It is just an obvious attempt of injecting kiddie humor into a series that was never directed towards children. It was a horrible joke, horribly written, horribly acted, horribly executed. There is absolutely nothing that can excuse such a pathetic attempt of dumbing down a franchise especially after two amazing and classic films.
shareCan't say I had a problem with it. It's actually a memorable moment for me, and not in a bad way.
"If you are Scotland Yard then I am Mickey Mouse." What's so bad about that? Would it have been better if he had said Humphrey Bogart?
The comment is logical in context. He's expressing disbelief that Indy is who he's claiming to be.
I would have preferred if the franchise just stuck to the dark humor of the first two films instead of inserting kiddie jokes.
What I hated most about it was the acting (whoever played that Butler can't act) and it's just a reminder of the slapstick, juvenile humor we had for the majority of the film. The line was originally supposed to be Jesse Owens but they changed it because children wouldn't know who that was (even though I knew who he was ever since the 3rd grade).
I would even go as far to say that Last Crusade is WORSE than Crystal Skulls.
Well you just lost me completely with your last sentence because The Last Crusade is by far my favorite film from the franchise. I love it and I've watched it literally probably 10x more than any of the others.
If you want to criticize it then I would recommend criticizing it for making Marcus a bumbling fool when that's not really how he was portrayed in the first movie. (Though I do find amusement at the thought of him getting lost in his own museum.)
But otherwise, I think it's a great film. The young Indy adventure at the beginning, hot Elsa Schneider, Sean Connery, the Grail lore, the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword, the three tests and the Grail Knight . . . I love it all.
Besides, to me Temple of Doom has always come across as the most childish and cartoonish, what with Short Round making quips the whole movie and Willie constantly doing everything that she does. That's not to say that I don't like the movie, but it's the one I take least seriously.
Oh believe me, Marcus and Henry acting like a couple of bumbling idiots is a HUGE criticism I have. In fact pretty much everyone gave a horrible performance, especially Alison Doody and Julian Glover and I really am surprised by Julian Glover because he was an amazing Bond villain, it's funny he was the villain in my 2nd favorite Bond film and my least favorite Indiana Jones film.
Temple of Doom had a couple of campy moments at the beginning but it's quite clear that Spielberg was trying to fool you into what kind of film you were watching, he wanted Indy's entrance into the Temple to be a complete contrast to what you saw earlier and I think it was done well. Overall Temple of Doom is a dark and gritty adventure film which while it may not be as good as Raiders it is miles better than Last Crusade.
I think we're just not going to agree on this one as it seems like we're on opposite poles here. I thought Alison Doody was excellent, for instance.
Temple was my favorite movie when I was a kid. As an adult, TLC beats it by a country mile. But at the end of the day, I love all the movies in the original trilogy.
Now Crystal Skull . . . that's another story. I rewatched it recently to see if it was really as bad as I remembered. Turned out it was actually worse. The only good thing about that film is Cate Blanchett.
Now I am not going to argue Crystal Skull is a good movie, it isn't, it does have some redeeming action sequences however such as the bike chase and the ant sequence. I cannot say the same for Last Crusade. To me Last Crusade just plays out like a comedy or actually an Indiana Jones spoof which seems odd considering the previous two were so dark and intense. It's pretty obvious however, parents complained that Temple of Doom was too dark and scary for their children (and to that I say: Did anyone see the 1st film? What did they expect?) so Spielberg and Lucas pussed out and made the 3rd one a kiddie film,
shareKingdom of the Crystal what? Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, Hippo. The Indiana Jones Trilogy is just that to me, a PERFECT trilogy, just like the Star Wars ORIGINAL Trilogy. End of. There are no more than three Indy movies to me, the FIRST THREE.
No there are two Indiana Jones films: Raiders and Temple. I don’t know what you have against skulls, it’s basically a last crusade repeat
shareI would respond by saying that Crystal Skull COULD HAVE had some redeeming action sequences if the film hadn't relied so heavily on CGI. Spielberg had explicitly said that it would NOT be a CGI-heavy film and would film its action as practically possible, as the earlier films had done. He lied and the film suffered for it.
It's a bad movie all around, sans the fun performance from Cate Blanchett. It's a shame they wasted her.
Again I won’t defend the cgi but skulls at least had some fun moments (and fewer Mickey Mouse jokes) and that’s all they were moments, I cannot say the same for last crusade
shareHippo, what about the interaction between Indy and his father? Don't you like that? Hasn't it occurred to you that Spielberg maybe wanted a lighter tone to Crusade after the darkness of Temple? Seriously, about the Mickey Mouse joke, get over it. It's ONE joke. I don't let things like that ruin movies for me.
And there is just so much wrong with Skull, it's just plain AWFUL. CGI, Tarzan and the monkeys, the whole ludicrous vehicle chase, the three waterfalls, the tribe who will remain inside immaculately designed walls and break through when invaders come (seriously?), Russians instead of Nazis, the annoying Mutt, the physics problems of the warehouse, Ray Winstone, and most heinous of all... NUKE THE FRIDGE!!
I bought the four Indiana Jones movies on Blu-ray years ago. I watched them all, and Skull promptly went into the trashcan, once I'd reminded myself of its awfulness.
You are wasting your time with Hippo. He will claim Temple of Doom is so adult when in reality it's got some of the most childish stuff in it. It's okay though he's in the minority in thinking Temple is better.
shareFord and Connery had ZERO chemistry and it was painful listening to them talk to each other, I know that scene on the blimp was supposed to be deep and inspiring but it just came across as forced and awkward. I know I'll get a lot of hate for this but Ford and LeBeauf had more chemistry than Ford and Connery.
The Mickey Mouse joke is a big deal, it is a representation of the kiddie nonsense that occurs throughout the film and I do have a problem that a series that was once dark and gritty is now campy and childish, much like how Batman and Robin took the original Batman series in the same direction.
Your second paragraph is pointless because I never said Crystal Skulls was a good movie but as far as using the Russians as the villains, that's because the film took place in the 50's and the Nazis were no longer a threat, while we're on the subject rehashing the Nazis in Last Crusade was one of the laziest decisions I have ever seen in a film.
I originally bought the first three films on Blu Ray but I have since removed Last Crusade from my Blu Ray tower and it is now up in my attic slowly collecting dust. It makes me feel better to pretend as much as I can that Last Crusade and all of its plot holes were never made.
Jokes as in plural? Point out the other one in last crusade if you would be so kind.
shareWhen I said that I was referring to other childish humor whether it references Mickey Mouse or not. Here's another one:
Indy: Don't worry, we're way out of range
(Boom, car gets blown up)
- Yeah I totally didn't see that coming.
As you can see this is a very juvenile form of comedy that is appealing to the lowest common denominator, it's the kind of joke you'd find in a Seltzer/Friedberg film.
Another example: Librarian is stamping books at the EXACT SAME RATE that Indy is tearing up the floor causing the Librarian to think that him stamping the book is what caused that loud noise despite the fact that anyone with a brain would recognize that the loud sound came from the other side of the building. Again more kindergarten Mickey Mouse humor.
Ah well see that is where I disagree.
Indiana Jones and the temple of doom had moments even sillier than that.
Yes in the beginning it did but that gets a pass because I think Spielberg and Lucas were trying to give the audience a false sense of security and wanted it to be a complete shock when Indy made it into the Temple and realize that the film they are watching is actually dark and mature. The moments you speak of however are a reason why I don't think it's as good as Raiders.
shareIt gets a pass because it was intentional? That is like saying a Seltzer/Friedberg film gets a pass for it's humor because that was the intent. Sorry nope not in my book.
Also when you say Mickey Mouse jokes how is someone suppose to know it lumps everything you described together? Not one time have I heard juvenile humor called Mickey Mouse humor.
