Crystal Skull Vs Temple of Doom - Which is better?

Lance Quazar

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
ResidentAlien said:
Not by everyone. As I recall it, both Siskel and Ebert called LC boring and derivative. TOD fared much better by some big critics of the time.
Click to expand...

I love the ridiculous hyperbole going on here. "Virtually everyone..." "Derided," etc.

At worst, the movie got mixed reviews with many favorable critics giving it high marks, like the New York Times and Roger Ebert even calling it the "equal" of "Raiders."

I freely admit that KOTCS also got mixed reviews and received accolades from many prominent critics. Neither film received universal praise or universal condemnation.

In subsequent years, particularly after the release of the much more lighthearted LC, it became fashionable to bash "Temple of Doom", but the movie was very, very far from universally derided at the time.

Though my personal experience is entirely anecdotal and hardly scientific, I never heard a disparaging word about "Doom" until years later and I was surprised to learn that many people didn't like it. Heck, I'm still surprised today when I hear that.
 
Major West

Major West

Member
A lot of the criticism that TOD had at the time was that it portrayed women negatively, it was too violent for a family film (its' what caused the PG13 to be introduced) and there were accusations of negative racial stereotypes. Short Round was also the Jar-Jar of 1984. It was not well received generally.

Fans tend to have this rosy red view of the original films as if each one was a treasured masterpiece from the moment they were released but it really isn't the case.
 
Last edited:
Goodeknight

Goodeknight

New member
You have to keep in mind, also, that The Raven members range in age from probably 10 to 60.

I was 13 when Temple came out, and thought it was great. Having been waiting for a new Indy movie, just as I'd waited for new Star Wars movies, it was fantastic to see it in the theater. Only after I got a little older did I start to really rate them, and realize Temple didn't compare that favorably with Raiders or Last Crusade.

And being right at that cusp of PG13 myself, in 1984, I thought the violence and heart ripping were awesome. I was at the perfect age for mild blood and guts and a darker movie.

While Raiders is the obvious top pick, it does come down to personal preference when you rank the others. In this case, it's a battle for last place between Temple and Crystal Skull.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Not by everyone. As I recall it, both Siskel and Ebert called LC boring and derivative. TOD fared much better by some big critics of the time.
Click to expand...

I'd never claim it to be a view held by everyone (I too would state that TLC is more derivative than TOD)... rather a consensus among the media et al that, whilst clearly popular, TOD wasn't to the same high standard as Raiders... which led to a feeling of disappointment... which led to the same type of criticisms that we see leveled at KOTCS. Even so, I'd happily profess that (at the time) TOD was still head and shoulders over the competition (as there was very little else of the genre to compare it to).

Lance Quazar said:
I love the ridiculous hyperbole going on here. "Virtually everyone..." "Derided," etc.
Click to expand...
We’re talking generalisms and perceptions... The point being that, both in 1984 and 2008, there was a general perception that these movies (TOD and KOTCS) were not to the same standard as what had gone before. This is unrelated to whether or not the movies were empirically good.

Lance Quazar said:
Neither film received universal praise or universal condemnation.
Click to expand...
Most movies don’t. Even Star Wars and Raiders had their detractors. After all, they are not considered ‘serious’ movies by many a serious critic.

Lance Quazar said:
Though my personal experience is entirely anecdotal and hardly scientific, I never heard a disparaging word about "Doom" until years later and I was surprised to learn that many people didn't like it. Heck, I'm still surprised today when I hear that.
Click to expand...
That’s perceptions for you… and perhaps, just perhaps, that’s also indicative of the significance the internet/social networking groups now has in shaping opinions when compared to 15/20 years ago. ;)
 
Peru1936

Peru1936

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Not by everyone. As I recall it, both Siskel and Ebert called LC boring and derivative. TOD fared much better by some big critics of the time.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ebert gave Crusade a positive review and 3.5 out of 5 stars:

"What (Spielberg) has done is to take many of the same elements, and apply all of his craft and sense of fun to make them work yet once again. And they do."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19890524/REVIEWS/905240301/1023

Granted, his review for Temple was more positive, with 4 out of 5 stars:

"This movie is one of the most relentlessly nonstop action pictures ever made, with a virtuoso series of climactic sequences that must last an hour and never stop for a second. It's a roller-coaster ride, a visual extravaganza, a technical triumph, and a whole lot of fun."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19840101/REVIEWS/401010348/1023

While Ebert gave Raiders and Temple the same number of stars, the written reveiw for Raiders is more praising (though note the geography mistake in Ebert's listing of the film's settings):

"Raiders of the Lost Ark is a swashbuckling adventure epic in the tradition of Star Wars, Superman: The Movie, the James Bond pictures, and all the other multimillion-dollar special-effects extravaganzas. It wants only to entertain. It succeeds."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19810101/REVIEWS/101010360/1023

And since this is a thread (unfortunately) about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull vs Temple of Doom, Ebert liked his pulp in 2008 just like he liked it in 1984:

"I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you. And I can also say that a critic trying to place it into a hierarchy with the others would probably keep a straight face while recommending the second pound of sausage."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/REVIEWS/969461084/1023

Rotten Tomatoes:

Raiders: 94%
Temple: 85%
Crusade: 89%
Crystal Skull: 77%
 
Last edited:
D

Darth Vile

New member
Peru1936 said:
Rotten Tomatoes:

Raiders: 94%
Temple: 85%
Crusade: 89%
Crystal Skull: 77%
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Peru... although we should take the collated Rotten Tomatoes ones for the original trilogy with a pinch of salt, as many of the reviews have been written retrospectively for tv showings and DVD releases i.e. it?s what historians would refer to as non-source material. ;)
 
R

ResidentAlien

Guest
Peru1936 said:
Actually, Ebert gave Crusade a positive review and 3.5 out of 5 stars:

"What (Spielberg) has done is to take many of the same elements, and apply all of his craft and sense of fun to make them work yet once again. And they do."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19890524/REVIEWS/905240301/1023

Granted, his review for Temple was more positive, with 4 out of 5 stars:

"This movie is one of the most relentlessly nonstop action pictures ever made, with a virtuoso series of climactic sequences that must last an hour and never stop for a second. It's a roller-coaster ride, a visual extravaganza, a technical triumph, and a whole lot of fun."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19840101/REVIEWS/401010348/1023

While Ebert gave Raiders and Temple the same number of stars, the written reveiw for Raiders is more praising (though note the geography mistake in Ebert's listing of the film's settings):

"Raiders of the Lost Ark is a swashbuckling adventure epic in the tradition of Star Wars, Superman: The Movie, the James Bond pictures, and all the other multimillion-dollar special-effects extravaganzas. It wants only to entertain. It succeeds."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19810101/REVIEWS/101010360/1023

And since this is a thread (unfortunately) about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull vs Temple of Doom, Ebert liked his pulp in 2008 just like he liked it in 1984:

"I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you. And I can also say that a critic trying to place it into a hierarchy with the others would probably keep a straight face while recommending the second pound of sausage."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/REVIEWS/969461084/1023

Rotten Tomatoes:

Raiders: 94%
Temple: 85%
Crusade: 89%
Crystal Skull: 77%
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've read all his reviews of the Jones series-- go watch the At the Movies review of LC... not quite so positive.
 
R

roundshort

Active member
NO chance Temple is very close second to Raiders for me.

1) Raiders
1.5) Temple

Big Space here

3.5) Last




HUGE SPACE HERE







4) Skull
 
Le Saboteur

Le Saboteur

Active member
Peru1936 said:
Actually, Ebert gave Crusade a positive review and 3.5 out of 5 stars:
Click to expand...

Ebert doesn't use the 5 star system, he uses 4 stars. And he also wrote this in the same review:

Roger Ebert said:
When "Raiders of the Lost Ark" appeared, it defined a new energy level for adventure movies; it was a delirious breakthrough. But there was no way for Spielberg to top himself, and perhaps it is just as well that "Last Crusade" will indeed be Indy's last film. It would be too sad to see the series grow old and thin, like the James Bond movies.
Click to expand...

Crystal Skull is proof positive that the series had indeed grown old and thin. Other people have sunk their teeth into the genre, and have done it better.
 
Lance Quazar

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Major West said:
A lot of the criticism that TOD had at the time was that it portrayed women negatively, it was too violent for a family film (its' what caused the PG13 to be introduced) and there were accusations of negative racial stereotypes. Short Round was also the Jar-Jar of 1984. It was not well received generally.

