Crystal Skull Vs Temple of Doom - Which is better?

Ajax the Great

New member
I read the novelization fairly soon after seeing the movie and was tremendously disappointed - not at the novel, but at the movie. The novel was everything CS could have and should have been. It emphasized Indy's humanness, both physically and emotionally. I remember the part where he puts Oxley in Marion's truck after he fights Dovchenko in the ant scene. Marion offers a wisecrack but he barely acknowledges it and plumps down in the truck, completely worn out. I liked the way Rollins handled that. I also liked the extended scene in Indy's house with the Dean. The way the book portrayed the Red Scare and Indy's involvement with it was almost a character study, and it was really nice.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Indy's brother said:
Wow, the novelization sounds awesome!

I like all the novels, as they give so much more back story, deleted scenes, and the thoughts going on in the characters' minds. James Kahn's Temple of Doom was excellent for that, especially in describing what it was like to be under the Black Sleep of Kali. There's also a lot about Shorty 's life, and how he obtained the getaway car.

Also, in the novels it's easier to accept the wilder moments, as you can imagine them more realistically than they were portrayed on film!

Ajax the Great said:
I read the novelization fairly soon after seeing the movie and was tremendously disappointed - not at the novel, but at the movie. The novel was everything CS could have and should have been. It emphasized Indy's humanness, both physically and emotionally. I remember the part where he puts Oxley in Marion's truck after he fights Dovchenko in the ant scene. Marion offers a wisecrack but he barely acknowledges it and plumps down in the truck, completely worn out. I liked the way Rollins handled that. I also liked the extended scene in Indy's house with the Dean. The way the book portrayed the Red Scare and Indy's involvement with it was almost a character study, and it was really nice.

Nicely put, Ajax. As I'm hungry to know as much as possible about Indy's adventures, I see the novels as extending the films, filling in the unseen gaps. For those gaps still left unfilled, I have the West End Games Roleplaying books, which are a wealth of Lucasfilm authorized background information.

Having all that extra material in your mind can make the film experience richer, but conversely, as you say, it can also make you disappointed that KOTCS didn't take the same approach on screen.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Ajax the Great said:
I read the novelization fairly soon after seeing the movie and was tremendously disappointed - not at the novel, but at the movie. The novel was everything CS could have and should have been. It emphasized Indy's humanness, both physically and emotionally. I remember the part where he puts Oxley in Marion's truck after he fights Dovchenko in the ant scene. Marion offers a wisecrack but he barely acknowledges it and plumps down in the truck, completely worn out. I liked the way Rollins handled that. I also liked the extended scene in Indy's house with the Dean. The way the book portrayed the Red Scare and Indy's involvement with it was almost a character study, and it was really nice.

With movies such as Indiana Jones and Star Wars, as they are such an audio/visual experience, the finished movies always have the potential to be so much more than the novels ever could (and in most cases they are). In this case though I'd agree with you. The KOTCS novel allows a little more insight into the thoughts of Indy, Spalko et al, which adds weight to the overall drama.

Again we have to remember that the movie is translated from the script as opposed to the novel (i.e. the novelist has more opportunity to embellish)... but in the case of KOTCS, I believe several significant vignettes were cut from the script/movie. Ultimately, I think Spielberg wasn't as successful, at transposing the ideas from the page to the big screen, as he was with the earlier movies... be it in the threat of corrupt government officials, the roller coaster ride of the jungle chase or the mystery/suspense of Akator.

That said, I'm trying to objectively critique a movie that I enjoyed... and I still think KOTCS was a good effort in recapturing the spirit and excitement of a 1980's Indy movie...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
With movies such as Indiana Jones and Star Wars, as they are such an audio/visual experience, the finished movies always have the potential to be so much more than the novels ever could (and in most cases they are). In this case though I'd agree with you. The KOTCS novel allows a little more insight into the thoughts of Indy, Spalko et al, which adds weight to the overall drama.

Again we have to remember that the movie is translated from the script as opposed to the novel (i.e. the novelist has more opportunity to embellish)... but in the case of KOTCS, I believe several significant vignettes were cut from the script/movie. Ultimately, I think Spielberg wasn't as successful, at transposing the ideas from the page to the big screen, as he was with the earlier movies... be it in the threat of corrupt government officials, the roller coaster ride of the jungle chase or the mystery/suspense of Akator.

That said, I'm trying to objectively critique a movie that I enjoyed... and I still think KOTCS was a good effort in recapturing the spirit and excitement of a 1980's Indy movie...

