110 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

For me, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is the pick of the bunch, followed closely by RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

Watching TEMPLE OF DOOM on Monday, I realized how much I'd underrated it in the past. Action, humour and suspense are even more expertly blended than in RAIDERS. TEMPLE OF DOOM is a simpler film (go with RAIDERS if you want more plot and characters), but, to my mind, all the better for it.

RAIDERS drags in places, especially towards the end, but TEMPLE OF DOOM never lets up from its explosive start. I also think TEMPLE OF DOOM has a keener sense of its own absurdity than RAIDERS.

[DLibrasnow]

This is a tough one for me, but I agree with Steven Spielbergs assessment of the three movies (which he gives in his the feature length documentary and rates them this way:

1. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
2. INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
3. INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

In the documentary Spielberg admits that he is not that fond of TEMPLE OF DOOM and actually does not much care for it.

He states that the main thing he got from TEMPLE OF DOOM was his wife Kate Capshaw. As he says "In the movie Indy got the girl, but actually I did."
In this he says it was fate that he directed the second Indy movie.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

This is a tough one for me, but I agree with Steven Spielbergs assessment of the three movies (which he gives in his the feature length documentary and rates them this way:

1. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
2. INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
3. INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

RAIDERS really scores in its wonderful sight gags: Indy thinking for a moment that he's been shot, and wondering where the bullet is; the swordsman scene; the Nazi's coat hanger.... Brilliant stuff.

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

In this he says it was fate that he directed the second Indy movie.  

Is there any mention in the doc of other directors who were considered for the two sequels? I heard once that Spielberg thought of asking George (MAD MAX) Miller to direct LAST CRUSADE.

[IndyB007]

My favorites are in the order of their release:::

Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis

Is there any mention in the doc of other directors who were considered for the two sequels? I heard once that Spielberg thought of asking George (MAD MAX) Miller to direct LAST CRUSADE.

No, not true.....Spielberg agreed from the get-go to direct three Indiana Jones movies.

In the doc he says that George Lucas told him that he had three Indy movies lined up (which happened to not be entirely accurate) and that if he directed one, Lucas would want him to direct all three of them.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis


RAIDERS really scores in its wonderful sight gags: Indy thinking for a moment that he's been shot, and wondering where the bullet is; the swordsman scene; the Nazi's coat hanger.... Brilliant stuff..

In the doc it is mentioned the Nazi coat hanger thing was a gag that Spielberg had been trying to work for some time (apparently it also appears in "1941").

[Tarl_Cabot]

I very fond of 'Temple'. It was bold and radically different from Raiders and i respected that. What doesn't work for me is 'Short round', another example of Spielberg's fixation with kids and working them into his films. Just keep it meat and potatoes Steven! Hero, female sidekick! Not a "family adventure"! Raiders is a perfect film.period. The thrid film sucked. I hated it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

I very fond of 'Temple'. It was bold and radically different from Raiders and i respected that.  

Cool. It's nice to read a defence of TEMPLE OF DOOM.

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

What doesn't work for me is 'Short round', another example of Spielberg's fixation with kids and working them into his films.  

I don't think "Shorty" ruined the movie, or even marred it. If the actor playing him had been more like Jake Lloyd, though, the character might have done serious damage.

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

Raiders is a perfect film.period.  

I disagree. For all its undeniable brilliance, it's overlong, with talky and/or boring stretches. It doesn't build to a satisfying conclusion: the final half hour is unmemorable (as with THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, there's a lot of dull nonsense involving a submarine); the opening of the Ark scene (with a final ordeal for Indy and Marion, and the appearance of the demons) seems rushed; and the ending comes as a huge anticlimax (and doesn't make much sense - how did Indy put the lid back on the Ark and get it from that island to the States? And given the awesome destructive power he'd just witnessed, wouldn't it have been a wiser move to just leave the Ark where it was?).

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

The thrid film sucked. I hated it.  

I don't hate it, but I can't see it as anything other than an inferior, by-the-numbers retread of RAIDERS with Sean Connery and a considerable amount of sentimentality added to the mix.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis

I disagree. For all its undeniable brilliance, it's overlong, with talky and/or boring stretches. It doesn't build to a satisfying conclusion: the final half hour is unmemorable (as with THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, there's a lot of dull nonsense involving a submarine); the opening of the Ark scene (with a final ordeal for Indy and Marion, and the appearance of the demons) seems rushed; and the ending comes as a huge anticlimax (and doesn't make much sense - how did Indy put the lid back on the Ark and get it from that island to the States? And given the awesome destructive power he'd just witnessed, wouldn't it have been a wiser move to just leave the Ark where it was?).

I disagree with you Loomis. I might have agreed with you before watching the feature length dovcumentary but RAIDERS has the perfect pace for the movie, some colorful, memorable villains, great acting, amazing cinematography and some of the best dialogue. Probably my faborite scene in the movie is when Marion and Belloq are playing that drinking game in the tent. In the doc Karen Allen discusses all the subtext to that scene and I think I am now even more appreciative of it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I disagree with you Loomis. I might have agreed with you before watching the feature length dovcumentary but RAIDERS has the perfect pace for the movie, some colorful, memorable villains, great acting, amazing cinematography and some of the best dialogue. Probably my faborite scene in the movie is when Marion and Belloq are playing that drinking game in the tent. In the doc Karen Allen discusses all the subtext to that scene and I think I am now even more appreciative of it.

I'm not saying RAIDERS is a bad film - far from it. It does indeed have "some colorful, memorable villains, great acting, amazing cinematography and some of the best dialogue."

However, I don't think it's perfect, and one of its chief flaws is overlength. True, it's shorter than TEMPLE OF DOOM, but it feels a lot longer.

It could have used tighter editing, and its 115-minute running time could easily have been whittled down to 90 minutes or so. The classroom scene with the girl with "I love you" written on her eyelids could have been dispensed with entirely, since it doesn't move the plot forward. Or why not just cut in on the bell ringing, the students leaving and Denholm Elliott telling Indy that some people have come to see him? The subsequent scene with the government men drags, too, and I'm sure a handful of other scenes could also have been cut.

[Qwerty]

I really can't decide. Temple and Raiders are both very good films, I think when I was younger, I liked Temple more, because it had 'that' dinner party of 'somewhat different varieties of food.' However, Raiders has very much grown on me. My all time favorite scene in the trilogy?---

The Temple of Doom-
"Hang on lady, we're goin' for a ride."
"Oh my god is his is nuts?" (the expression on her face is unforgettable.)

I think you all know the scene I mean. Pure comical genius!

[DLibrasnow]

I think the classroom scene was valuable because it showed the intellectual side of Indy. Remember that RAIDERS had to introduce us to the character, when TOD came along they didn't have to do that.
I also like the scene with the government men wass necessary for plot purposes. I really like some of the dialogue in that scene:
"Good God"
"Yes, that's just what the Hebrews thought"

The problems with TEMPLE OF DOOM are multitude but include things like funny food, an annoying female character (even Kate Capshaw wondered why the script continuiusly asked her to scream), an annoying sidekick, the lack of a good memoriable villain, the obvious use of a double in the key fight scenes (Harrison Ford was seriously injured during shooting and was gone for several weeks), some really obvious effects shot (the matte painting of the palace), a meandering box cart sequence that not only had the characters lost but the audience too, some of the silliest dialogue etc etc

Two other things about TEMPLE OF DOOM:
- The writers were picked because they knew something about India....I mean this is the team that unleashed the HOWARD THE DUCK movie on the world.

- The best scenes in TEMPLE OF DOOM were originally supposed to be in RAIDERS OF THE LOSTARK but Lucas and Spielberg had to cut them.

Really I side with Spielberg on this issue....As he says, the one redeeming feature of his work on TEMPLE OF DOOM is that he got to meet his future wife.

[Moore Not Less]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
This is a tough one for me, but I agree with Steven Spielbergs assessment of the three movies (which he gives in his the feature length documentary and rates them this way:

1. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
2. INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
3. INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

In the documentary Spielberg admits that he is not that fond of TEMPLE OF DOOM and actually does not much care for it.  

