Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom?

DeepSixFix

New member
TOD Rocks

"Temple of Doom" is an excellent movie. For some reason it's too "dark" for some people who can't handle it. They deleted the heart removal scene in Britain because people couldn't deal with it. It's how Indiana Jones was meant to be, not the light-hearted "Last Crusade." Some people like "Indy," but I prefer the darker "Jones." It's up to you.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Right on! I prefer the darker tone of Temple to the light-hearted fare of Crusade. To me, the main difference is a sense of danger. In Crusade and especially Kingdom, you just don't really feel that gripping fear of mortal peril like you did in Raiders and especially in Temple. If Indy's not in deep, deep trouble, it's not quite Indy to me.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
DeepSixFix said:
For some reason it's too "dark" for some people who can't handle it. They deleted the heart removal scene in Britain because people couldn't deal with it.
Not really, it was deleted (or made more subtle) so that it got the rating that the studio wanted otherwise it would have got a 15 rating in the UK as opposed to PG.

Wasnt the heart seen referred to as a bad thing in many US reviews though?

I think the fact that the story is weak with no real sense of scope to the film or any real adventure (in comparison to Raiders especially) makes it the worst of the original trilogy for a lot of people.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
shazamtd said:
ToD is the "black sheep" of all the Indy movies. That's what I like about it. :)

And not to mention the appearance of evil Indy under the "black sleep".

I always feel there's something special about TOD. It was strange, evil, sinister, and shocking after ROTLA. It plunged into unexpected depths of depravity, the murky under-belly of society. For me, all that made it perfect Indy territory.
 
Montana Smith said:
For me, all that made it perfect Indy territory.
For someone who had to fight tooth and nail with parents to see it, referencing Raiders as a standard, it was a letdown.

Great to see Indy again, to have an adventure, (with age appreciating it for many other reasons), but to lose something in the process...(n)
 

Darth Vile

New member
DeepSixFix said:
"Temple of Doom" is an excellent movie. For some reason it's too "dark" for some people who can't handle it. They deleted the heart removal scene in Britain because people couldn't deal with it. It's how Indiana Jones was meant to be, not the light-hearted "Last Crusade." Some people like "Indy," but I prefer the darker "Jones." It's up to you.

I don't really perceive TOD as dark at all (apart from the physical lighting aspects in the temple/mines). Of all 4 Indy movies, it's the most cartoon like and emotionally unchallenging. It's certainly not as fun (or possibly even as camp) as TLC, but it certainly isn't a dark movie (IMHO).
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I don't really perceive TOD as dark at all (apart from the physical lighting aspects in the temple/mines). Of all 4 Indy movies, it's the most cartoon like and emotionally unchallenging. It's certainly not as fun (or possibly even as camp) as TLC, but it certainly isn't a dark movie (IMHO).

Flapping human skins?

I've mentioned them numerous times before. Maybe it's just me, but there's something shocking about skinning a human and hanging up the 'pelt'. For all the comedy and cartoon adventure in TOD, there will always be those skins.

It's an image more at home in a movie about or inspired by Ed Gein, rather than a family adventure.

Add to that the child slave labour, the heart ripping, the disgusting dinner, the room swarming with creepy crawlies, it's a strange mix. And that's why it feels special. It also establishes the darker side of Indy's world, and the potential for other demonic cults elsewhere.
 

Matt deMille

New member
I think "dark" is a term too often misunderstood in a movie's tone. It's like everyone sees it differently, so saying what is "dark" or not becomes subjective.

For what it's worth, my take on "dark" is the subplots and morals. Temple of Doom is, to me, a very dark movie indeed. For it's less about intellectual pursuit, redemption or fighting a war, themes which drove Raiders, and it's more about imprisonment, sheer survival, and even the love element is more of a fling. It's all very shallow emotionally, meaning the characters are responding to basic instincts, temptations and, thus, are capable of greater cruelty themselves. The darkness is not so much in the lighting or even the in-your-face elements like the heart-ripping, but rather, the darkness is in the hearts of the characters. IMHO.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
I think "dark" is a term too often misunderstood in a movie's tone. It's like everyone sees it differently, so saying what is "dark" or not becomes subjective.

