Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom?

mrbender

New member
I have noticed a lot of people complaining about it. But personally its my favorite.

Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom? :confused: :D
 
Special effects instead of Stunts.

The "Moonraker" of Indiana Jones movies.

Lawrence Kasdan's comments "I just thought it was horrible. It's so mean. There's nothing pleasant about it. I think ''Temple of Doom'' represents a chaotic period in both their [Lucas and Spielberg] lives, and the movie is very ugly and mean-spirited."

Spielberg: "Indy II will not go down in my pantheon as one of my prouder moments."

Many critics believed it lacked the wit and nerve Lawrence Kasdan had managed to provide in the first film.

Willie Scott.
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
I think it's about the dark side of fandom. As a fan myself, I see these minds at work often. We tend to overthink and worship movies. They are our gospels, our Greek myths, our religion. But, humans still being human, we also have a sheep mentality. See, nobody really complained about Temple Of Doom UNTIL Last Crusade came out. Suddenly, there were two movies very similar (given how much of a rip-off LC was of ROTLA), so TOD simply seemed "wrong" because it was "different". It's pack-animal mentality. We fans (yes, *we*, meaning I too) tend to viciously defend our stories because they are so important to us. Unfortunately, that oftentimes turns us against who and what we should love, too (welcome to religion).

Now, TOD does tend to hinder itself a little bit, leaving itself open for criticism. Mostly, unlike Empire Strikes Back (the oddball compared to the other two Star Wars movies), there isn't an overriding we-can-latch-onto-it mystical element. Probably because it's basically about Hinduism, whose underlying themes are off-key to the larger audience. Western audiences and their preferred feel-good stories are generally based on Christian themes. Heck, even The Force is basically a "faith" as we simplify it. So, TOD doesn't give us that "feel-good-magic" like Yoda's teaching does (I know, technically it does, but we're talking about peer pressure from the mass audience here). In addition, TOD simply suffers from having to follow-up ROTLA -- it's a tough act to follow!

When LC came out, everyone (rightly) praised Connery's chemistry with Ford. That tended to blind them to how much LC was lacking in so many other areas. The sheep-mentality kicked in -- "The stars are great, we're saying it's great, so the whole movie must be great, and Raiders was great and it's the same, so that must be what great is, so, um, TOD, you're different, so you suck". That's pretty much where this general thinking came from. IMHO.

I believe, however, that TOD is vastly superior to LC. In many ways, it's the best Indy movie of them all, the most "pure Indy". Indy's in his element. No school, no family crap, no being in a suit. It's hat, whip and chaos from start to finish. To me, that's what Indy is all about. It's a pity so many people can't bring themselves to enjoy it simply because there aren't Nazis (again) or classrooms (again) or soap opera (again). TOD has a variety that was sorely lacking until KOTCS came out.
 

indyswk

New member
Matt deMille said:
No school, no family crap, no being in a suit. It's hat, whip and chaos from start to finish.

Well, he's in a suit at the beginning.......but point taken.

ToD has two elements which are my absolute favorite: The scene where Indy starts to save the children (starting from around the part a Thuggie guard gets shoved across the floor) and basically whoops everyone's ass almost right till the end, and the accompanying music. I personally I think it's the BEST ever score of an Indiana Jones music by John Williams (after the Raiders march, of course).

In my opinion, ToD is better than KOTCS. The only problem is that it just has a bit too much screaming in it. Scene by scene, I don't think there is much I would want to change or thought it would work better differently, except the screaming part and when they first encounter the worshipping scene (slightly long there. Cut by some 30 seconds would've been OK).

KOTCS has more scenes that I would prefer left out, too many scenes that you think would lead to something but we get nothing.
 

indyswk

New member
Matt deMille said:
See, nobody really complained about Temple Of Doom UNTIL Last Crusade came out.

Oh yes, I do recall some controversy over the depiction of Indians on ToD, and how it wasn't veryu suitable for children. So there were some real complains of it when it came out.
 
I don't hate it, it's just my least favorite. I also don't think it's sheep mentality, at least not for myself. It seems somewhat popular to dislike KOTCS and that one is often cited as being "not as good as the first three" but I disagree because I prefer KOTCS to TOD.

