It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That’s just my own supposition.
No you didn't, you fibber! :)
The Last Crusade, everyone thought that would be the last one (including Williams and Spielberg), and the end march worked perfectly there.
I think Raiders and TOD, yes I agree. But Last Crusade did feel like the end wrap up of the trilogy. I certainly didn't think there would be another Indy after that.
Plus they gave us two new brilliant John Williams scores (I love Helena's Theme and think it's up there with the best of Indy) and two gorgeous posters too.
Agree with this.Definitely the weakest score in the series but credit to Williams still putting in good work in his nineties.
Yeah there was a distinct lack of great “ punch the air “ hero moments for Indy and triumphant uses of his theme.I think this was a result of Fords age meaning he couldn’t do as much as he used to and the film pushing Helena as the new action hero ( I do like her theme even if it’s sounds like something out of Schindlers List ).
I think it’s the depressing final twenty minutes with Indy being injured and mostly out if commision which was mostly responsible for the film getting such a poor reception from audiences.
As much as Spielberg made mistakes with Skull,I can’t imagine him ever doing this to Indy.
Indy had no choice to surrender there.He gambled that the Nazis ( And Belloq ) would believe he would blow up the Ark but Belloq called his bluff.Indy may be tied up for the climax while God wipes out the Nazis but he’s the one who effectively saves Marion by telling her to shut her eyes.
There’s no problem with Indy being saved by his colleagues.As you say it’s a standard feature of the movies but most often he’s the one doing the heroic stuff.It makes him more relatable that he’s not perfect.
However,after Indy gets shot in Dial,the film came crashing down for me.He literally takes a back seat while Helena takes over for the last act of the movie.They didn’t have to have Helena knock him out.That was just embarrassing.
If Indy had been tempted to stay in the past,but ultimately made the decision himself to go back ( With Helena reasoning to him that there are still people back in 1969 who care about him ) it MIGHT have worked.
Just my opinion of course.
The movie was designed to be the last act of Indiana Jones, appropriate to Harrison Ford's age (while he is even younger in the movie than in real life, but compared to 1969, 80 is the new 70 now), and this means you have to appreciate his powers are fading, and someone else has to support him here and there.
And under the circumstances (once one accepts the time-travel stuff, just like the face-melting ark nonsense and heart-grabbing voodoo and pseudo-christian holy grail and crystal-skull alien stuff before...I don't see any real difference in judging those, they are all fantasy on the same level) it is okay showing him as ultimately frail but stubborn, and stubborn enough for Helena to knock him out to save him by bringing him back to the present (of the film's timeline, i.e. 1969).
I find the ending after that, reconciling with Marion and giving up his adventuring, a very satisfying end to the franchise. But the film needed to show his (sort of) demise until then, rather than establish him as a septuagenarian who somehow preserved his - shall I say - superpowers? Why would there be an end then, except if they chose to kill him off like Bond in NTTD? I left this film wishing him a happy remaining lifetime with Marion. No more Nazis, no more Commies, no more Aliens, no more other fantasy creatures. He definitely deserved it.
And yes, I still think it makes sense that the end credits did not end with yet another rendition of the Raiders' March under the circumstances, since that would have signalled some kind of future continuation...probably with another actor, but I don't think that Harrison Ford could be half as easily replaced as the current actor for James Bond always was, especially since one is used to replacements for the latter, and no actor has played Bond for forty years like Harrison has Indy.
I think yes and no: really the important discovery of Raiders is Indy finding Marion again. Much like the latest film, where the most important part of the story is Indy discovering that he does have a valuable place in the world and means a lot to his friends and loved ones. Anyone who tells you that Helena is the main character and the whole film isn't entirely about Indy and his choices in the world hasn't really watched it.
The goal in Temple isn't to find a sacred rock, it's about reuniting families and, again, Indy and his friends realising how important they are to each other.
I'd also say in Raiders that although Indy does pretty much fail at the end and become rendered powerless, he does though play a part in the plot: he stops the Ark from being taken to Germany, where the Nazis would doubtless have experimented on it until they'd been able to use it as a weapon. These are films where Indy and his friends have adventures when they're caught up in the baddies' evil schemes: they're not about him beating the bad guys, because he almost never does (Temple is pretty much the only film where he does).
Much like he saves Helena at the end from the Nazi pulling her out of the plane, yes. In both he's mostly powerless, but still manages to save his friend. He's not a superhero.
No, not really: then you'd lose the scene where Indy realises he has a role in the present day when he is reunited with Marion: which is much more cinematic because we actually see it happening. Also, if he just realised that Helena was right in Syracuse.. how would that even work? He just says "Hmm, okay I guess you're right". That's very dull and you'd still have the power in Helena's hands, which seems to be the problem for you - the punch is a brilliant moment. The idea that he has to be the perfect hero or the one making all of the decisions just isn't what these films are.
Another 'I was gonna post something, but mtm said it better' moment.
Crystal Skull ended with him being reunited with Marion,marrying her and reunited with his family.As poor as Crystal Skull is,that a pretty perfect ending for Indy.
Dial undoes that and reunites him with Marion ( for the third time in this franchise ) except he’s now lost his son.( I don’t know what it is about KK destroying families in Lucasfilm properties).
Dial isn’t a terrible film but given its poor reception,it really shouldn’t have been made.If they wanted to continue the franchise they should have just reboot with a new actor and set it in the 1930s.
Kathleen Kennedy was Exec Producer on Crystal Skull too, so your point doesn't really make any sense.
I agree with you. It's a good film and the dedicated Indy fans deserved to experience Indy in his twilight years. I loved the film. It's sad it failed to take off at the box office like the previous films, but I suspect that is because this time the gap between films was just too long, and the younger audience simply do not have the same connection to Indy. If Bond was left for nearly 15 years, I think Eon might face the same problem.
Very good point, any series that wants longevity needs to stay relevant. To truly be successful is to set the standard be ahead of everyone else, which is exactly what the earlier Indy and Bond films did, they were the benchmark that others tried to replicate.
Yes, I think it's that. I think the bad press from the weirdos on YouTube didn't help, and also just big movies in generally have found it hard and unpredictable going this year. It's all been quite odd.
Joking aside I never want them to make a CGI Sean Connery Bond film ever, as much as the Deep Fake and AI technology improves the characters lack one vital thing... a soul.
The movie was a massive flop so I think it’s fair to say that most Indy fans did not enjoy it.Glad for those that did though.
KK was not the creative force behind Crystal Skull.She was basically a glorified secretary on the first four Indy’s.Lucas and Spielberg were the creative force on them ( Three out of four is not a bad batting average though )
KK was the main creative force and producer of both Solo and Indy 5.
They both went massively over budget and had massive reshoots.
They both had Phoebe Waller Bridge in them.
They both flopped.
Maybe they misjudged the number of Indiana Jones' fans that are actually out there. If most Indy fans didn't enjoy it, they would have still seen it in order to not enjoy it. Which means it wouldn't have flopped regardless of how good it was!
That's not what an Executive Producer is, no.
That's too simplistic, my friend. All the Indy fans I know, and I know a hell of a lot of them thru Facebook and social media - I'm a screenwriter and producer and director - really did enjoy the film. The broader public, and I mean the younger audience, just did not connect - perhaps because it had no relevance to them.
The villains just randomly turns up as plot requires, at least KOTCS had something that resembled fun and a narrative.
I switched it off on third watch as found it depressing and could not think of anything in the film worth looking forward to.
PWB is an appalling character and kills the film for me, Indy is treated with disrespect which I do not like.
DOD makes me quite angry how they mistreated Indy;s character.
After everything Indy did he lives in a crappy flat, come on that is BS.
I do not blame Mangold, this is all down to the studio.
Where should he have lived? A penthouse apartment?
Not a very good counter argument, you know what I meant.
Sounds like the same criticisms of NTTD and Barbara Broccoli...blaming one woman while forgetting the many men (including the director and screenwriters) who are part of the franchise.
I think recasting Ford would be a huge mistake. It would be like Connery retiring from Bond in 1971 and then the franchise not launching another movie until 1987.
I wasn't counter-arguing. I'm legitimately asking where you would have seen Indy living. He didn't exactly live in the most stylish of places in the Spielberg films, either. I always saw that as part of the character - he was not the sort to be satisfied with cozy home living.