Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull [use spoiler tags, please]

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

iSm: what Cherny's getting at with the "diminish the quality" remark can be summed up by looking at what the prequel storylines did to diminish the character of Darth Vader in Star Wars Episodes 4-6.

Ok, but how does the craptasticness of Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back (where he's a COMPLETE CARTOON CHARACTER, btw) go back in time to diminsh his badassedness in Star Wars? I think the same can be asked of the lametard prequels. They may depict a previous chronology, but they don't really reach back in time to decrease the quality of earlier-produced films.

Similarly, it's not fair at all to say that Indy 4 is derivative of movies that were derivative of Raiders of the Lost Ark.


Um, by the way, there was no cartoon action in Raiders of the sort on display in every one of the subsequent Indy movies. Though his lashing himself to the submarine periscope may have been preposterous (and, btw, was not even shown in the film), it was not a cartoon action stunt that Indy couldn't have survived.


EVERYTHING in Raiders was reminicent of graphic design comics and certainly reminiscent of Saturday-morning serial action ... but it was NOT cartoony on the order of Road Runner in the least.

That changed with the first sequel (a mismatching prequel) ... and while I'll admit Indy 4 brings cartoonism to the fore as never before, it's simply continuing the trajectory unfortunately established by its predecessors.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Ok, but how does the craptasticness of Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back (where he's a COMPLETE CARTOON CHARACTER, btw) go back in time to diminsh his badassedness in Star Wars? I think the same can be asked of the lametard prequels. They may depict a previous chronology, but they don't really reach back in time to decrease the quality of earlier-produced films.

The "diminishes previous versions/episodes" argument is all about audience reception and how future viewers will perceive it. When you really really like a movie or series of movies, especially one that had the kind of profound effect on movie making and storytelling that Lucas and Speilberg used to be capable of, you hope that they become classics and continue to positively influence movie making and movie appreciating audiences. When a remake or sequel comes out that A) you think is vastly inferior and B) despite being inferior is popular enough to replace the original in the minds of the general movie audience, it can definitely dilute the future impact of the original.

If, in 10 years, the icon of Indiana Jones is a death-defying fridge instead of escaping a boulder via fancy whip-handling skills, then it's definitely changed the influence the Indy franchise has on our culture. While you may still enjoy the originals, you can't deny that it alters how the originals are perceived going forward. Whether it's for the better, for the worse, or a wash remains to be seen, but I do believe that a bad sequel has the power to hurt the perception of the original.