Crystal Skull Vs Temple of Doom - Which is better?

Major West

Major West

Member
It struck me from a lot of reviews I read in newspapers when KOTCS was released at the cinema that they almost all said that it was better than Temple of Doom, the film that to most casual non hardcore fans think is the worst of all four films. Indeed, ToD was I believe the only Indy film which performed poorly at the box office when it was released and received quite a lot of negative reviews. Now to me, I like ToD almost as much as Raiders but to most people I've met they always think it's the worst film, ranking it third in the trilogy and now forth just behind KOTCS. How do you feel and what do you think on the matter?
 
Last edited:
Goodeknight

Goodeknight

New member
Before KOTCS came out, I thought, "Hmm, what if Temple is no longer the worst Indy film?"

Lo and behold, I personally rank Temple third now, with Crystal Skull a distant fourth. I'd say most fans would probably rank them that way.

1. Raiders
2. Last Crusade
3. Temple
4. Crystal Skull.

I'm sure there are polls on here, but I haven't looked at them.

I understand the idea that Indy was modeled after the b-movies of the 30s, so the latest one is modeled after the sci-fi films of the 50s, but that just doesn't fit in with the other three movies. Aliens? Seriously.

It's an idea everyone rejected for 20+ years while Lucas kept pushing for it. They never came up with anything better, so Spielberg said, 'Well, let's just go with George's lame idea.'

I know there are a lot of KOTCS fans out there who will disagree, but that's how I see it.

Assuming a poll ranking the movies exists, can someone post a link to it here in this thread?
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Major West said:
It struck me from a lot of reviews I read in newspapers when KOTCS was released at the cinema that they almost all said that it was better than Temple of Doom, the film that to most casual non hardcore fans think is the worst of all four films. Indeed, ToD was I believe the only Indy film which performed poorly at the box office when it was released and received quite a lot of negative reviews. Now to me, I like ToD almost as much as Raiders but to most people I've met they always think it's the worst film, ranking it third in the trilogy and now forth just behind KOTCS. How do you feel and what do you think on the matter?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it can ever be argued that TOD performed poorly at the box office. It was a massive hit... and I remember quite clearly that it was a very popular movie at the time. However, much of the critical perception was that it was not as sophisticated an action/adventure movie as Raiders (something I happen to agree with), and that some of the brains of the first movie had taken a back seat to non stop action. I happen to think that Return of the Jedi and Temple of Doom (made within a couple of years of each other) were more influential on modern action movies than Star Wars and Raiders were. That's why kids today find those two movies as accessible as anything today.

I personally find KOTCS to be a little more sophisticated than TOD (although the action possibly isn't as qualitative), and I think Ford is in better form... and that's why I'd rank KOTCS above TOD. It's human nature to rank, label and categorize things... but it's sometimes much better to just enjoy what you enjoy. ;)
 
mattzilla2010

mattzilla2010

New member
^ Well at the risk of sounding like one of those people who doesn't appreciate brains in movies, I'd have to say I like TOD better because of its action scenes. I know that's a bit shallow and that there's a lot more to a film than just action, but... that's just how I feel.

But wait! TOD does have brains... of the chilled monkey variety. ;)
 
kongisking

kongisking

Active member
As much as I rabidly love KOTCS, I'll have to go with TOD here...a masterpiece of pulp adventure that will never, ever be equalled.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
mattzilla2010 said:
^ Well at the risk of sounding like one of those people who doesn't appreciate brains in movies, I'd have to say I like TOD better because of its action scenes. I know that's a bit shallow and that there's a lot more to a film than just action, but... that's just how I feel.

But wait! TOD does have brains... of the chilled monkey variety. ;)
Click to expand...

If KOTCS proves anything, it's that intent doesn't necessarily make for the best movie. I think KOTCS aspires to be a more intelligent action movie than TOD (and for me it achieves that), but whilst reaching for that level of sophistication, some of the story telling suffers as a consequence. Hence I can understand why for many TOD is the better, easier to watch movie.

Also, I agree that in comparison to modern action movies, there is a lot more to TOD than set pieces/action. It's beautifully designed, the action is inventive and has a pretty good Williams soundtrack. It's only over the last circa 10 years, in hindsight and within context, that I can view TOD more subjectively. However at the time (to use a more modern comparison) in terms of style and general quality, it felt like they'd gone from Casino Royale to View to a Kill. :)
 
Major West

Major West

Member
kongisking said:
As much as I rabidly love KOTCS, I'll have to go with TOD here...a masterpiece of pulp adventure that will never, ever be equalled.
Click to expand...


I agree, but the thrust of the thread is trying to examine why the public think ToD is worse than KOTCS.

goodeknight said:
I understand the idea that Indy was modeled after the b-movies of the 30s, so the latest one is modeled after the sci-fi films of the 50s, but that just doesn't fit in with the other three movies.
Click to expand...

Why should it fit with the other three movies though? You could put Indy into numerous situations that don't fit with the other three movies.
 
Goodeknight

Goodeknight

New member
Major West said:
Why should it fit with the other three movies though? You could put Indy into numerous situations that don't fit with the other three movies.
Click to expand...

They're two different genres. In Star Trek you can get away with putting Kirk and Spock in the old west. Not Indy.

KOTCS even starts out like the other three films, archaeological adventure with a dose of mystery/magic, and then turns into full blown sci-fi as it nears the end. Then it goes over the top with the huge spaceship heading back home, to the 'space between spaces' (which is a completely idiotic line. In the theater, you could hear the entire audience groan, 'Huh?').

The Ark, the Grail, and even the Shankara Stones are all 'mysteries,' unexplainable by mankind, no matter how many "top men" study them. They're religious relics. None of the three are ever explained, other than to know the Ark and the Grail channel the power of God.

With science fiction, the whole point is that you actually explain how the stuff works. It doesn't matter if it's not entirely sound theory. Worm holes, light speed travel, transporters, blasters, etc. It's a completely different genre.

See what I mean? I'm not trying to butt heads with any KOTCS fans, so my apologies to anyone who takes offense, but I just don't go for mixing the genres. You might as well put Indy into a romantic comedy in New York City.
 
Goodeknight

Goodeknight

New member
Junior Jones said:
Have you ever seen Young Indiana Jones and the Scandal of 1920? It's one of my favorites.
Click to expand...

I probably did, many years ago. Not a huge fan of the young Indy series, but there were some good ones in there.

The series did mix genres rather well. I will certainly give you that.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
goodeknight said:
They're two different genres. In Star Trek you can get away with putting Kirk and Spock in the old west. Not Indy.

See what I mean? I'm not trying to butt heads with any KOTCS fans, so my apologies to anyone who takes offense, but I just don't go for mixing the genres. You might as well put Indy into a romantic comedy in New York City.
Click to expand...

But the rather high concept of 'Indiana Jones' is a post modern take on 1930's/40's cinema/republic serials. 'Indiana Jones' is not a homage to the 1930's/40's time period per se, but rather is a homage to the style of movies/serials that were being made in that time period. This enables Spielberg/Lucas to mix genres... be it the western (Raiders/TLC), horror (which they did with TOD), war or science fiction. Wether one thinks it works or not is open to debate, but I think the mixing of genres (established by the first 3 movies) is sound.
 
Goodeknight

Goodeknight

New member
Darth Vile said:
But the rather high concept of 'Indiana Jones' is a post modern take on 1930's/40's cinema/republic serials. 'Indiana Jones' is not a homage to the 1930's/40's time period per se, but rather is a homage to the style of movies/serials that were being made in that time period. This enables Spielberg/Lucas to mix genres... be it the western (Raiders/TLC), horror (which they did with TOD), war or science fiction. Wether one thinks it works or not is open to debate, but I think the mixing of genres (established by the first 3 movies) is sound.
Click to expand...

But again, the first three films all share the common thread that the MacGuffin is unexplainable. Scifi explains everything. Look at the reverse. If Doc Brown told Marty, "Well, that part's just magic," the movie falls apart. For me, KOTCS fell apart.
 
Major West

Major West

Member
goodeknight said:
They're two different genres. In Star Trek you can get away with putting Kirk and Spock in the old west. Not Indy.

