Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was born in the late 80's and enjoyed IJ as a child and teenager. I didn't really critically evaluate them until the last 5-10 years.
I know the series was groundbreaking at the time for it's quality and cinematic portrayal of pulpy serials, but I don't see how it crushes similar films of the last 20 years. Primarily, I'm not sure why Raiders of the Lost Ark would be "better" than Curse of The Black Pearl as an example.
Despite strong moments throughout the trilogy, I don't see how any of the initial IJ films compare to even the MCU.

Aside from doing certain things first, what makes Indiana Jones so highly regarded?

Without it, you wouldn't have got films like the POTC films.

It's the forerunner.
Like Star Wars, it used a "sense of the old" with the serialised pulp adventures but with a more modern sensibility.

In that period, superhero movies weren't that good. Sure, Superman and Batman had a couple of good films each ... but they also had a few bad ones each - and Marvel was yet to have a "good one".

Marvel's "revitalisation" (with the first "Iron man" film, only happened because Jon Favreau was also a fan of those films and they were one of his motivators for making movies.

trexmeyer wrote:
Aside from doing certain things first, what makes Indiana Jones so highly regarded?

Kind of answering your own question.

Cultural touchstones usually come in two flavors; they did a particular thing first, or they did that thing in a particular way at just the right time.

Honestly, I'd consider Jones to be the later rather than the former, but it was a well made and high budget (for the time) pulp adventure film that kind of capstone the genre. It's a genre that was generally not taken seriously but was turned into a serious film with serious chops rather than just being a pulpy camp fest. You could call the Indiana Jones movies the point where the genre of pulp adventure heroes reached their then maturity as a medium.

trexmeyer wrote:
I was born in the late 80's and enjoyed IJ as a child and teenager. I didn't really critically evaluate them until the last 5-10 years.
I know the series was groundbreaking at the time for it's quality and cinematic portrayal of pulpy serials,

That right there is your answer.

trexmeyer wrote:
but I don't see how it crushes similar films of the last 20 years. Primarily, I'm not sure why Raiders of the Lost Ark would be "better" than Curse of The Black Pearl as an example.

Raiders/Temple/Crusade DON'T crush similar films. Because similar films share the same qualities that make the first 3 IJ films great. Good story, good effects, good action sequences, memorable moments, etc. A good score helps too (Don't tell me you don't hear the IJ theme whenever you even hear/think the words "Indiana Jones") as does the right cast. Being well edited is also really important but most people won't ever realize that when trying to describe what made a film great.
When these things are correctly mixed? The result sticks in & fuels the imagination for decades. You'll happily watch & re-watch these movies.

What they crush are films that try & copy them but fail to meet the bar(s) they set. Including the series own 4th instalment. Crystal Skull =/= Raiders.

trexmeyer wrote:
Despite strong moments throughout the trilogy, I don't see how any of the initial IJ films compare to even the MCU.

Actual quality. The first three IJ films stand far above much of the MCU


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chromedog wrote:
Without it, you wouldn't have got films like the POTC films. [ /quote]

That's a big maybe.

 chromedog wrote:
In that period, superhero movies weren't that good. Sure, Superman and Batman had a couple of good films each ... but they also had a few bad ones each - and Marvel was yet to have a "good one".[ /quote]

In "that period"?? 1980 -'89? DC: Superman had 3 films. Batman had 1. And I think Swamp Thing was direct to video. Marvel: :( They have a feeble line-up of 3 films (not counting stuff on TV) - Red Sonja, Howard the Duck, & Dolph Lundgren's attempt at the Punisher (technically it was a film release....)

I generally concur with some of the points made, but I think a part of it was it knew when to stop (there are 3 films, no more, no less !) rather than get subjected to the diminishing returns that modern franchises mania inflicts they will always be fondly remembered

Also, they kind of stood alone in the wider movie market. Yes they spawned imitators, but can you name any of them? About the only ones that spring immediately to mind would be Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. Perhaps The Goonies as well.

So when each came out, it was a refreshing departure for audiences.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I generally concur with some of the points made, but I think a part of it was it knew when to stop (there are 3 films, no more, no less !) rather than get subjected to the diminishing returns that modern franchises mania inflicts they will always be fondly remembered

To be fair until you hit the current slew of Marvel films, most films rarely got beyond 3 or so films in a series and even that could be a hard battle to get too.

You've a handful of exceptions like the Carry-On series of films/minifilms; but in general most films were 1 and done or 1 and 2 sequels of diminishing returns and often production value. Which I think is one area Indie did well in. The sequels were of equal production value to greater in the original Trilogy. Often you'll see sequels like we got for Dragonheart (which admittedly is an extreme example) where each iteration after gets a vastly smaller budget and often smaller release till you hit the death of "Direct to DVD"

Or worse straight to SyFy, and yes Highlander I mean you !

Also Indy had some other media spin offs and homages, a couple of decent PC adventures and of course Rick Dangerous / Lara Croft (the born awesome 90s version)

ccs wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:
Despite strong moments throughout the trilogy, I don't see how any of the initial IJ films compare to even the MCU.

