Paden said:
I have to confess to not having read much on the "behind the scenes" production process that was involved in Temple of Doom, but I've long wondered if the film (especially the story/script) was the result of writers focusing only on certain aspects of what made Raiders successful and memorable. It's as though the writer(s) of Temple felt they needed to emphasize action, stunts, narrow escapes, and supernatural horror, and so they created a plot that featured those things in a straight, undistilled form, but in the process they left out the "grand quest", globetrotting framework that was so intrinsic to Raiders, along with some of the character development that accompanied that movie.
Temple has wonderfully choreographed action sequences, over the top chases, and plenty of horrific moments, and in the context of a pure action movie, they work well. The problem, at least for me, is similar to Shakespeare's Macbeth. As lit professors have long said about that particular play, "It's all end." Unlike Hamlet or Lear or several of the bards other tragedies, Macbeth offers no build up. It's all about the downward slide following the protagonist choosing his doomed path. In the other plays, the audience sees the conflict the hero faces, the struggle he undergoes before finally choosing his terrible course and plummeting into darkness. In Macbeth we don't get to see the conflict, just the fall.
In a sense, that's Temple. There's no real build up surrounding the MacGuffin (the Sankara Stones), unlike the cross talk we hear about the Ark of the Covenant from Body, Sallah, and Belloq. Although there are machinations by the villains behind the scenes, we're not provided the same stark sense of their motivations as we get in Raiders, wherein we know that Hitler wants the Ark for its promised invincibility. In fact the danger in Temple feels smaller, much more of a "local" happening than the global plots of Raiders, Crusade and even Crystal Skull. Even the characters lack the connection to Jones that exist in the other movies. There's a real history between Jones and Marian, Sallah, and Brody. By comparison, his ties to Short Round and (obviously) Willie seem pretty shallow.
Temple seemed sharply focused on the action side of Indiana Jones. It's all about action and thrills. In that context, it works. But in lacking some of the elements of the other movies (especially Raiders and Last Crusade) it just seems to lack depth. That doesn't mean it's not a fun ride. It is. I just don't appreciate it as much as some of the other chapters in the saga. To each his own.
I think that's a great analysis and I think you make a lot of good points.
Fact is, you're NEVER going to have the same kind of freshness when you're making a sequel. No matter what. It will never feel as "organic" as the original. Most of the time, sequels feel phony, calculated and pointless.
There are some examples, thankfully, which actually manage to build on the characterizations that were established in the first film - to deepen them and explore the conflicts and personalities in more detail. Those are the sequels that really work on an emotional and dramatic level.
But those aren't the Indy movies. They made a choice to make the series a bunch of "one off" adventures - new prize, new villains, (mostly) new allies each time out of the gate.
I am a huge fan of ToD and I will defend that movie until the end. I think it was definitely the second best of the series.
But I am also keenly aware of its (very real) shortcomings. It definitely has the least character development of the films. Even KOTCS - which I hated - at least TRIED to deepen our understanding of Indy and give him meaningful relationships.
The reason why I put it ahead of LC is because it is a much more fun "ride." LC has charm, humor and wit to spare. Great dialogue, an amusing, but ultimately emotionally satisfying father-son relationship at its core.
But, as an action film, it's largely rubbish. So many of the action sequences in that movie feel by-the-numbers. Even when I saw the film for the first time in theaters, I was bored by most of the Venice boat chase, a lot of the Escape from Brunwald sequence and felt much of the tank chase was lacksadasical and slowly paced.
The movie just didn't "thrill" me. It did entertain me and it supplied more laughs than many straight up comedies. But it didn't leave me on the edge of my seat like "Raiders" and ToD.
And, though LC gave Indy his most fully-developed on-screen relationship, they did a disservice to the Indiana Jones character itself.
Indy wasn't as human and vulnerable and endearing as he had been in the past. Everything came too easily to him, he wasn't as fallible and as relatable and I never really got the sense that he was in much real danger.
LC definitely has a lot going for it and ToD does have some drawbacks.
But, at the end of the day, I want an Indy film to be exciting, suspenseful...dangerous. "Doom" went for broke. LC played it safe.
(And don't get me started on KOTCS.)