Crystal Skull Vs Temple of Doom - Which is better?

Indy's brother

New member
Darth Vile said:
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.

I strongly agree with this. It's more like the German Mechanic fight than anything, really. Which of course is awesome as well. In my opinion, the Ant Fight is the part in CS that most accurately recaptures the feel of the OT. It's my favorite part of CS. (y) I go back and forth with CS, sometimes I hate it, sometimes I like it, but I like the Ant Fight more every time I see it...with the exception of the shot of Mutt and Mac "dodging" Russian bullets. I just roll my eyes. We get it already, these soldiers couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if they were locked in it. I guess their vision was still impaired from all the celebrating they were doing the night before around the campfire. :rolleyes:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
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.

You're right.

The ants were likely inspired by '50s Sci-Fi/horror movies of radioactively mutated creatures, though thankfully Lucas and Spielberg avoided making them really gigantic. It's a horrific idea to be carried away by a sea of giant ants, to be eaten alive. Yet, at the same time it's so over the top that it doesn't maintain realistic horror.

The comparison I was making with Mola in TOD was the level of horror, not the intention of the scenes themselves.

The Mechanic fight in Raiders was classic Indy: a perfect combination of threat, menace, comedy, and a suitably sticky end.

Indy's brother said:
...with the exception of the shot of Mutt and Mac "dodging" Russian bullets. I just roll my eyes. We get it already, these soldiers couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if they were locked in it. I guess their vision was still impaired from all the celebrating they were doing the night before around the campfire.

Either that, or they were trained on set by some out of work Stormtroopers! :p
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
You're right.

The ants were likely inspired by '50s Sci-Fi/horror movies of radioactively mutated creatures, though thankfully Lucas and Spielberg avoided making them really gigantic. It's a horrific idea to be carried away by a sea of giant ants, to be eaten alive. Yet, at the same time it's so over the top that it doesn't maintain realistic horror.

The comparison I was making with Mola in TOD was the level of horror, not the intention of the scenes themselves.

The Mechanic fight in Raiders was classic Indy: a perfect combination of threat, menace, comedy, and a suitably sticky end.

I agree. I don't think the ants scene is designed to be scary per se, rather it's designed to be exciting/fun. And although I personally never found TOD to be any more scary than 'Carry On Screaming' (not sure you are familiar with that one), I can see that Lucas/Spielberg clearly intended to add an element of kitsch/camp horror into proceedings which, for TOD, worked well.

Indy's brother said:
I strongly agree with this. It's more like the German Mechanic fight than anything, really. Which of course is awesome as well. In my opinion, the Ant Fight is the part in CS that most accurately recaptures the feel of the OT. It's my favorite part of CS.
Completely agree. It's quintessential 'Indiana Jones' (even if it never quite betters the originals).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I agree. I don't think the ants scene is designed to be scary per se, rather it's designed to be exciting/fun. And although I personally never found TOD to be any more scary than 'Carry On Screaming' (not sure you are familiar with that one), I can see that Lucas/Spielberg clearly intended to add an element of kitsch/camp horror into proceedings which, for TOD, worked well.

Carry On Screaming was one of the best! Whilst a lot of Indy horror is kitsch and camp (i.e. not to be taken too seriously, such as the Giant Thuggee getting dragged into the mangle), I still felt that the two elements (skins & heart) in TOD went beyond that.

Maybe that's just my perception, but their inclusion makes TOD a little bit edgy. After all, this was one of the films that brought about the PG-13 rating. I also found the ape skins stretched out along the edge of the Forbidden Zone in the Planet of the Apes movies also quite shocking when I first saw the film as a child.

All being said, I applaud the differences between the Indy films. Indy remains constant as a character in his own unique world, but the world around him changes. If Lucas had set out to repeat Raiders three more times, it would be much easier for me to choose a favourite from four ROTLA clones. As it is, there is a story progression, and a different feel to each film, whilst they all generally follow the same formula of action, comedy, mystery and horror, requiring suspension of disbelief, or rather a belief in Indy's World.
 

MaxPhactor23

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?