No I’m saying I understand why Temple had those silly scenes and the payoff worked. And no matter what terms you use to describe juvenile humor is irrelevant , there should never be a single Mickey Mouse joke in an Indiana Jones film
shareThere should never be a Mickey Mouse joke in an Indiana Jones movie? Why because you said so? The series from the beginning has always been an action adventure film for a large audience. Marion hits a guy over the head with a pan and an exaggerated sound effect happens for Pete's sake. Indiana shooting the swordsman is also for laughs. Just because something is darker does not by default make it better. An ignorant way to see things. Execution is what matters not tone. Indiana was never that dark to begin with. Dark elements yep but you act as if this was First Blood or Alien or something.
shareBecause the first two movies were not kiddie movies and Spielberg specifically put the joke in to appeal to children, he changed the line from Jesse Owens because children wouldn't understand it which is beyond insulting because I understood who Jesse Owens was ever since I was 8. The first two films had plenty of black comedy which worked very well in the universe that Spielberg established yet he threw that all out the door for slapstick humor and preschool comedy.
I agree execution is what matters and Last Crusade was very poorly executed. Take You Only Live Twice, that film was very campy and ridiculous but it had talented people behind it who were clearly giving a sh!t, I cannot say the same for Last Crusade. It was also tonally consistent with what came before it so I could buy those events taking place within the same universe, again I cannot say the same for TLC.
Like I said before temple of doom had juvenile humor in it. So when you say the previous two you can't say that about Temple of Doom. Short round is completely there to appeal to kids. The fact that it turns into a 3 ninjas film when him and indy are battling the thugs is evidence of that.
Indiana Jones was made to be an action adventure for all audiences. This is not First Blood or Alien dude. It has always been that way from the start. You want a dark serious film with no humor watch different films.
I myself like last crusade the best among the Indiana Jones films. In my book it fits in perfectly and is a great entry in the series.
And I've said plenty of times I prefer Raiders to Temple but Temple at least had a justified reason for the juvenile humor (and I still don't like it). Temple of Doom however is NOTHING like Three Ninjas, TOD is made for a teenage to adult audience, 3 Ninjas is a kids film. TOD is an intense action adventure, Three Ninjas is a shameless TMNT/Home Alone rip off and it is clearly a comedy designed for children.
I never said I didn't want humor, I said the humor in the first two films was black comedy which I am actually a fan of, Last Crusade ditched that to become a kids movie which the first two were not. Last Crusade is NOT a serious film, it's completely for kids.
Raiders and Temple seemed to have a healthy balance of dark themes and black comedy, Last Crusade was kiddie humor all around.
Temple of Doom not for kids? Don't make me laugh. Short round is totally there for kids.
I found plenty of great comedy in crusade. As I said in my book it's the best one.
Short Round was a badass and just because there is a kid actor doesn't mean that the film is for kids. By your logic The Sixth Sense is a kids movie, it's ridiculous. Temple is far more mature than Last Crusade which is the only film out of the first three to not have a kid actor so there you go.
shareShort round a bad ass? You lost me there.
sharePlenty of great comedy in crusade? You lost me there.
shareSeems to me like you are the juvenile one. Can't come up with your own retort? You need to copy mine? Pathetic.
shareNaw just felt like giving you a taste of your own medicine, it's an appropriate tactic in certain situations.
shareLol sure. Either way know this Crusade is considered a great film by the majority Temple of Doom is not.
Also I never said just because a kid was there it automatically meant it was for kids. Indiana Jones from the start was a film for all audiences. The entire family can watch these films. You acted as if it started out like First Blood where it was only for adults. That is simply not the case. A kid in a family friendly movie is there for kids. Sixth Sense is not a kid movie period it just has a child in it.
Exactly and Raiders and Temple are not kid movies yet they have children in it. The humor was very mature, the humor in Last Crusade however was preschool level and I just assumed that he made the film for 4 year olds (the Mickey Mouse joke is direct evidence of this).
It still boggles my mind how anyone can watch Last Crusade and not cringe, I really am mind blown as to how anyone can consider this a good movie.
No main child stars in raiders or crusade though. Temple is the only one where a kid is a main star.
I personally loved that joke. Tell me why do you think the mass majority disagree with you about crusade? I'm dying to hear your reason. I will try to not laugh.