He states that the main thing he got from TEMPLE OF DOOM  was his wife Kate Capshaw. As he says "In the movie Indy got the girl, but actually I did."
In this he says it was fate that he directed the second Indy movie.

I agree with your 1,2,3 DLibrasnow. I don't much care for Temple Of Doom either, it's very poor compared to the other two. Kate Capshaw's character has to be one of the most annoying in the history of cinema with her rants, screams and moans. Stacey Sutton is a kitten by comparison. I haven't seen Temple Of Doom in a long time and it wouldn't bother me if I never saw it again.

Give me Raiders or The Last Crusade any day. Wonderfully entertaining films with great action and good humour.

[DLibrasnow]

Thanks Moore Not Less....we'll talk some sense into Loomis eventually!!

[Kingdom Come]

Loomis, I agree with your listing of the films. I like the 2nd one best, then the third, then the 1st. Doom is everything Raiders is not - fun; great speed; fab locations; not a dull moment! I find Raiders overrated; boring; sluggish; lacking any real pace.

[Moore Not Less]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
Thanks Moore Not Less....we'll talk some sense into Loomis eventually!!

That shouldn't be too difficult.

[Tanger]

I like them all equally although I'd have to say that I've seen TEMPLE the least times so probably don't rate that as high. They're all good though.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Moore Not Less


That shouldn't be too difficult.

It's hard to defend a movie like TEMPLE OF DOOM when even the people who made it generally regard it as the weakest of the three...

[Turn]

Loomis and Kingdom Come, what are you guys talking about? Raiders won the Oscar for film editing. How do you figure it needed "tighter editing" or was "sluggish" or "lacking any real pace"? This was the model for the modern action film. What do you guys want, Michael Bay-type directing where the action cuts every other second?

Raiders is close to being a perfect film because it best blends action, characterization, mystery, locale and other elements into an enthusiastic package. Let's be honest, none of the Indy movies have truly great villains. That's not really the point. The point is the ride you get from it. And as a total experience, Raiders is by far the best, IMO.

When I first saw TOD when it was first released, I thought it was better than Raiders, but lost that feeling over the years. It seems there is a big revisionist movement in favor of TOD on a lot of forums these days. And I will admit I need to watch it again for a reevaluation. I liked Last Crusade a lot, but it goes out of its way to make some of the side characters into goofs when that's unneccessary.

I did catch some of TOD a couple years ago on cable and the most I remember is the screaming blonde. It's been even longer since I saw Raiders and the memories I get from it are iconic.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
The problems with TEMPLE OF DOOM are multitude but include things like funny food, an annoying female character (even Kate Capshaw wondered why the script continuiusly asked her to scream), an annoying sidekick, the lack of a good memoriable villain, the obvious use of a double in the key fight scenes (Harrison Ford was seriously injured during shooting and was gone for several weeks), some really obvious effects shot (the matte painting of the palace), a meandering box cart sequence that not only had the characters lost but the audience too, some of the silliest dialogue etc etc
Two other things about TEMPLE OF DOOM:
- The writers were picked because they knew something about India....I mean this is the team that unleashed the HOWARD THE DUCK movie on the world.
- The best scenes in TEMPLE OF DOOM were originally supposed to be in RAIDERS OF THE LOSTARK  but Lucas and Spielberg had to cut them.
Really I side with Spielberg on this issue....As he says, the one redeeming feature of his work on TEMPLE OF DOOM is that he got to meet his future wife.

Hey Snowie, you and I are finally on the same side! Great post! To quote Turn, "Loomis and Kingdom Come, what are you guys talking about?"

TOD is a painful mess of a movie, imo. RAIDERS has the series' best female sidekick, the best "goshwow" factor, the most sense of pure innocent fun, and I love that scene of Indy in college! It shows him to be someone so uncomfortable and clumsy at his job. The intellectual who suddenly becomes this masculine hero in the field, it's great!

CRUSADE certainly is weak, a real disappointment (the Nazi b*tch doesn't die soon enuf!), but I love it anyway. Help me out here some of you guys....is it just a girl thing to love the father-son relationship in CRUSADE? Sean and Harrison together? Are we talking an unbridgeable testosterone-estrogen divide here??? Say it ain't so!

