ILM - The Early Years

1) TOD

2) ROTLA

3) KOTCS

4) LC

yup, crystal skull did more for me than last crusade. it may have the awsome Sean Connery, but LC is to much of a revisiting of elements from ROTLA...that and someone decided to shoot Sallah and Marcus Brody with a doofus ray and turn them into comic relief.

Temple of Doom is definitely my favorite. Then Raiders and Crusade are pretty much tied for me. I'm not even entirely sure if Crystal Skull belongs on the list. BLAH! Im still trying to picture aliens in Indiana Jones. Maybe I should say Im still trying to forget aliens in Indiana Jones.

*sigh* Y'know, in recent years, I would have immediately said The Last Crusade was my favorite entry in the series, but after careful consideration, I'm not so sure. It's like asking someone to choose their favorite child. It's impossible! I've been lucky as a fan to be able to see all four films in theaters. I was eleven years old when Raiders came out, and I loved it from day one. (Toht's face melting freaked me out, and the second time I saw it at the movies I covered my eyes.) (lol) I got to see Temple of Doom at a midnight showing a few years later, and I sat right next to my First Grade teacher. During that experience I found out she wasn't the horrible witch I thought she was that paddled me for the slightest thing. She turned out to be pretty nice outside of school. (Years later I found out she was going through an ugly divorce, so it explained alot for me, but I digress...) I got to see The Last Crusade at yet another midnight showing with my older brother and one of his high school friends. (Maybe that explains why I like to watch Indiana Jones movies in the middle of the night...) (lol) And finally, last but not least, I got to see Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in, of all places ironically, at the Saturday matinee (which is what inspired Lucas and Spielberg in the first place; Saturday matinee serials) in the same local hometown theater I saw Raiders in all those years ago, and I hadn't realized that until just now. I got to see it with my mom, my wife, and my five-year-old nephew, who is following in his daddy's and uncles' footsteps in becoming an Indiana Jones fan himself. And I loved every minute of it.

My point is this; each film is deeply ingrained in my consciousness, and I love each one for different reasons. I loved Raiders because of the mystery of the Ark and the great build-up to the climax of the story. I love Temple of Doom because of its exotic locations and mysticism. It just seemed like a natural continuation of Indy's exploits, although it turned out to be a prequel. And finally, I loved The Last Crusade because of its story and the inclusion of his dad. And each film had alot of great action and humor.

So naturally I had alot of baggage and expectations when seeing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for the first time. Turns out I absolutely loved it. It wasn't the conventional Indiana Jones movie most people were expecting, but for me personally, I loved how they matched the era with Harrison Ford's age, and it just seemed seamless. The whole 1950's/Atomic Age/Red Scare/UFO-phenomena/Roswell/Area-51 theme of the movie just seemed to suit the changing times in Indy's life wonderfully. That paired with the alien connection to the ancient Aztecs/Incans notion I've always entertained was just brilliant to me personally.

SO...having said all that, if I had to pick a favorite, I'm gonna have to say Raiders, and I have never acknowledged that. Why, you might ask, would Raiders be my favorite after all these years of championing The Last Crusade as number one? I think because of the build-up. It seems to be the one most grounded in reality, if any Indiana Jones movie could be. You don't have all of these fantastic exploits in your head about Indiana Jones and his charmed/adventurous life, even as a kid and subsequent young man. You just get the idea that he's this rugged, worn-around-the-edges, worldly archaologist. He's good at what he does, and he's more of a skeptic than a believer in the artifacts and forces they embody. And there's just this gradual build-up to actually finding the Ark of the Covenant, and then all of the dangers and changing-of-hands that ensues. There's not alot of special effects, at least not in the beginning, and there's certainly no CGI or incredible feats and/or outrageous stunts. It's just a little more realistic and less staged than the others come across as at times. As far as Indiana Jones movies are concerned, Raiders is the most grounded in reality. That's not to say I don't like the others. I love them all equally. I guess it's just that if I had to choose one, it'd be Raiders.

For those who don't like Temple of Doom, what is it that makes you dislike it? Too much action?

