Montana Smith
Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:Exactly why I gave the post the title: "When it came out everyone loved it..."
The responses and analyses in The Complete Making of... do make for good reading.
Rocket Surgeon said:I thought so, but figured, why not be sure...
No, I mean yes, you're completely right, of course!
Rocket Surgeon said:No doubt, taboos stoke curiosity...
Blood, skulls and scenes of a virtual hell adorning the backs of breakfast cereal boxes and posters in magazines certainly set an unlikely image for a family film. It looked dangerous, unexpected, and more adult in nature. Then you hear children in school talking about the 'evil Indy'.
Rocket Surgeon said:Once again, all reasons why people, (from the gulf stream waters to the redwood forest), hated Doom, or disliked, or ah didn't love, um...
The alternative could have been a Raiders style adventure through Shanghai and rural China, without the roller-coaster ride (which was one of the things Spielberg was actually proud of). I wonder whether there would have been an Indy III, or whether the audience would have thought that the stream had run out of Indy-verse.
These films seem to create their own style blend, and it naturally goes off the normal scale.
Being greedy, I would have liked to have seen both types of TOD made - the more down-to-earth, as well as the one we got to see. But because we can't change what was done a quarter of a century ago, Raiders must stand out as one of Indy's least spectacular adventures. And I mean that in a good way.
Matt deMille said:Well said.
It makes one wonder, however, why Spielberg says anything bad about Temple Of Doom when he doesn't seem to speak ill of other films of his which are arguably true dogs (such as War of the Worlds and Lost World). Compared to those films, Temple of Doom is a masterpiece. Yet Spielberg talks down Temple. Is that because he cares more for Indy and thus sets a higher standard for himself when making these pictures? Is he still uncomfortable with Temple's subject matter?
I think it's more down to what was going on in his personal life at the time of making TOD. It was a bad time, and TOD was tinged with his sombre mood, and conversely he would probably associate the film back to his personal circumstances. Both Lucas and Spielberg have gone on record saying that it wasn't enjoyable to make. Then there was the Indian government's objection to the movie, which forced production to travel to a more welcoming Sri Lanka.
Matt deMille said:I think Spielberg's often misquoted in regards to Temple. He may not love it, but he's not in any way saying it's a bad movie, either. I think some rabid fans use his unlove for Temple to make it look like Temple is somehow a bad movie, thus fueling the myth of "hatred" for this picture.
Yes. Not "loving" isn't always the same as "hate". Between the two sits the word "like" or "dislike".
Matt deMille said:Also, one must ask: Do Lucas and Ford dislike Temple Of Doom? I've never heard them say or even imply anything like that. Lucas has said the dark aspect of the film was due in part to his divorce at the time, but that's it.
I only recall Lucas saying it wasn't enjoyable to make. Ford had a tough time with a painful bad back, and had to return to Britain for treatment, and then rested on a hospital bed on set between takes. Then again, a lot of the team had a tough time in Tunisia filming Raiders.
Last edited: