ideas.

I swear I remember seeing somewhere that they strove to emulate the look of 1950s films with the VFX work.

I live near Yale and was pissed off when I found out after the fact that LF had been filming there and looking for extras, lol. But I was too young to be in a college scene anyway.

 

I shouldn't have said that it was the only reason, but one of the reasons. The point was not to repeat things. Different enemy, different love interest, different MacGuffin, different story. The films are episodic, with a rather loose continuity, but there's character growth in each adventure. Skull is the one who takes meaningful threads from previous films with Marion, but at least it's justified by its substantial gap in time.

 

And Young Indiana Jones! I would consider that a unique and special TV show. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but for when it was made, it has such great stories, with an uncommonly high production value. I like the dad

 

I would disagree. In Raiders, Indy is very much a "do it for science" and "valueable artifacts belong in a museum" kind of guy. At the beginning of ToD he does stuff for the money and the glamour instead. It's through ToD that he puts people above treasure, and being an archeologist above being a treasure hunter. He does sell the stuff he gets in both movies, but in one he does it for the "greater good" and in the other for whoever pays him for it.
Granted, Last Crusade then turns him into an idealist from a young age again, so that is slightly contradictory, but maybe that simply waned a bit before Sort of like Solo making Han a good guy, who turns into the Han from ANH in large part due to Qira's betrayal, before rediscovering his goodness again.

I don't see any connection between ToD being a prequel and them not wanting to do the Nazis again either. They easily could have made it a sequel and not have the Nazis in them, or a prequel with the Nazis in them. Nothing about the timeline set any of that in stone. If anything, I'd say the relationship with Marion at the end of Raiders seems like a much more obvious reason why they opted to make ToD a prequel.

 

Another reason why they made it a prequel was so they didn’t have to explain where characters like Marion and Sallah were, it gave them a clean slate.

It works perfectly well as a prequel and there’s an argument to be made that he was primarily a fortune and glory type of archaeologist until the end of this, arguably changing his outlook on his profession as we see him as in Raiders.

 

This was always my take on TOD. I never thought that the huge diamond we see in the prologue was destined to be put on display in a museum. He was banking the profits from that thing.

 

I enjoyed Indiana Jones 4. But my favorite movie still remains the Indiana Jones 3. I am waiting for the part 5 to release and check if the part 5 is better than my favorite part.

 

I think it's a good film though only a bit better than average. The main complaints are just (aside from some feeling Ford was too old) that Mutt was annoying (agreed, and I think gotten worse over time), there was too much CGI, too much goofy humor (for both so what, not really bad things) and just aliens were out of place and it was not as good as the trilogy (I thought it was a lot behind the first two but better than LC). And yes, Cate Blanchett was great and too overlooked, Karen Allen really good and the relationship with her satisfying.

That and, or more so, the filmmakers didn't want to have that Indy was no longer with Marion (while LC was released so much later and there had already been the new love interest per film and it was so much closer to and more like Raiders even without her they felt most people wouldn't mind her not being in the followup by then).

 

I like the first half but then it gets too silly and too CGI.

 

Every time I watch it it's like... it starts out good and I really want to believe that I made a mistake and didn't appreciate it enough and was being too hard on it last time, but then the movie goes on and on and I'm like... "nah, it's just not very good."

 

I feel the exact same way, I try to watch it and give it so many chances because its an Indy film, but I cant get past the major flaws that I see in it. The first act is fine, but once they get to Ox's asylum and the graveyard, it becomes a mess from there on in. Too many sidekicks, a poor story (compare the ham fisted exposition in KOTCS with the classic scene in Raiders at the college), it feels too studio bound, theres something off in how it look, its not funny and I can't do with how the Indy Marion relationship is portrayed and how they also handle the fact that Indy has a son (so many cliches with that). My one abiding thought is, did everyone involved really believe that this was a good film when they were making it?

 

I like Crystal Skull about as well as Temple of Doom, but less than Raiders and Crusade.

Had they continued making re-leasing Indiana Jones films every 3-5 years from 1989 onwards, I feel like Crystal Skull would have been judged less harshly by fans. The problem, is that (kind of like the prequels) anticipation was heightened and long building since 1989. Almost impossible for any film to live up to.

 

I had fun when I saw it opening weekend. It's silly, but it's enjoyable too.

 

My Indy hot take is that the dip in quality from Raiders to Temple and Crusade is bigger than that between those two and Kingdom. It's not great, but it's not that bad.

 

Is Indiana Jones Version of the ST

 

I enjoyed 4 more then 3.

 

it's not a bad movie, just a mediocre one. I like the other 4 much better.

 

The worst part is the Fridge scene.
I actually like pretty much everything else. I think the movie kind of gets over-hated honestly.