Actual quality. The first three IJ films stand far above much of the MCU

I might agree with much now because I really dislike Phase 4, but before that I'd pick an MCU film over IJ on a coin flip. I feel like the cultural influence of IJ is far superior to the actual films (the same is true of Star Wars).

trexmeyer wrote:

ccs wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:
Despite strong moments throughout the trilogy, I don't see how any of the initial IJ films compare to even the MCU.

Actual quality. The first three IJ films stand far above much of the MCU

I might agree with much now because I really dislike Phase 4, but before that I'd pick an MCU film over IJ on a coin flip. I feel like the cultural influence of IJ is far superior to the actual films (the same is true of Star Wars).

It seems underwhelming for the modern eye, at least a bit, because it literally set standards that films in the next decades had time to improve on. For the time, it was in many ways revolutionary, but people looking back at it from today have about 40 years of additional developments in writing and technology to chose a 'better' film from.

No. Indiana Jones looks better than every single MCU film. By far. It's not even close. That trilogy is gorgeous. My criticism of IJ is the characterizations and story. Raiders of the Lost Ark for example has no room to breathe. The movie feels like they're sprinting from one set piece to the next with minimal bits of hamfisted dialogue shoved in here and there.

There's definitely something to be said that quality practical effects and sets just age better than CGI.

Like, Jurassic Park comes to mind too. There is some bad CGI in a few places that hasn't aged well but also a lot of practical stuff that still looks great.

Alien the original to, and the first three Indiana Jones movies. The Thing. The more time goes on in the age of CGI (and I don't hate CGI) the more appreciation I have for the way the limits of physical work impact the way a movie is made and presented.

It feels more authentic even if it doesn't always look as fantastic.

I remember being blown away by how much I enjoyed the first Pirates film and I think it would have a much higher standing in popular culture if the sequels had been better (i.e. part of this is because Indy had three good films in succession.

As for LordofHats point, I had often wondered what an old school practical effects film would look like if it got modern blockbuster money, because even accounting for inflation the budgets are far, far higher now than in the 80’s. And then we got Mad Max Fury Road and I got to find out!

LordofHats wrote:There's definitely something to be said that quality practical effects and sets just age better than CGI.

Like, Jurassic Park comes to mind too. There is some bad CGI in a few places that hasn't aged well but also a lot of practical stuff that still looks great.

Alien the original to, and the first three Indiana Jones movies. The Thing. The more time goes on in the age of CGI (and I don't hate CGI) the more appreciation I have for the way the limits of physical work impact the way a movie is made and presented.

It feels more authentic even if it doesn't always look as fantastic.

Heck go watch Red Dwarf or SpaceBalls - the spaceships in those age way better than a lot of CGI space ships.
Physical models and such still work so so well!

Jadenim wrote:I remember being blown away by how much I enjoyed the first Pirates film and I think it would have a much higher standing in popular culture if the sequels had been better (i.e. part of this is because Indy had three good films in succession.

As for LordofHats point, I had often wondered what an old school practical effects film would look like if it got modern blockbuster money, because even accounting for inflation the budgets are far, far higher now than in the 80’s. And then we got Mad Max Fury Road and I got to find out!

Honestly I think the Pirates films would have done better if Jonny hadn't spent most of the 2 sequels dancing around like a confused drunk loon. They overplayed his character traits so much that he just kind of lost all gravity and meaning to his character; which kind of shot the bottom out of them.

That or just give the original (not British style) Barbossa his own pirate series!

Jack Sparrow is one of the those characters who is at his best when he isn't the focus of attention. The more attention you put on him, the less interesting and more annoying her becomes.

The character was best playing off straight-man characters like he did in the first movie.

 LordofHats wrote:
Jack Sparrow is one of the those characters who is at his best when he isn't the focus of attention. The more attention you put on him, the less interesting and more annoying her becomes.

The character was best playing off straight-man characters like he did in the first movie.

What they done said, I liked the first one but even then I thought Will and Elizabeth's stories had some mileage regarding social standing, gender, and expections, all sadly foghorned out by Dame Sparrow Panto'ing it up like a demented Eddie Izzard, the less said about the last ones the better

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, they kind of stood alone in the wider movie market. Yes they spawned imitators, but can you name any of them? About the only ones that spring immediately to mind would be Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. Perhaps The Goonies as well.

So when each came out, it was a refreshing departure for audiences.

Would you put the Brendan Fraser The Mummy films in that group, Doc, or are they a bit too late for that?

Things like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Flash Gordon, The Wizard of Oz, etc. become cultural touchstones BECAUSE they are groundbreaking at the time they are made.

Yes, they all are eventually outdone by later productions, with better technology. The Matrix. Iron Man. Avatar. But we still remember the cultural touchstones, if for no other reason than because the later productions are building on those cultural touchstones to reach new heights. (Usually...)