1) Young Indy sequence was cringe inducing and contrived, River Phoenix can't act and are we really supposed to accept he got his hat, whip and scar all within a matter of minutes.
2) The line "this should be in a museum" is such a stupid, and poorly acted like
3) Childish humor (librarian stamping books, Mickey Mouse joke, "don't worry we're well out of range)
4) Numerous plot holes like Indy and Henry being able to travel all across Europe with no car, money and the entire German army on their tails
5) The German pilot seriously thought he could fly through a tunnel?
6) Atrocious chemistry between Ford and Connery
7) HORRIBLE acting across the board, Doody especially and Julian Glover is as bad of a villain and Dominic Greene from Quantum of Solace, funny he was one of my favorite Bond villains
8) Stupid scene with the Sultan, did he seriously not know how to bargain? He just gave away a whole bunch of military equipment when he didn't even have to
9) Recycled plot from Raiders and reusing the Nazis is one of the LAZIEST decisions I have ever seen
10) No tension whatsoever
11) Horrible score from John Williams
12) The brotherhood of the protectors of the grail or whatever, after ending the lamest boat chase I have ever seen he is all of a sudden best friends with Indy despite trying to murder him just minutes ago
13) Indy tried way too hard to be James Bond (the "oh Venice" line right before having sex is a clear example)
14) Childish dialogue about bed time stories
15) The entire ending is impossible as Sallah's rifle disappears between shots therefore the Nazis never would have put their guns down, they would have executed our heroes and the ending would have been completely different
16) Marcus Brody is turned into a complete buffoon seriously during that tank chase I expected him to yell out "Uh oh big boomers, mesa en big doodoo dis time"
17) The sidetrip to Berlin to get the diary back was way TOO EASY, Indy just happens to run into whatsherface and she just happened to have the diary, not buying it and that entire subplot posed ZERO CHALLENGE to Indy and the entire thing was resolved in about 4 minutes. You know I have heard people very foolishly try to make the argument that Indy is a Marty Sue or whatever however in this case they may have a legitimate point.
This post may be edited as I remember more problems I have with this pathetic excuse of a film.
OK, I'll bite:
1. Your opinion. I thought it was fun.
2. Perhaps Indy's father has drilled it into him all his life that museums are all-important?
3. I had no problem with the humour.
4. What's wrong with a motorcycle and sidecar? Just as good as a car, I would imagine.
5. The pilot turned sharply before ending up in the tunnel, I don't think he was expecting it.
6 Your opinion. People love the chemistry between these two.
7. Dominic Greene wasn't even IN Indy 3, what are you talking about?
8. A nice little scene with one of the UK's greatest comedians of the time, I loved it.
9. Indy's job is to acquire historical and religious artefacts for museums: the Ark was one, the Holy Grail is another. I don't see what the problem is. And the Nazis were after the Holy Grail as they were after the Ark. Again, I don't see what the problem is.
10. I thought Indy meeting Hitler was tense, as he's surrounded by Nazis as well AND Hitler takes his father's Grail diary. It's just a relief to Indy and us that Hitler thought that Indy was an up-and-coming Nazi who wanted his signature.
11. I love this score!
12. The Brotherhood thought that Indy was solely after the Holy Grail for personal gain, not to find his father. Maybe he was initially after the Grail, but changed his mind when he realised what was at stake.
13. I didn't get anything James Bond-ish from that line at all.
14. Nice little line, I thought.
15. You're going to upgrade a continuity error to a plot hole? You're surely reaching, now.
16. I thought they treated him quite well: he may be feeble-minded, but even he technically saved Indy by walloping the Nazi on the head and sending that bullet into the head of the tank driver when Indy was seconds away from being smeared across a rock.
17. I didn't find it a stretch that Elsa would be at a Nazi rally, especially one where books were being burned, and Indy was quite rightly concerned that she would burn the Grail diary, too.
