Mandatory Indy DVD thread.

[GarageGothic]

There are no commentary tracks on the US versions of the Indy collection either, right?

I never buy DVDs without commentaries, they're usually the best part of the bonus stuff, even when they're bad (did anyone listen to John Woo's Mission: Impossible 2 commentary? It's hilarious - it's as if he's talking about a completely different movie, insisting that it's about romance, not action). And on Kevin Smith movies they are even funnier than the movie itself.

*GG goes home to listen to the six(!) commentary tracks on the Rules of Attraction disc he purchased yesterday*

[DGMacphee]

Barcik: The movie The Freshman was a total rip-off of the Godfather, except they turned the Godfather into a comedy.

I count parody as a total rip-off.

---------------

As for Raiders, I do see it as a classic, and here's why:

* One of the most prolific directors (Spielberg) made it.

* Three of Hollywood's most talented writers (Lucas, Kaufman, and Kasdan) conceived it.

* It was nominated for eight Oscars in 1981, including Best Picture -- Not only that, it won four plus recieved a special award for sound effects editing (A category not introduced until 1988).

* It's ranked #16 in the top 250 films on IMDB.

* It's ranked #60 on the top 100 films for the American Film Institute.

* Indiana Jones was also ranked #2 in the AFI's top 50 Heros list (#1 was Atticus Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird).

* It's also ranked #10 on the AFI's top 100 Thrillers (Also Harrison Ford starred in 4 films in this list, as did Claude Rains).

* It's part of Roger Ebert's Great Movies list.

* The movie scored a 96% FRESH rating on www.rottentomatoes.com, which is a website that collects reviews from all critics and compiles an average rating (and an average of 96% is fucking good!)

* Indiana Jones's kangaroo-hide bullwhip was sold in December, 1999 at Christie's auction house in London for $43,000.

* The jacket and hat that 'Harrison Ford' wore throughout the series are on display at the Smithsonian.

* The films pays tribute to other classic films of the past -- For example, the final shot is actually a homage to one of the final shots in Citizen Kane.

* John Williams' theme song is one of the most recognisable theme songs ever and his music has been nominated in all three films -- plus the soundtrack has been given an average of 4/5 stars on filmtracks.com and a 5/5 on amazon.com

* Raiders of the Lost Ark spawned two successful sequels, a TV series based upon Indy's exploits as a child, two platform games, two adventure games, and two 3D actioners.

I think all the above (the talent, the awards, the top listings, the top reviews, the memorabilia, the homage to past films, the off-shoots, etc) proves Raiders of the Lost Ark is a classic film!

[Timosity]

Or there's just good marketing, and as usual all awards are doctored in some way (plus the way they are chosen, it's just a popularity contest, and the oascars are totally illegitamate [it's just who the academy want to promote/exploit in the near future]), a bit of money here and there, and Bradman's average was 99.94,

All those statistics mean shit, except Bradman's

But it was still an Awesome movie, I don't need stats to back that up. (cause I only have to convince myself)

But personally I never read reviews or watch many previews before I see a movie (obviously I need to hear something about it to know it exists) but It's much better when you don't have to judge it by hype or what other people have said, and can just see it for what it is, and make up my own mind.

It's hard to escape hype with some movies, but they're the ones I usually ignore till atleast video, sometimes even free to air tv, and then I often say "Damn, I wish I saw that at the movies" So hype can be damaging in that way, for me.

I'm not a big movie goer, since 90% of movies that come out are shit, and some of the ones that don't are awesome, go hire Ravenous, Robert Carlyle is so friggen evil, top actor.

[SSH]

* One of the most prolific directors (Spielberg) made it.

Ummmm.... being prolific isn't necessarily a good thing: it just means yo umade a lot. Now, Speilberg is a great director, but that aint what you said.

* Three of Hollywood's most talented writers (Lucas, Kaufman, and Kasdan) conceived it.

Lucas a great writer? His dialogue is infamous.

* It was nominated for eight Oscars in 1981, including Best Picture -- Not only that, it won four plus recieved a special award for sound effects editing (A category not introduced until 1988).

Is Titanic a great movie?

* The films pays tribute to other classic films of the past -- For example, the final shot is actually a homage to one of the final shots in Citizen Kane.