No, it was Willie Scott (hated her character). While she did allow for a few chuckles (mostly due to Indy's reactions), the whole thing just felt too much like "Romancing the Stone" (and was done better in that film IMHO).

How do you compare it with that movie?

The character, not the movie. I just felt that the archetype of "spoiled, city girl trapped in the primitive jungle" was portrayed better in Romancing the Stone (ironically this film was originally grilled as being a copy of RotLA though it was primarily a romantic-comedy with adventure tones). This, and the fact that I grew-up on RotLA and had a difficult time accepting anyone other than Marion as Indy's love-interest. It was like watching Karate Kid 2 and thinking: "WTF? He fights for the girl in the first movie, and all of a sudden...new girl?!?" (not that this doesn't occur in real life, but it doesn't really appeal to me personally on film LOL). I was thrilled to see Marion return in KotCS; it was like a nice apology for ToD and fitting end that tied-up the loose ends created in the first film. What, did you honestly want to see Indy fathering Willie's child?!? PFFFTT!

TOD takes place in 1935. ROTLA is 1936. Thats why Marion couldn't be in TOD. Indy hadn't reunited with her yet.

You are correct. Not a lot of folks know that TOD is a prequel and not a sequel to ROTLA. I found out by a wiki article two weeks ago.

For those who don't like Temple of Doom, what is it that makes you dislike it? Too much action?

No, it was Willie Scott (hated her character). While she did allow for a few chuckles (mostly due to Indy's reactions), the whole thing just felt too much like "Romancing the Stone" (and was done better in that film IMHO).

How do you compare it with that movie?

The character, not the movie. I just felt that the archetype of "spoiled, city girl trapped in the primitive jungle" was portrayed better in Romancing the Stone (ironically this film was originally grilled as being a copy of RotLA though it was primarily a romantic-comedy with adventure tones). This, and the fact that I grew-up on RotLA and had a difficult time accepting anyone other than Marion as Indy's love-interest. It was like watching Karate Kid 2 and thinking: "WTF? He fights for the girl in the first movie, and all of a sudden...new girl?!?" (not that this doesn't occur in real life, but it doesn't really appeal to me personally on film LOL). I was thrilled to see Marion return in KotCS; it was like a nice apology for ToD and fitting end that tied-up the loose ends created in the first film. What, did you honestly want to see Indy fathering Willie's child?!? PFFFTT!

TOD takes place in 1935. ROTLA is 1936. Thats why Marion couldn't be in TOD. Indy hadn't reunited with her yet.

Plus Temple came out before romancing the stone...

Plus..."you're wrong!" Romancing the Stone came out March 30, 1984 and IJ Temple of Doom came out on May 23, 1984.

For those who don't like Temple of Doom, what is it that makes you dislike it? Too much action?

No, it was Willie Scott (hated her character). While she did allow for a few chuckles (mostly due to Indy's reactions), the whole thing just felt too much like "Romancing the Stone" (and was done better in that film IMHO).

How do you compare it with that movie?

The character, not the movie. I just felt that the archetype of "spoiled, city girl trapped in the primitive jungle" was portrayed better in Romancing the Stone (ironically this film was originally grilled as being a copy of RotLA though it was primarily a romantic-comedy with adventure tones). This, and the fact that I grew-up on RotLA and had a difficult time accepting anyone other than Marion as Indy's love-interest. It was like watching Karate Kid 2 and thinking: "WTF? He fights for the girl in the first movie, and all of a sudden...new girl?!?" (not that this doesn't occur in real life, but it doesn't really appeal to me personally on film LOL). I was thrilled to see Marion return in KotCS; it was like a nice apology for ToD and fitting end that tied-up the loose ends created in the first film. What, did you honestly want to see Indy fathering Willie's child?!? PFFFTT!

Plus Temple came out before romancing the stone...

For those who don't like Temple of Doom, what is it that makes you dislike it? Too much action?

No, it was Willie Scott (hated her character). While she did allow for a few chuckles (mostly due to Indy's reactions), the whole thing just felt too much like "Romancing the Stone" (and was done better in that film IMHO).

How do you compare it with that movie?

I gotta go with Raiders. For me it was a perfect movie.