Fans tend to have this rosy red view of the original films as if each one was a treasured masterpiece from the moment they were released but it really isn't the case.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. You seem to think there was some kind of universal revulsion to "Doom" upon it's release.

YES, I agree the reviews were mixed. It definitely got SOME negative reviews. And there were obviously SOME fans that didn't like it. There's no question it wasn't as well-received as "Raiders" and, even amongst the faithful, was regarded as a step down.

But it was far from the despised pariah you make it out to be. It was a big hit (I know that isn't saying much) and many, many people DID like it. It was talked about, it was in the zeitgeist, it was enjoyed by many.

The issues about racism and sexism, BTW, were barely discussed at all upon initial release and came up in deeper analysis in subsequent years.


(I agree that many of the same things can be said about KOTCS - mixed reviews, divided fan community, etc. It's not a comparison, I'm just setting the record straight regarding ToD.)
 
mattzilla2010

mattzilla2010

New member
Le Saboteur said:
"Mista Oxley, he dead."

If there was a period in the modern era that Indy's two-fisted archeology style would have fit, it's the era of colonial fallout. The strife and turmoil associated with the various liberation movements would have been great in facilitating the disappearance of various artifacts.

But the point is this: Much of Heart of Darkness is a boat trip up river. Adjust the brawl at the Mexican dig site to be in media res; quick jaunt back to the university; weird gibberish letter from Oxley is there; Indy is torn between rescuing Mac & finding Oxley; Mac conveniently turns up after "escaping" from the Ruskies; they're off the South America. They could briefly meet up with Jock who points them in the right direction, and you're on the river within the first 40 minutes. Another 40 or so minutes on and off the river, then the final 45 minutes could be within the actual Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Click to expand...

Ah, alrighty. I gotcha now. That certainly would have been a cool and interesting concept for KOTCS! That said, I still really like the film just the way it is...
 
Q

qwerty

New member
roundshort said:
NO chance Temple is very close second to Raiders for me.

1) Raiders
1.5) Temple

Big Space here

3.5) Last




HUGE SPACE HERE







4) Skull
Click to expand...
I am glad to see someone from the old gang saying what he means about Cristal Scull. I thought the same about it. And for a while I thought I was the only one. It is nice to know that I am not allone. :)
 
Major West

Major West

Member
Le Saboteur said:
Crystal Skull is proof positive that the series had indeed grown old and thin. Other people have sunk their teeth into the genre, and have done it better.
Click to expand...

The only time the genre was done better was in 1981 with Raiders.

I'm afraid the box office returns proved that there's nothing old and thin about Indiana Jones, apart from the fact that Ford is 67.

The fanboys might like to whine about a bit of CGI and aliens but the general public lapped it up. We have to be realistic here and admit that as hardcore fans our wants and tastes for the franchise are probably never going to be met, but that doesn't mean a film which doesn't meet our demands isn't disliked by the many casual viewers out there.
 
Last edited:
D

Darth Vile

New member
Major West said:
The only time the genre was done better was in 1981 with Raiders.

I'm afraid the box office returns proved that there's nothing old and thin about Indiana Jones, apart from the fact that Ford is 67.

The fanboys might like to whine about a bit of CGI and aliens but the general public lapped it up. We have to be realistic here and admit that as hardcore fans our wants and tastes for the franchise are probably never going to be met, but that doesn't mean a film which doesn't meet our demands isn't disliked by the many casual viewers out there.
Click to expand...


Whilst not disagreeing with you, there is an inherent paradox with a high concept set of movies that are basically a homage. No matter how good, bad or indifferent the actual movie is, the premise wears thin i.e. it ceases to be an original homage to the movies that inspired it, but instead becomes a homage to itself. I liked KOTCS, but at the same time I can clearly see that the originality Raiders and TOD had has dissipated, and ultimately all that Lucas/Spielberg can do is give us more of the same, with a modicum of ‘reinvention of the wheel’ along the way.

If I can use a metaphor… we are left to determine whether we are happy to read chapters V, VI & VII of the same book, or whether it's time to close that particular book and pick up something entirely new to read.
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
If I can use a metaphor? we are left to determine whether we are happy to read chapters V, VI & VII of the same book, or whether it's time to close that particular book and pick up something entirely new to read.
Click to expand...

That has been my thinking, Darth. Unless they can come up with something outstanding, then Indy V will detract from Indy's legacy. It's so hard to say goodbye to something you love, but sometimes it's best to have memories of the good times, and quit whilst ahead. Too often series go on beyond their time and end up destroying their own reputation. Fans will want to see Indy V for all the right reasons, not just for the reason of churning out another money-making movie.
 
I

Indy's brother

New member
I think TOD and KOTCS suffer from the same thing. They were each released after a tough act to follow in the series, and the expectations were unrealistically high. For TOD: How the hell you you equal ROTLA? For KOTCS: How do you continue a story that already had a perfect ending?

TOD was a wildly different story than ROTLA, much less globe trotting, different tone. Also, KOTCS featured yet another side of Indy we hadn't expected in tone. (Both TOD and Skull start with opening third acts that lead directly into the first act of their respective films, for whatever that's worth). Now that our expectations have been brought back down to earth, and the last 20 years of questionable ideas are done fermenting in the Indy think-tank and have been aired out in KOTCS, I welcome another installment. If the history of this film series can provide a template of what to expect, I think Indy 5, should it materialize, may provide us fans who have a difficult time accepting KOTCS an opportunity to forgive it and move on. Until that film comes along, though TOD ranks higher for me.
 
Peru1936

Peru1936

New member
Indy's brother said:
I think TOD and KOTCS suffer from the same thing. They were each released after a tough act to follow in the series, and the expectations were unrealistically high.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with this, but I think (and I've mentioned this before) that a lot of the disdain for Temple and Crystal Skull comes from a general lack of understanding of the source background of the plots by a predominently Judeo-Christian based audience.
 
I

Indy's brother

New member
Peru1936 said:
I somewhat agree with this, but I think (and I've mentioned this before) that a lot of the disdain for Temple and Crystal Skull comes from a general lack of understanding of the source background of the plots by a predominently Judeo-Christian based audience.
Click to expand...

You may be right, ROTLA and LC are my personal favorites. Being raised and schooled as a Roman Catholic, the judeo-christian themes cater to my sensibilities and sense of childhood wonderment. I would like to say and believe that I am not prejudiced against TOD or KOTCS just because of an ingrained predilection for biblical artifacts...but if I'm honest with myself I guess I can't with full conviction. :eek: Nice way to shame me into accepting these two films a little more, Peru!!! :eek:
 
Major West

Major West

Member
Darth Vile said:
Whilst not disagreeing with you, there is an inherent paradox with a high concept set of movies that are basically a homage. No matter how good, bad or indifferent the actual movie is, the premise wears thin i.e. it ceases to be an original homage to the movies that inspired it, but instead becomes a homage to itself. I liked KOTCS, but at the same time I can clearly see that the originality Raiders and TOD had has dissipated, and ultimately all that Lucas/Spielberg can do is give us more of the same, with a modicum of ‘reinvention of the wheel’ along the way.

If I can use a metaphor… we are left to determine whether we are happy to read chapters V, VI & VII of the same book, or whether it's time to close that particular book and pick up something entirely new to read.
Click to expand...

The franchise started to become an homage to itself with Last Crusade. When it gave us the story of young Indys first adventure in which he conveniently learned how to use a whip, scar his mouth, develop a fear of snakes and acquire his hat all in one 10 minute sequence. (The rot set in right there IMO).
 
Lance Quazar

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Peru1936 said:
I somewhat agree with this, but I think (and I've mentioned this before) that a lot of the disdain for Temple and Crystal Skull comes from a general lack of understanding of the source background of the plots by a predominently Judeo-Christian based audience.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a second.

While I definitely think that "Raiders" has one of the best macguffins in movie history, in general, those kinds of elements rank INCREDIBLY low on an audience's collective radar.

Even now, no one remembers "Raiders" because of the Ark itself, but because of the action, the characters, the sense of adventure.

How many really cool movies have utterly forgettable and irrelevant macguffins? The audience doesn't care. As long as the story is fairly coherent, and the movie is entertaining in engaging, it doesn't matter one whit what the characters are actually struggling over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top