You are Steve Spielberg and George Lucas. You have created one of the best made films of all time. You have created a box office bonanza. You have created one of the most iconic movie characters of all time.
What do you do? How do you follow it up? All too often we see filmmakers fall into the deadly sequel trap, this trap of course being "take the elements and scenes the public really responded to in the first film, and ramp it up to 11"
Invariably, this approach always fails. Why does it always fail? Because this strategy is often pursued at the expense of the most important element of all- character development and a coherent story, which are the elements that made the original as successful as it was in the first place.
From the first scene of Raiders the character of Indy is carefully unfolded before us- he is a man who is driven, resourceful, intelligent, and not afraid of a good fight. But he is also has his weak spots( fear of snakes, which isn't even a weak spot because it enhances his character by showing he has some vulnerabilities) and can be a bad judge of character( the underling who double crosses him in the first 10 min of Raiders). These elements are developed and built upon as the story unfolds.
As for the story, again it is laid out carefully. We have Indiana's rivalry with Belloq who is Indiana's cynical foil, his willingness to fight against evil by seeking the Ark to foil the Nazis, his past relationship with Marion, and the unveiling mystery surrounding the ark. All of this is done in a balanced and measured way.
The characterization of Indiana and the other major characters is balanced with the telling of the story. Do we learn all of the backstory for each major character? No, but we learn enough about them to make them fully fleshed and compelling. Belloq is amoral and greedy, but like Jones he does have a love for knowledge and values artifacts, also he does at least feel human compassion for Marion- a tough nut, a woman who can fight her own battles and as the movies goes on you can see why a man like Indy fell for her. Sallah is a loyal friend to Indy with whom we can infer he has had some previous adventures.
Raiders was a great balance of characterization, story, plot, great action sequences, amazing FX and an iconic score. All combining to make one of the best movies of all time.
Sadly, Temple sacrificed the characterization and plot and just decides to make this simple one big action sequence with some gross out sequences to pander to the kids- Temple really went of the way to pander to the child audience( the character of short round, the plot of kids needing to be rescued, gross out moments etc). Was this an attempt to increase merchandising sales? I do not know. Even more disturbing, Indy's "love interest" this time around is more a caricature of the damsel in distress rather than a fully fleshed out character. We are not given insight into the motivations or desires of the villains other than they are Eeeeeevell. In the other words, the villains are just stock wooden characters there to be defeated by Indiana. Granted, its hard to create a better villain than Nazis, but at least Belloq had some charm and style.
But the most disappointing aspect of this sequel is..we don't learn anything new about Indiana. How did he become the man we saw in Raiders? Given that the film is set a year before the events of Raiders, it was a perfect opportunity to show some of the events that lead to Henry Jones jr becoming Indiana Jones. But in this film, we are given nothing to add to the aura or mystique of Jones, nothing to illuminate other facets of his character or his relationships that existed by the beginning of Raiders.
Some said the movie failed because it was too dark, or too violent or too gross and too much action. The movie failed because despite having a fantastic character to base the movie upon, it failed to tell the story of that character.
What do you do? How do you follow it up? All too often we see filmmakers fall into the deadly sequel trap, this trap of course being "take the elements and scenes the public really responded to in the first film, and ramp it up to 11"
Invariably, this approach always fails. Why does it always fail? Because this strategy is often pursued at the expense of the most important element of all- character development and a coherent story, which are the elements that made the original as successful as it was in the first place.
From the first scene of Raiders the character of Indy is carefully unfolded before us- he is a man who is driven, resourceful, intelligent, and not afraid of a good fight. But he is also has his weak spots( fear of snakes, which isn't even a weak spot because it enhances his character by showing he has some vulnerabilities) and can be a bad judge of character( the underling who double crosses him in the first 10 min of Raiders). These elements are developed and built upon as the story unfolds.
As for the story, again it is laid out carefully. We have Indiana's rivalry with Belloq who is Indiana's cynical foil, his willingness to fight against evil by seeking the Ark to foil the Nazis, his past relationship with Marion, and the unveiling mystery surrounding the ark. All of this is done in a balanced and measured way.
The characterization of Indiana and the other major characters is balanced with the telling of the story. Do we learn all of the backstory for each major character? No, but we learn enough about them to make them fully fleshed and compelling. Belloq is amoral and greedy, but like Jones he does have a love for knowledge and values artifacts, also he does at least feel human compassion for Marion- a tough nut, a woman who can fight her own battles and as the movies goes on you can see why a man like Indy fell for her. Sallah is a loyal friend to Indy with whom we can infer he has had some previous adventures.
Raiders was a great balance of characterization, story, plot, great action sequences, amazing FX and an iconic score. All combining to make one of the best movies of all time.
Sadly, Temple sacrificed the characterization and plot and just decides to make this simple one big action sequence with some gross out sequences to pander to the kids- Temple really went of the way to pander to the child audience( the character of short round, the plot of kids needing to be rescued, gross out moments etc). Was this an attempt to increase merchandising sales? I do not know. Even more disturbing, Indy's "love interest" this time around is more a caricature of the damsel in distress rather than a fully fleshed out character. We are not given insight into the motivations or desires of the villains other than they are Eeeeeevell. In the other words, the villains are just stock wooden characters there to be defeated by Indiana. Granted, its hard to create a better villain than Nazis, but at least Belloq had some charm and style.
But the most disappointing aspect of this sequel is..we don't learn anything new about Indiana. How did he become the man we saw in Raiders? Given that the film is set a year before the events of Raiders, it was a perfect opportunity to show some of the events that lead to Henry Jones jr becoming Indiana Jones. But in this film, we are given nothing to add to the aura or mystique of Jones, nothing to illuminate other facets of his character or his relationships that existed by the beginning of Raiders.
Some said the movie failed because it was too dark, or too violent or too gross and too much action. The movie failed because despite having a fantastic character to base the movie upon, it failed to tell the story of that character.