Temple of Doom is still a fun film but to me overall it is just the most average and least impressive of the adventures. I know some people might not like the college scenes and the soap opera aspects (Marion, Henry Sr., Mutt) but I have always liked them. The college scenes are the closest thing we have to Indy having a dual identity on the level with Batman and Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent and Superman, it's the hero with the hat and whip pretending to be just a bookish and nerdy academic. Marion, Henry Sr. and Mutt are all about character development and internal continuity of the series. Unlike the James Bond series Indy is not timeless, he ages as the series goes along.

In Temple of Doom we lack those college scenes that ground Indy and set up the main adventure in some way. Also there is no lasting character development, Short Round is never heard from again and neither is Willy. It is also a prequel for really no good reason, most people besides hardcore fans don't even know its a prequel. I think its a fun movie and I am glad it is a part of the series but from a character development point of view you could skip it and people won't be lost in LC and KOTCS because no aspects of it reemerge.

Also the McGuffin is the least earth shattering. The Ark was captured by the Nazis and could have changed the balance of the world and it ended up being stored in the warehouse by the US government. The Holy Grail also had the potential to help the Nazis change the balance of the world. KOTCS showed aliens/transdimensional beings, truly it would be one of the most amazing discoveries in human history. Sure MolaRam had some vague plot to take over the world with Kali but somehow it didn't across as clearly as the others. Sure Indy saved children and a village and its heartwarming but you don't get the same "Indy saved the world" feeling as with the others.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
mrbender said:
I have noticed a lot of people complaining about it. But personally its my favorite.

Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom? :confused: :D

It's quite obvious that not "everyone" hates TOD.

What's with all the hyperbole?

Case closed.
 

indyswk

New member
chicago103 said:
Temple of Doom is still a fun film but to me overall it is just the most average and least impressive of the adventures. I know some people might not like the college scenes and the soap opera aspects (Marion, Henry Sr., Mutt) but I have always liked them. The college scenes are the closest thing we have to Indy having a dual identity on the level with Batman and Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent and Superman, it's the hero with the hat and whip pretending to be just a bookish and nerdy academic.

The problem here is that in ToD we do see him as a bookish / nerdy acedemic. In the Pankot Palace, where he is having his dinner. And he is well known, being called 'Dr. Jones, the famous archeologist' at first visit. That's his 'college scene' right there, just in a different setting. Because ToD is a prequel, we are introduced Indiana Jones as he is, a world famous archeologist who gets hired to retrieve valuable artifacts, or sells whatever else he chances upon on any expedition to the museum for a price. The museum will 'gladly take it, as usual'. So we know him as somewhat a thief/mercenary in Raiders, and this is confirmed in ToD where he's gotten into life threatening situations before (it's my.... misunderstanding). I don't understand the 'superhero' reference because to me, Indy is always Indy, there is no alter ego or whatever. Anyways, my point is, to me the college scene is somewhat also in ToD.

In Temple of Doom we lack those college scenes that ground Indy and set up the main adventure in some way. Also there is no lasting character development, Short Round is never heard from again and neither is Willy.

This is up to our imagination but it's not hard to figure out that Short Round (being too young to do anything else alone) is adopted by Willy at some point before Raiders. Or is in China with a new foster family. It really is up to our imagination what happened. But as for character development:

a character development point of view you could skip it and people won't be lost in LC and KOTCS because no aspects of it reemerge.

To me, as I mentioned above, ToD is sort of a reaffirmation of the kind of person Indy really is. In KOTCS, there is also charater dev, and that is fine to me, but the problem is the film itself. Why is there a ripping sound as Indy got Mutt's knife? I expected something but nothing. Why did they step on quicksand (yea to establish Mutt as Indy's son but it's weak)? Some of the dialogue are very weak too, compared to the rest of the trilogy. The waterfall should lead to something but.. we see Marion holding the wheel. The tree cutter. The gophers. Etc. Too many anti-climactic scenes. Akator looks like a cave, 5 rooms and a field in between. That kind of things.

