The same criticism was heard when Raiders was released (And Doom, and Crusade). Even Lawrence Kasdan didn't like those things:
"Considering Lucasfilm's judicious editing of Kasdan's script before filming commenced, it's surprising that a couple of incredibly confusing scenes did make it into the movie. One such sequence is when Indiana Jones and a crew of Arabs are surreptitiously digging at the real site of the Well of Souls in direst view of the Nazis! To accept the picture's not having the Germans discover Indy and his men immediately, one has to either believe that the Nazis, thus far shown as a shrewd menace, have suddenly become absurdly stupid, or chalk it up to poetic license.
"I don't condone that kind of story element," Kasdan admits. "When that scene was written, there was no way that Indy's group was supposed to be so close to the Nazis. Indy was digging on a totally separate site several sand dunes away from the Nazis. They were discovered much later only when the Nazis spotted the smoke rising from the Arab's torches. When Steven asked me about what I thought of the film after I saw it, that was one of the few things that bothered me enough to mention it to him. Obviously, the logistics of their location dictated that shot set-up, but I told Steven that if he took out the daylight establishing shot showing how close the two groups are, the sequence wouldn't have been as bothersome. Then I asked Steven, 'Why are the Arabs singing?' That makes it even worse."
Another perplexing moment for audiences comes when the film shows Indy swimming towards the German's submarine and then abruptly cuts to the sub inside its pen with Indy in an adjoining hallway.
"Indy got to the pen by swimming to the sub and then climbing on top of it until he reached its periscope," Kasdan explains. "I know that part was filmed, because I saw it at one of the first previews. It's since been cut. What I'm not sure was ever shot was how had Indy lash himself to the periscope with his whip. I liked that a lot, because it made good use of the whip.
Another annoyance for filmgoers are some of Raiders' incongruous comedic moments, including Sallah's bursting into song after bidding farewell to Indy, and Marion Ravenwood's accidentally hitting Indy on the head with a full-sized mirror. These off-beat touches suggest that perhaps Spielberg couldn't get his last film, 1941, a slapstick World War 11 comedy, totally out of his mind. "Those broader comedy elements were created independently from me," says Kasdan. "They bothered me quite a bit, but it balances out, because some really good things in Raiders, such as lndy's confrontation with the Arab swordsman, the classroom scene, and the Nazi's coat hanger, were also innovated by Steven."
"What bothers KASDAN the most about RAIDERS's final form is its lack of character development. A prime example is Indiana Jones's first meeting with Marion Ravenwood at "The Raven" bar. Even Raiders's most ardent fans admit that that scene's lines are horribly stilted.
"It's really weak" Kasdan concurs "Some of the best writing I've ever done was in that scene, but all that's left is its beginning and end. Those lines actually make sense, but only when the rest of the dialogue is played out".
"Another scene that hurt", adds Kasdan, "was Marion's bit with Belloq in the tent. They had me write that scene FOUR times and THEY wrote an entirely new scene which they shot. The way it is now, some people get the scene drift-and some don't. What you're supposed to understand is that Marion is not faking being drunk and that she actually does have a certain admiration for Belloq. I had had that scene set up in the story beforehand by having Indy be suspicious of Marion's feelings towards Belloq. All that's left of that subplot now is his line after the tent scene when Indy says to her "Where did you get that dress"?
"I guess that all of this bothers me because I have the character background in the script" Kasdan confides " With Indy and Marion's first scene in the Raven Steven even shot the whole thing. We always know it was a little long, but it's been chopped down to almost nothing. My feeling was that we should have edited a little of the chase sequences so that we'd have time to properly establish the characters" (STARLOG SEPT 1981)
And Temple of Doom by Alan Dean Foster: it could be exactly the same review for KOTCS:
"An effort like Temple of Doom is in trouble even before the title appears on the screen. Not only is it a sequel to a hugely successful predecessor, but Steven Spielberg and George Lucas hace placed themselves in the unenviable position of having to top themselves every time out (...) The audience expects Temple of Doom to do the impossible. It does not, and because the expectations for the picture are so high, all of its lapses and failures are magnified. Instead of being rated against itself or other films of the same ilk, viewers find themselves comparing it not only to Raiders of the Lost Ark, but to E.T. and Star Wars. This does not obscure the fact that Romancing the Stone is a better film of the same type. (...) What the audience will not accept is someone stepping out of an airplane with only an inflated rubber life raft to cushion his fall of several thousand feet (...) What the falling-out-of-the-plane bit does is shout to the audience "You must accept this because it's only a movie". That's fatal to a fantasy. The audience feels cheated, doubly so when the impossible plunge is repeated seconds later as the raft careens over a precipice. By ignoring the laws of reality, the illusion of reality that the film aspires to its destroyed. The dream has been punctured. It's popcorn time.
Toward the end of the film, Indiana and his friends are being chased through a mine tunnel labyrinth. Both pursued and pursuers race along a breakneck speed in runaway mine cars. So far so exciting. And then we're smacked in the face with another "Awwwww, come onnnn!". A section of track is missing and there is a gap and drop before they resume. The decidedly unaerodynamic mine car carrying Indy and his friends rockets off the broken rails, lears the gap, and lands with a precision no space shuttle crew could achieve on the rails opposite, to continue its journey. You can't sell this stuff to kids, much less to adults. They've been educated to the perils of speed: by Tv cops shows, by Driver's Ed in school, by Disneyland. Everyone in the audience knows such a feat is impossible. (...) It's the writers who must bear the blame for the story's lapses of logic. As Indiana is fleeing gangsters in Shanghai, he escapes to a waiting plane. How does the airport agent know Indiana has 2 companions coming with him? For that matter , since the gangsters own the plane and have already planned to maroon Indiana aboard it, why they chase him all over the city and risk getting shot? (...)
Another difference, and an important one to the audience, between Raiders and Temple of Doom is the absence in the second film of fantasy elements. About all we're given is the sequence showing Ram removing the heart of his still-living victim, an effect done better and more frequently in David Cronenberg's Videodrome. Temple of Doom boasts no swirling evil spirits, no blasts of supernatural fire, no boiling clouds. Again the trouble is with expectations. We expect the out-of-ordinary from Spielberg and Lucas. (...) I also thought better use could have been made of the Sri Lanka locations.(...)
Story, story, story, and it's not only the pacing that suffers in Temple Of Doom. Why is Mola Ram sacrificing people? Nothing in Temple Of Doom is ever explained. It's an idiot plot, where characters do things solely for the benefit of the film, not because it bears any relationship to the story. In Raiders we know why everybody's after the Ark of the Covenant, we know what the Nazis want, we see relationships developing between REAL people. There are no real people in Temple of Doom; only ciphers. Characters must have motivation. It's not enough for Mola Ram to act evil: he has to have a reason to be evil. Mola Ram is coming from nowhere and going noplace. Cipher. (...)
And that, in the last analysis, is why you leave the theater feeling uncomfortable at the conclusion of Temple of Doom. You know you've watched a well-made, lavishly produced film that seems to have delivered all it promised. It just doesn't sit right, and the reason why is simple. No magic".
Starlog (Nov 84)
History repeats itself.
"Considering Lucasfilm's judicious editing of Kasdan's script before filming commenced, it's surprising that a couple of incredibly confusing scenes did make it into the movie. One such sequence is when Indiana Jones and a crew of Arabs are surreptitiously digging at the real site of the Well of Souls in direst view of the Nazis! To accept the picture's not having the Germans discover Indy and his men immediately, one has to either believe that the Nazis, thus far shown as a shrewd menace, have suddenly become absurdly stupid, or chalk it up to poetic license.
"I don't condone that kind of story element," Kasdan admits. "When that scene was written, there was no way that Indy's group was supposed to be so close to the Nazis. Indy was digging on a totally separate site several sand dunes away from the Nazis. They were discovered much later only when the Nazis spotted the smoke rising from the Arab's torches. When Steven asked me about what I thought of the film after I saw it, that was one of the few things that bothered me enough to mention it to him. Obviously, the logistics of their location dictated that shot set-up, but I told Steven that if he took out the daylight establishing shot showing how close the two groups are, the sequence wouldn't have been as bothersome. Then I asked Steven, 'Why are the Arabs singing?' That makes it even worse."
Another perplexing moment for audiences comes when the film shows Indy swimming towards the German's submarine and then abruptly cuts to the sub inside its pen with Indy in an adjoining hallway.
"Indy got to the pen by swimming to the sub and then climbing on top of it until he reached its periscope," Kasdan explains. "I know that part was filmed, because I saw it at one of the first previews. It's since been cut. What I'm not sure was ever shot was how had Indy lash himself to the periscope with his whip. I liked that a lot, because it made good use of the whip.
Another annoyance for filmgoers are some of Raiders' incongruous comedic moments, including Sallah's bursting into song after bidding farewell to Indy, and Marion Ravenwood's accidentally hitting Indy on the head with a full-sized mirror. These off-beat touches suggest that perhaps Spielberg couldn't get his last film, 1941, a slapstick World War 11 comedy, totally out of his mind. "Those broader comedy elements were created independently from me," says Kasdan. "They bothered me quite a bit, but it balances out, because some really good things in Raiders, such as lndy's confrontation with the Arab swordsman, the classroom scene, and the Nazi's coat hanger, were also innovated by Steven."