For what it's worth, my take on "dark" is the subplots and morals. Temple of Doom is, to me, a very dark movie indeed. For it's less about intellectual pursuit, redemption or fighting a war, themes which drove Raiders, and it's more about imprisonment, sheer survival, and even the love element is more of a fling. It's all very shallow emotionally, meaning the characters are responding to basic instincts, temptations and, thus, are capable of greater cruelty themselves. The darkness is not so much in the lighting or even the in-your-face elements like the heart-ripping, but rather, the darkness is in the hearts of the characters. IMHO.

I like the idea of Indy in the Heart of Darkness. (Indy and Marlow travelling by steamboat into the heart of Africa in search of Abner...)

TOD is the film that firmly establishes Indy as a naturally self-centred individual, more interested in his own journey than that of others. He would have left Mayapore without rescuing the children if he'd not been convinced by actually seeing the boy that escaped. Indy isn't a traditional or a natural hero.

As you say, he reacts to the situations in the film, and ultimately it's Shorty who effects the escape. This places TOD with KOTCS in that Indy is the victim of circumstance, rather than actively engaging in a mission (ROTLA and TLC).
 

Matt deMille

New member
He does seem to be a victim of circumstance. But, isn't he in Last Crusade as well? He declined Donovan's offer to head the Grail search, and actually went looking for his dad, a circumstance he couldn't ignore.

I think that's one of the appealing aspects of Indy. One reason I've argued before about his being more mercenary than hero. It's believable. We, that is, the general public, are more self-serving than we like to admit. A traditional movie "hero" is just too distant from us. They're fun to watch, but they're not US. Indy, on the other had, could easily be us, or rather, we could easily be in his situation and act as he does -- self-serving. That puts us more into the movie rather than watching it from a safe distance. I believe if Indy was the big, goody-two-shoes hero, we wouldn't like him nearly as much.

Temple of Doom just shows this more clearly than the other films ('cept maybe Raiders, where he is being paid to go after the Ark). And maybe that's one reason people don't like this film as much -- It's a dark mirror where their subconscious sees a rather unwelcome reflection. It's easy for us to delude ourselves and imagine we're all good, with no skeletons in our closet, and it's certainly what most people tell to others. However, when watching Temple of Doom, it's difficult for us to imagine and emotionally agree with ourselves that we'd do anything other than leave the village, or try to save our butts first and foremost. In other words, when watching Temple, we're drawing more into survival mode and it's harder to imagine ourselves being heroic.

That, to me, is one of the genius subtleties of Temple Of Doom. We're tricked into feeling this darkness within ourselves until the third act, which to me starts when Indy recovers from the potion. We feel heroism, long kept caged, being allowed to rise, and it explodes when Indy beats the crap out of the first guard (that Williams' cue is pure magic -- we FEEL being heroic at last).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
He does seem to be a victim of circumstance. But, isn't he in Last Crusade as well? He declined Donovan's offer to head the Grail search, and actually went looking for his dad, a circumstance he couldn't ignore.

That's true, but in TLC he was more in control of the situation.

In TOD he's quickly poisoned; loses his gun; gets on the 'wrong' aeroplane; the pilot and co-pilot jump out and leave the passengers to die.

Then he makes a decision: the Indian boy that falls into his arms convinces him of the moral path.

That path, however, leads to succumbing to the Black Sleep of Kali. Now he really is the victim of circumstance. Shorty instigates the slave rebellion and shocks Indy back to his senses. Then it's a mad rush for survival.

When faced with the Thuggee at the bridge he's without his gun.

In the final struggle with Mola Indy finally takes control, by invoking Shiva.

