George Lucas and Steven Spielberg can kiss my shiny metal @$$

I don't know if anyone's ever watched the bonus disc to the Indiana Jones trilogy, but it really pisses me off.

In the Making Of The Temple Of Doom, both Geoge Lucas and Steven Spielberg are constantly saying how it's their least favorite film and it was too dark and all that.

If it hadn't been for the precedent of George Lucas already ripping apart his past masterpieces of film history, I wouldn't believe it. But now, they don't supprise me anymore in their stupidity.

Temple Of Doom was by far the most imaginitive, most enjoyable of the three films with the best action, funniest comedy, best music, best special effects. All of the most memorable scenes are in this movie. The bug scene, the spike room scene, the pulling a heart out of a man's body scene, etc.

Anyway. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg just never cease to piss me off in their old age. Their inability to recognize their greatest achievements of the past is astounding.

I can't wait for Temple Of Doom Special Edition where they try to lighten-it up by having the Kali run by Ewoks and use a lesbian feminist as Indy's love interest.

By contast, many people seem to think that Last Crusade was the best of the three. But having watched all three movies probably 50 times each. I can easily say without a doubt that Last Crusade has the least longevity. The action, suspense, and suprises are just too sparse. The suprises we do get aren't very imaginative (like the obvious one where in the first scene at school, he says X never marks the spot, and then at the library, X does mark the spot. It was clever the first time I watched it. But now it's just boring. In constrast I never get tired of Short Rounds one-liners in Temple.). What else do we have. The pen is mightier than the sword. And we're hit with the lame "all the action takes place in a desert" trick, like so many low-budget action/sci-fi movies before and since. And the cheap attempt for a moral ending, where he doesn't reach for the grail and follows his dad's advice... Raiders was much more thought provoking, with the Ark going to a CIA wharehouse, and Temple just more fun with all the kids rushing back to the greened-up village. And not to mention that the music in Last Crusade is quite unmemorable. Not any great themes or melodies. Temple had catchy hum-for-days indian-inspired themes.

But criticism of John Williams is another story. It seems that sometime in the mid 80's his creativity just took a nosedive. Just look at the prequels.

That's the only thing that's a con for Rambo III too is the 'all action takes place in a desert" bit. But hey, I love anything where Sly shoots exploding arrows.

Anyway, I just think people's judgement of Crusade is clouded by the fact that Sean Connery is in it. And granted, he provides some of the best scenes, but he still can't bring it up to par with either Raiders or Temple.
Let me first start out by saying that Raiders of the lost ark was my favorite of the trilogy. I too have seen all of them as much as you, and, in fact, even saw them when they came out in the drive-in theaters. Of course, I was pretty young at the time lost ark came out, but I still remember bits and pieces of the experience.

I've owned the CED selectivision video discs of it, as well as vhs and betamax versions, and currently own the trilogy on laserdisc. I agree with you about the last crusade. It's the only one I've seen maybe 15 times all the way through, but the other two many of times.

The only other movie I remember watching more than any other movie is T-2. I've seen it probably 200+ times and also saw it in the theaters when it come out.

In general, however, I would love to see another indiana jones movie, but SS and GL have been fighting over this new script for several years now.

Spielberg has made some really great films, but he has also made some really lousy films. Lucas is successful if you consider it to be all about the money. In reality, Lucas wants to create movies with no actors and a billion dollars worth of toys (for cgi animation.)

I think what made Lucas so succesful with the star wars films of the late 70s and early 80s was the fact that he couldn't just push the easy button. He had to have real sets, real actors, and a real script. He also had to manually do tricks, to make some of the special effects seem a little more real. I'm sure there was a lot of blood, sweat, and tears gone in to those movies.

The new star wars movies, all of the real scenes were shot in a few hours. He just flew to new zealand or wherever he wanted to do the movie, and probably was back in the US by the next morning, and then every thing else was green-screened.

I'll just finish off by quoting what many people have said in the past. Special effects aren't so special any more. Many people blame Lucas for that. I think james cameron could have done a lot better job, but lucas is one tight piece of dog shit.
Just wanted to say that I also think raiders is way up there. I'd put raiders at 10/10, templ at 11/10, and crusade at 6/10.

I just finished the rest of the bonus disc. It's almost funny how everyone is like trying to push that the last one was the best one. Like they're trying to convince us becuase they can't convince themselves.

Like they're talking about sounds, and get through the tons of unique sound effects they did for raiders and temple, and then they say, "and of course they upp'd the bar again for crusade", and then quickly swing through a 10 second collage of the bike scene, car scene, and plane scene, and then move on. Like they couldn't even find any good examples. And those were nothing compared to the mine scene they'd just finished describing the sounds for.

