Unpopular opinion: I love all of the Indiana Jones films...except for the racist stuff in Temple of Doom (but it's still a fun film and I've always loved Short Round).
Do I have a problem, however, with the idea that an ancient Greek mathematician was able to predict when time travel storms would occur, as in, dates and times, thousands of years into the future? Yeah, I do.
The second film and the crap they did in it, was terrible and it should be forgotten.
except for the racist stuff in Temple of Doom
Unpopular opinion: I love all of the Indiana Jones films

The crystal skull and all of the mythology behind it is just as real the arc and the grail, so it's not really fair to be OK with the first two but then criticize them for using the third.
It's not the age of Ford, he's still a brilliant actor
You're not gonna be able to make "Raiders is grounded" happen.I'm an atheist, so I consider all mythology inaccurate, but there is a real and significant difference, even if only on a vibes level, of folklore that develops naturally over time, such as the Ark/Grail stories, and modern forgeries from completely different cultures like crystal skulls.
But he could get CYBORG ARMS. And then he could do the shit out of his job, just with CYBORG ARMS.If a supervillain were to amputate James Bond's arms, he would no longer be quite the same character, because he'd be unable to do his prior job.
(*didn't watch it)Hint: a Star Wars show shouldn't be boring, and its heroes shouldn't be unlikable and dull.
You're not gonna be able to make "Raiders is grounded" happen.
It's not not that, though. What a person can do, which includes their age, job and physical ability, is key to who they are at any given point in time. If a supervillain were to amputate James Bond's arms, he would no longer be quite the same character, because he'd be unable to do his prior job. In real life, of course, real humans deserve respect, so it's natural and proper to keep respecting Ford as one of cinema's all-time greatest action heroes. But when the 2D character on the screen can no longer credibly win a fight, or romance a woman of child-bearing age, he's no longer quite the same character as he was during the Raiders years.
As the RedLetterMedia gang has observed, Indiana Jones was never meant to be a complex or even particularly unique (in-universe or out) character. He's Archaeology Action Man, plus a quirky snake phobia and an iffy bit of personal history with sleeping with a teenager in his 20s. Within the heightened, popcorn movie world of the series, no reason another charismatic actor couldn't play another, equally interesting Archaeology Action Man on a different adventure. Sadly, however, Lucasfilm seems to lack the guts and imagination to attempt anything even mildly new. (Or, when it does, it tends to do so badly, as with The Acolyte. Hint: a Star Wars show shouldn't be boring, and its heroes shouldn't be unlikable and dull.)
Case in point: when concept artist Jim Steranko made these paintings for Raiders, he hadn't even read the script. "Archaeology Action Man looks for a relic, punches fascists." It really shouldn't be complicated nor particularly difficult.
Cool way of dismissing one's opinion about the films.That's not an opinion, that's a statement of your enjoyment. An unpopular (and wrong) opinion would be that all five movies are of similar quality.![]()

Oh, I didn't realize the whole mythology behind them was BS, I had thought there was a real ancient mythology behind them and the people who faked them just based them off it.I'm an atheist, so I consider all mythology inaccurate, but there is a real and significant difference, even if only on a vibes level, of folklore that develops naturally over time, such as the Ark/Grail stories, and modern forgeries from completely different cultures like crystal skulls.
The version of Nathan Drake in the games is a perfect example of a new modern take on the Indian Jones type of character, and I know this is blasphemy, but in some ways I'd say he's actually a better character, with a more interesting backstory and history than Indy. Naughty Dog also really made a smart choice when they cast Nolan North in the role, because he is phenomenal, and really gives Harrison Ford as Indy a run for his money.It's not not that, though. What a person can do, which includes their age, job and physical ability, is key to who they are at any given point in time. If a supervillain were to amputate James Bond's arms, he would no longer be quite the same character, because he'd be unable to do his prior job. In real life, of course, real humans deserve respect, so it's natural and proper to keep respecting Ford as one of cinema's all-time greatest action heroes. But when the 2D character on the screen can no longer credibly win a fight, or romance a woman of child-bearing age, he's no longer quite the same character as he was during the Raiders years.
As the RedLetterMedia gang has observed, Indiana Jones was never meant to be a complex or even particularly unique (in-universe or out) character. He's Archaeology Action Man, plus a quirky snake phobia and an iffy bit of personal history with sleeping with a teenager in his 20s. Within the heightened, popcorn movie world of the series, no reason another charismatic actor couldn't play another, equally interesting Archaeology Action Man on a different adventure. Sadly, however, Lucasfilm seems to lack the guts and imagination to attempt anything even mildly new. (Or, when it does, it tends to do so badly, as with The Acolyte. Hint: a Star Wars show shouldn't be boring, and its heroes shouldn't be unlikable and dull.)
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.