TLC differs in that even though circumstance dicates that he journeys to find his father, Indy maintains control of the situation for most of the time. He's active rather than reactive. He has a plan this time. He even gets to throw Vogel out of the airship in front of the astonished passengers.

Matt deMille said:
I think that's one of the appealing aspects of Indy. One reason I've argued before about his being more mercenary than hero. It's believable. We, that is, the general public, are more self-serving than we like to admit. A traditional movie "hero" is just too distant from us. They're fun to watch, but they're not US. Indy, on the other had, could easily be us, or rather, we could easily be in his situation and act as he does -- self-serving. That puts us more into the movie rather than watching it from a safe distance. I believe if Indy was the big, goody-two-shoes hero, we wouldn't like him nearly as much.

Definitely.

Matt deMille said:
Temple of Doom just shows this more clearly than the other films ('cept maybe Raiders, where he is being paid to go after the Ark). And maybe that's one reason people don't like this film as much -- It's a dark mirror where their subconscious sees a rather unwelcome reflection. It's easy for us to delude ourselves and imagine we're all good, with no skeletons in our closet, and it's certainly what most people tell to others. However, when watching Temple of Doom, it's difficult for us to imagine and emotionally agree with ourselves that we'd do anything other than leave the village, or try to save our butts first and foremost. In other words, when watching Temple, we're drawing more into survival mode and it's harder to imagine ourselves being heroic.

That, to me, is one of the genius subtleties of Temple Of Doom. We're tricked into feeling this darkness within ourselves until the third act, which to me starts when Indy recovers from the potion. We feel heroism, long kept caged, being allowed to rise, and it explodes when Indy beats the crap out of the first guard (that Williams' cue is pure magic -- we FEEL being heroic at last).

For all those reasons, TOD earns its right to stand proudly alongside Raiders (or maybe stand on a slightly lower step!)
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
TLC differs in that even though circumstance dicates that he journeys to find his father, Indy maintains control of the situation for most of the time. He's active rather than reactive. He has a plan this time. He even gets to throw Vogel out of the airship in front of the astonished passengers.

Just because Indy may be the underdog during several sequences in ToD - outgunned, outmanuevered, etc., doesn't make him "reactive."

In fact, Indy is quite active throughout the movie, making huge decisions which affect the direction of the story and its outcome.

While the circumstances that get him to Mayapore are beyond his control, once the real story is revealed, Indy is taking charge every step of the way.

Indy chooses to go to Pankot Palace...Indy goads Chatter Lal for information about the Thuggee and the stones...Indy chooses to explore the secret passage and discover the Kali temple. Indy chooses to retrieve the stones. Indy chooses to rescue the village children.

Sure, he may start out as a reluctant hero. But that's an archetype as old as story itself (cf Joseph Campbell). Once he makes his initial decision at the village, each successive decision makes him more and more committed.

He may be cornered, he may be in danger, he may even be briefly taken out of commission entirely due to the "black sleep", but he's never less than an active hero whose decisions drive the story at every major turn.

It's pretty much the same in LC, albeit with some goading from Henry - Indy chooses to go to Venice, chooses to find the Knight's Tomb (even though it has nothing to do with his later stated goal of finding his father), chooses to rescue Dad, agrees with Dad to go to Berlin, etc.

The fact that he isn't in as much consistent, immediate danger as ToD is irrelevant to his status as an active character.

Contrast to KOTCS (which admittedly I don't know nearly as well, having only suffered through it a couple of times), but Indy rarely makes any decisions on his own or discoveries of his own, often used as a pawn by Spalko or simply following in Oxley's footsteps.



For all those reasons, TOD earns its right to stand proudly alongside Raiders (or maybe stand on a slightly lower step!)

On this we agree!!
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
Flapping human skins?

I've mentioned them numerous times before. Maybe it's just me, but there's something shocking about skinning a human and hanging up the 'pelt'. For all the comedy and cartoon adventure in TOD, there will always be those skins.