1. Well I thought it wasn't
2. There should have been a less cringe worthy way of conveying that message
3. Your opinion, I disagree
4. This was after they jumped off the blimp and were literally stranded with no transportation (after Henry brought down a fighter plane with his umbrella which is such a moronic concept)
5. No pilot would be that reckless
6. Your opinion I hated the chemistry
7. I said Glover was as bad as Dominic Greene, just bland, boring and forgettable
8. Again your opinion, I thought it was cringe inducing
9. The writers could have found a different story structure as they did with Temple, and reusing the Nazis was just lazy, pick a different villain
10. That scene was the opposite of tense, the entire process of finding one book in an entire hostile city was way too easy and it made Indy seem like a Marty Stu
11. I HATE that score
12. When you fire an automatic weapon at someone you don't become friends just minutes afterwards
13. It was a corny one liner that Bond would say right before nailing a chick like "oh the things I do for England" or "I thought Christmas only comes once a year"
14. I didn't
15. It is a plot hole, the ending is impossible because there is no logical reason why the Nazis would have laid down their guns, all of our heroes should have been dead. That is a major story flaw
16. He was a very pathetic attempt at comic relief, he was the bumbling buffoon that is typically in children's movies.
17. And she just happened to have the diary? How did Indy know she'd have it? Again out of an entire city he's look for one tiny book, that should require some actual effort.
I think your standards for entertaining cinema are quite low but that's just me.
You just insulted the mass majority of critics and audiences. Your standards are no better or worse than anyone's, they are simply your opinion. Therefore do insult someone's standards because they disagree.
shareDidn't insult anyone, that was just my personal opinion. I think you need to get over it and accept the fact that I have very legitimate concerns about this film such as the ending being impossible.
shareI think your standards for entertaining cinema are quite low.
I didn't ask for your opinion on the film. Which by the way all awful points you made. I don't care to hear your opinion on it after you drone on and on about a Mickey Mouse joke that literally took a minimal amount of screen time.
I asked you why does the mass majority disagree with you about it? Why does the majority consider it better than temple?
Couldn’t tell you as I am not a mind reader any response I’d give you would just be speculation. All I know is my opinion as do you
shareTell me since when does a continuity error count as a writing flaw?
shareIt's not a continuity error it's a huge plot hole because it makes the entire ending impossible. That is a HUGE problem.
shareEven if the Mickey Mouse joke and every other complaint I mentioned was fixed the movie would still be a pile of garbage because the ending wouldn't be possible.
shareIf I remember correctly, Sallah ordering the shocked Germans and Arabs to drop their guns was STRAIGHT AFTER Indy's father was saved by the Holy Grail, and they were witnesses to a sacred and holy event. If you were in their place and had just seen such a miracle, would you be willing to commit murder in (as far as they knew) would be the sight and presence of God? I also think that Sallah didn't want to shoot anyone, just disarm them, so he was morally in the right. That's how I see the scene, and I haven't seen the movie for a while.
Watch the scene again all of the soldiers had guns on them, Sallah then grabbed a gun, the Nazis laid theirs down and in the very next shot Sallah's gun is gone. NOTHING changed in between the shots where the Nazis laid their guns down and Sallah's gun disappeared. So no point debunked.
shareNot just yet. I can't find the clip on YouTube and I can't be bothered digging out my Blu-ray of it just yet. But I will keep this in mind when I next watch the movie.
A continuity error. So what?
share1.-2. - entirely your opinion.
3: Yes, there were some childish humour there, but the Mickey Mouse scene was not an example of such. But Temple already established the childish humour anyway, so why are you complaining?
4: When they're going from Austria to Berlin, they have a motorcycle. After they crashland with the plane from the zeppelin, they have a car. Yes, this car crashes, but we've already seen them steal one car. What makes you think they can't steal another?
5: No, of course not. This was a silly scene, but surely no more silly than the roller-coaster scene in Temple.
6: You know, you didn't use to think so. In fact, I remember you saying it was the one good thing about the movie. And indeed, the chemistry between Connery and Ford is excellent, an integral reason why this movie is so popular.
7. Again, your opinion. The general consensus is that Temple had the worst acting.
8. What the hell kind of objection is this? So what if he gave away some military equipment? Both sides got what they wanted. It was probably just a loan, anyway.