KOTCS even starts out like the other three films, archaeological adventure with a dose of mystery/magic, and then turns into full blown sci-fi as it nears the end. Then it goes over the top with the huge spaceship heading back home, to the 'space between spaces' (which is a completely idiotic line. In the theater, you could hear the entire audience groan, 'Huh?').

The Ark, the Grail, and even the Shankara Stones are all 'mysteries,' unexplainable by mankind, no matter how many "top men" study them. They're religious relics. None of the three are ever explained, other than to know the Ark and the Grail channel the power of God.

With science fiction, the whole point is that you actually explain how the stuff works. It doesn't matter if it's not entirely sound theory. Worm holes, light speed travel, transporters, blasters, etc. It's a completely different genre.

See what I mean? I'm not trying to butt heads with any KOTCS fans, so my apologies to anyone who takes offense, but I just don't go for mixing the genres. You might as well put Indy into a romantic comedy in New York City.
Click to expand...

I think you're making it seem more difficult to yourself than it need be. It's Indy in a pulp 50s scenario.
 
lao che & sons

lao che & sons

New member
Temple is my all time favorite so it overrides Skull by a long shot;)

my list goes:

1: Temple of Doom
2: Raiders of the Lost ark
3:The Last Crusade
4: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:cool:
 
Le Saboteur

Le Saboteur

Active member
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is barely hanging on the edge of the cliff in the Indy canon. If I was standing on that cliff, I would happily kick it off.

By almost any measure, Crystal Skull is a sub-par, mediocre outing. Even if you believe that 50's sci-fi and serial adventure belong together (they don't), it's no excuse for having too many characters, most of which are unnecessary. Side of Beef, Mac, Oxley, &, yes, Marion: all of these should've been left back in the States, or met along the way. Rather than the Indy Family & Friends Power Hour Road Show, the Beards could've (& should've) followed the arc of, say, Heart of Darkness.
 
Dr.Jonesy

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
1.) Raiders of the Lost Ark (10/10)
2.) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (8.5/10)
3.) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (8/10)
4.) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (7.5/10)

Sorry, KOTCS is higher than TOD for me. But, that's nothing against it! I love TOD to death.

I actually found it surprising that whenever I see a poll done online or in a film forum, people still rate TOD as the least favorite Indy film. But, it still kicks ass and they know it.
:hat:
 
mattzilla2010

mattzilla2010

New member
Le Saboteur said:
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is barely hanging on the edge of the cliff in the Indy canon. If I was standing on that cliff, I would happily kick it off.

By almost any measure, Crystal Skull is a sub-par, mediocre outing. Even if you believe that 50's sci-fi and serial adventure belong together (they don't), it's no excuse for having too many characters, most of which are unnecessary. Side of Beef, Mac, Oxley, &, yes, Marion: all of these should've been left back in the States, or met along the way. Rather than the Indy Family & Friends Power Hour Road Show, the Beards could've (& should've) followed the arc of, say, Heart of Darkness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I like the film, but I do agree that they could've left out some of the characters. It felt a bit crowded. And forgive me if I'm missing your point, but isn't Heart of Darkness rather heavy stuff to use as inspiration for an Indy movie? Even ROTLA (which most people here say is the one that takes itself most seriously) isn't nearly as dark/thematic/symbolic/literary/etc...
 
Major West

Major West

Member
Le Saboteur said:
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is barely hanging on the edge of the cliff in the Indy canon. If I was standing on that cliff, I would happily kick it off.
Click to expand...

Whether you like it of not it's official canon. There's not even a debate there.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
goodeknight said:
But again, the first three films all share the common thread that the MacGuffin is unexplainable. Scifi explains everything. Look at the reverse. If Doc Brown told Marty, "Well, that part's just magic," the movie falls apart. For me, KOTCS fell apart.
Click to expand...

You are thinking about it way too much. In Raiders, TOD and TLC we see the hand of God (or a God) at work... in KOTCS it happens to be aliens. You may not like the aliens theme, but Lucas' use of mythology, religion and a higher being is consistent throughout the series.

There is less "explanation" in the genre of Science Fiction than you'd like to believe. Indeed, science fiction relies on a sizeable amount of faith and imagination to suspend the viewers/readers disbelief. A perfect example being 2001: ASO, where the line between alien intelligence and what we'd perceive as 'God' is very blurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top