Then John Williams is talking about music, and of course Raiders and Temple have all these memorable, catchy motifs and themes. And then they get to Crusade, and they talk about how this time they designed the music for a movie about father and son getting back together, rather than an action flick. And I'm like, yeah, and that's why the music was boring. And they still go on to say it's their favorite. I can't remember a single songpiece from crusade. I even found the soundtrack at a thrift store and played it a few times in the car, and still can't remember any of it. All the themes were just forgetable. It was all like something any orchestra could have come up with in a few hours.

In contrast, Williams talked about how he'd spend hours or days just playing with a succession of 6 notes to try to get the simple motif down perfect for Raiders. And it shows. The themes are simple, but memorable and catchy. It's not as easy as it sounds.

I think Lucas was quoted somewhere as saying that he's not making live-action movies anymore. The Star Wars prequels are eally cartoons. Fully-animated with a couple of real people thrown in. Kind of like Roger Rabbit in reverse. If you think about it, it's the perfect description. They movies are just cartoons. It's not special effects, because you can draw anything you want. When Elmer Fudd runs off a cliff and floats in the air, is it a special effect?

T2 is excellent too. Haven't seen it as many times as I should have though. It's amazing how much T3 sucked. I actually watched it at a Drive-In. I had to watch Charlies Angels first before T3 came on, and that sucked too. The story wasn't too bad. But the special effects were like Incredible Hulk-level insane movie physics. And the woman terminator just seemed too much like a Matrix wanna be. Walking around in that "I'm hot" pose all the time, and all the action is done with CG replicas (the black leather suit effect).

Actually, if you go to the indiana Jones website, they actually have announced a release date of may 2008 for indy 4. I'm scared. Not only have neither george nor williams done anything good since the mid 80's, but Harrison Ford has had a few major flops in his time. And hasn't done anything remarkable in 10 years. There's something about his face, like he's completely lost all ability to express emotion with his face anymore. Just watch Random Hearts to see what I mean. I know that movie was so bad even Harrison Ford wanted it burned before it was released. But that expressionless face has been on him for a while now. He needs to have a princess to scream at to bring out his emotions or something.
Everyone is entitled to their oppinion. I'm sure all they mean is they would have done it differently if they had the chance. I'm sure they realise it was one of the great movies of its time. Directors like Lucas tend to become perfectionists after reaching such heights in his career and with all that expectation placed on him after the past success he has had.

I can certainly see what they are talking aboutwhen they sayTemple of Doom is too dark. I first watched it in the drive in when I was very young and it scared the shit out of me. Perhaps he wanted it to be more of a family movie for all ages.

I don't think I could pick a favourate. All three of them are so good, each of them have their strengths. The only thing I fear is if the forth movie turns out to be just a cash in movie like T3 was and ruins the whole franchise. They so should not have released Terminator 3 if that was the best they could produce. I mean, even I could've thought up a better story than that.
Temple of Doom is definately my least favorite of the three. You have an annoying kid sidekick, an even more annoying whiny female companion, and no Nazis. It does have some great action scenes (the cart ride is one of my favorites), but I absolutely can't stand Willie and Short Round.

Anyway, I just think people's judgement of Crusade is clouded by the fact that Sean Connery is in it. And granted, he provides some of the best scenes, but he still can't bring it up to par with either Raiders or Temple.

Connery and Ford had great chemistry in the film and there's something rather amusing about an action hero with father issues. Raiders certainly has more depth, but most people haven't watched all the Indiana Jones movies 50 times and with only occasional viewing, Crusade's charm holds up pretty well.
But criticism of John Williams is another story. It seems that sometime in the mid 80's his creativity just took a nosedive. Just look at the prequels.

Heh... Most of the themes from episode 1 were pretty much ripped off of Dvorak's New World Symphony No. 9.
Jedi Master Thrash said:
And not to mention that the music in Last Crusade is quite unmemorable. Not any great themes or melodies.

Are you kidding ? Scherzo For Motorcycle and Orchestra is one of the best theme of the serie ... and the whole OST is just great (No Ticket, Escape From Venice or Belly Of The Beast just make my day everytime I listen to them)

I'm a huge fan of Indy, I saw the movies countless times, and each one has his own personality ... I love them all, for different reasons, but telling which one is better than the other doesn't occur to me.

Raiders : novelty + adventure

Temple : adventure + darkness

Crusade : adventure + humor

Depending on my mood I just spin one of them in the player every now and then, I now almost every line, but I still enjoy it like it's the first time ... I just love Indiana Jones :)
Yeah, I love all the movies. Normally I wouldn't bother picking fav's. It's like picking a favorite (original) Star Wars movie. What's the point.

