I'll grant you that Indiana Jones is a marginally more fleshed-out character than most action movie heroes, and definitely more than Bond. He doesn't always do the heroic thing, and is more human. But everyone else is just cardboard.
It was probably in the early 90s though, so less than ten years after it was made. My grandfather had the trilogy on VHS.
Marion's character isn't completely bland. Sallah doesn't get much character until the third movie though, and the bad guys are pretty cardboard. It still wouldn't surprise me if the sheer strength of Ford as Jones holds the whole thing up higher than it otherwise would be. He's not a deep character, but he's not necessarily meant to be. He's the sort of character everyone can love and cheer for, executed perfectly by Ford.
They are certainly iconic, and yeah, nostalgia is important. But, I mean, when I watch the original Star Wars trilogy, to take the other obvious example, I may not think they're worthy of their huge status (if you ignore the technical and special-effects advances), but I still think they're pretty decent movies. I really can't say that for this one.
The narrative structure of the original Star Wars movies (the first two at least) is certainly stronger than Raiders. But I don't think you can completely discount the appeal of a quest story that doesn't start out with a youth whose world is destroyed or some other character who has destiny flung upon him. Indiana Jones is already all grown up, he goes looking for trouble, and he finds it.
Yeah, like I said above, agreed that he's a better than average action hero... but when everybody else's acting/characters, the script and even the special effects are so distinctly lacking, it still baffles me how big a classic this has become.
The boulder was pretty spectacular for the time, I think. But it could well be one of those things that everyone just spontaneously agreed was great, and so it's always been great. As you know, the modern internet is full of such things.
Why not? Part of it may be the fact that Weisz is one of my favourite actresses, but it's true, isn't it? The plot is at least somewhat less idiotic, the acting is better across the board, there is less painfully unfunny slapstick, and of course the special effects improved a lot in that time. I'm sure Raiders was more original at the time of its release, The Mummy owes it a debt of some sort I've no doubt, but apart from that...
I don't actually remember much of anything about The Mummy. I just like calling you a villain.
Warder to starry_nite
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
This one might get some discussion going... we can hope. So I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark.
- 07/10/2011 10:32:19 PM
567 Views
Harrison Ford?
- 07/10/2011 10:56:17 PM
331 Views
Obviously I was always going to miss out on the nostalgia factor. But even so.
- 07/10/2011 11:09:15 PM
311 Views
I can't actually remember when I first saw it.
- 07/10/2011 11:18:10 PM
364 Views
Probably the difference between being a great example of the genre and pioneering it. *NM*
- 08/10/2011 12:03:38 AM
112 Views
I love the Mummy, but one reason why you shouldn't compare the two movies
- 08/10/2011 02:52:04 AM
303 Views
I've noticed your difficulties with recognizing the important and great films of the 80s before 
- 08/10/2011 03:19:37 PM
309 Views
- 08/10/2011 03:19:37 PM
309 Views
Better writing? Better lead actor? *NM*
- 08/10/2011 05:34:12 PM
143 Views
The latter is debatable, actually. As for the former: yeah, right. *NM*
- 08/10/2011 08:36:49 PM
104 Views
*NM*
- 08/10/2011 08:36:49 PM
104 Views
It's just an illustration of how things can be more than the sum of their parts.
- 11/10/2011 01:38:36 AM
359 Views