Now this is not intended as a shot, but from my understanding...not much of what you said is accurate. Please don't take this as the bias ranting of a Doom fanatic either, this is merely what I've come to know and believe to be correct. Temple of Doom did not preform poorly and critically it was mixed initially, though arguably didn't have as much the mixture as Skull did, and traditionally (after the release of Skull) wasn't viewed by the majority as the least of the films anymore on the average. I cannot tell you how often I saw "Crystal Skull was so bad, Doom just got better!" comments. From what I recall there was actually even a poll here that compiled the very target audience of harshest Indy critics and most passionate Indy lovers as to which was their favorite. Doom came in third with Skull a distant fourth when last I looked. I think it's safe to say that for most people the two lesser are these two in question, but from my experience it would appear Skull is vastly more disliked (in comparison to Doom) on average.

And it just so happens that I would agree with the opinion that says Skull is a very distant worst, but I would never claim it's devoid of anything good entirely.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
MaxPhactor23 said:
Now this is not intended as a shot, but from my understanding...not much of what you said is accurate. Please don't take this as the bias ranting of a Doom fanatic either, this is merely what I've come to know and believe to be correct. Temple of Doom did not preform poorly and critically it was mixed initially, though arguably didn't have as much the mixture as Skull did, and traditionally (after the release of Skull) wasn't viewed by the majority as the least of the films anymore on the average. I cannot tell you how often I saw "Crystal Skull was so bad, Doom just got better!" comments. From what I recall there was actually even a poll here that compiled the very target audience of harshest Indy critics and most passionate Indy lovers as to which was their favorite. Doom came in third with Skull a distant fourth when last I looked. I think it's safe to say that for most people the two lesser are these two in question, but from my experience it would appear Skull is vastly more disliked (in comparison to Doom) on average.

And it just so happens that I would agree with the opinion that says Skull is a very distant worst, but I would never claim it's devoid of anything good entirely.

Actually I completely agree with West on this. This is what I saw as well and still see whenever I go around the internet. Most casual fans put KOTCS higher than TOD. I even remember most reviews, and even YouTube or Blog reviews from fans saying "At least it's better than TOD!" or "In comparision to the OT, it sits right above TOD and just before LC." or lastly; "It is better than TOD!"

I even remember thinking; "Jeez, TOD can't catch a break!"

Of course there were reviews that still put TOD higher, but not the majority I ever read.

But you are right that TOD's reception was mixed to negative, not just negative and it did perform well.
 

Ajax the Great

New member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Actually I completely agree with West on this. This is what I saw as well and still see whenever I go around the internet. Most casual fans put KOTCS higher than TOD. I even remember most reviews, and even YouTube or Blog reviews from fans saying "At least it's better than TOD!" or "In comparision to the OT, it sits right above TOD and just before LC." or lastly; "It is better than TOD!"

I even remember thinking; "Jeez, TOD can't catch a break!"

Of course there were reviews that still put TOD higher, but not the majority I ever read.

But you are right that TOD's reception was mixed to negative, not just negative and it did perform well.

Poor ToD! I can't even fathom that people put CS above Temple. I'd like to know their rationale. ToD is hard to watch in some spots, but that doesn't make it a bad film.
 

Darth Vile

New member
MaxPhactor23 said:
Now this is not intended as a shot, but from my understanding...not much of what you said is accurate. Please don't take this as the bias ranting of a Doom fanatic either, this is merely what I've come to know and believe to be correct. Temple of Doom did not preform poorly and critically it was mixed initially, though arguably didn't have as much the mixture as Skull did, and traditionally (after the release of Skull) wasn't viewed by the majority as the least of the films anymore on the average. I cannot tell you how often I saw "Crystal Skull was so bad, Doom just got better!" comments. From what I recall there was actually even a poll here that compiled the very target audience of harshest Indy critics and most passionate Indy lovers as to which was their favorite. Doom came in third with Skull a distant fourth when last I looked. I think it's safe to say that for most people the two lesser are these two in question, but from my experience it would appear Skull is vastly more disliked (in comparison to Doom) on average.

And it just so happens that I would agree with the opinion that says Skull is a very distant worst, but I would never claim it's devoid of anything good entirely.

