How to fix Temple of Doom

[pellman]

There is a lot to love about Temple of Doom, especially with its dark tone. However, there are a number of problematic scenes which undermine the credibility of the film. What I mean by "credibility" is the ability of the viewer to feel apprehension because he "believes" that the characters are in danger. So for example, the roller-coaster-mine chase is thrilling and fun, but it goes over the top and ruins its own credibility in some parts, especially by having the car jump from one track to another.

This is why the truck scene in Raiders is so much more thrilling -- it's believable. Not that it necessarily would actually work in real life, but that, because of artful presentation, the viewer does not doubt it while he is viewing it. He is caught up in it precisely because it is believable and vice versa.

So to fix Temple of Doom and give it the edge which Raiders had would require little more trimming away the parts where they go over the top and slipping in a little filler.

The following scenes ruin the effect of the whole movie because, being ridiculous, they increase the viewer's awareness that he is watching a movie.

(1) The pilots ditching a perfectly good airplane just to kill Jones. Instead, they briefly fight, Indy gets the better of them and they flee the plane. Instead of being out of fuel, the plane is damaged during the fight and is slowly going down.

(2) The fall from the cliffs in the raft. The jump from the plane and landing a slope could work with a little editing, but the fall from the cliff has gotta go. It caused my 8 year old son to ask in exasperation, "How could anyone survive that?!?!"

(3) The gross-out dinner. Either get rid of it entirely or make it more believable. It can still be funny using stuff people actually eat.

(4) The mine chase. Cut out the jump from track to track, maybe a few other little things.

(5) Running scared around the jungle wearing a only blanket, jumping at everything that moves. And never a bare breast in sight? Unbelievable. Hey, since we're going PG-13 for this gig ...



The heart extraction and voodoo doll work though. Because they're MAGIC and the viewer doesn't expect realism. They work for the same reason a film like the Excorcist works.

[Rocket Surgeon]

This is why the truck scene in Raiders is so much more thrilling -- it's believable. Not that it necessarily would actually work in real life, but that, because of artful presentation, the viewer does not doubt it while he is viewing it. He is caught up in it precisely because it is believable and vice versa.

...great way of putting that...

[slingshot]

in answer to your thread. WHY!???

[Dayne]

The heart extraction and voodoo doll work though. Because they're MAGIC and the viewer doesn't expect realism. They work for the same reason a film like the Excorcist works.

Raiders never had MAGIC until the end though so in a way this still creates less tension because it is far less believable than most of Raiders. I completely agree with your other points (exception being the dinner scene; I like it the way it is), but in addition I think the magic (mostly the voodoo) would have to go.

Though, all this would make Temple of Doom more "believable" with more tension, it would sacrifice it's pulpness, which wouldn't be an improvement for me.

[Rocket Surgeon]

in answer to your thread. WHY!???

To start, the plane exploding looked like crap, I would invite some digital reworking.

The Pancot Palace courtyard was a pretty sparse set...lifeless.

The Indy whip "wire work" as he gets to the floor of the Temple.

The matte painting of the cliff wall as they escape the mines looks crappy too.

That's just a start, and only visual effects.

Wait till we get to the story flaws, the "acting" and more!


Raiders never had MAGIC until the end though so in a way this still creates less tension because it is far less believable than most of Raiders.The tension leads UP to this point. The end was just that...a spectacle to release that tension. Finales don't create tension.

[darthsidious42]

TOD doesn't need any fixing.
Indiana Jones movies are not gritty and realistic. They are supposed to be over the top. The truck scene in Raiders was cool but it is not at all realistic, I don't see a whole lot of difference between that and the mine cart chase from TOD.
I don't care how you present it, a guy being dragged under a truck on a rocky dirt road driving 40 miles an hour has zero realism.

[Lonsome_Drifter]

ToD does not need fixing. Yes, it is over-the-top (Bill Hurley rules!), but so were the serials that inspired the movies, and so were the pulp stories that inspired the serials.

I could say when Indy and Marion are thrown into the pit with thousands of snakes was over-the-top. I mean, try that with anyone and I bet they would get bit.
I could say alot of things in all four of the movies were over-the-top.

Sure there are scenes in ToD that bother me some, but it does not need fixing IMO.

