Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom?

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Exactly why I gave the post the title: "When it came out everyone loved it...":hat:

The responses and analyses in The Complete Making of... do make for good reading.

Rocket Surgeon said:
I thought so, but figured, why not be sure...

No, I mean yes, you're completely right, of course! ;)

Rocket Surgeon said:
No doubt, taboos stoke curiosity...

Blood, skulls and scenes of a virtual hell adorning the backs of breakfast cereal boxes and posters in magazines certainly set an unlikely image for a family film. It looked dangerous, unexpected, and more adult in nature. Then you hear children in school talking about the 'evil Indy'.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Once again, all reasons why people, (from the gulf stream waters to the redwood forest), hated Doom, or disliked, or ah didn't love, um...

The alternative could have been a Raiders style adventure through Shanghai and rural China, without the roller-coaster ride (which was one of the things Spielberg was actually proud of). I wonder whether there would have been an Indy III, or whether the audience would have thought that the stream had run out of Indy-verse.

These films seem to create their own style blend, and it naturally goes off the normal scale.

Being greedy, I would have liked to have seen both types of TOD made - the more down-to-earth, as well as the one we got to see. But because we can't change what was done a quarter of a century ago, Raiders must stand out as one of Indy's least spectacular adventures. And I mean that in a good way.

Matt deMille said:
Well said.

It makes one wonder, however, why Spielberg says anything bad about Temple Of Doom when he doesn't seem to speak ill of other films of his which are arguably true dogs (such as War of the Worlds and Lost World). Compared to those films, Temple of Doom is a masterpiece. Yet Spielberg talks down Temple. Is that because he cares more for Indy and thus sets a higher standard for himself when making these pictures? Is he still uncomfortable with Temple's subject matter?

I think it's more down to what was going on in his personal life at the time of making TOD. It was a bad time, and TOD was tinged with his sombre mood, and conversely he would probably associate the film back to his personal circumstances. Both Lucas and Spielberg have gone on record saying that it wasn't enjoyable to make. Then there was the Indian government's objection to the movie, which forced production to travel to a more welcoming Sri Lanka.

Matt deMille said:
I think Spielberg's often misquoted in regards to Temple. He may not love it, but he's not in any way saying it's a bad movie, either. I think some rabid fans use his unlove for Temple to make it look like Temple is somehow a bad movie, thus fueling the myth of "hatred" for this picture.

Yes. Not "loving" isn't always the same as "hate". Between the two sits the word "like" or "dislike".

Matt deMille said:
Also, one must ask: Do Lucas and Ford dislike Temple Of Doom? I've never heard them say or even imply anything like that. Lucas has said the dark aspect of the film was due in part to his divorce at the time, but that's it.

I only recall Lucas saying it wasn't enjoyable to make. Ford had a tough time with a painful bad back, and had to return to Britain for treatment, and then rested on a hospital bed on set between takes. Then again, a lot of the team had a tough time in Tunisia filming Raiders.
 
Last edited:
Montana Smith said:
But because we can't change what was done a quarter of a century ago
Which really is how so many people come to their opinion, that sense of resignation, overlooking the disappointment...then there are those who are trapped by their own babble, a Möbius strip of, to paraphrase a fine American: fanboy wankery.


Montana Smith said:
Raiders must stand out as one of Indy's least spectacular adventures. And I mean that in a good way.
Cheers, they keep the spectacle to the finale after they've built the tension and suspense...

I guess you could say Raiders is to making sweet sweet love as Temple is to a rutting pig, (maybe goat is better).
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Which really is how so many people come to their opinion, that sense of resignation, overlooking the disappointment...then there are those who are trapped by their own babble.

"Resignation" is the perfect choice of word, Rocket. We can't change history, so we have to make the best of what we were offered.

Common sense says that a mine cart jumping from track to track is just Wile E. Coyote silly, and a nuked fridge is just as implausible. So, if you're like me and you just have to shoe-horn every Indy adventure into a plausible narrative, you're resigned to adjusting what you deem to be possible in Indy-verse.

I even had to overcome those problems with certain scenes in Raiders. Now I look upon the films in the same way I watch Spaghetti Westerns. They aren't bound by history or physics, but give themselves over to style.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Cheers, they keep the spectacle to the finale after they've built the tension and suspense...

I guess you could say Raiders is to making sweet sweet love as Temple is to a rutting pig.

Both very good points! Raiders was a very traditional adventure story, told in an uncommon style. TOD, on the other hand was very episodic and very in-your-face: it was a roller-coaster ride where the subtleties were more obscure, like a dark undercurrent masked by the rollicking ride itself (like being hit over the head with a hammer - which is what literally happened to that unfortunate Thuggee). This goes for KOTCS, too, in my oipinion. However, I felt that TOD was a far superior movie to KOTCS. But that might all be down nostalgia, and ages at which I saw each film.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Montana Smith said:
Raiders was a very traditional adventure story, told in an uncommon style. TOD, on the other hand was very episodic and very in-your-face: it was a roller-coaster ride where the subtleties were more obscure, like a dark undercurrent masked by the rollicking ride itself (like being hit over the head with a hammer - which is what literally happened to that unfortunate Thuggee). This goes for KOTCS, too, in my oipinion. However, I felt that TOD was a far superior movie to KOTCS. But that might all be down nostalgia, and ages at which I saw each film.

Makes one wonder: For all the fans who say Lucas raped their childhood and such, is it possible Lucas was trying too hard to give the fans what they want with KOTCS? I mean, that movie seems to suffer by trying to be all three previous Indy movies at once. Maybe if Lucas just went with the way he did TOD, that of making an entirely new adventure not conforming to the previous formula (be it one movie or three), it would have been better. Indeed, could TOD's "bastard child" status have been useful as a guide?

I think one of TOD's strength is that, like Empire Strikes Back, it was not a rehash of the previous film. When you look at, say, Rocky, as much as I love the series (except part 5), each entry is virtually a clone of the previous film. TOD was bold and went in an entirely different direction. If it *did* have Raiders elements like Marshall College, Nazis, etc., indeed if it was "more true to Raiders", surely fans would inevitably compare it step-by-step to Raiders, which it could not possibly live up to, and it'd be seen is a less favorable light than it is now.

TOD taking the path least traveled (even if it's a dark path) gives it a lot of character and it stands out as a film. Besides, Temple Of Doom is the purest "Indy" when you consider the inspiration for the franchise and what they were trying to make -- episodic, cliffhanger serials. Raiders actually had too much character development for that sort of thing.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Matt deMille said:
Makes one wonder: For all the fans who say Lucas raped their childhood and such, is it possible Lucas was trying too hard to give the fans what they want with KOTCS? I mean, that movie seems to suffer by trying to be all three previous Indy movies at once. Maybe if Lucas just went with the way he did TOD, that of making an entirely new adventure not conforming to the previous formula (be it one movie or three), it would have been better. Indeed, could TOD's "bastard child" status have been useful as a guide?

I think one of TOD's strength is that, like Empire Strikes Back, it was not a rehash of the previous film. When you look at, say, Rocky, as much as I love the series (except part 5), each entry is virtually a clone of the previous film. TOD was bold and went in an entirely different direction. If it *did* have Raiders elements like Marshall College, Nazis, etc., indeed if it was "more true to Raiders", surely fans would inevitably compare it step-by-step to Raiders, which it could not possibly live up to, and it'd be seen is a less favorable light than it is now.

TOD taking the path least traveled (even if it's a dark path) gives it a lot of character and it stands out as a film. Besides, Temple Of Doom is the purest "Indy" when you consider the inspiration for the franchise and what they were trying to make -- episodic, cliffhanger serials. Raiders actually had too much character development for that sort of thing.

I think sometimes the simplest explanation is the truth. I agree that one positive aspect of TOD is that it's not just a simple re-hash. However, I don't believe for a second that this was as a result of Lucas/Spielberg trying to evolve the character or progress the story in any way... rather it was simply the path of least resistance i.e. not enough time/will to formulate a better story, so instead concentrate on bigging up the action. Therefore, it's the set pieces that underpin the entire movie, whereas with Raiders, it's the characters and story that underpin it.

As far as KOTCS is concerned, I firmly believe Lucas wanted to shake it up and do something different with the formula... but ultimately, Spielberg/Ford and probably 99% of the cinema going public wanted just more of the same. KOTCS was always going to be the movie it turned out to be, as it's a movie borne out of concession and compromise.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Matt deMille said:
Makes one wonder: For all the fans who say Lucas raped their childhood and such, is it possible Lucas was trying too hard to give the fans what they want with KOTCS? I mean, that movie seems to suffer by trying to be all three previous Indy movies at once. Maybe if Lucas just went with the way he did TOD, that of making an entirely new adventure not conforming to the previous formula (be it one movie or three), it would have been better. Indeed, could TOD's "bastard child" status have been useful as a guide?

I think one of TOD's strength is that, like Empire Strikes Back, it was not a rehash of the previous film. When you look at, say, Rocky, as much as I love the series (except part 5), each entry is virtually a clone of the previous film. TOD was bold and went in an entirely different direction. If it *did* have Raiders elements like Marshall College, Nazis, etc., indeed if it was "more true to Raiders", surely fans would inevitably compare it step-by-step to Raiders, which it could not possibly live up to, and it'd be seen is a less favorable light than it is now.