Also the McGuffin is the least earth shattering.......Sure MolaRam had some vague plot to take over the world with Kali but somehow it didn't across as clearly as the others. Sure Indy saved children and a village and its heartwarming but you don't get the same "Indy saved the world" feeling as with the others.

Well, it's a weak one, but when I watched it, I felt Indy saved the children, the village, and the also the world. Sure maybe if Indy didn't save it someone else might because MolaRam is quite a weak 'baddie' compared to Nazis and his plan was sure a slow one to rule the world but Indy did save the world nevertheless. In fact, at the end scene, my feelings about it and LC are pretty much the same. Raiders end scene was spectacular though.
 

indyswk

New member
Montana Smith said:
It's quite obvious that not "everyone" hates TOD.

What's with all the hyperbole?

Case closed.

Sorry didn't notice this. But can I just put my personal opinions on it (see above)?
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
ToD is still my favorite Indy adventure. Sure, RotLA is a better movie. Heck, LC is even a better film. But ToD is the Indy movie I pop in when I've had a tough day and just want to watch some mindless fun action. It's just a fun movie meant solely to entertain. It's over-the-top and a bit silly. But in a good way.
 

Matt deMille

New member
indyswk said:
Oh yes, I do recall some controversy over the depiction of Indians on ToD, and how it wasn't veryu suitable for children. So there were some real complains of it when it came out.

What I meant is that FANS didn't dislike it or say it was a weak entry into the Indiana Jones series, until Last Crusade came out. The negative feelings towards Temple of Doom came entirely from the media and myopic-minded parents saying it was evil, wrong for children, etc. Let's not forget that TOD (and Gremlins) established the PG-13 rating. So, the controversy was that aspect of it, not whether it was a quality Indy movie.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Sharkey said:
They twisted an adventure hero into a cartoon.

That may be. But the cartoon element was much more evident in Last Crusade, which most fans seem to adore. Funny, 'cause it's usually the same ones who despise Temple of Doom. Were it not for Temple, then Crusade would not be the film they seem to like so much.
 

Sharkey

Guest
Man you never tire of talking out of you ass do you. Most fans, did the aliens tell you this? You're more arrogant than ME!

Crusade was less a cartoon than Doom.
 
Matt deMille said:
What I meant is that FANS didn't dislike it or say it was a weak entry into the Indiana Jones series, until Last Crusade came out. The negative feelings towards Temple of Doom came entirely from the media and myopic-minded parents saying it was evil, wrong for children, etc. Let's not forget that TOD (and Gremlins) established the PG-13 rating. So, the controversy was that aspect of it, not whether it was a quality Indy movie.

I think its because when TOD first came out people kind of assumed this is what an average Indiana Jones film would be like and that ROTLA as the original is in a league of its own. With LC there was a film more people thought was in the same league as ROTLA and thus TOD looked bad by comparison, the same thing with KOTCS, it is only dissapointing when compared to ROTLA and LC. TOD and KOTCS are good and worthy entries to the series but not great or at least that seems to be the majority opinion.
 

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
Although, Temple was the first Indy film I ever saw and I really enjoyed, when I saw Raiders and Crusade it was clear that Temple was the weakest of them all. Maybe that is because of its darkness. IMHO.
 
Last edited:

AndyLGR

Active member
I dont hate the movie, but its the weakest of the original trilogy for me.

I think it lacks the scope and adventure of Raiders. The story is weaker, just many movie sequels are. I also think the macguffin doesnt have the interest like ROTLA and TLC do.
 

Matt deMille

New member
AndyLGR said:
I dont hate the movie, but its the weakest of the original trilogy for me.

I think it lacks the scope and adventure of Raiders. The story is weaker, just many movie sequels are. I also think the macguffin doesnt have the interest like ROTLA and TLC do.

That is for certain. The Ark and Grail are very well known legends. The Stones were unknown to general audiences and therefore not as important to them. Did Lucas or his writers make those up or are they real? I'm asking rhetorically. I assume that question is what many moviegoers asked themselves, whereas the Ark and Grail were already well known and -- to many -- even "real".

Hmmm, what could the macguffin in Temple been if not those stones? I've always wondered about that.
 
Top