I count tributes as a total ripoff

[DGMacphee]

Or there's just good marketing, and as usual all awards are doctored in some way (plus the way they are chosen, it's just a popularity contest, and the oascars are totally illegitamate [it's just who the academy want to promote/exploit in the near future]), a bit of money here and there, and Bradman's average was 99.94

I think the combination of the numerous aspects of the film I've discussed (awards, critical evaluation, talent, and spin-offs), you'll see that it's a bit more than just good marketing.

Also keep in mind that the majority of Oscar winning (an nominated) films get remembered more so than films that don't get any nominations.

So, they do count for something.

Ummmm.... being prolific isn't necessarily a good thing: it just means yo umade a lot. Now, Speilberg is a great director, but that aint what you said.

But you've essentially proven my point anyway, so why be critical and mince with my words?

It's pretty pedantic if you ask me.

But it's also hypocritical, if you'll read my next response.

Lucas a great writer? His dialogue is infamous.

Then you obviously have never seen THX-1138 or American Graffiti.

Also, writing a screenplay isn't just dialogue -- There's character, story, action, movement and subtext, which are facets where Lucas excells.

Also, keep in mind I said "conceived" by three of the most talenter writers -- Lucas didn't actually write it but came up with the story (One of Lucas' stronger points) with Phil Kauffman.

Kasdan wrote the script, including dialogue.

I find it hypocritical that first off you you criticise me for using the wrong word, then in the next breath you don't properly read my actual words in your next response.

It sounds like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Is Titanic a great movie?

What's you're point here?

So you've picked one over-bloated, manipulative tear-jerker when you've ignored the fact that so many quality movies also get nominated (and keep in mind Raiders was a nominee, not a winner for Best picture).

In fact, in the same year as Titanic, you had four great films: LA Confidential, Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty, and As Good As It Gets.

As for Best Picture winners (if you want to go that far), keep in mind for every Titanic you have an American Beauty or a Schindlers List or an Unforgiven or a Silence of The lambs or a Last Emeperor or an Amadeus or a One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest or a Marty or an On The Waterfront.

In fact, let's also look at the year Raiders was nominated -- The Best Pictures for that year were: Chariots of Fire (the winner), On Golden Pond, Atlantic City, Reds, and of course Raiders.

That's some pretty stiff competition for the year.

And even though Chariots took out Best Picture, and Warren Beatty took out Best Direction for Reds, Raiders is still a more well-known film than either the two.

So your whole Titanic theory totally sucks, SSH, because for every Titanic there's about 10 or 20 other worthy films in the Oscar race (Raiders included) that get ignored by people like you.

I count tributes as a total ripoff

I guess you also think O Brother, Where Art Thou is a total rip-off as it's a tribute to Preston Sturges films?

You probably also think Sergio Leone totally rip-offs films as he pays tribute to Akira Kurosawa constantly?

And lets not forget Woody Allen, who's been paying tribute to Fellini for years -- He is a total rip-off master!

Scorsese paid tribute to Godard in Taxi Driver,  Coppola paid tribute to Hitchcock in The Conversation, Jackie Chan paid tribute to Buster Keaton in Project A II -- ALL THESE GREAT FILMS ARE TOTAL RIP-OFFS ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC!

So, fine, let's accept your definition here -- tributes are total rip-offs

But let me tell you something: tributes (and any kind of total rip-offs) aren't a bad thing.

If you think otherwise, you don't know movies, pal.

[quintaros (at work)]

Is Titanic a great movie?

I think so.

As for what constitutes a total rip-off, I'm fine with both homages and parodies.  If a film is good in its own right nothing else matters.

[quintaros (at work)]

On the subject of Academy awards, I would say they are generally a good indicator as to whether a film is worth seeing or not but they're pretty hit-and-miss for predicting which films will be considered classics (the winners at least).  Only time will tell if a film is a classic.

[DGMacphee]

Aye, but it's a factor in consideration for a classic.

People seem to think I'm basing Indy's classic status purely on it's Oscar nominations, which I'm not.

The Oscar nominations play a small part in determining its classic status.

If people who wish to criticise only one point (such as it's Oscar nods), please re-read the entire list because I'm basing my opinion on the total combination of these factors.

I don't see anyone disputing the numerous AFI lists, nor the rottentomatoes.com scoring, nor John Williams' music, nor the memorabilia points (the auction and the Smithsoian inclusion).

No, everyone is SOOO focused on the Oscars because, hey, they're bribed by corperate big-wig producers who want to win a gold statuette.