Well maybe in one aspect it is....you don't know what it's like for this female to watch *Sean Connery* and *Harrison Ford* in the SAME MOVIE for a couple of hours! *sigh*

I'm in a dilemma because I want to buy the dvds of the first and 3rd films but I can't without bringing that 2nd one into my home. *ptooie!* Maybe I could donate it to some unsuspecting library or something...or would that be too thoughtless of me? There are certain things that I will not have in my home: anything whatsoever to do with Worf from Next Generation/DS9, Leeta from DS9, Joan Rivers and TOD are just a couple of examples.

TOD *better* than RAIDERS??? Are you mad???:eek:

*Jaelle shakes head, wondering what an intelligent young Englishman like Loomis has been drinking today*

[DLibrasnow]

Jaelle...I am in complete agreement with your post.....and no, I also like the father-son dynamic in LAST CRUSADE, if for nothing else than to see the chemistry between Ford and Connery!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

It's hard to defend a movie like TEMPLE OF DOOM when even the people who made it generally regard it as the weakest of the three...  

Well, that assumes that the artist is always the best judge of his own work, which I don't believe is a view that holds water.

I've just endured LAST CRUSADE (on to the bonus disc tomorrow evening) - good grief, what a dog. So much is wrong with the film that I wouldn't know where to begin in listing its faults, but I'll just say this: why did they have to make Connery look, and act, such an almighty dork? They should have given him a hairpiece and told him to shave.

The Indiana Jones character was inspired by James Bond. Connery was the first cinematic James Bond, the epitome of virility and sex appeal in the 1960s. That's why Spielberg cast him as Indy's father. So why make the guy look as unattractive as possible? Sure, Connery had aged considerably since DR. NO, but he still had plenty of physical charm and a sense of danger about him in a film like NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, made only a few years prior to LAST CRUSADE. You could believe the Bond of NSNA was a hellraiser, an adventurer, a ladies' man.... precisely the sort of sexy old bastard who could have sired Indiana Jones. And if Connery had played Henry Jones, Sr. in the same way as he played 007 in NSNA, what a hell of a film LAST CRUSADE might have been!

We, the audience, would have believed that he slept with Alison Doody (with the film as it is, it's a tough idea to buy). There'd be a sense of competition between father and son - we'd believe that women would fancy Indiana Jones, but they'd fancy his old man even more, because it's CONNERY, King of the Flippin' Jungle, the guy who turns up on Sexiest Man in the World Lists even now, in 2003!

Instead, LAST CRUSADE boasts a Connery who's chubby and beardy and tweedy, an amiable, forgetful old man who seems only marginally tougher than Denholm Elliott's Marcus Brody. Great. What a waste. It's Connery the actor, but not Connery the icon, Connery the James Bond star, and the original inspiration from Bond was surely the whole darn point behind casting Connery in the first place.

Back to the question of how I can cite TEMPLE OF DOOM as the best of the Indiana Jones films. Over the past three evenings, I've watched all three films. I found TEMPLE OF DOOM to be a picture that pretty much succeeded in its aim of providing mindless entertainment with flair. I found the same to be true of RAIDERS, although I was bored during parts of it, which leads me to conclude that it has problems with padding that TOD doesn't have. It has flab, and it could and should have been trimmer. I found LAST CRUSADE to be an intelligence-insulting mess, with moments of fun here and there but totally lacking the freshness and the "wow" factor of its predecessors.

Therefore, TEMPLE OF DOOM is, for me, the best of the Indiana Jones films.

Originally posted by Turn

Raiders won the Oscar for film editing. How do you figure it needed "tighter editing" or was "sluggish" or "lacking any real pace"?  

Explained in my previous post.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I think the classroom scene was valuable because it showed the intellectual side of Indy. Remember that RAIDERS had to introduce us to the character, when TOD came along they didn't have to do that.

But we see his intellectual side, and the depth of his knowledge, in the subsequent scene with the government men. Just a brief shot of Indy at the blackboard, with the bell ringing, the students getting up and Brody telling Indy about his visitors would have sufficed. The audience would have gotten the message: This Guy Is An Intelligent Man And A Teacher. Crikey, viewers aren't that dumb, surely? We don't need to sit through the actual darn archeology class!