9. The James Bond franchise has used the Russians for countless movies. How can you possibly claim that using nazis for Crusade was the laziest decision you have ever seen, and expect anyone to take you the least bit seriously?
10.-12. Again, entirely your opinion. One that nobody seems to share.
13. What are you talking about? First of all, Indy was always meant to be a James Bondian type of character. Second, the most obvious example is in the opening scene of Temple, which is the only Bondian scene we ever see Indy in. Third, there is nothing Bondian about "ah, Venice!" And that's not what he said when having sex, either. Then he said, "I love Venice", before Elsa grabs his head and forces him to resume kissing. If anything, the opposite of Bondian.
14. Nothing childish about that dialogue. The use of the term "bed time story" does not make it childish, I have no idea why you would think it would.
15. That's an awfully specific objection, which makes it obvious just how much you're reaching. This is a simple error, you really think you won't find these in the other two movies? Hello, Indy and the uboat, ring a bell?
16. Yes, they made Marcus into a comical sidekick. But you're really exaggerating this point, and only making it obvious how emotional you're getting.
17. Too easy? Did you watch the other two movies? Indy jumps out of a tall building, god knows how many stories up, and just happens to land exactly where Short Round is parked? Indy boards a uboat, and then we cut to the uboat docks with no explanation? Indy just punches a hole through the building where the ark was found, and comes out into the open air? And of all "too easy" things to complain about, why bring THIS up? He went to Berlin because he knew Elsa would be there. He didn't just happen to bump into her, he had been looking for her. She wasn't hiding, so why would it be difficult to find her?
[deleted]
The frying pan didn't bother me, she realistically could have knocked him out with that if she were able to get the edge on him inside that room they went into. The Thuggee guard tossing a hammer on the man's head does bother me however and Spielberg specifically said he threw that in there because he wanted to lighten the mood which is a decision I very much disagree with.
Here's the difference though: The story was the main focus of Raiders and Temple. The story was not the main focus of Crusade, juvenile preschool humor was. I almost feel like the plot didn't even really matter in Last Crusade, all that did were the very pathetic attempts at comedy.
What???? Its the best of the series...lmao...
shareI would have preferred if the franchise just stuck to the dark humor of the first two films instead of inserting kiddie jokes.
"If you are Scotland Yard then I am Mickey Mouse."
I am in the minority but I hate Temple of Doom and consider it the worst Indy film. Yes. I like Crystal Skull more than it. Though Raiders and Last Crusade are the best ones by far. So I disagree. Frankly I think you get easily upset. If you get upset at that you probably can't even stand watching most Marvel movies.
shareI don’t like camp and I don’t like kiddie nonsense which is why I don’t like last crusade, you seem to be just as upset about temple of doom so you have no room to talk. And I’m just not into marvel, the dark knight trilogy will always be the best superhero trilogy to me,
share[deleted]
Mickey Mouse was part of pop culture in those days, so it makes sense.
shareAnd it was intended for children in both the 1930's and 1980's
shareExactly. The butler's flippant way of insulting Indy's intelligence and comparing him with a child.
shareThere are a number of ways they could have gone about it and they could have used a more intelligent reference (such as Jesse Owens) or they could have just not had that joke to begin with as it was poorly acted and was completely inappropriate for an Indiana Jones film. Seriously that was some of the WORST acting I have ever seen.
Last Crusade is a kiddie movie, that is beyond obvious.
If the line was "Barney the Purple Dinosaur" or "A teletubby" would you still feel the same way?
shareThere's only one great movie in this series, and that's the first. The others can't hold a candle to it.
shareTotally agree, temple is at least entertaining and the last two are varying levels of suck
shareI never understood why people think Temple is childish when it got criticized for being too dark and gritty and not PG enough. The critics really hit Temple unfairly imo especially compared to Crusade. I think its a great adventure film and basically epitomizes what Lucas and Spielberg wanted to do in the first place, which was to make a Saturday matinee movie.
shareExactly, Temple of Doom deals with very dark and mature themes like black magic and child slavery while Last Crusade is primarily concerned with Mickey Mouse jokes.
shareIndeed.
shareI remember that scene as Indiana pretending to be French. He was a Scottish Lord, however.
