Rank The Indiana Jones Films

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I feel like a reboot is very unlikely. This is not James Bond: this is a series that had gone fifty years with Ford. It’s too identified with that persons to work without him.

 

Of course they'll reboot it. Eventually. This is Disney, and it's too valuable a property to leave alone. 

[Edmilson 7,465]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Well, considering the dearth of creativity in Hollywood, I feel confident in saying it'll be rebooted in 15 years or so.

 

 

Gerard Butler has been training for the part since 2008:

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Well, considering the dearth of creativity in Hollywood, I feel confident in saying it'll be rebooted in 15 years or so.

 

Indiana Jones and the Dearth of Creativity 

 

Sounds fun, I hope they bring Harrison and Phoebe back for it!

 

4 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

prepare yourself Chen...they'll remake Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit as well, and almost certainly sooner than they should, count on it. 

 

Especially The Hobbits should be remade (and LotR 2 and 3).

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

11 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Gerard Butler has been training for the part since 2008:

I could see him as Indy, but he's already 54. Not to be "ageist," but...

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

He's perfect for portraying a 90 year old Indy.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

11 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Indiana Jones and the Dearth of Creativity 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

You Photoshop wizard!

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Four separate threads now (and counting) arguing about a failed film and dead franchise. 

 

Never change, JWFan. Never change.

[Chen G. 3,949]

44 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Of course they'll reboot it. Eventually. This is Disney, and it's too valuable a property to leave alone. 

 

Sure. But I personally just don't see it being succesfull, and therefore don't see it becoming a thing again...

[Edmilson 7,465]

20 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Four separate threads now (and counting) about a failed film and dead franchise. 

 

That also applies to Star Wars  (with the exception that, with SW, there's way way more than four threads).

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

And LotR, good Lord.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

52 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Sure. But I personally just don't see it being succesfull, and therefore don't see it becoming a thing again...

It can work again, and even become a thing. Indiana Jones is timeless, and if done right, will work equally well in the year 2081 as it did in 1981. Call me an optimist.

[JTN 2,029]

11 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

It can work again, and even become a thing. Indiana Jones is timeless, and if done right, will work equally well in the year 2081 as it did in 1981. Call me an optimist.

Thankfully most of us won’t live to see it if a reboot indeed happens. 
 

Until then The Mummy 1 & 2 will remain the best Indiana Jones films since the first three Indiana Jones films. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

5 hours ago, JTW said:

Until then The Mummy 1 & 2 will remain the best Indiana Jones films since the first three Indiana Jones films. 

 

While not exactly on point, I quite like the first National Treasure as well. 

[GerateWohl 4,370]

I also got nice Indy vibes by Jungle Cruise. Liked it as a movie more than DoD. Not the score of course.

[Chen G. 3,949]

14 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Indiana Jones is timeless

 

I can't quite articulate what it is about Indiana Jones that doesn't make me see it as "timeless." I mean, Star Wars has a "timelessness" to it, partially because it takes place outside our space and time, AND because Star Wars entries have been drip-fed to us over a very extended period of time.

 

Indiana Jones belongs, as Nick points out, in the 1930s and very much appealed in its day to people who, not so much had nostalgia for the 1930s but for media set in the 1930s (Republic serials and the like) AND after The Last Crusade, it had been very sporadically released.

 

Also, while series like Star Wars, Marvel or Harry Potter went through directors like tissue paper, Indiana Jones had been so identified with Spielberg and his mise-en-scene... I just do not know... I won't be holding up for a reboot of Indiana Jones being a runaway success.

[Edmilson 7,465]

15 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

will work equally well in the year 2081

It'll be cool if they indeed release the reboot in 2081 because then it'll coincide with the release of La La Land Records' The Complete John Williams Indiana Jones Collection 10 CD box set, produced by Mike Matessino (or at least his descendants)!

 

Unless it actually gets postponed for the next year because of business shenanigans or something.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

10 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

It'll be cool if they indeed release the reboot in 2081 because then it'll coincide with the re-release of Disney Records' The Complete John Williams Indiana Jones Collection 5 CD box set, produced by Bouzereau!