I'd completely agree that there was nothing wrong with TOD's box office (in fact it was a resounding movie success). I'd also agree that, on the face of it, fans on these boards, seem to prefer TOD over KOTCS. I believe KOTCS received more positive feedback from the media/critics than TOD had (but one shouldn't place too much emphasis on what critics think). However, circa 35 years later, TOD does have the distinct advantage of nostalgia (given that most here probably first saw TOD as a child and KOTCS as an adult). Regardless of which movie is actually better than the other, I'd wager fan polls will put TOD and KOTCS a lot closer in rankings come 10/15 years time.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Ajax the Great said:
Poor ToD! I can't even fathom that people put CS above Temple. I'd like to know their rationale. ToD is hard to watch in some spots, but that doesn't make it a bad film.

It isn't a bad movie... it a great popcorn/Hollywood action romp. It's just that (IMHO) the gap in quality between Raiders and TOD is more apparent than the gap in quality between TOD/TLC and KOTCS (even if one deems KOTCS the weakest)... and for those who are old enough to remember seeing them in the cinema, the gap is more apparent I think.
 

Ajax the Great

New member
Darth Vile said:
It isn't a bad movie... it a great popcorn/Hollywood action romp. It's just that (IMHO) the gap in quality between Raiders and TOD is more apparent than the gap in quality between TOD/TLC and KOTCS (even if one deems KOTCS the weakest)... and for those who are old enough to remember seeing them in the cinema, the gap is more apparent I think.

The effects of time on a movie's perceived quality are really interesting. I saw the OT for the first time in the late 90s, on VHS tapes, so there wasn't really a passage of time between viewings. I guess that if you saw them with 3 and 5 year gaps, hype would build up.

I wonder if the time/hype factor might explain CS's reception. I suspect not. One of my friends saw all 4 for the first time in one weekend, and he made a clear distinction between the OT and CS.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Ajax the Great said:
The effects of time on a movie's perceived quality are really interesting. I saw the OT for the first time in the late 90s, on VHS tapes, so there wasn't really a passage of time between viewings. I guess that if you saw them with 3 and 5 year gaps, hype would build up.

I wonder if the time/hype factor might explain CS's reception. I suspect not. One of my friends saw all 4 for the first time in one weekend, and he made a clear distinction between the OT and CS.

There is indeed a marked distinction between the movies if you watch all 4 for the first time in close succession. One is that Crystal Skull is more modern and more reflective of modern cinema audiences sensibilities i.e. lots of superfluous action/special effects etc. The second striking feature is that the original three have a leading man (and very famous leading actor) who is at his most striking and who is clearly in his physical prime.. Whilst in KOTCS, he is clearly not (to the point that they actually accentuate it). Would there be such a noticeable difference if KOTCS was made with if 30/40 something Harrison Ford? My guess is that the difference would lessen drastically... Quality aside, Harrison Fords age is the biggest visually apparent difference between the movies (and I'd posit the biggest difference overall between the Indy sequels).
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Ajax the Great said:
Poor ToD! I can't even fathom that people put CS above Temple. I'd like to know their rationale. ToD is hard to watch in some spots, but that doesn't make it a bad film.

I can see why people would rate that. I put KOTCS above TOD myself, but that's just me. The only film I can't understand EVER ranking 2nd to last, is ROTLA, of course.

But I really feel bad for the reception TOD still has, I mean it's a great adventure film.

I just felt it was unnecesary for some critics/casual reviewers to bash TOD to talk up KOTCS.
:dead:
 

Ajax the Great

New member
Darth Vile said:
There is indeed a marked distinction between the movies if you watch all 4 for the first time in close succession. One is that Crystal Skull is more modern and more reflective of modern cinema audiences sensibilities i.e. lots of superfluous action/special effects etc. The second striking feature is that the original three have a leading man (and very famous leading actor) who is at his most striking and who is clearly in his physical prime.. Whilst in KOTCS, he is clearly not (to the point that they actually accentuate it). Would there be such a noticeable difference if KOTCS was made with if 30/40 something Harrison Ford? My guess is that the difference would lessen drastically... Quality aside, Harrison Fords age is the biggest visually apparent difference between the movies (and I'd posit the biggest difference overall between the Indy sequels).

Harrison's age was a major factor in a lot of the story elements in CS. If they had made this movie back in the early 90s, he wouldn't have a son, and Marion wouldn't be back. The family storyline was the source of a good deal of weakness. If they had made this in the 90s, it would be a completely different movie tonally.
 

MaxPhactor23

New member
Darth Vile said:
I'd completely agree that there was nothing wrong with TOD's box office (in fact it was a resounding movie success). I'd also agree that, on the face of it, fans on these boards, seem to prefer TOD over KOTCS. I believe KOTCS received more positive feedback from the media/critics than TOD had (but one shouldn't place too much emphasis on what critics think). However, circa 35 years later, TOD does have the distinct advantage of nostalgia (given that most here probably first saw TOD as a child and KOTCS as an adult). Regardless of which movie is actually better than the other, I'd wager fan polls will put TOD and KOTCS a lot closer in rankings come 10/15 years time.

Much like Blade Runner, time was good to Temple of Doom. From my personal experience, I rarely ever hear negative about it (as a whole) anymore. In fact I have quite a few friends that consider it their favorite of the films, myself included. While I would never say it's the best Indiana Jones film, it would be my favorite. Simultaneously, in my personal life I encounter few that actually liked Crystal Skull beyond a guilty pleasure bad movie. That?s not to say its fans aren?t out there or that Doom is thespian drama, but just from my point-of-view Skull has been significantly viewed as the black sheep amongst the majority. You also have your public movie review sites (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes) that agree, scoring Doom higher than Skull, which I would consider (everyone outside of pretty much the Raven) casual fans average opinion. To me that really speaks volumes as far as the Indiana Jones community and the casual theatre audience goes, but I?m not so sure Doom ever had the fan base as divided as Skull, meaning I?m not so certain it?ll ever become received with age. That?s not to say Skull was despised either, but I think it?s safe in saying its quality was (at best) considered questionably lesser than the others on the average.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
MaxPhactor23 said:
Much like Blade Runner, time was good to Temple of Doom. From my personal experience, I rarely ever hear negative about it (as a whole) anymore. In fact I have quite a few friends that consider it their favorite of the films, myself included. While I would never say it's the best Indiana Jones film, it would be my favorite. Simultaneously, in my personal life I encounter few that actually liked Crystal Skull beyond a guilty pleasure bad movie. That’s not to say its fans aren’t out there or that Doom is thespian drama, but just from my point-of-view Skull has been significantly viewed as the black sheep amongst the majority. You also have your public movie review sites (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes) that agree, scoring Doom higher than Skull, which I would consider (everyone outside of pretty much the Raven) casual fans average opinion. To me that really speaks volumes as far as the Indiana Jones community and the casual theatre audience goes, but I’m not so sure Doom ever had the fan base as divided as Skull, meaning I’m not so certain it’ll ever become received with age. That’s not to say Skull was despised either, but I think it’s safe in saying its quality was (at best) considered questionably lesser than the others on the average.

I still disagree...

I think people see TOD as harder of a film to digest, whereas KOTCS is a little easier.

I've read countless YouTube comments, countless message boards (I've done way too many "Rate the Indy Films" on IMDB's Film General Board), listened to dozens of reviews on YouTube and other sites, and just regular reviews period, plus the people I know in my community. And I don’t see people always choosing TOD over KOTCS. Usually a good majority will rate KOTCS better than TOD. It’s sometimes a close margin in how close they rank next to eachother, though.

Like I said before:

"I even remember most reviews, and even YouTube or Blog reviews from fans saying "At least it's better than TOD!" or "In comparision to the OT, it sits right above TOD and just before LC." or lastly; "It is better than TOD, thankfully!""

And RottenTomatoes and especially IMDB are not the be-all-end-all for film opinions...RottenTomatoes also has only a few reviews for each of the OT, thus doubling their chances of a higher rating. And IMDB...look at it's Top 250 which has The Dark Knight rated over Casablanca or ROTLA. And I'm a huge Batman fan, saying that. Even IMDB's users don't take the site's ratings seriously.

Regardless, with hard-cores and causals, KOTCS and TOD will always be the bottom 2 with most people, and they will usually flip-flop depending on who you're asking. Whether we like it or not.
Believe me I don't feel that great saying this, cause I love TOD.
 
