I didn't really make this clear in that post - in all honesty, I didn't like *any* of the Indy sequels. I LOVED Raiders, but the others were all just bad popcorn movies that had Harrison Ford in a hat with a whip and the name "Indiana Jones" on them. If I were completely objective, this would be my scale:
RAIDERS - A+
CRUSADE - D
KOTCS - D-
DOOM - F
But eventually (this is pre-KOTCS) I learned to judge the sequels by infinitely lowering my expectations. I'd watch 'Raiders' remembering how great it was, then I'd watch 'Doom' or 'Crusade' thinking before I put in the VHS tape, "Alright, this one sucked, but what the hell, it has a guy's heart getting ripped out," or "This one was awful, but Sean Connery was fun." I learned to like them in spite of themselves. That's the mindset I've had on all "Indy" sequels for the past ten years or so, and that was my mindset when I went into KOTCS. "This is gonna suck, but the bar's been pretty low since 1984 anyway." And I wasn't disappointed, because it lived up to those expectations.
So, even though I really consider 'Raiders' to really be THAT much better than any of the others, I give them the benefit of the doubt enough to like them, and give them grades of C+ or B-.
Was KOTCS good? No. But neither were TOD or TLC.