Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starman" data-source="post: 4246138" data-attributes="member: 7663">Yeah, except that all of those save the submarine and the "face melting ghosts" come from what is almost universally agreed to be the weakest entry amongst the first three movies. A lot of people loved Raiders and Last Crusade, but detested Temple of Doom precisely because of the over-the-top nature of much of it (well, and Kate Capshaw). The scene with the Ark at then end of Raiders works precisely because it has been built up throughout the movie as a Holy Object With Awesome Powers TM and we didn't have anything too groan inducing in the rest of the movie. The submarine hitchhiking may cause an eye-roll, but is easily forgotten because the movie as a whole is incredibly awesome. For me the problem with Crystal Skull wasn't believability, anyway, it's that the movie just felt very uneven. There were just some bad scenes that had me wanting to shout, "Really?" at the screen - the ridiculous looking gophers, Shia doing his Tarzan impression, Karen Allen looking like she was smoking dope, far too much of showing the aliens instead of making it more mysterious, Indy relying more on someone else to piece together the clues rather than figuring it out himself, driving the truck of the cliff and smoothly landing in a tree which neatly bounces back and knocks some Commies off the cliff. Those are just some of the biggest things that bothered me. I went in to the movie with expectations fairly low, but I still came away disappointed. I didn't expect anything close to Raiders; I did expect to be more entertained than I was.</blockquote>

Verification