Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom?

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Richer in themes, though? Perhaps. The deeply self-conscious obsession with knowledge (cf. "I know things, I know them before anyone else," "you don't know him, you don't know him", "...you gotta get out of the library," "peer across the world and know the enemy's secrets," "I want to know everything," "knowledge was their treasure,"), the parallel track of collective action (Communists, ants, aliens), the half-baked aging stuff (especially, I suppose, Stanforth's cut line about age and identity). Some of its hackneyed, but they put more work into it than Temple did, I think. That isn't to say that Kingdom is better - and arguably the seams show a little too much - but it all hangs together, especially with the mythology of the artifact, in a way that the Sankara Stones never mesh thematically that much with the rest of Temple.

I like the way you're thinking, Attila. I never put the collective ants and aliens together with the idea of communism before - but they do fit perfectly as an antithesis to the individualist Indy (also associated with capitalism through his "fortune and glory" motto, and with anti-socialism in his neglection of college duties in favour of the excitement of adventure).

And then he goes and gets himself a family, so he's no longer an alienated individual, but socially connected in a personal way. Not an Indy I find easy to imagine. Though like Han Solo in the novels set 10-15 years after ROTJ, I'm sure that he'll feel the need to go off alone, a free spirit, untethered by domestic chains.

As for the artifact, yes, the mythology is probably better known for KOTCS, than it is for TOD. KOTCS is likely to be more familiar territory for much of a western audience, as with the Ark and the Holy Grail, whereas Hindu beliefs and practises may not be so well understood. When something isn't already a part of popular western culture, it might be deemed an obstacle in the way of acceptance. (Just as the root of racism can be fear of the unknown).
 

Darth Vile

New member
Attila the Professor said:
:
I certainly agree with this, although I have come to doubt how much of this narrative is necessarily intentional. (It's still possible, whether it's their narrative plan or simply ours - each film certainly has him beginning in a rather different position, professionally and personally.) And one supposes we see the alienation you reference continuing on in Last Crusade, especially in that great shot of Indy in his office.

I don't believe for a second the narrative is intentional (although, possibly, at a subconscious level perhaps...). It's a hotchpotch of a story that serves as a magnolia coloured canvas for the set pieces. Although, as mentioned before, the set pieces were/are excellent.

Attila the Professor said:
:

Richer in themes, though? Perhaps. The deeply self-conscious obsession with knowledge (cf. "I know things, I know them before anyone else," "you don't know him, you don't know him", "...you gotta get out of the library," "peer across the world and know the enemy's secrets," "I want to know everything," "knowledge was their treasure,"), the parallel track of collective action (Communists, ants, aliens), the half-baked aging stuff (especially, I suppose, Stanforth's cut line about age and identity). Some of its hackneyed, but they put more work into it than Temple did, I think. That isn't to say that Kingdom is better - and arguably the seams show a little too much - but it all hangs together, especially with the mythology of the artifact, in a way that the Sankara Stones never mesh thematically that much with the rest of Temple.

I'd agree with your comments. For me, TOD sets the bar quite low and gets away with it. KOTCS strives to be a much more intelligent/mature movie, in terms of its aspirations, but under achieves. Ultimately that's why I believe KOTCS to be the more flawed, yet more fulfilling movie of the two.
 

teampunk

Member
i like all the indiana jones movies. raiders for being the greatest movie ever made. tod for scaring the crap out of me with the heart removal scene. lc for just being a good fun indiana jones movie. and crystal for being a fun indiana jones movie that made me feel like and stary eyed eight year old.
 

Paden

Member
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.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Hmmm. Paden, I think you've just given the clearest insight into Temple Of Doom. I've never really looked at it that way, but damn if you're not right! I wonder if even Lucas and Spielberg looked at it like this. You should be writing screenplays! No sarcasm there, I mean it!
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
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.)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Lance Quazar said:
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.)

At the time of initial release, TOD was pretty much leading the way as far as action movies were concerned. However, looking at it now, it's undeniable that the action is old fashioned and somewhat twee. If you compare and contrast the action in TOD with that in TLC, there really isn't much difference between the two in both concept and execution (although, as far as concepts go, mine cart chases and collapsing rope bridges are a tad more imaginative).

I'd agree with you that when TLC was on in cinemas, as far as the action was concerned, it did seem somewhat old hat (although I still hold the tank chase in high esteem). And similar to KOTCS, when comparing the action/set pieces between TOD and TLC, it's not that the quality of the action changes per se... instead it's that Spielberg doesn't evolve/progress the way action is filmed/directed/edited between the movies. Therefore, by the time we get to TLC (and certainly KOTCS), there are numerous other directors (and movies) that are advancing/or have advanced the nature of the 'action' movie... and Spielberg can only look on and imitate himself.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Paden said:
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.