 

Fixed.

[JTN 2,029]

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

While not exactly on point, I quite like the first National Treasure as well. 

Me too!

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Indiana Jones belongs, as Nick points out, in the 1930s

He belongs in a museum!

 

Seriously, Indiana Jones IS timeless specifically because it is set in the 30s but was made in the 80s to make it deliberately “retro”. It’s Lucas’ and Spielberg’s homage to the old Republic serials. They wanted to make an A movie B movie-style.
It’s like watching Casablanca. It’s old, but it’s timeless, because it’s a wonderful film, great script, great actors. 
 

When I saw Raiders as a kid, I didn’t have nostalgia for the 30s, yet I enjoyed the film. It’s the same with a kid today. Great stories are timeless.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

When Riders came out it was kind of a counter point to contemporary cinema based on the series from the 40s and 50s. But in a modern fresh way. Something similar Quentin Tarantino managed to achieve with Pulp Fiction as a modern revival of the grindhouse cinema. Something like that cannot be reproduced by the industry or a corporation like Disney. All that they can do is milk the cow and try not to fuck up the sequels. Currently I would say they have with that a hit rate of less than 50%.

[Badzeee 110]

Hmmm...

 

My list goes something like this, with Raiders always at the top, but the rest of it often changes, depending on which film I've watched most recently. I mentioned on the DoD Appreciation thread that Raiders is one of my all-time fave movies, and although I like and enjoy all the others, there is a sense of "diminishing returns" about them. Last Crusade generally hovers at second-fave largely due to the chemistry between Ford and Connery and because it's so much fun to watch that, and it also has a great villain in Julian Glover's Donovan (whom we don't see enough of). I don't think either Crystal Skull or Dial of Destiny are as deserving of their poor reputations, while Temple of Doom seems to be a weird mishmash of a horror movie and a kids' film (as opposed to a family adventure movie, which is where I'd slot the others). 

 

So... 

 

Raiders

 

...

 

Last Crusade

Crystal Skull

Dial of Destiny 

Temple of Doom 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

6 hours ago, Badzeee said:

So... 

 

Raiders

 

...

 

Last Crusade

Crystal Skull

Dial of Destiny 

Temple of Doom 

 

Indeed. Raiders of the Lost Ark is in a class by itself. It's a flat-out genuine classic of American cinema. The sequels, particularly the first two, range in quality from the great to merely good...but Raiders is unique. Even those who personally like some of the other films better, I think, acknowledge that Raiders has a special place in film history that sets it apart.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

4 hours ago, JTW said:

When I saw Raiders as a kid, I didn’t have nostalgia for the 30s, yet I enjoyed the film. It’s the same with a kid today. Great stories are timeless.

What I was going to say. It was just a humdinger of a movie that even appealed to the kid who had no idea it was inspired by and a throwback to the old serials.

[Badzeee 110]

On 27/12/2023 at 5:32 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Indeed. Raiders of the Lost Ark is in a class by itself. It's a flat-out genuine classic of American cinema. The sequels, particularly the first two, range in quality from the great to merely good...but Raiders is unique. Even those who personally like some of the other films better, I think, acknowledge that Raiders has a special place in film history that sets it apart.

 

Exactly what I think I wanted to articulate. It's a perfect storm of moviemaking, including when it was released... there's something zeitgeisty about its place in film history. 

 

[Schilkeman 964]

On 27/12/2023 at 12:47 PM, Mr. Hooper said:

What I was going to say. It was just a humdinger of a movie that even appealed to the kid who had no idea it was inspired by and a throwback to the old serials.

I agree. It wasn't great because it was like Zorro, it was great because it's the best action adventure film ever made, which happens to be set in the 30's.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Even though I love the original three movies which are all more or less on the same level (the criticism of TOD is hypocritical at best), I like to look at the films from a historical and ideology critical perspective. It is revealing that they are not exactly as original as, say Tarantino's Django Unchained which stands out from its idols through its postmodernism, while Indiana Jones is more a technically refined repetition of the golden age adventure cinema and film noir.

