Yet another pointless (except for $$$) reboot

I know.

Cuz I already said I liked National Treasure. >.>

Yeah, that's the reason why I feel sorry for you.

You see I was able to watch Raiders back when it was cool (because no other movie of that franchise already existed that was cooler than it) AND then a few years later I was able to see Last Crusade when it was cooler still.

Basically seeing it "out-of-order" ruined your chance to appreciate that, for its time, Raiders was awesome...

That's kind of what I meant. It was like playing God of War 3 before God of War. I was a little upset that there was more characterization in the third Indy, though, because you'd figure the first film would have more set up. So I was trying to look at it with fresh eyes, but that end up hurting the experience more because I was wondering why I should care about this adventurer guy when I don't know about him and the film doesn't seem interested in remedying that.

"For its time" nothin'. Raiders is still awesome. The kinetic action, the incredible music, the hilarious dialogue... that's why it has staying power.

This.

This. Still a classic and will be for years. Last Crusade was excellent since it had the talent of Sean Connery and he and Harrison Ford were one of those rare teamups that produce some excellent movie magic, kind of like Danny Glover and Mel Gibson (back when he was sane) in the Lethal Weapons.

As for Lara Croft, to me she's just Indiana Jane. Give us a good plot, an artifact worthy of her pursuit and have at it.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

It doesn't seem that difficult, right?

Always made me wonder where they got the parody action-movie heroine they had Jolie playing.

Cuz Indy has action!

Though that may be the way to do it!

They should reboot Tomb Raider, and have Indy show up, old, waering his eye patch, and be like a mentor!

I can't help but think that could be awesome!

Speaking of Inception...all hail Scrooge McDuck

Difference is, Indy was more of a John McClane type of hero where as Jolie's Croft had more in common with bad Steven Seagal movies.

Well to be perfectly honest I probably liked Raiders a bit more than Last Crusade because it was in fact the "original" movie that was good enough to have inspired (so far) 3 sequels.

I really never had the problem with "lack of characterization" that CaptainFoamerang mentioned. Again I think his reaction to Raiders was unusual to say the least because Last Crusade did spend so much time covering the "minor details" of Indy's background. Raiders had already established the core character in a pretty clear and straightforward way by itself. I suppose if you got used to all the extras Last Crusade provided first you might think (like CaptainFoamerang did) that Raiders was "lacking" in detail. Very weird.

Anyway my point still stands: Watching movies "out-of-order" will definitely establish a set of perceptions that will differ from most people's notions. Not really saying that's wrong, just saying that on some level it is unfortunate because you lose the appreciation of seeing the first thing first.

Perhaps instead, they should show Lara's estate or home and in a room she has mementos and souvenirs of her adventures and among the items we see a glass case that contains a brown leather jacket, a fedora, a pistol and a whip......

Be a nice tribute and get people churning up ideas for how Lara could have known Indy.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Well we all know they are working on Indy 5 right? Yes, I know, it's probably a horrible idea. But seriously there could be a scene in that movie where old Indy meets a familar looking teenaged girl at the college who seems very interested in his past exploits. After a few minutes of talking to this young girl he overhears another teacher/adult calling out to her saying something like, "Miss Croft, we're going to be late!" or some-such and she rushes out of the room with a devious smile on her face.

That would be epic.