"What bothers KASDAN the most about RAIDERS's final form is its lack of character development. A prime example is Indiana Jones's first meeting with Marion Ravenwood at "The Raven" bar. Even Raiders's most ardent fans admit that that scene's lines are horribly stilted.
"It's really weak" Kasdan concurs "Some of the best writing I've ever done was in that scene, but all that's left is its beginning and end. Those lines actually make sense, but only when the rest of the dialogue is played out".
"Another scene that hurt", adds Kasdan, "was Marion's bit with Belloq in the tent. They had me write that scene FOUR times and THEY wrote an entirely new scene which they shot. The way it is now, some people get the scene drift-and some don't. What you're supposed to understand is that Marion is not faking being drunk and that she actually does have a certain admiration for Belloq. I had had that scene set up in the story beforehand by having Indy be suspicious of Marion's feelings towards Belloq. All that's left of that subplot now is his line after the tent scene when Indy says to her "Where did you get that dress"?
"I guess that all of this bothers me because I have the character background in the script" Kasdan confides " With Indy and Marion's first scene in the Raven Steven even shot the whole thing. We always know it was a little long, but it's been chopped down to almost nothing. My feeling was that we should have edited a little of the chase sequences so that we'd have time to properly establish the characters" (STARLOG SEPT 1981)
And Temple of Doom by Alan Dean Foster: it could be exactly the same review for KOTCS:
"An effort like Temple of Doom is in trouble even before the title appears on the screen. Not only is it a sequel to a hugely successful predecessor, but Steven Spielberg and George Lucas hace placed themselves in the unenviable position of having to top themselves every time out (...) The audience expects Temple of Doom to do the impossible. It does not, and because the expectations for the picture are so high, all of its lapses and failures are magnified. Instead of being rated against itself or other films of the same ilk, viewers find themselves comparing it not only to Raiders of the Lost Ark, but to E.T. and Star Wars. This does not obscure the fact that Romancing the Stone is a better film of the same type. (...) What the audience will not accept is someone stepping out of an airplane with only an inflated rubber life raft to cushion his fall of several thousand feet (...) What the falling-out-of-the-plane bit does is shout to the audience "You must accept this because it's only a movie". That's fatal to a fantasy. The audience feels cheated, doubly so when the impossible plunge is repeated seconds later as the raft careens over a precipice. By ignoring the laws of reality, the illusion of reality that the film aspires to its destroyed. The dream has been punctured. It's popcorn time.
Toward the end of the film, Indiana and his friends are being chased through a mine tunnel labyrinth. Both pursued and pursuers race along a breakneck speed in runaway mine cars. So far so exciting. And then we're smacked in the face with another "Awwwww, come onnnn!". A section of track is missing and there is a gap and drop before they resume. The decidedly unaerodynamic mine car carrying Indy and his friends rockets off the broken rails, lears the gap, and lands with a precision no space shuttle crew could achieve on the rails opposite, to continue its journey. You can't sell this stuff to kids, much less to adults. They've been educated to the perils of speed: by Tv cops shows, by Driver's Ed in school, by Disneyland. Everyone in the audience knows such a feat is impossible. (...) It's the writers who must bear the blame for the story's lapses of logic. As Indiana is fleeing gangsters in Shanghai, he escapes to a waiting plane. How does the airport agent know Indiana has 2 companions coming with him? For that matter , since the gangsters own the plane and have already planned to maroon Indiana aboard it, why they chase him all over the city and risk getting shot? (...)
Another difference, and an important one to the audience, between Raiders and Temple of Doom is the absence in the second film of fantasy elements. About all we're given is the sequence showing Ram removing the heart of his still-living victim, an effect done better and more frequently in David Cronenberg's Videodrome. Temple of Doom boasts no swirling evil spirits, no blasts of supernatural fire, no boiling clouds. Again the trouble is with expectations. We expect the out-of-ordinary from Spielberg and Lucas. (...) I also thought better use could have been made of the Sri Lanka locations.(...)
Story, story, story, and it's not only the pacing that suffers in Temple Of Doom. Why is Mola Ram sacrificing people? Nothing in Temple Of Doom is ever explained. It's an idiot plot, where characters do things solely for the benefit of the film, not because it bears any relationship to the story. In Raiders we know why everybody's after the Ark of the Covenant, we know what the Nazis want, we see relationships developing between REAL people. There are no real people in Temple of Doom; only ciphers. Characters must have motivation. It's not enough for Mola Ram to act evil: he has to have a reason to be evil. Mola Ram is coming from nowhere and going noplace. Cipher. (...)
And that, in the last analysis, is why you leave the theater feeling uncomfortable at the conclusion of Temple of Doom. You know you've watched a well-made, lavishly produced film that seems to have delivered all it promised. It just doesn't sit right, and the reason why is simple. No magic".
Starlog (Nov 84)
History repeats itself.
Last edited:
