Are you disappointed with Indy IV?

[Ollie 1,059]

At that moment he was going to blow the Ark up. He didn't because Belloq was correct, Indy wanted to see it opened as well because it was an important archeological moment.

Sacrificing himself and Marion wouldn't matter because it would keep the Ark out of Hitler's hands. I think he knew that either the Germans would kill him or the Ark would.

He didnt want to blow marion

No Luke, you have it backwards.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

He didnt want to blow marion

No Luke, you have it backwards.

Disappointed? No. I have a lot of pet peeves with the film, and I gave it a 7/10 on IMDB, but am I disappointed? Not one bit. I enjoyed every minute. If they'd had a non-UFO ending, and more realistic-looking environments (not CGI!) I would almost certainly have given it 9 or 10. As it stands it looks cheaper than the original trilogy thanks to the CGI, and doesn't quite feel as epic thanks to the silly spaceships and rather muddled ending, but despite it's flaws it was still a blast to watch.

[Lurker 5]

He didnt want to blow marion...

Is that "Marion" or "Marian".

Neil

[indy4 155]

hahaha

Well if you think about it ,E.T.,CE3K,WotW ,and A.I.(kind of) has that element too ,and those films aren't considered totally outlandish .I wonder why people can't accept this type of story in Indiana jones

Those movies are about aliens, plain and simple. Indiana Jones was always adventures about finding real artifacts or based on real historical items. The fourth entry now introduces an alien relic, it just doesn't feel right for the character.

I think it worked perfectly. The aliens were so deeply imbedded in the Mayan history, that it worked fine. It was still like archealogy. And also, we had a sense of awe from the ship as opposed to complex technological sci-fi stuff. So it worked great.

There's always some greater force acting on Indy by the end of the film--the power of God, the power of the Stones, the power of the Holy Grail, the power of interdimensional aliens. I think it fit fine, and it was a very unique way to take the series. Bravo!

People are complaining that Indy does nothing in the Finale and everything just happens around him

In Raiders he's tied to a pole for the last 10 minutes of the movie.

[Josh500 1,615]

hahaha

Well if you think about it ,E.T.,CE3K,WotW ,and A.I.(kind of) has that element too ,and those films aren't considered totally outlandish .I wonder why people can't accept this type of story in Indiana jones

Those movies are about aliens, plain and simple. Indiana Jones was always adventures about finding real artifacts or based on real historical items. The fourth entry now introduces an alien relic, it just doesn't feel right for the character.

I think it worked perfectly. The aliens were so deeply imbedded in the Mayan history, that it worked fine. It was still like archealogy. And also, we had a sense of awe from the ship as opposed to complex technological sci-fi stuff. So it worked great.

There's always some greater force acting on Indy by the end of the film--the power of God, the power of the Stones, the power of the Holy Grail, the power of interdimensional aliens. I think it fit fine, and it was a very unique way to take the series. Bravo!

Yeah, exactly. Indy wasn't just about finding "real relics." That would have been terribly boring. He was all about finding mythic relics with paranormal powers. And this alien thing . . . well, when I first saw it, I was like, "What the hell!" But yeah, it DOES work. Spielberg MAKES it work. And John Williams's brilliant "Departure" helps tremendously, of course.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

Those movies are about aliens, plain and simple. Indiana Jones was always adventures about finding real artifacts or based on real historical items.

You obviously don't know anything, the skulls *are* real artifacts. Unlike the Ark or the Grail, of which we don't even know whether they really existed.

The skulls are a modern myth if you want, opposed to medieval and ancient myths in Raiders or Last Crusade. There's no big difference here.

The only difference is that the skulls aren't tied to any religion, but neither were the stones in Temple Of Doom.

Yeah, exactly. Indy wasn't just about finding "real relics." That would have been terribly boring. He was all about finding mythic relics with paranormal powers. And this alien thing . . . well, when I first saw it, I was like, "What the hell!" But yeah, it DOES work. Spielberg MAKES it work. And John Williams's brilliant "Departure" helps tremendously, of course.

Mythic relics with paranormal powers, you say. Then what makes the skulls so different from the Ark or the Grail? Nothing, except that we know the skulls exist. The hidden secrets of the skulls *are* an old myth.

The REAL difference is in your head! Everybody has at least heard of the Ark or the Grail, and everybody knows they are valuable things, so you have at least a feeling of what's at stake before you watch the film.

But the crystal skulls, not so many people know them, and I doubt they know more knowledge about them. They've never heard of such things, so the film has to establish the value and importance of the skulls first, and that's why, IMO, Spielberg ties them to the UFO crashing in Roswell, to bring a familiar element to an otherwise unknown object.

I also think that's because Spielberg spends an extraordinary amount of time establishing what the skull can do, which may drag the excitement factor down a bit.

Personally, I have known the crystal skulls before I've heard Indy 4 was about them, so maybe I have an advantage in re-capturing the pre-excitement of, say, Raiders Of The Lost Ark.