The novel has a whole lot more prologue, with Indy and Mac being captured, but I think Lucas wanted to jump right in with his obsession with hot rods and '50s boy racers. Both he and Spielberg were also probably too preoccupied with tailoring the film simultaneously to older fans and to a younger audience who didn't have the privilege of growing up with the character of Indy. As such they didn't end up with a Saville Row suit, but a mixture of styles. The '50s played too heavily as a character in its own right, rather than as a natural backdrop for Indy.
 

Ajax the Great

New member
Montana Smith said:
The novel has a whole lot more prologue, with Indy and Mac being captured, but I think Lucas wanted to jump right in with his obsession with hot rods and '50s boy racers. Both he and Spielberg were also probably too preoccupied with tailoring the film simultaneously to older fans and to a younger audience who didn't have the privilege of growing up with the character of Indy. As such they didn't end up with a Saville Row suit, but a mixture of styles. The '50s played too heavily as a character in its own right, rather than as a natural backdrop for Indy.

I agree. The 50's were a character for the whole first part of the movie, instead of just being a context.

The film just wasn't exciting. To this day, even though I know the movies inside out, the OT keeps me on the edge of my seat. You forget that you're watching a movie that you've seen a hundred times, the experience is so rich that you give up your preconceptions and enjoy it one more time. CS never did that for me.

In movies, you generally know that they aren't going to kill the main character right in the middle, because then there wouldn't be a movie. So to overcome that preconception, you have to build excitement and danger. Raiders did just that - we all knew Indy wasn't going to die, and the filmmakers did too. So, they decided to beat Indy within an inch of his life. The huge mechanic kicked his ass, he got shot, punched in his wound, thrown out of a windshield, dragged behind a truck, and walloped by a mirror. In Temple, you had the Thuggee and the voodoo doll. LC hung him from the side of a tank, beat him with a shovel, and poured rocks and rubble all over him.

In CS, when Spalko was about to push Indy over a cliff, I yawned. We all knew he wasn't going over the cliff. There wasn't any urgency to the action.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Ajax the Great said:
I agree. The 50's were a character for the whole first part of the movie, instead of just being a context.

The film just wasn't exciting. To this day, even though I know the movies inside out, the OT keeps me on the edge of my seat. You forget that you're watching a movie that you've seen a hundred times, the experience is so rich that you give up your preconceptions and enjoy it one more time. CS never did that for me.

In movies, you generally know that they aren't going to kill the main character right in the middle, because then there wouldn't be a movie. So to overcome that preconception, you have to build excitement and danger. Raiders did just that - we all knew Indy wasn't going to die, and the filmmakers did too. So, they decided to beat Indy within an inch of his life. The huge mechanic kicked his ass, he got shot, punched in his wound, thrown out of a windshield, dragged behind a truck, and walloped by a mirror. In Temple, you had the Thuggee and the voodoo doll. LC hung him from the side of a tank, beat him with a shovel, and poured rocks and rubble all over him.

In CS, when Spalko was about to push Indy over a cliff, I yawned. We all knew he wasn't going over the cliff. There wasn't any urgency to the action.

One problem may be this:

In Raiders Toht was a vicious, brutal Nazi villian.

In TOD Mola Ram was a vicious, brutal Thuggee.

In LC Vogel was a vicious, brutal Nazi.

In KOTCS Spalko was a dominant sexy minx, with a vicious brutal Dovchenko whom she kept on a leash.

I think there was more of a sexual tension between Spalko and Indy, than there was actual threat. She had a grudging respect for him, and probably looked at him as a suitable alpha male potential partner.

Even Spalko's mission was one concerned with gaining knowledge, rather than treasure hunting. For most of the time she needed to keep Indy alive, as she was following him to the goal. So even along that cliff edge it wasn't in her interests to kill him, only to keep herself safe.

Spalko's role was more like that of Elsa's in LC. Elsa wasn't a Nazi, but a historian who had determined to locate the Grail. As such Elsa wasn't a lead villain. In KOTCS the roles might have been better reversed, with Dovchenko as the lead villain, and Spalko his enlightened subordinate. That way Dovchenko would be the one actually attempting to kill Indy in Peru, with Spalko advising against it.
 

Indy's brother

New member
Spalko could have been a more suitable villian if we had seen her more actively involved in their murderous exploits. SS made the decision not to show american soldiers or Uga Warriors getting mowed down on screen. This could have been at least a little more effective if we saw her at least give the order to kill once or twice, instead of her implying her authority over these actions by her mere rank. At least a comment about it would have given her more menace. That's why the great shot of her drawing her sword in the jungle chase scene lacked any real weight. "Oh SNAP! she's drawing her sword!...that was never once used to do anything much more other than threaten people with..." even her duel with Mutt seemed like she was just showing off her fencing ability, rather than really trying to hurt him.