(By the way, this seems to be ceasing this year as the AMPAS pres, Frank Pierson is cracking down of Oscar 'gift baskets' from producers to Academy members -- Also, MPAA pres Jack Velenti is cracking down on piracy, so VHS screeners will be sent to acdemy members only and none to the press or any other similar agents -- Expect a less marketised and commerical Oscar race this year).

Anyway, my point this: Look at the sum total of my list -- the total combination of those factors make Indy as much a classic film as Casablanca, On The Water Front, The Godfather, Ben Hur, Taxi Driver, or Schindler's List.

It's also what seperates it from non-classic films like, say, The Truth About Cats and Dogs.

[SSH]

Ummmm.... being prolific isn't necessarily a good thing: it just means yo umade a lot. Now, Speilberg is a great director, but that aint what you said.

But you've essentially proven my point anyway, so why be critical and mince with my words?

It's pretty pedantic if you ask me.

Granted!

But it's also hypocritical, if you'll read my next response.

Lucas a great writer? His dialogue is infamous.

Then you obviously have never seen THX-1138 or American Graffiti.

Also, writing a screenplay isn't just dialogue -- There's character, story, action, movement and subtext, which are facets where Lucas excells.

Also, keep in mind I said "conceived" by three of the most talenter writers -- Lucas didn't actually write it but came up with the story (One of Lucas' stronger points) with Phil Kauffman.

Lucas is a great ideas man, that I can agree with. That he is a great writer, I find more difficult to accept.

I find it hypocritical that first off you you criticise me for using the wrong word, then in the next breath you don't properly read my actual words in your next response.

Well, I was trying to check whether you did mean "prolific" as a reason fo rthe movie being great. And what I disagreed with about Lucas was whether he was a great writer which IS what you wrote.

Is Titanic a great movie?

What's you're point here?

Oscars do not a great movie make. However, I do think that Titanic is great. I could quote awards, box-office, etc. but the reason it is great is this: a huge number of people who saw Titanic went back to see it again and again, not just on DVD or Video but in the cinema. The reason they did this is becuase Cameron crafted a movie that could have ended oh so differently if the just got to Leo a bit sooner and the audience wanted to believe that next time they saw the movie, it would. It was also a tragedy and all the best stories are tragedies. Most people who don't like Titanic do so out of Leo-envy.

In fact, in the same year as Titanic, you had four great films: LA Confidential, Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty, and As Good As It Gets.

Of these, only LA Confidential has any greatness. The others are Sentimental, Depressing and Stereotypical and Sentimental respectively. Are you trying to say that Good Will Hunting wasn't as sentimental as Titanic? It had Robin Williams in it!

So your whole Titanic theory totally sucks, SSH, because for every Titanic there's about 10 or 20 other worthy films in the Oscar race (Raiders included) that get ignored by people like you.

I think Raiders is a great movie. I never said it wasn't.

I count tributes as a total ripoff

This was ironic, trying to mock your assertion that all parodies are rip-offs. Sorry that you took it seriously.

But let me tell you something: tributes (and any kind of total rip-offs) aren't a bad thing.

Hmmm, backtracking by trying to redefine a derogatory term you used first yourself, eh?

[DGMacphee]

Lucas is a great ideas man, that I can agree with. That he is a great writer, I find more difficult to accept.

Then like I said, you've obviously never seen THX-1138 or American Grafitti.

Well, I was trying to check whether you did mean "prolific" as a reason fo rthe movie being great. And what I disagreed with about Lucas was whether he was a great writer which IS what you wrote.

No, I said he's talented, which he is.

He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience.

In the last decade or so, he's made poor choices, which is no reflection on his talent as such, just a reflection on his judgement.

Oscars do not a great movie make.

But the majority of great movies do win Oscars

However, I do think that Titanic is great. I could quote awards, box-office, etc. but the reason it is great is this: a huge number of people who saw Titanic went back to see it again and again, not just on DVD or Video but in the cinema. The reason they did this is becuase Cameron crafted a movie that could have ended oh so differently if the just got to Leo a bit sooner and the audience wanted to believe that next time they saw the movie, it would. It was also a tragedy and all the best stories are tragedies. Most people who don't like Titanic do so out of Leo-envy.

Actually, I didn't really care about the whole Leo.

What I cared about was that it was an over-produced, mass-marketed piece of drivell full of plot holes.

But even that was insignificant when I realised that Cameron was exploiting the people on the Titanic for a FUCKING LOVE STORY about two people that didn't exist.