TOD taking the path least traveled (even if it's a dark path) gives it a lot of character and it stands out as a film. Besides, Temple Of Doom is the purest "Indy" when you consider the inspiration for the franchise and what they were trying to make -- episodic, cliffhanger serials. Raiders actually had too much character development for that sort of thing.
The difference was that Empire is a much better film in its characterisation and story telling, yet arguably the fact that already a 3rd movie was planned gave them the chance to do this as they knew they would be returning for a 3rd movie anyway.

But theres no excuse for TOD being a bit lazy in this department. I think theres nothing wrong with the fact that Raiders had decent characterisation either, thats one of its many strengths that for me sets its apart from many other similar style blockbuster movies; characters that you actually care about. But possibly thats more down to better performances from the actors or them having a better script and story to work with.

Maybe TOD misjudges what people expected to see out of the Indy franchise at the time. Making TOD not a Raiders rehash possibly counts aganist it? Maybe audiences and critics expected a similar movie to Raiders in every way. A film that has a good story, good action and good characters. We kind of got bits of each of those categories with TOD that for me fall short of the benchmark set by the first movie.

IMO theres nothing wrong with it going in a darker direction, thats not the issue I have with the film., it needed a better story and characters for me, but as already mentioned its a setpiece movie joined together by a flimsy story. Personally I expected more than that in the Raiders sequel.
 

DeepSixFix

New member
AndyLGR said:
But theres no excuse for TOD being a bit lazy in this department.
OK, name a better adventure movie since TOD? (Not counting Last Crusade or Crystal Skull--not saying they are better, just opening up the question) I can't.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
DeepSixFix said:
OK, name a better adventure movie since TOD? (Not counting Last Crusade or Crystal Skull--not saying they are better, just opening up the question) I can't.

But does that really bear on the question of its quality, in and of itself? Temple of Doom is lacking in the characterization department in comparison with its predecessor (and, to an extent, its successors), and has a couple moments of carelessness, like the omission of the dialogue about how no real Hindi would eat that meal. It's not as though saying it has flaws is the same as saying it's worthy of hatred.
 

DeepSixFix

New member
Attila the Professor said:
But does that really bear on the question of its quality, in and of itself? Temple of Doom is lacking in the characterization department in comparison with its predecessor (and, to an extent, its successors), and has a couple moments of carelessness, like the omission of the dialogue about how no real Hindi would eat that meal. It's not as though saying it has flaws is the same as saying it's worthy of hatred.
This is 26 years worth of analysis of TOD. Don't know that the movie was meant for that. I'm talking about the in-theater experience--where it counts--what you're thinking when you walk out the door. Anyone can watch Star Wars now and say the Death Star explosion looks fake. Who cares, if you saw it in the theater it was awesome.

Since TOD, LC was a little too light with the dad relationship thing, and then there's been the Mummy and Tomb Raider and Sky Captain and National Treasure films. Not bad, some decent stuff. I did enjoy KOTCS in the company of kid nephews and enjoyed it, too. But to me, nothing yet has entertained me like ROTLA or TOD (in the adventure genre). But that's just me. What has done it for you?
 

Matt deMille

New member
DeepSixFix said:
This is 26 years worth of analysis of TOD. Don't know that the movie was meant for that. I'm talking about the in-theater experience--where it counts--what you're thinking when you walk out the door. Anyone can watch Star Wars now and say the Death Star explosion looks fake. Who cares, if you saw it in the theater it was awesome.

Since TOD, LC was a little too light with the dad relationship thing, and then there's been the Mummy and Tomb Raider and Sky Captain and National Treasure films. Not bad, some decent stuff. I did enjoy KOTCS in the company of kid nephews and enjoyed it, too. But to me, nothing yet has entertained me like ROTLA or TOD (in the adventure genre). But that's just me. What has done it for you?

I'm biased because of my age. Born in '74, I was the perfect age -- 10 -- to see Temple Of Doom in the theater. Raiders I saw in the theater too (cool parents who didn't give a flying-F about an R rating), but I was a bit too young to really appreciate it all. But Temple, man, that was fun! All the more so because everyone was afraid to see it. It was forbidden (yeah, I had friends whose religious parents forbade them to go). So, for me, it had that added appeal of being taboo.

But as for the film itself, for me, it was perfect adventure. It was TOTAL ADVENTURE!!! I think that's one of the reasons it's so damn good. Movies like Tomb Raider and National Treasure crotch themselves by trying too hard to be "real" or have "meaningful characters". Tomb Raider has only one tomb, for cryin' out loud! That's a result of a lack of focus on what it should be. But Temple, man, Temple Of Doom is adventure from start to finish. And I love it for that!