[Dayne]

The tension leads UP to this point. The end was just that...a spectacle to release that tension. Finales don't create tension.

That's my point. Temple had all this MAGIC throughout so it was harder to build tension throughout.

[lao che & sons]

The over-the-topness is what makes these movies so great in the first place. That is what these movies are BASED on in the first place!! The action/adventure saturday matinee films. I love the ski-jump scene, the airplane jump scene, the heart ripping, the screaming scene, the TEMPLE OF DOOM!! And there doesn't need to be nudity there. I never once thought of that until now and I think most people didn't think about that either. Besides they would've rated it R if it had nudity. But perhaps it did need a scene to replace the digusting dinner. I think if they had added in all of the deleted scenes and cut out this one then this movie would be perfect.:D

[Rocket Surgeon]

That's my point. Temple had all this MAGIC throughout so it was harder to build tension throughout.

Sorry you're talking about Temple!:o

The over-the-topness is what makes these movies so great in the first place. That is what these movies are BASED on in the first place!!

For love of God! Go read the story conference transcript!

[Dayne]

Sorry you're talking about Temple!:o

No worries. I apologize as well; I could have worded it better.

[pellman]

One more thing. The alligators. My 8 year old son watched TOD today for the first time and said right away, "Alligators! They used alligators? This supposed to be India!"

Just unnecessary. A long fall and rocks is enough.

Though, to echo one of the replies above, it does add to the pulpiness.

[MaverickKing]

TOD doesn't need any fixing.
Indiana Jones movies are not gritty and realistic. They are supposed to be over the top. The truck scene in Raiders was cool but it is not at all realistic, I don't see a whole lot of difference between that and the mine cart chase from TOD.
I don't care how you present it, a guy being dragged under a truck on a rocky dirt road driving 40 miles an hour has zero realism.

Seconded. Temple of Doom may have moments I don't like - like the shocking effects when the Indian guy goes into the pit of lava, which is INCREDIBLY fake - but it's still a wonderful movie regardless. Even with Willie Scott.

[Zeppelin]

Willie "you're about to die and I just broke a nail" Scott is the only aspect of the movie I have a problem with. I guess I might have trimmed down the jungle travel scenes a bit. There are effects that could be better (as Rocket Surgeon mentioned) but it's not a significant issue for me.

[Perhilion]

Any attempt to change the movie would probably just ruin it. Look at the re-released Star Wars trilogy.

[MaverickKing]

Perhilion raises a good point. Even if we could alter the Indiana Jones films to "improve them", would we want to?

I wouldn't want to take a nip-tuck approach to our memories, like George Lucas did with Star Wars. HAN FIRES FIRST!

[Robyn]

To start, the plane exploding looked like crap, I would invite some digital reworking.

The Pancot Palace courtyard was a pretty sparse set...lifeless.

The Indy whip "wire work" as he gets to the floor of the Temple.

The matte painting of the cliff wall as they escape the mines looks crappy too.

That's just a start, and only visual effects.

Wait till we get to the story flaws, the "acting" and more!


The tension leads UP to this point. The end was just that...a spectacle to release that tension. Finales don't create tension.

You said pretty much what I was gonna say lol The exploding plane was probably the worst of the special effects, it was actually embarrassing to watch that part lol

Perhilion raises a good point. Even if we could alter the Indiana Jones films to "improve them", would we want to?

I wouldn't want to take a nip-tuck approach to our memories, like George Lucas did with Star Wars. HAN FIRES FIRST!

Well I don't think I'd mind them fixing the horrible exploding plane into the side of the mountain..

[Robyn]

There is a lot to love about Temple of Doom, especially with its dark tone. However, there are a number of problematic scenes which undermine the credibility of the film. What I mean by "credibility" is the ability of the viewer to feel apprehension because he "believes" that the characters are in danger. So for example, the roller-coaster-mine chase is thrilling and fun, but it goes over the top and ruins its own credibility in some parts, especially by having the car jump from one track to another.

This is why the truck scene in Raiders is so much more thrilling -- it's believable. Not that it necessarily would actually work in real life, but that, because of artful presentation, the viewer does not doubt it while he is viewing it. He is caught up in it precisely because it is believable and vice versa.

So to fix Temple of Doom and give it the edge which Raiders had would require little more trimming away the parts where they go over the top and slipping in a little filler.

The following scenes ruin the effect of the whole movie because, being ridiculous, they increase the viewer's awareness that he is watching a movie.

(1) The pilots ditching a perfectly good airplane just to kill Jones. Instead, they briefly fight, Indy gets the better of them and they flee the plane. Instead of being out of fuel, the plane is damaged during the fight and is slowly going down.

(2) The fall from the cliffs in the raft. The jump from the plane and landing a slope could work with a little editing, but the fall from the cliff has gotta go. It caused my 8 year old son to ask in exasperation, "How could anyone survive that?!?!"

(3) The gross-out dinner. Either get rid of it entirely or make it more believable. It can still be funny using stuff people actually eat.

(4) The mine chase. Cut out the jump from track to track, maybe a few other little things.

(5) Running scared around the jungle wearing a only blanket, jumping at everything that moves. And never a bare breast in sight? Unbelievable. Hey, since we're going PG-13 for this gig ...



The heart extraction and voodoo doll work though. Because they're MAGIC and the viewer doesn't expect realism. They work for the same reason a film like the Excorcist works.

I've got plenty of Tod complaints (just ask drifter lol) but I disagree with you on almost everything you said lol


I like the cart jump lol

The female audience does not want to see Willie's boobs! And like someone else said there doesn't need to be any nudity in an Indy film!

And the heart ripping and the voodoo are some of the things I hated! That's what I would have taken out!

[pellman]

I was kidding about the nudity.

[Bjorn Heimdall]

Cut out the dinner scene? That's crazy talk. I love that scene. Then again, I do eat sheepheads.

[Lance Quazar]

That's my point. Temple had all this MAGIC throughout so it was harder to build tension throughout.

Seriously...?

Uh, the magic CREATED the tension!

What's scarier, a dude TEARING A BEATING HEART OUT OF A CHEST or just a bunch of guys standing around praying?

[Dayne]

Seriously...?

Uh, the magic CREATED the tension!

What's scarier, a dude TEARING A BEATING HEART OUT OF A CHEST or just a bunch of guys standing around praying?

Sure I found that bit scary... back when I was five. Dude, even my little cousin who's a seven-year-old girl didn't find that scary. She actually found that cool. To me, the mystery of the unknown is far more frightening than MAGIC happening right on the screen before my eyes. The imagination is fear's greatest weapon. So in a way I definitly think the latter is scarier (in the respective circumstance of course). Because there's an uncertain potential there.

[Saber79]

I like it the way it is. No changes needed, the flaws just add to the mystique of the movie in my opinion.

[garzo]

I love Temple of Doom, maybe not as much as Raiders, but for me it's a classic and probably the most quotable of all the Indy films. When I first saw it in the cinema, though, there were a few things I really didn't like. Shortround was one. I did not like that bad-ass Indy now had a tyke sidekick. I didn't like the voodoo aspect because, even as a kid, I associated voodoo with the African and Caribbean cultures and it seemed out of place in a Hindu setting (I may be wrong about this -- for all I know voodoo dolls may have been a favorite instrument of black magic among Thuggees.)

And I found the young boy maharajah really annoying and wished they would have had an older, tougher, more sinister maharajah instead. Those were my nitpicks as a teenager but now I love it as is.

The only thing that sill irks me is the fact that they made this a prequel. In Raiders, while he's packing his bags and discussing the Ark, Indy tells Marcus: "I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus. I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man."
After experiencing what he did at Pankot Palace, would Indy still be such a sceptic when it comes to "magic and hocus pocus" just a few years later?

[DocWhiskey]

The only thing that sill irks me is the fact that they made this a prequel. In Raiders, while he's packing his bags and discussing the Ark, Indy tells Marcus: "I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus. I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man."
After experiencing what he did at Pankot Palace, would Indy still be such a sceptic when it comes to "magic and hocus pocus" just a few years later?

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I often wondered that too. I assume the beards sort of "forgot" about that line in RotLA when making ToD. But the way I see it is Indy is a pretty stubborn guy and is going to believe what he wants to believe. So after all the events of ToD I could see Indy shrugging off the "hocus pocus" aspects of his experience and coming up with reasonable excuses for what happened.