Really, all that scene was was unnecessary ego-massaging for Ford/the Indiana Jones character, establishing that Here Is A Guy Who Beautiful Young Women Find Sexy.

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I also like the scene with the government men wass necessary for plot purposes.  

Oh, absolutely. But it could have been cut to about half its length, with the elimination of some of the dialogue and faster editing.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis

The Indiana Jones character was inspired by James Bond.  

Actually not true, as you'll see when you see the documentary tomorrow night. While it's true that Spielberg said he wanted to make a Bond movie to George Lucas in 1977, Lucas didn't say "I have a Bond clone for you" , no, he said "I've got something better."
Indiana Jones was inspired by a 1930s matinee series.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

For me, Raiders will always be the best Indy film of the bunch. Last Crusade would come second, and Temple would come third. It's not that Temple is a bad film, or even a bad Indy film, it's just that it had so much to live up to with Raiders, and The Last Crusade overshadowed it.

Loomis, the reason for Connery's character change was simply because they wanted to show how polar-opposite the two men were when it came to archaeology. Indy's the swashbuckling lady's man, while Connery's the widowed, fuddy-duddy old who's tagging along. That's the whole point of the father-son relationship. Because the two are so unlike each other, it makes for chuckles aplenty in the film. Blimey, it's called acting.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

Actually not true, as you'll see when you see the documentary tomorrow night. While it's true that Spielberg said he wanted to make a Bond movie to George Lucas in 1977, Lucas didn't say "I have a Bond clone for you" , no, he said "I've got something better."
Indiana Jones was inspired by a 1930s matinee series.  

Spielberg has said on many occasions that Bond was a key inspiration for the character of Indiana Jones and the Bond films for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Sure, there were other influences - serials of the 30s, as you point out - but Bond was certainly one of the main ones.

Originally posted by Double-Oh-Zero

Loomis, the reason for Connery's character change was simply because they wanted to show how polar-opposite the two men were when it came to archaeology. Indy's the swashbuckling lady's man, while Connery's the widowed, fuddy-duddy old who's tagging along. That's the whole point of the father-son relationship. Because the two are so unlike each other, it makes for chuckles aplenty in the film. Blimey, it's called acting.

For the sort of "fuddy-duddy old " that Connery ended up playing, they might as well have hired Jack Lemmon. They wasted Connery. They missed a trick.

Indiana Jones is an academic, a geek.... but he's also an adventurer, a fighter and a ladies' man. Henry Jones is the cloth from which Indy is cut, the old block off which Indy's a chip, so he ought to be, well, an older version of Indiana Jones. An academic who's also an adventurer. Instead, the character is just an academic, a geek.

We should be able to picture Henry Jones having had the sort of amazing, highly dangerous escapades in the past that his son is now having. Indy never got to know his dad because his dad was always off in far-flung corners of the globe shooting people and being shot at - that should be the explanation for why the two of them have this dysfunctional relationship. Instead, the film pretty much tells us that, while he did do some travelling around, Henry Jones spent most of his life in Utah with his head buried in books about the Holy Grail, and that he never did anything dangerous. Look at the astonishment Jones, Sr. displays when Indy shoots a pair of Nazis.

So why didn't father and son get on? After all, they had virtually identical interests in archeology. They were both academics. You'd have thought they would have gotten on like a house on fire. Jones, Sr. obviously lives near the university Indy teaches at. Yet for 20 years they barely speak to each other. Why? It's tough to buy it.

But it could have been so easy to buy if Henry Jones had been a wild and crazy, death-defying adventurer just like Indy. If your passion for archeology leads you to spend your days rocketing around on mine trucks being chased by insane Indian cultists, then of course you're not going to have much time to watch your son grow up. And all this would have also explained how Indiana Jones became the man he is: unconsciously trying to win his father's acceptance, he gradually becomes a clone of his old man, going into the same profession and adopting the same attitudes towards relationships and the same streak of lunatic heroism.

And it's not as though Connery couldn't have played the grizzled old adventurer and womanizer to perfection: look at his subsequent performances in THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, THE ROCK and ENTRAPMENT. That was the kind of thing I wanted from Connery in LAST CRUSADE, not a performance as a doddering old buffer, a performance that could have been given by hundreds of other actors.

Connery is a STAR, and when you hire a star, you essentially hire someone who's perfected a signature role. Connery's is that of the ultra-virile tough guy who's a wow with the babes. Well, that's too little of that in Henry Jones. As you put it, DOZ, "it's called acting" - but I wanted to see Connery the Legend in LAST CRUSADE, not Connery the actor.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis


Spielberg has said on many occasions that Bond was a key inspiration for the character of Indiana Jones and the Bond films for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Sure, there were other influences - serials of the 30s, as you point out - but Bond was certainly one of the main ones.

It really doesn't matter what Spielberg says about creating the character of Indiana Jones because he didn't create him - George Lucas did...
In the documentary Lucas traces the genesis of the Indiana Jones idea. He started thinking about him at about the same time as he started thinking about Star Wars. In fact, they both were borne out of those Saturday matinees (Star Wars and Indiana Jones) but Lucas chose to go the sci-fi route first and create that galaxy far, far away. Then he turned his attention to the adventurer Saturday matinee's.

Now Speilberg is a fan of the early James Bond movies and his dream was once to direct a Bond movie. But nowhere in all the references that Lucas makes to things that influenced his creation Indiana Jones does Lucas mention James Bond - NOWHERE.

[Rich Douglas]

The best of the films?

The one that hasnt been released yet, but probably will: The Ultimate Superior Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark 4 disc collectors edition. It'll probably contain the following:

A new "directors" cut of the film running 4 hours in length with over 2 hours of purely digital material. Examples:
Sean Connery has now been digitally "pasted" into scenes in Raiders for continuity (or so Lucas claims). In the sub pen, the Nazi that Jones hits to steal the uniform now hits first so that Jones will not look like too much of a "bad guy". All swastikas have been erased and replaced by the mark of the Imperials from star wars so that the film is now politically correct. The swordsman Jones fights in cairo has now been replaced by Jar Jar Binks (is that a bad thing?)

8 commentaries by various cast and crew, including the monkey from the basket chase scene and Lucas talking about how much better the film is now that is more than 60% digital.

A music featurette running for more than 2 hours showing John Williams conduct the orchestra with nothing more than a smirk at times (if were lucky) and talking about music in a way that none of us are able to understand, he'll make sure of that. It will contain the theme we all know and love... all 150 takes of it.

10 additional featurettes showing us even more about how Lucas uses computers to do all the work because he is (and I quote from Lucas himself) "too lazy" (see raiders making of featurette: well of the souls scene discussion: for reference). These featurettes will be intertwined in an anoying and time consuming interface that we will have to navigate in order to view them.

All of that is just on disc 2!

NOTE: Respect for Spielberg is still very much intact, Respect for Lucas has deteriated ever since the atrocity called "episode 1" came out. Lucas CAN and WILL try to make more money from the Jones franchise, we havent seen the last of it lol.


On a serious note, I actually really do love having these films on DVD, the bonus disc was an absolute riot to watch and is worth the price of the set in my opinion. Seeing Raiders in it's wonderfully transferred widescreen 235:1 ratio is INCREDIBLE! Raiders has my vote. Best chases, best story, best music, best setting.

Rich

[DLibrasnow]

Great post Rich....I only wish that Lucas could see the mistakes he is making with the STAR WARS movies.

[Rich Douglas]

you, I and more than several million others man. He truly is messing up one of the best film series in history (the best film series being Bond of course). I Just HOPE, reaaaaaaalllllly hope he leaves Indiana Jones the hell alone, I love these films just how they are, all three of them. I grew up watching Bond, Jones, and Star Wars... 2 out of three unchanged is good for me, lets hope it stays that way. Truthfully Im as much of a Jones fan as I am a Bond fan... lol.. I have more Jones props than Bond props (an original Crusade jacket reproduciton made by Peter Botwright of wested leather himself, a replica of the infamous whip, the wwII gas mask bag, an actual whip holder used, etc etc), I will really have a beef with Lucas if he messes with this trilogy.

Rich