Last edited:

MaxPhactor23

New member
Well I too respectfully disagree, but perhaps it's just a cause of what we see in our lives being different. No I wouldn't say review sites are the end-all-be-all of the debate, but I do think they say something. I personally know more Doom fans and Skull haters, but that's me. My life isn't yours, eh? Different experiences, people, opinions. But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say the least two in the eyes of the majority are these two. I used to almost be embarassed to admit back in the day that Doom was my personal favorite. These days I've got a lot more company, and it seems most people at least like it.

Sadly I don't even mildly like most of Skull...and at the end of the day, does it even really matter, eh? Who really cares which movie is the most loved or hated, you know? Just love what you love, dislike what you dislike! In the end, the only opinion that truly should matter (to you) is your own. =]
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
MaxPhactor23 said:
Well I too respectfully disagree, but perhaps it's just a cause of what we see in our lives being different. No I wouldn't say review sites are the end-all-be-all of the debate, but I do think they say something. I personally know more Doom fans and Skull haters, but that's me. My life isn't yours, eh? Different experiences, people, opinions. But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say the least two in the eyes of the majority are these two. I used to almost be embarassed to admit back in the day that Doom was my personal favorite. These days I've got a lot more company, and it seems most people at least like it.

Sadly I don't even mildly like most of Skull...and at the end of the day, does it even really matter, eh? Who really cares which movie is the most loved or hated, you know? Just love what you love, dislike what you dislike! In the end, the only opinion that truly should matter (to you) is your own. =]

Words of wisdom, MaxPhactor!

Reviews sites sometimes have other agendas, and the popular media are well known for stirring up and creating issues for their own purposes.

The only true review is the one you make yourself, when you see a film or read a book for yourself. That way you either find a personal connection or you don't.

That's not to say we can't still have animated discussions and disagreements, which I find fun, and often personally illuminating. When you're at odds with someone it can clarify what it is you're really thinking yourself. You also get to notice things that might have passed you by.

:hat:
 

Darth Vile

New member
MaxPhactor23 said:
Much like Blade Runner, time was good to Temple of Doom. From my personal experience, I rarely ever hear negative about it (as a whole) anymore. In fact I have quite a few friends that consider it their favorite of the films, myself included. While I would never say it's the best Indiana Jones film, it would be my favorite. Simultaneously, in my personal life I encounter few that actually liked Crystal Skull beyond a guilty pleasure bad movie. That?s not to say its fans aren?t out there or that Doom is thespian drama, but just from my point-of-view Skull has been significantly viewed as the black sheep amongst the majority. You also have your public movie review sites (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes) that agree, scoring Doom higher than Skull, which I would consider (everyone outside of pretty much the Raven) casual fans average opinion. To me that really speaks volumes as far as the Indiana Jones community and the casual theatre audience goes, but I?m not so sure Doom ever had the fan base as divided as Skull, meaning I?m not so certain it?ll ever become received with age. That?s not to say Skull was despised either, but I think it?s safe in saying its quality was (at best) considered questionably lesser than the others on the average.

To be honest, I don't hear that many people talking/or complaining about TOD now (apart from places like here)... too much water has passed under the bridge. Besides, as already mentioned, with the passing of time, TOD has gained "classic" status? and is more likely now to be accepted for what it is, rather than what it could/should have been (which is probably how it should be).

It's also worth taking into account that many of the websites such as IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes etc. retrospectively review classic movies (or collate contemporary reviews of classic movies), which means that the review is not necessarily reflective of how the movie was viewed at the time of release? Indeed, AICN and Empire have been known to revise their reviews of modern movies based on current popular opinion (which is a bit naughty).
 

Indy's brother

New member
Montana Smith said:
Either that, or they were trained on set by some out of work Stormtroopers! :p

I just thought I'd stray off topic for a second to ruin Star Wars a little bit with something my wife once said, "How do you miss when you are shooting with LASERS?" Think about it.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Indy's brother said:
I just thought I'd stray off topic for a second to ruin Star Wars a little bit with something my wife once said, "How do you miss when you are shooting with LASERS?" Think about it.

You still have to aim them, but I suppose that Imperials are so terrified of the Emperor that their hands never stop shaking.

If Stormtroopers performed laser eye surgery it might explain RC's odd visions.
 
Top