I don't particularly agree with him here, but he has some very interesting thought on the series.

 

The fourth film is debatable and the fifth film simply is a catastrophe which doesn't have much to debate about.

[Schilkeman 964]

I hate this man so much, and I’ve only seen one video from him. I also hate postmodernism in film and literature, though my real beef is with obscurantism and moral relativism.

 

I think it’s valuable to be mindful of the intents and consequences of art. That the two can be at odds with one another, and that intent does not cover for poor representation (see ToD), but I also think it’s a disingenuous false equivalency to compare a whizz-bang throwback adventure film to a film lambasting the cruelty, complacency, and rationalization of slavery and its practitioners.

 

Indiana Jones is not amoral, but it also doesn’t have a point. It just is. It’s joy and meaning is in the kinetic appeal of the moving picture. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

the criticism of TOD is hypocritical at best

 

It's hilarious, over-the-top p*******l over-correctness.

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

2 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

The fourth film is debatable and the fifth film simply is a catastrophe which doesn't have much to debate about.

 

That's certainly debatable.  

 

People seem to be debating the fifth movie plenty. At least as much if not more than Crystal Skull.

 

Yavar

[Brundlefly 2,385]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

it also doesn’t have a point. It just is. It’s joy and meaning is in the kinetic appeal of the moving picture. 

Well, that is exactly what the ideology critical perspective is all about: There is nothing that cannot have a point and even if its creator claims that it does not have a point at all - it just shows you how unaware he is of the point that their work of art does have. Hating this guy (he's relatively new to the English speaking community on YouTube) seems to be part of the early process of knowing him, when he starts spoiling a good chunk of childhood memories, but one gotta cope with the ambivalence that one may have in mind from here on.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

2 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Well, that is exactly what the ideology critical perspective is all about: There is nothing that cannot have a point and even if its creator claims that it does not have a point at all - it just shows you how unaware he is of the point that their work of art does have.

Maybe Spielberg was aware, but wasn't making a point or statement, but merely using "God" or whatever as a device in his story to heighten its effect.

 

2 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

he starts spoiling a good chunk of childhood memories

Yeah, I'm of the humble opinion that something like 'Indiana Jones' shouldn't be intellectualized, but rather simply enjoyed on its own terms—and for that reason, it doesn't "suck".

 

Nice click bait title by the way. lol

[Schilkeman 964]

17 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

Well, that is exactly what the ideology critical perspective is all about: There is nothing that cannot have a point and even if its creator claims that it does not have a point at all - it just shows you how unaware he is of the point that their work of art does have. Hating this guy (he's relatively new to the English speaking community on YouTube) seems to be part of the early process of knowing him, when he starts spoiling a good chunk of childhood memories, but one gotta cope with the ambivalence that one may have in mind from here on.

This dude is a poster (man)child for obscurantism. It's purple criticism, and I will never watch another one of his videos. As for your first point, that is perilously close to death of the author criticism. There is nothing that cannot have meaning for the viewer, but to have a point requires intent on the part of the creator and context on the part of the viewer. I will say again, that Indiana Jones has no point, unless its point is to be really fucking fun.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

21 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

Even though I love the original three movies which are all more or less on the same level (the criticism of TOD is hypocritical at best), I like to look at the films from a historical and ideology critical perspective. It is revealing that they are not exactly as original as, say Tarantino's Django Unchained which stands out from its idols through its postmodernism, while Indiana Jones is more a technically refined repetition of the golden age adventure cinema and film noir.

I don't particularly agree with him here, but he has some very interesting thought on the series.

 

The fourth film is debatable and the fifth film simply is a catastrophe which doesn't have much to debate about.

 

Good grief. What a horrid individual. 

 

20 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

I also hate postmodernism in film and literature, though my real beef is with obscurantism and moral relativism.