Indiana Jones 1-3 vs Star Wars 4-6

Please pretend that Indiana Jones 4 and Star Wars 1-3 do not exist or exist only in ways that highlight the differences with the good ones.
Those trilogies did quite well and have left a mark. I would like to know what you think they had that was so good.

Are there aspects in them that could be improved?
I do think that Star Wars will get more votes than Indiana Jones. The “vs” should be taken mainly as an invitation to analyse them on their own to see what good in them and then compare them.

Star Wars is 2.5 good movies. It loses points for a bad ending, lousy dialogue, and George changing the plot every three minutes. Plus the whole “Special Editions” problem.

Indiana Jones is also 2.5 good movies. It loses points for no continuity, the female lead and sidekick in #2, and the major plot holes involving Nazis in British-controlled territory.

Indiana Jones ends on a high note, with #3 being the best of the trilogy. Star Wars’ best installment was #2, despite the problems of being “Act 2.”

IJ wins for humor. SW wins for iconic characters.

3-3 after triple overtime. Call it a tie.

Star Wars.

Even if SW is only 2.5 good movies, which I’m not sure I entirely agree with, Temple of Doom, while it certainly has its moments, is not even half of a good movie.

The Indiana Jones trilogy’s weakest movie (Temple of Doom) is a stronger movie, overall, than the Star Wars classic trilogy’s weakest entry (Return of the Jedi). Because while I’m not all that fond of Willie Scott (especially when compared to Marion Ravenwood … well, the Marion Ravenwood of the first movie, at least), I’ll still take her over the Ewoks (though I don’t actually hate the Ewoks, especially as compared to the likes of Jar-Jar Binks, Hayden Christensen, and “I’m haunted by the kiss that you should never have given me”).

And despite what you may have read before, the high point of the Indiana Jones trilogy is most definitely Raiders of the Lost Ark.

When I saw Return of the Jedi as a kid, it was the awesomest thing evar. I watch it now and I think, “Eh, not the best, but that’s an exciting movie.”

I can’t say that about Temple of Doom. Therefore, I have to throw my vote to the space cowboys.

Star Wars, but I think the Last Crusade is the best individual movie of either series. It is Spielberg’s best movie and I believe the best movie of the 1980’s.

Still, Star Wars is the better series and maybe the best of all time.

Better years-later sequel? Indiana Jones 4, which I think holds up far better than people give it credit for. I love it, actually. A lot better than Temple of Doom.

Why, what’s so good about the Last Crusade and what’s so bad about Temple of doom? Those two keep coming up.

Indiana Jones and Star Wars both end up dealing with father issues in the third movie. Is that just a coincidence? Do father issues just fit well in a movie?
IJ was based on adventure matinées. What were the major inspiration for Star Wars? Campbell’s myth of the hero was one of them but there must be others.

I’d say the best episode of each franchise (Empire, Raiders) are on par with each other.

The next level, Star Wars significantly eclipses Crusade, which is still good fun.

But while Jedi may get tedious at times, it’s nowhere as detestable as Doom.

Star Wars, easily.

Lucas ripped off everybody for Star Wars. The basic plot of movie #1 was a rehash of Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress. The trench attack was often a shot-by-shot recreation of WW1 dogfighting movies. It was only after the movie was a hit that the whole Campbell mythos was added to the mix.

Daddy issues always fit in a movie about heroes.

Last Crusade was good because it was well-cast, well-written and gave some closure to both leading men. Temple of Doom sucked because it was badly-cast, badly-written, had a stupid leading lady, and involved kids.

I would almost rethink my vote and give the win to Star Wars, but my hatred for ewoks and that fucking “redemption” bullshit ending won’t let me, no matter how bad Temple of Doom was.