I've said it before, in film, if the camera doesn't see it, it didn't happen. Especially when it comes to violence. We see Mola Ram rip the still beating heart out of a man's chest with his bare frickin' hand, and then it spontaneously combusts in his grip while he smiles gleefully. I'm not saying that IJ movies are supposed to be a gory splat-fest, but there should have been some level of the percieved threat that the other films had. Otherwise we are painfully aware that Indy will come out unscathed no matter what. And what fun is that?

Edge: TOD
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Indy's brother said:
Spalko could have been a more suitable villian if we had seen her more actively involved in their murderous exploits. SS made the decision not to show american soldiers or Uga Warriors getting mowed down on screen. This could have been at least a little more effective if we saw her at least give the order to kill once or twice, instead of her implying her authority over these actions by her mere rank. At least a comment about it would have given her more menace. That's why the great shot of her drawing her sword in the jungle chase scene lacked any real weight. "Oh SNAP! she's drawing her sword!...that was never once used to do anything much more other than threaten people with..." even her duel with Mutt seemed like she was just showing off her fencing ability, rather than really trying to hurt him.

I've said it before, in film, if the camera doesn't see it, it didn't happen. Especially when it comes to violence. We see Mola Ram rip the still beating heart out of a man's chest with his bare frickin' hand, and then it spontaneously combusts in his grip while he smiles gleefully. I'm not saying that IJ movies are supposed to be a gory splat-fest, but there should have been some level of the percieved threat that the other films had. Otherwise we are painfully aware that Indy will come out unscathed no matter what. And what fun is that?

Edge: TOD

It comes to the point, for me, that Spalko was more appealing than villainous, so that her punishment by the Interdimensionals was an expression more of their vindictive cruelty, than a justified end for her. I felt that characters such as Belloq and Toht deserved their fate, so their ends were more satisfying to watch. I wanted Spalko to live, as I thought there was so much more she could offer storywise in the future.
 

Indy's brother

New member
Montana Smith said:
It comes to the point, for me, that Spalko was more appealing than villainous, so that her punishment by the Interdimensionals was an expression more of their vindictive cruelty, than a justified end for her. I felt that characters such as Belloq and Toht deserved their fate, so their ends were more satisfying to watch. I wanted Spalko to live, as I thought there was so much more she could offer storywise in the future.

Well there was so much untapped depth to most of the characters, which is an easy pitfall in an action film that has an ensemble cast. I feel the need to cut SS some slack with CS at times for a wealth of reasons. It's not like he willfully sought to frustrate fans. I think that in his capacity as director, given what he had to work with and who he is as a director now as opposed to who he was back in the 80's, it was a valiant effort. Still, as a fan, I find myself scratching my head while watching CS.

Sorry, I drifted off a bit there. I think Spalko's fate was justifiable enough in CS, it just didn't make me want to stand up and cheer. "Yay!!! That's what you get, Spalko!!!" It was more like, "well, that's what you get for being the main villian in an IJ movie."

Mola Ram, he gets ripped apart by crocodiles, and you kind of want to see a little more of his suffering!

Edge: TOD
 

Ajax the Great

New member
I kind of like the idea of Spalko and Dovchenko in reversed roles.

Spielberg never shows violence in a cartoon context anymore. There were a lot of really cartoony, and somewhat graphic deaths in the OT. That's because Spielberg was a kid's director. He loved the cheap, pulpy thrills. After making movies like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, he is a completely different director. Any real violence is always done for drama, not for excitement. Maybe that's what CS was lacking. When the Russians kill the guards at Area 51, we never see anything. We never see the Ugha get killed. The scene where we see their bodies did give Spalko more edge, but it could have done more. Maybe Spielberg doesn't like to exploit violence, because it's immature. But the fact is, this is an Indy picture. Half of it is about violence-related thrills and cartoon violence.

I'm not saying that violence should be there for the sake of violence; it should advance the plot in some way. In CS, the absence of violence seemed to detract from the plot. Why didn't Indy kill the cemetery warrior? Or, in the Jungle Chase, instead of picking up the sword, why didn't Mutt take the machine gun mounted on the front of the truck Marion was driving?
 

Indy's brother

New member
Ajax the Great said:
why didn't Mutt take the machine gun mounted on the front of the truck Marion was driving?

The obvious answer is for the sword fight, but that's ignoring that Mutt couldn't do both. Run out of bullets, have a feed-jam, not know how to use it, etc...then sword-play. It would've played better, and made more sense.
 