That's it in a nutshell, Paden. TOD has a different feel to ROTLA because it's not Indy's mission. He was just trying to get home after doing the deal with Nurhachi's urn. He doesn't seem interested in anything else apart from that, until his conscience is tugged at by the plight of the Indian children.

As you wrote, this makes it different to the highly motivated ROTLA and TLC. KOTCS falls in between, since there he has an interest in the Skull, but he soon becomes a pawn in Spalko's plan.

Lance Quazar said:
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.

We're of like mind here, Lance. Despite the shortcomings, which are apparent in most films if you look hard enough, TOD is somehow special (even if what made it special was unintentional on the part of Lucas and Spielberg). The only character development we see is that of Indy - who comes closest to the man Belloq described in ROTLA.

Lance Quazar said:
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.

TOD took Indy to the edgy limits of decency, which, in a family film, is something to be appreciated, if not admired. For all its cartoon humour, TOD wasn't soft and fluffy, and therefore stands rightfully with ROTLA.
 

indyswk

New member
Montana Smith said:
TOD took Indy to the edgy limits of decency, which, in a family film, is something to be appreciated, if not admired. For all its cartoon humour, TOD wasn't soft and fluffy, and therefore stands rightfully with ROTLA.

Just wanted to know; (im not aiming question this at you directly, Montana Smith) why are people making a lot of the reference to 'cartoony' for ToD, when:

In TLC:

- Dad shooting the tail of the plane (I'm sorry they got us)
- The german fighter flies into the tunnel chasing the Joneses, overtakes them, and explodes
- Fighter drops a bomb (fighters drop bombs?) in front of Indy & Dad and they both emerge unscathed
- During the motorcycle chase, the german rider rears up and comes down on them with the front wheel, instead of doing the normal thing (ready the gun to shoot, thus wasting precious moments and when he got around to getting the gun ready Indy threw him a big stick and set him flying).
- the bullet richochets around in the tank and killing the tank driver..

many more I probably missed out. But I know the above are what movies give us or to ensure our hero survives and for a laugh, and I thoroughly enjoyed them all so I have no problem with that. They are just as cartoon as the mine cart jump and dinner scene in ToD. Some scenes in Raiders are cartoony as well what i can recall (Marion hitting knife guy with pan, shooting Cairo sword guy, mirror hitting Indy), but as we all know Raiders was more serious than usual in many areas, of course that is only because Raiders was one of the best movies ever...

So, I found it quite unfair to label *only* ToD as 'cartoony', TLC and Skull has its share too. Even Raiders in some areas, so ToD being 'cartoony' isn't its problem at all. It's just different in that it gives us a glimpse of what goes on in a tpyical adventure during his 'work' that caused it to stand out which - of course - wasn't a problem to me at all. In fact, I would like more of such adventures, but of course that just would'nt add anything new in terms of character development and so on. But would be great as animated series stories tho.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
indyswk said:
Just wanted to know; (im not aiming question this at you directly, Montana Smith) why are people making a lot of the reference to 'cartoony' for ToD, when:

In TLC:

- Dad shooting the tail of the plane (I'm sorry they got us)
- The german fighter flies into the tunnel chasing the Joneses, overtakes them, and explodes
- Fighter drops a bomb (fighters drop bombs?) in front of Indy & Dad and they both emerge unscathed
- During the motorcycle chase, the german rider rears up and comes down on them with the front wheel, instead of doing the normal thing (ready the gun to shoot, thus wasting precious moments and when he got around to getting the gun ready Indy threw him a big stick and set him flying).
- the bullet richochets around in the tank and killing the tank driver..

many more I probably missed out. But I know the above are what movies give us or to ensure our hero survives and for a laugh, and I thoroughly enjoyed them all so I have no problem with that. They are just as cartoon as the mine cart jump and dinner scene in ToD. Some scenes in Raiders are cartoony as well what i can recall (Marion hitting knife guy with pan, shooting Cairo sword guy, mirror hitting Indy), but as we all know Raiders was more serious than usual in many areas, of course that is only because Raiders was one of the best movies ever...

So, I found it quite unfair to label *only* ToD as 'cartoony', TLC and Skull has its share too. Even Raiders in some areas, so ToD being 'cartoony' isn't its problem at all. It's just different in that it gives us a glimpse of what goes on in a tpyical adventure during his 'work' that caused it to stand out which - of course - wasn't a problem to me at all. In fact, I would like more of such adventures, but of course that just would'nt add anything new in terms of character development and so on. But would be great as animated series stories tho.

I would never have said that TOD was the "only"' cartoon-like Indy movie. TOD, TLC and KOTCS are all more overtly cartoony than ROTLA. Raiders had its moments, but TOD took Indy firmly down the Roadrunner route.

And neither do I see it as a problem - except when it gets to KOTCS when the cartoon takes over an even more dominant role.
 

Sharkey

Guest
indyswk said:
Just wanted to know; (im not aiming question this at you directly, Montana Smith) why are people making a lot of the reference to 'cartoony' for ToD, when:

In TLC:

- Dad shooting the tail of the plane (I'm sorry they got us)
- The german fighter flies into the tunnel chasing the Joneses, overtakes them, and explodes
- Fighter drops a bomb (fighters drop bombs?) in front of Indy & Dad and they both emerge unscathed
- During the motorcycle chase, the german rider rears up and comes down on them with the front wheel, instead of doing the normal thing (ready the gun to shoot, thus wasting precious moments and when he got around to getting the gun ready Indy threw him a big stick and set him flying).
- the bullet richochets around in the tank and killing the tank driver..

many more I probably missed out. But I know the above are what movies give us or to ensure our hero survives and for a laugh, and I thoroughly enjoyed them all so I have no problem with that. They are just as cartoon as the mine cart jump and dinner scene in ToD. Some scenes in Raiders are cartoony as well what i can recall (Marion hitting knife guy with pan, shooting Cairo sword guy, mirror hitting Indy), but as we all know Raiders was more serious than usual in many areas, of course that is only because Raiders was one of the best movies ever...

So, I found it quite unfair to label *only* ToD as 'cartoony', TLC and Skull has its share too. Even Raiders in some areas, so ToD being 'cartoony' isn't its problem at all. It's just different in that it gives us a glimpse of what goes on in a tpyical adventure during his 'work' that caused it to stand out which - of course - wasn't a problem to me at all. In fact, I would like more of such adventures, but of course that just would'nt add anything new in terms of character development and so on. But would be great as animated series stories tho.
Unfair? Did you read the title of the thread before you typed up your thesis?

First off, the things that you mention as cartoony in Raiders aren't. Marion grabs somehing to defend herself with and does. Temple has the guard toss a sledgehammer and it lands on someone's head. Maybe the difference is that TEMPLE is stupid cartoony.

Marion hits him with the mirror. I guess you can call that cartoony, a bit of slapstick is what I would call it.

Shooting the swordsman is much more practical than it is cartoony and more realistic ten the duel they planned.

Last Crusade takes the stupid ideas and ToD "comedy" style and runs with it. Skull goes further with the nut shots. They don't even try to hide the stupidity.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Darth Vile said:
As far as concepts go, mine cart chases and collapsing rope bridges are a tad more imaginative

Very good point, there. I have to say, the action in Indy has never really been about competing with how other action movies are done. Raiders just did its own thing, and happened to create a whole new style at the same time. But one critical element that made Indy-action exciting in Raiders and then especially in Temple wasn't its pace, editing, camera-work, or anything else that has "evolved" with film-making: It was the locales, the situations, their unique nature.

See, many films since Crusade have had better "motorcycle chases" and "desert-tank fights". But NOBODY has had cutting a rope bridge or a roller-coaster mine-car. Some have danced with it (like the short mine-cart sequence under Alcatraz in The Rock), but as soon as they go there, audiences know they're borrowing from Indy, and it's they're held to the Indy-standard which, even to this day, people can't seem to compete with (an over-reliance on CGI is the main culprit). The originality of Raiders' and Temple's action set-pieces will forever keep them fresh and exciting.

That's where Crusade and Kingdom really missed their mark. Kingdom had *some* originality there, such as the Warehouse 51 stuff and the fight in the Peruvian Cemetery (cool design of a place to have a cat-and-mouse fight in), but the jungle chase was "just another road" as far as action movies go. Could have been cooler if there was a unique place for the fighting, like a really narrow cliff (common in Peru), or maybe if the chase spilled into the river and they fought as their vehicles were being dragged towards the waterfalls.

So, I think one of Temple's big strengths is the cool-factor of its action set pieces. Comical or not, they're memorable places to stage fights.
 
Paden said:
...in lacking some of the elements of the other movies (especially Raiders and Last Crusade) it just seems to lack depth.
It's a shame too, Spielberg put a limit on his availability and as a result they rushed development of the film. Spielberg gave interview going as far to say that he may just executive produce Raiders II, one report said he wouldn't even sign his contract until he saw a script. So it seems Temple didn't get the love and care it should have, and it shows.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
See, many films since Crusade have had better "motorcycle chases" and "desert-tank fights". But NOBODY has had cutting a rope bridge or a roller-coaster mine-car.
The 2008 3-D version of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" has a roller-coaster mine cart.
Matt deMille said:
The originality of Raiders' and Temple's action set-pieces will forever keep them fresh and exciting.
Almost every action set-piece from "Raiders" has been done before. "Doom" less so but a large number of the ideas in both films are far from original.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Loads. I'm just pointing out some facts for you. Whether you think they are negative or not is your point of view.

That said, I LOVE "TEMPLE OF DOOM"!:p
 
Top