Imagine if Speilberg did the same thing for Schindler's List -- He'd be crucified!

Of these, only LA Confidential has any greatness. The others are Sentimental, Depressing and Stereotypical and Sentimental respectively. Are you trying to say that Good Will Hunting wasn't as sentimental as Titanic? It had Robin Williams in it!

By your logic here, One Hour Photo is a tear-jerker

I don't see how having Robin Williams in it makes a film a sentimental film.

What I am saying is that Good Will Hunting managed to be sentimental (which isn't a bad thing per se) without being an overproduced piece of drivel like Titanic.

It was an indie film at the time -- Affleck and Damon were virtually outsiders to the whole Hollywood system.

But it was an indie film that became a hit, which is a great thing.

The Full Monty -- I don't see what's wrong with this film as it was intelligently written, well directed, and contained some very above-average performances -- Plus, it's was funny.

As Good As it Gets -- Likewise, well written, a great performance by Jack Nicholson, and it was funny.

I think Raiders is a great movie. I never said it wasn't.

So why are you arguing in the first place?

This was ironic, trying to mock your assertion that all parodies are rip-offs. Sorry that you took it seriously.

Hmmm, backtracking by trying to redefine a derogatory term you used first yourself, eh?

Why don't you read the context of what I say before jumping to conclusions and mocking my assertions.

I said that parodies are a rip-off in response to Barcik's claim that the Godfather hasn't been totaly ripped-off.

I didn't mean it in a derogitory sense (and if you'll ACTUALLY READ BACK you'll see I mean that), and to back that up I can include a list of parodies/rip-offs I find funny: The Naked Gun, Austin Powers, Casino Royale, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, etc.

Your problem is you automatically assume I'm being derogitroy when I'm not, and also when I'm phrasing in response to someone else as well (Crap, I wasn't even talking to you, pal).

So don't start pointing the bone, accusing me of backtracking -- I've done nothing of the sort.

So, go mock something else, you psuedo-intellectual!



In fact, let me get this straight: You think Raiders is a good movie, but you're arguing with my points of view on why it's a classic anyway?

You see, your problem is that you just want to argue for the sake for arguing, not because you actually have a conclusive point -- No, no, you just want to pick apart minor details in someone else's argument just because you've got nothing better to do then try and act intelligent.

Well, I've stated the reasons why Raiders is a classic and all exist mutually, as I've said previously.

If that's not good enough for you, fine -- go compile your own list.

But so far, I've responded quite well to all your four arguments-for-the-sake-of-arguing, and my list still stands firm.

See, people like this tick me off -- They act like smartalecs, but never actually come to any conclusive argument thst increases understanding.

Shit, I'd be happier if you were someone who hated Raiders completely and wanted to write down a reason against every point I mentioned in my list.

But even if you did, I've got AMPAS backing up my argument, the AFI, the Smithsonian, John Williams lovers, Roger Ebert, a host of other critics, plus an extensive amount of film knowledge spanning courses and workshops in high school and university.

What have you got to back up your opinion?

Zip -- You provided nothing at all to give your argument any credibility whatsoever!

So, in the words of the great Andy Penis: "I AERS TEH BESTEST AND YOU EAT GRANDPAS SLIPEREY TREETS!!1!!"

[quintaros (at work)]

Aye, but it's a factor in consideration for a classic.

People seem to think I'm basing Indy's classic status purely on it's Oscar nominations, which I'm not.

The Oscar nominations play a small part in determining its classic status.

If people who wish to criticise only one point (such as it's Oscar nods), please re-read the entire list because I'm basing my opinion on the total combination of these factors.

I don't see anyone disputing the numerous AFI lists, nor the rottentomatoes.com scoring, nor John Williams' music, nor the memorabilia points (the auction and the Smithsoian inclusion).

No, everyone is SOOO focused on the Oscars because, hey, they're bribed by corperate big-wig producers who want to win a gold statuette.

The reason I dispute the Oscars as a factor in whether a film is classic or not is that Oscars are handed out within a year of the films release.  A films status as a classic takes time to be established.  Most of your other points on the list were valid because they illustrated that 20 years later Raiders was still in the filmgoing publics mind.

I think its funny that you describe Titanic as an "over-produced, mass-marketed piece of drivel" and then defend the Oscars.  Maybe its just me but I think the Academy Awards ceremony is the most over-produced piece of drivel coming out of the film industry.  But thats the ceremony itself and I guess you're really talking about the awards.

[SSH]

And what I disagreed with about Lucas was whether he was a great writer which IS what you wrote.

No, I said he's talented, which he is.

He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience.

You said he was a talented writer. I assumed that you mean that his talent was in writing by putting those two words next to each other, but you now seem to be saying that he was a writer who has talent in other areas...

Oscars do not a great movie make.

But the majority of great movies do win Oscars

And that is the nub of it. The rest of what you said is about Raiders being great becuase lots of people think its great. Wrong way around. Lots of people think its great becuase it is great. Lots of people thought Ben Johnson was a great athlete, but turned out to be wrong. However, Carl Lewis was agreat athlete and lots of pople thought that too. Cause and effect.

Which is why I was arguing.

But even that was insignificant when I realised that Cameron was exploiting the people on the Titanic for a FUCKING LOVE STORY about two people that didn't exist.

It's the people of Atlanta I feel sorry for, having Victor Fleming explot their city buring down for  a love story, not to mention all those slave who the war was about...

And don't get me started on all those who died in WW2 being exploited by Casablanca...

Of these, only LA Confidential has any greatness. The others are Sentimental, Depressing and Stereotypical and Sentimental respectively. Are you trying to say that Good Will Hunting wasn't as sentimental as Titanic? It had Robin Williams in it!

By your logic here, One Hour Photo is a tear-jerker

I don't see how having Robin Williams in it makes a film a sentimental film.

I wasn't trying to say that all Robin Williams movies must therefore be sentimental, but plenty are:

GWH, What Dreams may Come, Awakenings, Patch Adams, Mrs Doubtfire, Bicentennial Man

Your problem is you automatically assume I'm being derogitroy when I'm not
So, go mock something else, you psuedo-intellectual!

Mea culpa

In fact, let me get this straight: You think Raiders is a good movie, but you're arguing with my points of view on why it's a classic anyway?

You see, your problem is that you just want to argue for the sake for arguing, not because you actually have a conclusive point -- No, no, you just want to pick apart minor details in someone else's argument just because you've got nothing better to do then try and act intelligent.

Well, I've stated the reasons why Raiders is a classic and all exist mutually, as I've said previously.

If that's not good enough for you, fine -- go compile your own list.

But so far, I've responded quite well to all your four arguments-for-the-sake-of-arguing, and my list still stands firm.

See, people like this tick me off -- They act like smartalecs, but never actually come to any conclusive argument thst increases understanding.

Once again, you say "people like this" and you don't know me. And my point was that you are arguing that the effect proves the cause, which seems to have passed you by completely. Argue that Raiders is great because it has good effects but not becuase it won and award for its effects. Howerver, that can be used as evidence that it does indeed have good effects.

What have you got to back up your opinion?

Just logic

[DGMacphee]

You said he was a talented writer. I assumed that you mean that his talent was in writing by putting those two words next to each other, but you now seem to be saying that he was a writer who has talent in other areas...

I said: "He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience."

That includes writing (Unless films just magically appear without a script, which I guess they always do in Hollywood!).

So, stop twisting my words around.

And that is the nub of it. The rest of what you said is about Raiders being great becuase lots of people think its great. Wrong way around. Lots of people think its great becuase it is great. Lots of people thought Ben Johnson was a great athlete, but turned out to be wrong. However, Carl Lewis was agreat athlete and lots of pople thought that too. Cause and effect.

Which is why I was arguing.

We're arguing the same point then.

I brought those "people thinking Raiders is great" as evidence it is a great movie.

I'm not demonstrating cause and effect -- I'm showing that the two are relational, which is also what you're arguing.

Like I said, you're only arguing these pedantic points just for the sake of arguing, probably because you have nothing better to do that to form a REAL argument.

It's the people of Atlanta I feel sorry for, having Victor Fleming explot their city buring down for  a love story, not to mention all those slave who the war was about...

And don't get me started on all those who died in WW2 being exploited by Casablanca...

But Casablanca and Gone With The Wind aren't superficial tales of love.

Titanic was a teen-pop love story -- Jack meet girl, Jack gets the girl (even though he dies, her heart goes on with his memory inside yadda yadda yadda).

But Rick didn't get the girl in the end.

A Rhett ended "not giving a damn" about the girl.

That's worth the exploitation -- both those love stories have substance to them.

Titanic was superficial and you can never exploit something like death for something so superficial.

I wasn't trying to say that all Robin Williams movies must therefore be sentimental, but plenty are:

GWH, What Dreams may Come, Awakenings, Patch Adams, Mrs Doubtfire, Bicentennial Man

Aye, I was just using your method of mocking your arguments without providing any real substance.

Once again, you say "people like this" and you don't know me. And my point was that you are arguing that the effect proves the cause, which seems to have passed you by completely. Argue that Raiders is great because it has good effects but not becuase it won and award for its effects. Howerver, that can be used as evidence that it does indeed have good effects.

I am not arguing that effect has a cause -- you're just being pedantic again i.e. arguing for the sake of arguing.

I said that Raiders is a classic, here is my proof, boom-boom.

I never said Raiders BECAME great because it won Oscars, got put on critics' lists, and all the other reasons I listed, etc, etc.

Like I said, you're just looking for things to argue about.

Now cut it out.

[Las Naranjas]

I'm lifting this in part from my second HSC English exam, but there are many cases of things that are derivative from the start but can still gain a shelf life through the sheer quality of their manufacture.

One of the more incredible cases in point being Shakespere, who never wrote an original plot in his life, many of them preceded him by centuries. I know there's a temptation to limit that success to an wankerish elite, but for the vastly bigger part of the intervening centuries that wasn't economically viable.


I don't think the Indy films pretended at any time to be anything but derivative, so I don't think they can suffer from being ripped off. Moreover, they were well made enough and conscious of their derivative status to work well and have their enduring popularity.

Perhaps Star Wars was initially like that too, only legions of lauding geeks and fame have clouded Lucas' mind with pretensions.

[remixor]

DGM: I don't agree with every factor you listed, but I totally agree with the spirit of your post.  I honestly don't see how anyone couldn't see Raiders as classic, even if they themselves don't particularly enjoy it.  With the amount of love that movie still generates, they sure as hell must have done SOMETHING right.  Or a lot of things.  Well, everything.

[bspeers100]

You said he was a talented writer. I assumed that you mean that his talent was in writing by putting those two words next to each other, but you now seem to be saying that he was a writer who has talent in other areas...

I said: "He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience."

I couldn't find this quote of yours anywhere in this discussion.  You did, however, say this:

Three of Hollywood's most talented writers (Lucas, Kaufman, and Kasdan) conceived it.

By extension, Lucas is "one of Hollywood's most talented writers" -- pure logic.

What SSH was arguing against was the description of Lucas as a "talented writer." That is obvious from context.

You seem to be unable to accept that someone can challenge your method of argumentation without either a. disagreeing in principal or b. being a masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck.

There are reasons to challenge methods of argumentation.  Not the least of which is that bad logical habits repeat, and often cause harm.

The simple fact is that listing acclaims is not the same as saying something is a good product.  By that measure, almost everything David Lynch did was crap and almost everything Spielburg did was great.  It's an important distinction, even if it doesn't challenge the "greatness" of Indy.

BTW, Spielburg has done a lot of really awful things, including cheating Orson Welles when Welles was in poverty, stealing ideas from Kuprick against his family's direct request, breaking Kuprick's dying wishes, and some very poor directorial choices.

Not to say the man isn't an inspired and amazing storyteller, but he obviously puts very little faith in his audience's intelligence--which leads to audiences expecting less from directors.

Anyway, I'm staying out of this now.  I've done this before and it's not terribly rewarding.

[remixor]

To be fair (and I can't be arsed to check if this has been mentioned or not already), Lucas has been nominated for two Oscars for his screenwriting.  Of course, those were both in the 70's.  Of course, Raiders did come out in 81.  Anyway, I'm not trying to start anything here, just throwing that out.

[Jayel_]

Raiders is my favourite movie of all the ones Lucas or Spielberg made so far.   I put it way above Star Wars or Schindler's List.
Today's adventure flicks may have more elaborate plot with better special effects and better action sequences, but nothing matches Raiders in terms of atmosphere, pacing, cinematography, and that little magic that make us actually care about the characters.

[remixor]

Today's adventure flicks may have more elaborate plot

More like "more convoluted and idiotic plots."  Raiders made sense, without being stupid.  It seems like recent adventure movies either have brain-dead plots or plots that are so complicated as to be absurd.

[Las Naranjas]

Formulaic is often used as an insult with film plots, but the fact that Indy's plots stick to a strict formula probably give them an edge over the Tomb Raiders and the likes of this world.