It's best that we all just hand-wave it away. I'm hoping that the fifth installment goes out of its way to make clear that Crystal Skull never happened and was just a bad dream.
Anyone who believes that the 4th Indiana Jones film was somehow worse than the 2nd cannot separate reality from nostalgia. All the Indy films contained silly bits. Nothing more believable about pulling a man's heart out of his chest than surviving an explosion inside a refrigerator. There were in fact people who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody in history has had his face melted off by kosher ghost monsters. The writing/acting/tone was perfectly in line with the other Indy films. Transporting the film's narrative from the 1930s to the 1950s made sense given how much Harrison had aged. It made sense for him to be fighting Soviets in the 1950s (there were no Nazis in 1957). It made sense for the Soviets to be pursuing crystal skulls (look up the crystal skull thing, it was a hoax but it happened) Nazis were obsessed with occult crap, not Soviets. Ancient aliens and UFOs fits perfectly with the shift in setting to 1957.
Yes, I actually liked the Crystal Skull. It's not plausible, but neither are the first three and who cares anyway? For me, it's totally the spirit of the series.
its an OK movie . all the Indiana Jones movies have a fantasy / occult element from face melting spirits to all sorts of madness in temple of doom . the only one I really love is the first one ( some great scenes ) but the rest are an OK way to pass a few hours . also I got a great laugh from Amy's theory on big bang theory that what happened in raiders would have happened whether Indy was there or not.check it out.
I see your point, but I think most people feel there just wasn't any need for a 4th film. It came across as money grubbing - much the same as the new Star Wars trilogy. Flogging (or perhaps whipping:P) a dead horse.
Then what was the need for the 2nd and 3rd movies? It's not like there were unresolved issues from Raiders of the Last Ark that those films addressed. It was just a continuation of the story, done in much the same style as the first 3 films.
Ok, there's quite a bit wrong with this statement, first you say that a man getting his heart ripped out isn't any more believable than surviving a nuke in a refrigerator, but Mola Ram is using magic to do that I don't think Indy was using magic to survive a nuke. You say the writing/ acting/ and tone work with Harrison's age but um, google Kingdom of the Crystal Skull "part time". You say that it makes sense that the Soviets are after a crystal skull and wouldn't work for Nazis because they were into " occult crap" but the skull and that movie is about aliens while the first three were all about religion and religious artifacts. Also the first three we're meant to call back to those 1940 adventure movies and KotCS was trying to call back to the Science Fiction movies of the 50's, which might work, just not for Indiana Jones. Also just because something makes sense doesn't make it good Neil Degrasse Tyson saying your birthday doesn't matter makes sense but isn't a good thing.
where does it say they were heading for Athens in the zeppelin?? when asked by henry where did you get a ticket for indy replies "I don't know first flight out of Germany" athens is never referenced. also no matter where they were going they never arrived there as the Nazis discovered they were on board and had it turned round and they got in the plane attatched to the bottom of the zeppilen and crashed after henry accidently shot the tail fin
The description of the quiz clearly states that it is about the "Indiana Jones Trilogy." A trilogy, by definition, has three movies (or books, or whatever). So if we're just talking about the trilogy, then #3 is indeed the last film in it, regardless of whether you acknowledge the existence of Crystal Skull.
Now, is it reasonable to talk about an "Indiana Jones Trilogy" that is distinct from Crystal Skull (and any subsequent films)? I think it is. After all, we're clearly allowed to talk about an original Star Wars trilogy that is distinct from the prequel trilogy. The first three films were released from 1981-1989, and then Crystal Skull came a full 19 years later in 2008. For reference, there was only a 16-year gap between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace.
fair point but I disagree. Crystal Skull expanded the Jones trilogy into a tetralogy. There no longer is a Jones trilogy. The 4th film was a direct continuation of the other 3 focusing on the same central character and stretching out the same narrative arc. I get the point about the break in time between the films coming out but the original and prequel trilogies of Star Wars were much more distinct from one another.
Hmm . . . when I watched #4 I remember thinking that it felt more like a reboot than a continuation (for reasons I no longer precisely recall), but you're right that the fact that it stars the same character played by the same actor does tend to suggest the latter. In any case, I agree with your earlier point that if we're going to get into the business of disregarding Indiana Jones movies because they're not good enough, we probably need to toss out #2 as well.
I haven't actually seen the 4th movie, mostly just because I haven't gotten around to it. But I agree with everyone here that if you are making an Indiana Jones quiz, it doesn't make sense to include a fourth of the whole series.
From memory, Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't actually specify that Indy is in Peru at the beginning. It just says "South America 1936". One of the tracks on the soundtrack is called "Flight from Peru" and various wikis name the country as Peru, but I don't know how you'd know it just from watching the film, other than an educated guess. Unless I'm forgetting something?
Others have said it, but this question, "What is the name of the third and final movie?" is now woefully dated by two movies, even if it was a joke to start.
Now, is it reasonable to talk about an "Indiana Jones Trilogy" that is distinct from Crystal Skull (and any subsequent films)? I think it is. After all, we're clearly allowed to talk about an original Star Wars trilogy that is distinct from the prequel trilogy. The first three films were released from 1981-1989, and then Crystal Skull came a full 19 years later in 2008. For reference, there was only a 16-year gap between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace.