- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
C3PX said:EyeShotFirst said:Raiders really wasn't perfect it was flawed in many ways.
Quick, name five flaws in Raiders as fast as you can without having to stop and think about it. GO!
Not trying to say Raiders is perfect, obviously no film is. As far as action films go, I think Raiders is a perfect example of one well done.
The argument from EyeShotFirst that I quoted above is a classic argument for defending crap in the middle of a room filled with gold. Sure, this piece of shit my dog deposited on the floor is far from perfect, no arguments there! But come on, none of these gold bricks in here are perfect either.
Some things are better made than others, that is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. I like a lot of movies most people think are crap. I really enjoy the first two Planet of the Apes sequels, but I don't hesitate to admit they are no where even close to the standard of the first film. The first film is a cinematic classic, the second and third are crap that I happen to like. The fourth and fifth are crap that I enjoy watching for time to time. Same for Back to the Future, I know the second two are shit, but I still enjoy them. It would be pointless for me to feel the need to defend my enjoyment of these films by saying, "Well, the first Planet of the Apes/Back to the Future film really wasn't much better than the sequels."
Quick, name five flaws in Raiders as fast as you can without having to stop and think about it. GO!
Bland with a lack of intensity, doesn't use Ford well enough, takes itself too seriously and mostly doesn't use the potential for humor inherent in the Indy thing, bland villains, weaker on settings and situations than the next two Indy films.
I went into this in detail on another thread. Saying Raiders isn't perfect as a defense of the other Indy films is hardly like saying the gold isn't perfect to defend the dogshit. Crusade and Temple are no dogshit. They're good films, superior to Raiders. Raiders is Indy before they figured out how to get it right. It has an underdone feel. The next two films are so much more alive. The true gold in the Indy franchise is Crusade, with its marvellous Ford-Connery double act and lots of good humor.
You obviously think that your opinion that Raiders is better is unchallengeable objective fact. Fine, people often think their opinions are objective fact, and sometimes they're right. But I don't see any proof that you're right in this case. Indy didn't get into its swing until Temple of Doom and didn't get 100% until Crusade. Crusade isn't as good as I thought it was back in 1989, but it still stands out as a damn good film and the Indy-Dad interaction is a lot more substantial and interesting than any other character interaction in the two Indy films before it. And even in an action film, character interaction is what makes the world go around. Crusade just way outclasses Raiders. Even Doom outclasses Raiders, with its intensity and vividness. Raiders just doesn't match up. The only reason some people think Raiders is better is because it came first. These people judge against the later films for not being like Raiders, but these people don't judge against Raiders for not being like the next two films. There's all this worship of Raiders as THE Indy film, without recognizing that the Indy film franchise evolved with each new film of the first three, being successfully reinvented each time. The later two films are just so much much more alive and so much in them is just a hell of a lot more interesting -villains, settings, secondary/minor characters, situations.