It's an image more at home in a movie about or inspired by Ed Gein, rather than a family adventure.

Add to that the child slave labour, the heart ripping, the disgusting dinner, the room swarming with creepy crawlies, it's a strange mix. And that's why it feels special. It also establishes the darker side of Indy's world, and the potential for other demonic cults elsewhere.

TOD is indeed 'special', because it's a great 80's action movie... but to me there are many similarities between TOD and Return of the Jedi (as in overall tone and pacing) i.e. more of a rollercoaster ride with little characterisation/plot, held together by great action sequences. And personally speaking, I find the plight of the slave children more manufactured and saccharin sweet than the plight of the ewoks (and we at least get to see one of those suckers die). ;)

And whilst KOTCS had a greater opportunity to be better than it was (and indeed has many faults), TOD will always be the movie (IMHO) that seems like it was conceived on the back of a cigarette packet and was churned out, Henry Ford fashion, with little thought other than to milk the success of Raiders.
 
Last edited:

AndyLGR

Active member
TOD for me has many dark qualities as already mentioned, the human skins, heart ripping out, drinking blood, burning bodies etc, But all this if offset, probably intentionally, with a silly heroine of the story and a cute kid. Along with some over the top action and the humour, lifeboat parachute, slapstick chase the antidote, jumping mine cars, kids karate fighting.

Its a strange mix. Watching it again, probably with older eyes, its a better film than I probably gave it credit for when I first saw it. But I still find the lack of story / characterisation / scope are its weakness. But having said all that, its probably a film that is light years in front of many of its peers. Its just that Raiders set the bar so high.

Darth Vile said:
TOD is indeed 'special', because it's a great 80's action movie... but to me there are many similarities between TOD and Return of the Jedi (as in overall tone and pacing) i.e. more of a rollercoaster ride with little characterisation/plot, held together by great action sequences. And personally speaking, I find the plight of the slave children more manufactured and saccharin sweet than the plight of the ewoks (and we at least get to see one of those suckers die). ;)
I always regarded TLC as being like ROTJ, in that its a film very much along the same lines as the original, plenty of action, not a fantastic story and it tries to evoke the excitement of the original movie.

Darth Vile said:
TOD will always be the movie (IMHO) that seems like it was conceived on the back of a cigarette packet and was churned out, Henry Ford fashion, with little thought other than to milk the success of Raiders.
Just as many sequels did in the 80's / early 90's.
 

DeepSixFix

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
For someone who had to fight tooth and nail with parents to see it, referencing Raiders as a standard, it was a letdown.
I saw it in the theater as a kid, too, and loved it. Sorry you don't have that great memory.

Darth Vile said:
And whilst KOTCS had a greater opportunity to be better than it was (and indeed has many faults), TOD will always be the movie (IMHO) that seems like it was conceived on the back of a cigarette packet and was churned out, Henry Ford fashion, with little thought other than to milk the success of Raiders.
TOD is great because it's the opposite of Raiders. The unexpected song and dance intro with the Bogart homage and Jones bargaining with a gangster. He's actually trading human remains for a diamond! It reveals his dark grave robbing side. Then the whole poison back and forth sequence with Jones skewering the bad guy with a flaming shishkabob, how can you not like that?

Willy worked because she was the exact opposite of Marion and an homage to the classic Hollywood damsel in distress. And the impossible surviving-the-plane-crash sequence gets an eerie explanation as it's revealed "the gods" brought Jones, Willy and Short Round there. So of course they survived. The slave children are the perfect catalyst to keep Dr. Jones there.

Then the dual fight scene between Jones and the Thuggee mirrored by Short Round fighting the kid Maharaja is classic! Bashing TOD is just trolling. That movie represents everything you get into adventure movies for in the first place.
 
DeepSixFix said:
I saw it in the theater as a kid, too, and loved it. Sorry you don't have that great memory.
I saw Raiders in the theater as a kid and have great memories of that. ToD was weak, luke warm leftovers.

