i appreciate your standpoint - i honestly do - but for every point you're making there's an equally compelling counterpoint which, to me, places the 'stupid' in a totally different light.
it's easy to accuse a second sequel of lacking originality - in many ways that's the point. it's like accusing rich people of having more money than most - that's the point...
one person's "sappy hollywood" ending is shit. to others it's a classic end to a story which leaves some room for the imagination and pays tribute to certain epic westerns. or whatever.
the young indy sequence wasn't an implication that he'd been an adventurer since childhood - it was a clear statement of that fact. in the previous movies, there was no explanation of how he came to be the modern day swashbuckling hero we all love so i, for one, thought it was great that they went back and developed that part of the character. most (mainstream) movies go beginning-middle-end. wiht these, we get middle-beginning-end. they show a little originality and still you criticise them.
one person's "laughable in the wrong way" is "laughable in the right way".
etc.
i, also, could go on and on.
not good or bad. just differences of opinion, that's all.
alasdair