It's just from watching that bonus disc... listing to George and Stevie ditz temple and praise-up crusade made me defensive towards the opposite. There's just something about watching Mr. Lucas talk that like twists me up inside like I'm gonna puke and need to break something.

I think it started from watching the Lucas interview on the Making Magic PC disc they gave away for a while, that had all the preview material for the upcoming Special Editions. Watching Lucas just talk about how awful his original movies were and how nothing was as he meant it to be, etc,and then watching him actually think these PS1 quality CG models were great... I just couldn't stand watching him talk anymore. And then the new interviews he's done where he just state's that their "his" movies and this is how he originally intended them blah blah. On the Indy bonus disc, he just has this same kind of stuck up attitude about him when he talks like it's his right to ditz his past masterpieces. (not that he doesn't have that right, I just enjoy being unreasonable I guess :)

It's kind of ironic, because on the original From Star Wars To Jedi making of video from like 1985, Lucas does kind of the same thing. He basically talks about Jedi as his chance to do better all the things he didn't like about A New Hope. He didn't have the budget for a good cantina in A New Hope, but he did with Jedi, so he finally got to do what he wanted (and he stated that Jedi was what he wanted to do, but of course all that changed in 1997 when he destroyed the jabba's palace scene because it wasn't apparently how he wanted it). And like there weren't enough fighting ships in the A New Hope death star attack, so he made his big grand space fight in Jedi.

And I never complained about what he said in Star Wars To Jedi, because I agreed then. Jabba's palace was better than the cantina. The death star II battle was better than the death star I battle.

Anyone seen the E.T. DVD? How badly did Spielberg mess that up? I haven't seen it yet, though I hear they do include the original version too.

A rant about Indy? Anything to do with the upcoming new Indy film that was finally OK'd by Lucas?

Well, I'd never, ever put much faith in whatever Lucas says, has said, or ever will say. He's a lucky SOB, period. I know everyone here (and there parents) love the Star Wars films and Indy Films, so there'll be a lot of "Lucas has talent" this and that, even though people have suffered under the abominations to celluloid (well, just the first one, the others were digital) that are the prequels.

George Lucas studied Documentary filmmaking while at USC, which is why he's good at editing. He's a moody, reclusive person, so that tends to give people the impressive of a "Salingeresque" character like Terence Malick, but Salinger can write and Malick and direct.

Lucas made a fun film during a period when the movie industry was in a financial crisis. "Old Hollywood," referring to the company owners and producers who have been around since Mary Pickford, was severely out of touch with the baby boomers. TV was taking everybody's interest away from the theaters. Things were desperate. So, the thought was that new blood was needed. A younger generation of fresh producers came in with "fresh" ideas. It was during this time that directors like Robert Altman and Arthur rose to fame, because it was so easy to greenlight ideas back then. If it was original, they'd give it a go because it might make a lot of money.

With the coming of "Jaws" in 1972, that pretty much ended. Jaws proved that if you saturated the public with enough advertising, you'd get them to come. Thus ushered in the market analysis, corporate tactic and advertising we all love today in Hollywood. Before things were done more with instinct. For a good idea of this, watch the documentary "The Kid Stays in the Picture".

Anyway, 1977. Lucas, a friend of Spielberg, comes up with a sci fi story that isn't heavy or "serious" like 2001. Lucas loves the old Buck Rogers serials, so he patterns his tale off of them. Lucas also poured over Akira Kurosawa's films. Watch "The Hidden Fortress" and you'll see the prototype for Star Wars. The concept can be considered novel. The movie was released, and became a huge success. It had an eastern mystical tone to it (the force) and was a rousing space adventure (buck rogers).

If people actually listened to the dialog of the first film, they'd soon realize that the dialog in the film is actually the weakest of the original trilogy. It was the concept that really won over the audience. Who cares about dialog when you can watch X-Wings and light saber duels. Also, unlike the prequels, the original trilogy was done with real sets and the special effects weren't done with computers. They were done by hand. this may sound silly to some of you, but a lot of people prefer the original special effects over the "enhanced" version released. So the film was made in a traditional sense, and you can feel the sense of artistry in the film, unlike in the prequels, which look like a videogame.

Let's look at the writing credits. Episode IV was written by George Lucas. Episode V was written by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan, story by Lucas. Episode VI was written by George Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan. Episode V - The Empire Strikes back - is considered to be the best of the series. See why?