Come to think of it, considering how many languages that Indiana speaks, he couldn't imitate his own father's accent and pass it off. Maybe that speaks of the difficulty (or impossibility) of learning a language above childhood without having an accent.
An obvious attempt of injecting kiddie humour would be having an elephant spraying the protagonist with water, whilst the kid riding it was saying "ha ha, very funny, all wet". However, there was nothing juvenile about this joke. Which was not the mention of Mickey Mouse (how is that supposed to be a joke, anyway?), but the fact that Indy attempted a disguise, failed miserably and essentially said, "ah screw it" and punched the doorman's lights out instead. That's the joke. And it went right over your head.
Incidentally, a variation of the same joke was seen in the last Bond film, Spectre, when a doorman asks Bond's identity and Bond replies "Mickey Mouse" before knocking him out. Was that an attempt at kiddie humour, too? If not, why not?
Wtf is this BS false outrage?
shareNot a false outrage, that line is horrendously bad. If the remainder of LC was just as good as Raiders (which it's nowhere close to) but they left that line in then LC would still suck.
shareThere is nothing wrong with the butler mentioning Mickey Mouse.
shareEverything about that line and that scene was wrong
shareIts just a turn of phrase , pretty much any name could have been inserted.
and there's nothing wrong with Mickey mouse being the name chosen, that dosent mean , well, all the bullshit they were arguing about above.
Its not not a joke about mickey mouse
its not a children level mickey mouse joke
its not even a joke!
something the OP seems to have missed
It's a childish, juvenile, and pathetic attempt at kiddie humor.
Let's just look at the regression of this series:
- In the first movie we have "Yes I know you will" and a scene where people's faces melt
- In the second movie we have "kill the pig, flay his skin" and a scene where a guy's heart is removed
- In the third film we have "If you are Scottish Lord then I am Mickey Mouse"
It's beyond obvious that Spielberg was feeling the heat from the complaints that Temple of Doom was way too dark and violent that he made a kiddie film that completely removed the tension and dark themes and subject matter that the first two had.
possibly he did, but that mickey mouse line has nothing to do with it.
He could equally have said "If you are Scottish Lord then I am Hitler" (or some porn star)
and it would have made the same point
How does just mentioning mickey mouse make it "a childish, juvenile, and pathetic attempt at kiddie humor."
Its well known sarcastic expression in which people insert the name of a random celebrity to indicate they think the other persons position as false.
FFS at the end of "Full metal Jacket" they sing a mickey mouse song , does that mean the brutal depiction of the vietnam war was a kids film?
what y'all are missing here is "context"
Actually it does, the line was originally supposed to be "then I'm Jesse Owens". Now first of all that kind of humor just doesn't belong in an Indiana Jones film, it's too childish and stupid but Spielberg actually changed the line to Mickey Mouse because he was told that young children wouldn't know who Jesse Owens was but why he was compromising his creative integrity for young children just shows that he was dumbing the movie down and was making a kiddie film while the first two had dark and mature themes.
sharefair enough. Arnt they all PGs anyway? albeit nobody face melts are heart gets removed in the 3rd one.
Doesent that knight age hundreds of years and turn to dust? thats pretty scary.
also, its barely humour , its just a well known expressionused to express disbelief.
also theres plenty of childish crap in the first two, like when Indies feet are burning , and he wants water , then water comes. very slapstick.
No, Donovan aging wasn't scary at all. And back then PG wasn't strictly just kids, PG actually meant something back then it was a middle ground between something appropriate for all audiences and something not appropriate for kids. PG today is worthless.
Nothing in the first two was even in the same ballpark of childishness as the Mickey Mouse joke, NOTHING.
