44 replies to this topic

[Dr.Mirakle32]

I watched the Indiana Jones movies alot on VHS when I was little, but hadn't really watched a whole one in about five years. So I went out, bought the Widescreen DVD set and gave it another shot last night.

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was by far one of the greatest movie experiences of my LIFE! It really doesn't get much better than this. I remembered it being kind of long, but I was surprised at how fast and action-packed the story was. ROTLA clocks in at just under two hours, but the movie went by like it was only 45 minutes.

By the time the Ark-opening climax came around, I couldn't believe how much more shocking and violent it was then I remembered. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like standing up in my bedroom and giving it a standing ovation.

Defintitely one of the greatest adventure films ever made, the greatest 1930's serial ever made (even though it was released in 1981) and probably one of the top 3, or 4 greatest films ever made, period. Sorry, but CASABLANCA don't have on RAIDERS.

And as good as the original Star Wars movies are, I'm surprised they have a larger fanbase than the equally entertaining, if not superior INDIANA JONES films.

I really wasn't a Bond fan until 2002 when I saw DAD in theaters. It prompted me in rewatching the rest of the 007 films and I became a huge fan ever since. I can quote most of the Bond films backwards and fowards and as big a fan as they come. But rewatching RAIDERS in such along time really made me realize what a truly great film it is.

Now there is no doubt of the obvious influence Bond has had on the Indiana Jones character and series. The most two often cited and biggest influences on ROTLA were the adventure serials of the 1930's and 40's and of course the 007 films. So in the sense that Flash Gordon was the father of Luke Skywalker; James Bond was the father of Indiana Jones (years before Bond literally became Indy's father in THE LAST CRUSADE.)

Also, both series are essentially blood brothers: Sean Connery was Indy's father, TLD's General Pushkin John Rhy Davies was Indy's goodfriend Sallah, AVTAK Bond girl Alison Doody was Indy's love interest in IJ&TLC, a young Daniel Craig appeared in an episode of the THE YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES, and both series have been copying each other's action scenes and content ever since the beginning.

Now, while I love all of the Bond films, and find them all entertaining, it pains me to admit that ROTLA is a much better film than most of them. Sorry, but as much as I love them, IMHO CR and OHMSS don't have on ROTLA.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Now I am currently rewatching INDIANA JONES and the TEMPLE OF DOOM and will later revisit INDIANA JONES and the LAST CRUSADE, but to me, ROTLA alone makes the Indy series just that much better than the Bond series.

Edited by Dr.Mirakle32, 03 July 2007 - 02:53 AM.

[Mike00spy]

I feel that the Indy trilogy contains better films overall. I love Bond as a character more, though.

[Tarl_Cabot]

although I like Raiders over any Bond film for pure action/adventure quality, the series has not produced a group of films that were as good as Bond 1-6/21-I hated Indy 3,I liked Temple of Doom...so,Bond has had more great films. I choose Bond.

[MrBond690]

I kinda view Indiana even though almost entirely different from James Bond as the son of James Bond, its almost to young to be on the same scale as the legendary Bond franchise. They do have great action, and were worthy of Connery so they are great in their own realm. I vote for Bond though, there is more selection also, you can get more lost in its fantasy world easier with more films to choose from.

[Shadow Syndicate]

I'd Say Bond, but only beacuse theres been more movies and books to help me understand the character more. I like both in the sense that theyre really tough, but extremely smart at the same time. But Indiana has inspired me to stay awake in World History More often. And Dont Forget About Steven & George's First Convo about making Indy. SS:I really Wish I could direct a Bond Movie GL:Bond? I got something Better than that, wait till you hear about it...

[jaguar007]

I was a Bond fan long before Raiders was released. I do find ROTLA better than MOST of the BOnd films (FRWL being the exception). However looking at the first three BOnd films compared to the first three Indiana Jones movies, the first three BOnd films were consistantly better

[DamnCoffee]

James Bond is a great movie series, and so is Indy. But i feel James Bond is the better out of the two, since i was born there have been 5 Bond movies released, I've lived through the excitement 5 times of Bond movie been released, and I'm sorry to say Indy was before my time and i haven't experienced the release of an Indy movie, but, i will next May . Bond is way better, in my opinion, but i have a lot of affection for both characters.

[dodge]

I've gone with Bond, though ROTLA is up there with any Bond for razzle-dazzle thrills and all-out entertainment. The two Indie sequels faltered for me, although they contained classic moments. Sure, Bond has stumbled too--but that happens when you're turning out entries in a franchise over forty years...with different actors, directors and writers. Even so, do your own count of the four and five-star Bonds. Probably, no two of us will agree on any list. But, man oh man, the count is high!

[Qwerty]

I love both series, but James Bond gets my vote.

[5 BONDS]

And another thing I felt the special effects in the Indiana Jones movies were very poor compared to the Bond series obviously taking away the dire one in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

The LAST CRUSADE you can notice in the hot balloon scene the poor back projection...when in comparison to the visual effects in LICENCE TO KILL which came out in the same year.

But truly Bond is the best but the Jones movies are very entertaining and I am looking forward to the fourth as I am sure it will turn out great.

Edited by 5 BONDS, 03 July 2007 - 03:07 PM.

[LadySylvia]

Since I'm a major fan of both film series, I don't think I could decide between the two. Both RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM are among my most favorite adventure films of all time. And there are a number of Bond films toward which I harbor similar feelings.

So . . . no, I don't think I would choose between the two franchises.

Edited by LadySylvia, 03 July 2007 - 03:07 PM.

[Johnboy007]

Overall I like the James Bond series better, but I think each individual Indy film is better than any single James Bond.

[Judo chop]

Raiders is awesome. On par with the best of Bond and with a fighting chance to be better than any of them.

But there the comparisons stop.

Temple of Doom gets blown out of the water by DN, FRWL, GF, TB, LALD, TSWLM, TLD, CR and even manages to compare unfavorably next to OP, GE and TND.
Last Crusade is a better effort, but

[Gobi-1]

It's like choosing between air and water. I need both.

[stamper]

There would be some competition if Connery was still Bond.

As of now, there's none. You have one geriatric grand dad who shag a skeleton for media consumption on one hand, and DC on the other. Bond wins.

[Turn]

I remember seeing Raiders in early June 1981 and being blown away by it, then seeing FYEO at the end of the month and feeling underwhelmed.

But like Cubby used to say, healthy competition is a good thing when the product is good and franchises can feed off each other.

[MarcAngeDraco]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='752311' date='3 July 2007 - 14:26']Raiders is awesome. On par with the best of Bond and with a fighting chance to be better than any of them.

But there the comparisons stop.

Temple of Doom gets blown out of the water by DN, FRWL, GF, TB, LALD, TSWLM, TLD, CR and even manages to compare unfavorably next to OP, GE and TND.
Last Crusade is a better effort, but

[Bond... Raybond]

I answer it this way - if I had to choose between which series I could have it would be Bond. Raiders admittedly is an almost flawless film, but the prequel & sequel (Crusade being better than Doom, but then it was essentially a remake of raiders) were patchy. The classic Bonds (plural) easily beat the classic Indy (singular).

[Blonde Bond]

I love both franchines, but Indiana Jones trilogy is better overall. Two great movies, and one solid.

With 21 movies, Bond has had more ups and downs, than our friendly neighbourhood archeologist / adventurer.

[LadySylvia]

I agree with the person who said that both the Indy and Bond series are like air and water and that both are needed.

However, I disagree that LAST CRUSADE was better than TEMPLE OF DOOM. As much as I like CRUSADE, at times it seemed like a rip-off of RAIDERS. And with the Elsa Schneider character, it seemed like a rip-off of the Princess Sascha character in WILLOW (released a year earlier). I like both RAIDERS and TOD better because both seem more original. And I like TOD the best because it's the darkest of the three and has the best ending.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

I agree that TLC is by far the weakest film. RAIDERS is a perfect adventure movie and no doubt the best. It's prequel, while not as stong as the original, is an admirable and entertaining follow up, as it tries to take the series in a different direction. TOD is still classic Indy and is great because it is action-packed and a completely different adventure from ROTLA.

I recently watched all three movies this week, and found myself thoroughly entertained by the first two and bored by the third. I don't understand all the praise TLC gets. It has too much slapstick humor, it is the least violent and action packed, and as others have noted, it is little more than a watered-down rehash of ROTLA, with the Holy Grail and Indy's dad thrown in for "character development" being the only real differences.

Still, that's not to say its is a bad film. Like the Bond series, I find even the "bad" ones, good for what they are.

My rating goes like this (out of five smileys):
ROTLA is by far better than all of the Bond movies combined. There is just no argument.
TOD is just as good if not slightly weaker than some of the best Bonds (GF,FRWL,OHMSS,CR etc.) and I would certainly watch it anyday of the week over the tedious TB, YOLT, MR, and TWINE.
TLC Several steps down from the first two, but still a decent flick, I would still say it is better than TB or most of the poorer Bonds, but I would take classic Connery, Moore, Dalton or CR over it anyday of the week.

Like someone mentioned, I can't live without both Bond and Indy, so it is a toss up.

[ACE]

Bond. James Bond.

Kinda the wrong place to put a poll like this.
I think someone should put exactly the same poll on http://www.theraider.net/

Mind you, ROTLA (or Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark, de nos jours) is a simply superb piece of film-making and story-telling. IMO, it's up there with Goldfinger in quality. However, the subsequent Raiders films go Roger Moore very quickly. The Last Crusade was almost burlesque in places and too close to Raiders IMO (rather like Return of the Jedi was too close to Star Wars - I wanted the films to break new visual ground not return and complete circle). I suppose that is the difference between sequels and a series.

[LadySylvia]

I agree that TLC is by far the weakest film. RAIDERS is a perfect adventure movie and no doubt the best.

Um . . . I have doubts. I do believe that RAIDERS is an excellent adventure story . . . one of the best I have ever seen. But I feel the same about TEMPLE OF DOOM. Both have their flaws, but I have yet to see the "perfect" film adventure.


By the way, here is a match up between the two heroes:


WWF Grudge Match - James Bond vs. Indiana Jones

Edited by LadySylvia, 13 July 2007 - 08:28 PM.

[Agent 76]

it's very hard to decide, for me they both are amazing franchises, but the James Bond character is still the one that I really find fascinating.

[marktmurphy]

Bond is my favourite series and I love it, but Raiders is better than any Bond film- I'd be tempted to say it's the most perfect film ever, actually. Goldfinger's a classic, but it does have a few problems pacing-wise. And on a hits and misses stake, I'd still put the Indy films above Bond- they're so full of invention and clever touches where Bond can feel a bit like it's treading water and has been thrown together by hacks at times- Indy always feels polished to the nth degree (Temple of Doom might be the weakest; but A View To A Kill would kill to have a pre-credits as stylish and witty as Temple). So, as the poll asks 'which has the better films?'; I'm gonna have to go Indy.

[Loomis]

Bond. James Bond.

Kinda the wrong place to put a poll like this.
I think someone should put exactly the same poll on http://www.theraider.net/

Mind you, ROTLA (or Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark, de nos jours) is a simply superb piece of film-making and story-telling. IMO, it's up there with Goldfinger in quality. However, the subsequent Raiders films go Roger Moore very quickly. The Last Crusade was almost burlesque in places and too close to Raiders IMO (rather like Return of the Jedi was too close to Star Wars - I wanted the films to break new visual ground not return and complete circle). I suppose that is the difference between sequels and a series.

Agreed with most of that (although I do find RAIDERS more than a tad overrated*), especially with your points that "the subsequent Raiders films go Roger Moore very quickly", and that LAST CRUSADE (a rather boring and oddly dislikeable effort that commits the additional sin of wasting Connery and making him look buffoonish**) "was almost burlesque in places and too close to Raiders" (and, I'll add, to Bond.... but not in a good way).

James Bond versus Indiana Jones? No contest. Bond wins easily, and would still win even if the 007 series (never crossed my mind that there's a difference between "sequels" and "a series", BTW, but I suppose it makes sense) had ended with that contemporary of RAIDERS, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.

*The much-maligned TEMPLE OF DOOM is my favourite Indy.

**LAST CRUSADE needed the Connery of NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, not the Connery of, erm, LAST CRUSADE. A smartly turned-out, smooth character whose charm and sex appeal had only increased with age, a guy audiences could actually believe could pull the same Alison Doody his son also seduced.... not the tweedy, irascible old buffer who executes Clouseau-esque pratfalls and would forget his head were it not screwed on. It's essentially the same role as Marcus Brody, and you wonder why they hired Connery for it when they could have had someone like, say, Desmond Llewelyn for a fraction of the price. Or (which would have made better box office sense than Llewelyn, admittedly) Roger Moore.

[Tarl_Cabot]

One of the things I don't like about Indy 3 is how Connery is introduced as a historian/professor when Raiders very clearly established Marion's father as Indy's mentor/father figure.How could they totally forget that? It made the shoo in of Connery contrived(ok so Bond is the inspiration for Indy, we get it). Also hate how Marcus Broday was made into a buffoon when he himself was qualified at least in intellect/cultivation(perhaps not swashbuckeling bravo machoness) to go after the Ark. I read the press for Indy 3 and Spielberg said he considered it an apology for Temple of Doom. Why should they apologize for makinga sequel which is totally different from the first film? I liked Temple for being un-Raidersish(except the kid-why oh why do we need a forking kid in an Indy flick????). Indy 3 was a total McRaiders happy meal for the masses.And...The sets really looked fake and second hand(Sinbad was already in Jordan in the 70s B movie).

[Bondian]

But there's some great moments in IJaTLC. This is the first time for me that proves Connery is very good at comedy. Just take a look at the scene when they're tied together, and the fire starts. Connery takes off his lead actor shoes and gets down-and-dirty with acting the fool. And does it very well. Making Indy more of a hero in our eyes. Until the end. When referring to Indy as "Indy" and not "Junior" suddenly gives Indy Father some serious business. He reaches out for his Son, and doesn't want him to die even though he's trying to save a priceless article.

I love 'TLC'. It has more depth than the previous two.

Cheers,


Ian

[Skudor]

I'm flabbergasted by the results of this poll. Really.

I find IJ a bit too Spielberg - too much sugary schmalz injected here and there, something Bond is thankfully free of. Otherwise it's all jolly good fun.

[marktmurphy]

I do find RAIDERS more than a tad overrated

How so? What's wrong with it?