DeepSixFix said:
TOD is great because it's the opposite of Raiders. The unexpected song and dance intro with the Bogart homage and Jones bargaining with a gangster. He's actually trading human remains for a diamond! It reveals his dark grave robbing side. Then the whole poison back and forth sequence with Jones skewering the bad guy with a flaming shishkabob, how can you not like that?
Started out strong, no doubt!:hat:

DeepSixFix said:
Willy worked because she was the exact opposite of Marion and an homage to the classic Hollywood damsel in distress.
Willie worked alright, right on my last nerve, hell, even Indy gave up a possible final moment in the spike chamber to tell Willie to shut up. You like her, more power to ya. Ooof!

DeepSixFix said:
And the impossible surviving-the-plane-crash sequence gets an eerie explanation as it's revealed "the gods" brought Jones, Willy and Short Round there.
Like the take on it, and I personally think if the powder was deep enough, no harm no foul.

DeepSixFix said:
Then the dual fight scene between Jones and the Thuggee mirrored by Short Round fighting the kid Maharaja is classic!
Yeah! Uh...no.

DeepSixFix said:
Bashing TOD is just trolling. That movie represents everything you get into adventure movies for in the first place.
Nice Raiders quote!:rolleyes: But whining about people not liking a cartoon is trolling pally, especially in a thread titled: "Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom? "

Face it, untill Skull came along Temple got beat like the red headed step child it is...
 

DeepSixFix

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I saw Raiders in the theater as a kid and have great memories of that. ToD was weak, luke warm leftovers.

Nice Raiders quote!:rolleyes: But whining about people not liking a cartoon is trolling pally, especially in a thread titled: "Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom? "

Face it, untill Skull came along Temple got beat like the red headed step child it is...
I saw "Raiders" in the theater as a kid, too. This thread is "Why does everyone hate TOD?" It's normal to chime in and say I don't hate it. I love it. Loved it in the theaters and love it now. Sad that you don't. Not sure what adventure movie you could possibly like, but no need to jump on me for enjoying a great adventure film.
 

indyswk

New member
Darth Vile said:
And whilst KOTCS had a greater opportunity to be better than it was (and indeed has many faults), TOD will always be the movie (IMHO) that seems like it was conceived on the back of a cigarette packet and was churned out, Henry Ford fashion, with little thought other than to milk the success of Raiders.

Actually, I felt that for KOTCS, but not ToD.

In my opinion ToD used scenes and details that were supposed to be part of Raiders, but due to time constraint they couldn't include it, so they made another movie based on the scenes they couldn't use. It was probably planned all along that if Raiders did well they'd make a sequel with all the extra leftover scenes and stunts (plane raft drop and the using the gong to sheild from machine gun in ToD)

The Last Crusade also had a good story, so much that I personally couldn't tell they were 'trying' to milk the series, just that they had a good thing rolling and it just clicked and worked.

KOTCS was made 'for the fans'. Speilberg even said he shot the riding into sunset sceen at the end of TLC because he thought the series had ended. I sense that they just said, hey let's make another one, and we'll come up with new crazy stuff with it and see where we go. Ultimately I enjoyed Indy adventure again, but feeling a bit let down by it and can catch some unpolished things with it. A lot of it have to do with anticlimatic scenes that let me down right after a great scene, so much that I remember only the poorer scenes but not the good ones.

Anyway, I rank ToD lower because the other two from the triology is so good, but I certainly enjoyed ToD.
 

DeepSixFix

New member
indyswk said:
In my opinion ToD used scenes and details that were supposed to be part of Raiders, but due to time constraint they couldn't include it, so they made another movie based on the scenes they couldn't use. It was probably planned all along that if Raiders did well they'd make a sequel with all the extra leftover scenes and stunts (plane raft drop and the using the gong to sheild from machine gun in ToD)
True, though I don't mind that they used leftover scenes as to me they are good scenes.
 
Top