For instance, Pankot Palace laced all their food with LSD.:p

[garzo]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I often wondered that too. I assume the beards sort of "forgot" about that line in RotLA when making ToD. But the way I see it is Indy is a pretty stubborn guy and is going to believe what he wants to believe. So after all the events of ToD I could see Indy shrugging off the "hocus pocus" aspects of his experience and coming up with reasonable excuses for what happened.

For instance, Pankot Palace laced all their food with LSD.:p

True, Indy did experience a pretty bad trip after being forced to drink that potion from the skull goblet.

[Darth Vile]

True, Indy did experience a pretty bad trip after being forced to drink that potion from the skull goblet.

Indy also witnessed the Sankara stones spontaneously combust when he spoke his incantation. The bottom line is that whilst these can be labelled as plot holes/narrative flaws, it shouldn’t really matter in the scheme of things.

[pellman]

This would be unnecessary but very cool. Since ToD was so strongly influenced by Gunga Din anyway, they could have made it be both a prequel to Raiders and a sequel to Gunga Din by making some explicit references to the events in Gunga Din.

[garzo]

Indy also witnessed the Sankara stones spontaneously combust when he spoke his incantation. The bottom line is that whilst these can be labelled as plot holes/narrative flaws, it shouldn’t really matter in the scheme of things.

Indeed, Dr. Jones is a university professor of archaeology, and therefore a skeptical chap.

[Stoo]

This would be unnecessary but very cool. Since ToD was so strongly influenced by Gunga Din anyway, they could have made it be both a prequel to Raiders and a sequel to Gunga Din by making some explicit references to the events in Gunga Din.Cool to see another "Gunga Din" fan on here!:hat:

While that makes for a fun idea it wouldn't really work considering the events in "Gunga Din" are fictional. There was no Thug conflict in c.1895. Obviously, the Indy movies embellish & create their own versions of ancient legends (and false situations such as Germans in 1936 Egypt) but referencing a relatively modern work of fiction from the 20th century would've been a bit out of place. "No one has seen this in 40 years" doesn't resonate quite as well as "in a hundred years" and would have diminished some of the mystique.

One improvement could have been Indy mentioning Col. William Sleeman at the dinner rather than (or in addition to) Lord Clive. The line "the time of Clive" is technically correct because the Thuggee existed then, however, they didn't come to the attention of the British until about 30 years after Clive had died.:dead: Sleeman would have been a much more appropriate name-drop. (This is a very minor quibble).

If the "How to fix?" question was asked back in '84, my reply would have been, "Get rid of the little, Chinese kid!" I disliked the fact that there was a kid in Indy 2 but, over the years, Mr. Round grew on me which just goes to show how opinions can change over time.:) (Please don't take offense to this, pellman, because I was a bit xenophobic back then.:o) I'm sure you recall at that point, within our small IndyWorld (Raiders/Marvel comics), children were not main characters in the stories. Those were either adults or students...so on opening day of "Doom", when it became apparent that Shorty was along for the ENTIRE ride...I was, like, "Oh, NO!":eek:

Leave the movie as it is. For those complaining about "crap effects": It was a product of its time from the LEAD company of its time. Suspend your disbelief and don't sweat it.:whip:

*There is a connection to "Gunga Din" (the film) in "Mystery of the Blues". Anyone know what it is?

[pellman]

Cool to see another "Gunga Din" fan on here!

I'll go one further. GD doesn't top Raiders but I think it is a better film than the rest of the Indy series.

While that makes for a fun idea it wouldn't really work considering the events in "Gunga Din" are fictional.

Unlike Temple of Doom?

(Am I making a faux pas? You know, the way Sherlock Holmes fans are not supposed to make mention of Holmes being fiction to each other. Sorry, if I am.)

[DocWhiskey]

Unlike Temple of Doom?

(Am I making a faux pas? You know, the way Sherlock Holmes fans are not supposed to make mention of Holmes being fiction to each other. Sorry, if I am.)

Actually, sir, Temple of Doom is a documentary......









:p

[Meerkat]

Willie's dance scene. I don't know where that tap-dancing stage came from...wasn't it just a dragon's head on the stage in the beginning? :confused:

[Lonsome_Drifter]

Willie's dance scene. I don't know where that tap-dancing stage came from...wasn't it just a dragon's head on the stage in the beginning? :confused:

LMAO, I've always wondered the same thing!