I would include the Mummy. But I would also include films like National Treasure as a mix of Indiana Jones and Dan Brown, an adjustment of the formula for the times.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, they kind of stood alone in the wider movie market. Yes they spawned imitators, but can you name any of them? About the only ones that spring immediately to mind would be Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. Perhaps The Goonies as well.

So when each came out, it was a refreshing departure for audiences.

Would you put the Brendan Fraser The Mummy films in that group, Doc, or are they a bit too late for that?

Definitely in the same mould, but too late to be contemporary

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Or worse straight to SyFy, and yes Highlander I mean you !

My favourite part of the Highlander franchise is how the last sequel just pretends that the other sequels never happened...

Well, all of the sequels pretend the first sequel didn't happen TBF.

 Vulcan wrote:
Things like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Flash Gordon, The Wizard of Oz, etc. become cultural touchstones BECAUSE they are groundbreaking at the time they are made.

Yes, they all are eventually outdone by later productions, with better technology. The Matrix. Iron Man. Avatar. But we still remember the cultural touchstones, if for no other reason than because the later productions are building on those cultural touchstones to reach new heights. (Usually...)

There's also some value in looking back at how those things were done in the days before current technology, and seeing just how far the makers of those things managed to go with what they had to work with.

And yes, I'll add to the chorus of praise for practical effects. Singling out Star Wars specifically there, the visual difference between the space scenes with model ships vs the visually impressive but cartoony CGI space scenes is really striking.

 LordofHats wrote:
There's definitely something to be said that quality practical effects and sets just age better than CGI.

Like, Jurassic Park comes to mind too. There is some bad CGI in a few places that hasn't aged well but also a lot of practical stuff that still looks great.

Alien the original to, and the first three Indiana Jones movies. The Thing. The more time goes on in the age of CGI (and I don't hate CGI) the more appreciation I have for the way the limits of physical work impact the way a movie is made and presented.

It feels more authentic even if it doesn't always look as fantastic.

That's certainly true. A big chunk of the problem with the Hobbit films (aside from the insane stretching of the tiny plot) vs the LoTR films was the CGI. Nothing that happened in the Hobbit had any weight to it at all. The CGI was an opportunity to get up and do something else, because the story stopped for the duration of whatever antics were happening. Meanwhile, the LOTR characters cowering and hiding from a horse was nailbiting.

 insaniak wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Or worse straight to SyFy, and yes Highlander I mean you !

My favourite part of the Highlander franchise is how the last sequel just pretends that the other sequels never happened...

That is, of course, because there can be only one

 Vulcan wrote:
Things like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Flash Gordon, The Wizard of Oz, etc. become cultural touchstones BECAUSE they are groundbreaking at the time they are made.

Yes, they all are eventually outdone by later productions, with better technology. The Matrix. Iron Man. Avatar. But we still remember the cultural touchstones, if for no other reason than because the later productions are building on those cultural touchstones to reach new heights. (Usually...)

The best of them hold up though. Raiders is still a pretty fantastic film, full stop.

The films are also literal crowd pleasers.

Plenty of thrills and action for kids, without anything too much (OK Temple of Doom requires specific edits!)

Bit of romance.

Witty dialogue.

Even a fairly realistic male lead. Whilst a well read man of action, Indy is hardly the muscle bound beefcake. He’s not infallible. He’s not perfect. But he always tries his best. And when he saves the day, it’s typically Brains over Brawn.

I mean….Raiders? Knowing not to look at the Ark of the Covenant. At least trying not to set off the trap at the beginning.

Temple of Doom? Knowing the chant to activate the Sankara Stones, scattering them once again and dooming Mola Ram.

Last Crusade? Making informed decisions more or less throughout, even challenging his preconceptions (hey. X did mark the spot.

It’s all pretty wholesome family fare. Just enough oomph to it that parents wouldn’t shield their kids, but enough that the kid knows it’s a bit of a treat, something distinctly more adult than they might usually get to watch. Granted it’s been a long time since I was wee, but that is my memory of it.

Thought on the Temple of Doom edits? I was too young to see it the cinema, and when it aired on TV the gorier parts were trimmed. We still saw the sacrifice, but the heart removal, burning body and heart bursting into flames were gone. More or less seamlessly. Certainly enough remained to give the gist without the gruesome. Were those cut from the original run and added in later home media releases?

They were always there. I remember my parents worrying that we would have nightmares, even though those scenes were pretty tame for 80’s movies. Around the same time they just put on The Gate for us without thinking twice about it since it was a “kid’s movie”.

Worse than MCU? Got to be kidding. MCU films are almost all generic, formulaic, assembly line, poorly done CGI fests. Most of them deserve 3/10, maybe 4/10 rating at best and serve as something you watch in 4 instalments over 4 days to have something to do while eating dinner. And that's assuming such cinema is your guilty pleasure.

Compare Indy to something like Fury Road and we can be talking.


It is a bit embarassing for me to watch original Star Wars or Ghostbusters now but Indy, Terminator, Aliens, Back to the Future are easily as good now as when I first saw them.

I can't think of Indiana Jones without the John Williams sound track coming to mind. Epic!