Let's just look at the regression of this series:
- In the first movie we have "Yes I know you will" and a scene where people's faces melt
- In the second movie we have "kill the pig, flay his skin" and a scene where a guy's heart is removed
- In the third film we have "If you are Scottish Lord then I am Mickey Mouse"
It's beyond obvious that Spielberg was feeling the heat from the complaints that Temple of Doom was way too dark and violent that he made a kiddie film that completely removed the tension and dark themes and subject matter that the first two had.
"You can't do this to me I'm an American" wasn't a bad line and it only lasted about 2 seconds, same with "OKey Dokey Dr. Jones", and considering that was actually coming from a child it made sense. The Mickey Mouse joke though is indefensible.
Temple was not a kiddie film, if you are trying to make a kiddie film you don't include a voodoo doll torture scene, or lines like "kill the pig, flay his skin, drink his blood". Last Crusade was very much a kiddie film, just look at what they did to Marcus, he was a bumbling idiot so that the movie could appeal to preschoolers, and of course there are the Mickey Mouse jokes. Last Crusade has nothing for mature audiences, in fact it has nothing for anyone over the age of 6.
You can't do this to me I'm an American" wasn't a bad line and it only lasted about 2 seconds
"OKey Dokey Dr. Jones", and considering that was actually coming from a child it made sense.
The Mickey Mouse joke though is indefensible.
Temple was not a kiddie film, if you are trying to make a kiddie film you don't include a voodoo doll torture scene,
or lines like "kill the pig, flay his skin, drink his blood".
just look at what they did to Marcus, he was a bumbling idiot so that the movie could appeal to preschoolers
and of course there are the Mickey Mouse jokes.
Last Crusade has nothing for mature audiences
in fact it has nothing for anyone over the age of 6.
Doesn’t matter, everything about that scene was wrong and it’s reflective of the childish nature of last crusade.
Same reason why there’s a child in the Shining. Having a child doesn’t mean it’s a movie aimed at children. Last Crusade didn’t have a child aside from the first 8 minutes and it was very childish.
Stop lying I have proven that LC has Mickey Mouse jokes
The later Harry Potter films I would argue were not for children nice failed attempt though kid. The entire tank chase was slapstick, very childish and stupid.
Fine we have “Kali ma protects us we are her children we pledge our devotion to her with an offering of flesh and blood” yeah that’s not the kind of thing you’d let your preschool class watch but the Mickey Mouse joke was aimed at preschoolers along with the rest of LC
Epic fail son
It's a childish, juvenile, and pathetic attempt at kiddie humor.
No , its a common english expression used by adults to adults, and nothing at all to do with children
So then why choose to incorporate Mickey Mouse into this?
shareBecause the German guy could tell Indy was an American doing a poor imitation of a Scottish accent and therefore compared himself to an American Icon. Would you have preferred he say, "If you are Scottish Law then I am Franklin Roosevelt!"?
shareI'd prefer he didn't make such an asinine comment but Franklin Roosevelt would have been less bad.
shareStill, it seems like a stupid thing for the TC to insist the movie sucks just because of that one line. It's like saying you hate First Blood because they showed a Dairy Queen in it.
shareNot really , we didn't have to hear the Dairy Queen speak, plus the film took place in a town that had a Dairy Queen. If the deputies were dressed up like Mickey Mouse then you might have a point.
shareFrankly I like this movie and I think you and the TC are huge nitpickers and frankly I never ever would want to watch a movie with either of you.
shareIt's a 30-year old movie, and the OP is still whining because there was one joke about Mickey Mouse.
shareit wasnt even a joke about Mickey Mouse.
He's just upset that Mickey Mouse was mentioned , for some reason
to be fair the OP is long gone , others haver picked up the baton
No, it's the same guy. MovieChatUser497 is HungryHippo, originally UltimateHippo. He just seems to get banned a lot.
shareThe point of this website is to discuss movies, no one ever said it had to be positive. Grow up.
shareGrowing older is optional, growing up is optional.
shareThe point of this website is to discuss movies, no one ever said it had to be positive. Grow up.
I have made plenty of arguments which you haven't been able to intelligently debate, that's a sign that your position isn't strong. You might want to rethink your approach kiddo.
share