Leigh Brackett was a talented Sci Fi novelist from the fifties. One of her famous works was penning the screenplay for "Rio Bravo." And you can see the influence. Princess Leia is definitely more of a Howard Hawks heroine. The banter is very witty from time to time. C3PO is actually funny. Unfortunately, Brackett died while writing the script so Kasdan finished it.

I can go on and on about this. I just wanted to make the point that Lucas is not a talented filmmaker, at all. He was just at the right place at the right time with the right idea. We can all be greatful for THX, ILM, Skywalker Sound, and Lucasarts. But Lucas has no talent for making films. Spielberg in comparison can make a film. He has a very limited aesthetic, which is showing up now in his later years, but at least he appreciates films.

As for Indy IV, it took over a decade for the project to be greenlit. Lucas denied every script that was presented to him. M. Night Shymalan wrote a draft, Frank Darabont wrote several drafts, hell even Tom Stoppard (Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead, Shakespeare in Love) wrote a draft, but all were denied. And what script does he finally pick? David Koepp's script. The same guy who wrote Spider Man, Panic Room, and the Trigger Effect. While a better choice then Shymalan, I hardly believe that would be the best of the bunch. Darabont is a talented writer and filmmaker. He wrote for the Young Indiana Jones Series. He wrote and directed "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile." Lucas has absolutely no taste.

Lastly, it is generally regarded that the first Indy is the best, then the second, and the third was a disappointment to most critics. I know that that's meat of this thread, but everybody seems to be ranting, so I decided to join in on the fun. :rock:
Episode V - The Empire Strikes back - is considered to be the best of the series.

According to who? In my opinion The Return of the Jedi is the best one from the entire series.

I just wanted to make the point that Lucas is not a talented filmmaker, at all. He was just at the right place at the right time with the right idea.

That's a bit rough isn't it? He has had a lot of repeated success. Bit hard to fluke something like that.

M. Night Shymalan wrote a draft, Frank Darabont wrote several drafts, hell even Tom Stoppard (Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead, Shakespeare in Love) wrote a draft, but all were denied. And what script does he finally pick? David Koepp's script. The same guy who wrote Spider Man, Panic Room, and the Trigger Effect. While a better choice then Shymalan, I hardly believe that would be the best of the bunch.

Perhaps a mild case of impatience? After waiting so long waiting for the perfect script and coming to realise that there will probably never be one, he may have decided to just go with the next half decent script he came accross.
Many critics consider Episode V to be the best. Here's a review from Amazon:

"The Empire Strikes Back

The middle film in George Lucas's enormously popular Star Wars science fiction trilogy is a darker, more somber entry, considered by many fans as the best in the series. Gone is the jaunty swashbuckling of the first film; the rebellion led by Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) suffers before the superior forces of the Empire, young hero Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) faces his first defeats as he attempts to harness the Force under the tutelage of Jedi master Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), and cocky Han Solo (Harrison Ford) is betrayed by former ally Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams). In the tradition of the great serials, this film is left with a hefty cliffhanger. The leap in special effects technology in the three years since Star Wars results in an amazing array of effects, including a breathtaking chase through an asteroid field and a dazzling, utopian Cloud City, where Luke faces the black-clad villain Darth Vader (David Prowse, voice of James Earl Jones) in a futuristic sword fight and learns the secret of his Jedi father. Veteran director Irvin Kershner (The Eyes of Laura Mars, Never Say Never Again) took the directorial reins from creator and producer Lucas and invested the light-speed adventure with deeper characters and a more emphatic sense of danger. "

Not exactly Pauline Kael, but it was the best I could find right now. And aesthetically speaking, it is the best. It isn't as kitschy as the other two films. While one's value of kitsch is subjective, Episode V is the closest one to be considered an "art film", absurd as that may seem.

Yes, I would agree Lucas is impatient. But the kind of impatience a procrastinating student has when he realizes that his final paper is due tomorrow. Harrison Ford is nearly geriatric. No amount of makeup will hide that fact forever. Lucas knows there's a limit to how much he can dawdle with a sequel; he just doesn't care. He's a billionaire with all the time in the world. Why do you think he took over twenty years to make the prequels? He lost interest in his franchise, even hated it a bit (except for the fact that it made him his billions). For Episode III, Lucas said in an interview that he had to force himself to write the screenplay. Well, we all know that Harlan Ellison wrote his famous Star Trek episode, he was also locked in a room. But he was threatened by others.

You know , if you guys love these films so much, why don't you look up this background stuff on the internet? is a godsend for filmlovers.

Bah, I'll never get a fan to think different about a Star Wars film. That's why they're fans. I'll just throw my opinion on that dead wall anyway.