Ajax the Great

New member
Indy's brother said:
The obvious answer is for the sword fight, but that's ignoring that Mutt couldn't do both. Run out of bullets, have a feed-jam, not know how to use it, etc...then sword-play. It would've played better, and made more sense.

Yeah, that's another one of my issues. In Raiders at least, every piece of action seemed somewhat logical and coherent. And if it wasn't logical, it was made logical by the team, like Harrison deciding to shoot the swordsman instead of engaging in a battle. That scene is so great because it's unexpected, and because it calls into question the premise of action sequences. Indy's frantically trying to find Marion, he doesn't have time to be messing around with this guy! Harrison really saved that scene.

In CS, I felt that the action pieces were set up and the story was crafted around it instead of the other way around.
 

kongisking

Active member
Ajax the Great said:
I kind of like the idea of Spalko and Dovchenko in reversed roles.

Spielberg never shows violence in a cartoon context anymore. There were a lot of really cartoony, and somewhat graphic deaths in the OT. That's because Spielberg was a kid's director. He loved the cheap, pulpy thrills. After making movies like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, he is a completely different director. Any real violence is always done for drama, not for excitement. Maybe that's what CS was lacking. When the Russians kill the guards at Area 51, we never see anything. We never see the Ugha get killed. The scene where we see their bodies did give Spalko more edge, but it could have done more. Maybe Spielberg doesn't like to exploit violence, because it's immature. But the fact is, this is an Indy picture. Half of it is about violence-related thrills and cartoon violence.

I'm not saying that violence should be there for the sake of violence; it should advance the plot in some way. In CS, the absence of violence seemed to detract from the plot. Why didn't Indy kill the cemetery warrior? Or, in the Jungle Chase, instead of picking up the sword, why didn't Mutt take the machine gun mounted on the front of the truck Marion was driving?

Um, not that I want to argue with you, as I happen to think you have an excellent point, but are you saying Dovchenko's demise WASN'T cartoony and graphic and over-the-top disgusting? Spielberg still has that childish sense of "oh, how nasty can I make this death? Hee-hee!", he just doesn't do it as blatantly as before. Yes, KOTCS was somewhat lacking in the villainy department, but I see this as a natural reaction to all the heat TOD got for its super-duper violence. So it's actually our faults that Spielberg holds back so much, because the last time he dared to go awesome, we slammed him to the point of regret and guilt!

Nice goin', fans! Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!
 

Indy's brother

New member
kongisking said:
Um, not that I want to argue with you, as I happen to think you have an excellent point, but are you saying Dovchenko's demise WASN'T cartoony and graphic and over-the-top disgusting? Spielberg still has that childish sense of "oh, how nasty can I make this death? Hee-hee!", he just doesn't do it as blatantly as before. Yes, KOTCS was somewhat lacking in the villainy department, but I see this as a natural reaction to all the heat TOD got for its super-duper violence. So it's actually our faults that Spielberg holds back so much, because the last time he dared to go awesome, we slammed him to the point of regret and guilt!

Nice goin', fans! Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

If I may, was it the fans that had a problem with the violence in TOD, or was it the critics, or most likely, the MPAA? from the wiki, it would appear that it was Spielberg himself who had a problem with the violence:

Steven Spielberg said in 1989, "I wasn't happy with Temple of Doom at all. It was too dark, too subterranean, and much too horrific. I thought it out-poltered Poltergeist. There's not an ounce of my own personal feeling in Temple of Doom." He later added during the "Making of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" documentary, "Temple of Doom is my least favorite of the trilogy. I look back and I say, 'Well the greatest thing that I got out of that was I met Kate Capshaw. We married years later and that to me was the reason I was fated to make Temple of Doom."

It's too bad that these are his feelings on TOD, as it showed us just how much capacity these films have for that sort sort of violence, making the subsequent two installments feel a little watered down in comparison. I could say that this quote is 21 years old, and that maybe he doesn't feel this way anymore. But then I can watch CS and see that his feelings haven't changed a bit. If anything, time has solidified his opinion.
 
Ajax the Great said:
I agree. The 50's were a character for the whole first part of the movie, instead of just being a context.

I agree, much of it was well done but it went over the top.

Ajax the Great said:
The film just wasn't exciting. To this day, even though I know the movies inside out, the OT keeps me on the edge of my seat. You forget that you're watching a movie that you've seen a hundred times, the experience is so rich that you give up your preconceptions and enjoy it one more time. CS never did that for me.

