Originally posted by: C3PX
Ever heard of a Spielberg film called Duel? Personally I loved it, but plenty of people have described that film as shit. Yes, even worse than Hook. Anybody else seen Duel?
I think by making a fourth Indy movie they are killing the balance. The three movies are great, the second one could be better, but it is enjoyable enough. It is weird to think it will no longer be a trilogy, since that is what it has been for so long. Also Ford it looking a little old. My general reflex about the idea of a fourth Indiana Jones is "NO!" but I think it will be one worth hitting the cinema for. If it sucks just don't add it to your collection. As long as the other three are still around...
Ever heard of a Spielberg film called Duel? Personally I loved it, but plenty of people have described that film as shit. Yes, even worse than Hook. Anybody else seen Duel?
I think by making a fourth Indy movie they are killing the balance. The three movies are great, the second one could be better, but it is enjoyable enough. It is weird to think it will no longer be a trilogy, since that is what it has been for so long. Also Ford it looking a little old. My general reflex about the idea of a fourth Indiana Jones is "NO!" but I think it will be one worth hitting the cinema for. If it sucks just don't add it to your collection. As long as the other three are still around...
Duel is awesome. It's Jaws with a truck - what's not to love? Plus, for a directorial debut, and a made-for-TV film to boot, it's an amazing piece of work.
I think we need to re-think the paradigm of trilogies. Qaudrologies are the new Trilogies, lol. There's a big difference between a trilogy, and a film series that has 3 films in it. Lord Of The Rings - definately a trilogy. Star Wars OT - definately a trilogy. The story is contingent upon the others, and things that are established in the first one reach their conclusion and resolution in the third.
Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Rambo etc...are series that have 3 films (currently) in them. Nothing happens in 'Raiders' that reaches resolution in 'Last Crusade.' They are three-act films in and of themselves, but there is nothing established in the first film that needs to be resolved in the third. Indiana Jones has a character arc in each movie, but not one in the overall series, like say, Luke Skywalker or Frodo.
If a character is enjoyable, I see no reason that provided the quality remains high, that a series can't have multiple installments. Witness James Bond - sure he's had some crummy films in the series, but 'Casino Royale' is invigorating and introducing the character to a whole new generation.