I thought the film was exciting from the start, if we never saw the burnt alien hand it would have given more punch to the mystery, especially when Indy argues with the agents about the contents of the box. Maybe if Indy flinched and yelped when he landed a punch he might have come off more like the Raiders Indy.

Ajax the Great said:
In movies, you generally know that they aren't going to kill the main character right in the middle, because then there wouldn't be a movie. So to overcome that preconception, you have to build excitement and danger. Raiders did just that - we all knew Indy wasn't going to die, and the filmmakers did too. So, they decided to beat Indy within an inch of his life. The huge mechanic kicked his ass, he got shot, punched in his wound, thrown out of a windshield, dragged behind a truck, and walloped by a mirror. In Temple, you had the Thuggee and the voodoo doll. LC hung him from the side of a tank, beat him with a shovel, and poured rocks and rubble all over him.
They dropped the ball in that respect...

Ajax the Great said:
In CS, when Spalko was about to push Indy over a cliff, I yawned. We all knew he wasn't going over the cliff. There wasn't any urgency to the action.
It was said else where and rightly so, when Marion drove them off the cliff she had that stupid grin on her face. It didn't seem like the actors came to the table with as much creativity and challenged the material like they did in Raiders.
 

Ajax the Great

New member
kongisking said:
Um, not that I want to argue with you, as I happen to think you have an excellent point, but are you saying Dovchenko's demise WASN'T cartoony and graphic and over-the-top disgusting? Spielberg still has that childish sense of "oh, how nasty can I make this death? Hee-hee!", he just doesn't do it as blatantly as before. Yes, KOTCS was somewhat lacking in the villainy department, but I see this as a natural reaction to all the heat TOD got for its super-duper violence. So it's actually our faults that Spielberg holds back so much, because the last time he dared to go awesome, we slammed him to the point of regret and guilt!

Nice goin', fans! Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

Oh, man - I completely forgot about Dovchenko. In the graphic department, he probably takes the cake in CS.

I agree with you also about what happened with the ToD violence. While I've never had an issue with ToD (it's my favorite behind Raiders), I wonder if people were against the violence because of the actual violence or because the content of the movie made them uncomfortable? ToD presents the same violence as Raiders but in a darker, and I'll admit, more uncomfortable, context. But to me, that darkness made the payoff that much more rewarding.

Has the reception of ToD changed over time/reviewings? The first time I was exposed to the OT, it was my least favorite - now it's right behind Raiders.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Indy's brother said:
It's too bad that these are his feelings on TOD, as it showed us just how much capacity these films have for that sort sort of violence, making the subsequent two installments feel a little watered down in comparison. I could say that this quote is 21 years old, and that maybe he doesn't feel this way anymore. But then I can watch CS and see that his feelings haven't changed a bit. If anything, time has solidified his opinion.

My personal theory is this: Judging Spielberg, by both his films, what I know of him and every interview clip I've seen him in, he has always striked me a a person who feels that he has to please everyone. The fact that we directed four universally praised movies(Raiders, E.T. Jaws and Close Encounters) so early in his career probably didn't help. I don't really buy that there's "Not one ounce of him" in TOD. I think he makes such statements because he probably received so much flack from people that he feels he needs to apologize for it not being a favorite among everyone.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Ajax the Great said:
Oh, man - I completely forgot about Dovchenko. In the graphic department, he probably takes the cake in CS.

...

Has the reception of ToD changed over time/reviewings? The first time I was exposed to the OT, it was my least favorite - now it's right behind Raiders.

I still think that TOD stands out for having a combination of such strong horror and high comedy. It's been said before, that both Lucas and Spielberg were going through divorces at the time, and neither was in a very good mood. I think thaty both have actually said that making TOD was an unpleasant experience for them.

As for Dovchenko being carried away by the ants, the concept is horrific, but it plays out in a comic fashion, like the deaths at the end of Raiders. Mola's heart ripping scene was more graphic, and being inflicted on a victim we presume to be innocent, it was all the more disturbing.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
As for Dovchenko being carried away by the ants, the concept is horrific, but it plays out in a comic fashion, like the deaths at the end of Raiders. Mola's heart ripping scene was more graphic, and being inflicted on a victim we presume to be innocent, it was all the more disturbing.

I don't think those two scenes are really comparable, as the ants scene is an out and out action set piece, whereas TOD's sacrifice ceremony scene is an establishing scene for Mola Ram and the Thuggees. Dovchenko's death is a lot more comparable with the German mechanic (Raiders), chief Thuggee fight (TOD) and the fight with Vogel (TLC). When compared to those, I think the ants/death of Dovchenko scene holds up well.
 
Top