Sure, it's okay to have more character development if the film warrants it, such as Empire Strikes Back. But Indy isn't an ongoing saga or opera. Each adventure is it's own, stand-alone entity. Temple Of Doom wastes no time getting to the adventure (unlike Crusade and Kingdom which seem to spend half the movie reminding Indy to put his damn hat and coat on and get into some dungeon-delving).
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
DeepSixFix said:
This is 26 years worth of analysis of TOD. Don't know that the movie was meant for that. I'm talking about the in-theater experience--where it counts--what you're thinking when you walk out the door. Anyone can watch Star Wars now and say the Death Star explosion looks fake. Who cares, if you saw it in the theater it was awesome.

Since TOD, LC was a little too light with the dad relationship thing, and then there's been the Mummy and Tomb Raider and Sky Captain and National Treasure films. Not bad, some decent stuff. I did enjoy KOTCS in the company of kid nephews and enjoyed it, too. But to me, nothing yet has entertained me like ROTLA or TOD (in the adventure genre). But that's just me. What has done it for you?

It hardly takes 26 years of analysis to know that a movie is one hell of a ride but somewhat lacking in emotional rewards other than that. I very much enjoy re-watching Temple of Doom, but I'm constantly aware that it's a more distant form of enjoyment, predicated at least in part in poking fun at some of its absurdities. Yes, it invites that - but it also doesn't get me to engage with its female heroine or its sidekick or its villain the way Raiders can. So I guess that's what it is to me now. Even Crystal Skull is richer, even if there are other elements in which Temple of Doom is more appealing.

And really...none of this has anything to do with the other adventure movies that have come out since, to my point of view.

Oh, and as to Matt's point...it always feels to me like Temple has the longest segment without any significant action, from arriving at the village to Indy being attacked in his room. That's not a demerit, in my view...but I bet if we clocked it, that's what we'd discover.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Deepsixfix - TOD I expected to be a better story firstly and also to give me the same sense of caring about the charcters as ROTLA did. Thats all I'm saying. However you asked the question about similar films since TO that are better. I dont think its a case of if they are better movies, but I've enjoyed some films since then more than I enjoy watching TOD, like the Mummy and National Treasure and Romancing the Stone.

I arent saying I hate the film, I just picking my flaws and maybe my flaws are part of the reasons why other people regard TOD as the weakest of the original series.

For me the relationship between Indy and his dad is one of the most interesting parts of TLC too.

I also dont get why people TOD is wall to wall action either, there is the huge lull when they land in India and the whole story seems disjointed in how its paced, especially in comparison to ROTLA & TLC. Plus in TOD they dont really go anywhere and so limit the scope of the film, so its not (to me anyway) as big or epic an adventure as people think it is.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
But does that really bear on the question of its quality, in and of itself? Temple of Doom is lacking in the characterization department in comparison with its predecessor (and, to an extent, its successors), and has a couple moments of carelessness, like the omission of the dialogue about how no real Hindi would eat that meal. It's not as though saying it has flaws is the same as saying it's worthy of hatred.

ROTLA had similar flaws, which came about through the ignorance of it's creators: such as using Nepal as the location for a bar catering for multi-national visitors; or German troops operating openly in British-protected Egypt; the Afrika Korps; the rocket launcher; the MP-38 machine pistols, and so on. These were flaws derived either from ignorance or an intentional disregard for history. We can get round them by placing Indy in a pulp world.

However, the dialogue about the meal showed a cultural understanding:

"Even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. Makes you wonder what these people are..."

It's omission would make TOD appear racist and ignorant, even though, in this case, the writers had already acknowledged the discrepancy.

The loss of the question "what these people are", which would have explained that these were Thuggee (of the pulp variety, rather than the historical), added a lot of controversy from the Hindu community. The script for TOD called upon itself the hatred of the Indian government, as we know, which forced the production team to go to Sri Lanka instead.

There have been western movies about strange, murderous Christian cults, but India appeared more generally sensitive about its culture and history, which is entirely understandable considering its treatment under the British Empire.

Attila the Professor said:
It hardly takes 26 years of analysis to know that a movie is one hell of a ride but somewhat lacking in emotional rewards other than that. I very much enjoy re-watching Temple of Doom, but I'm constantly aware that it's a more distant form of enjoyment, predicated at least in part in poking fun at some of its absurdities.

The emotional rewards of TOD, for me, were the trip into the darkness. The brutality of the environment. The callous nature of many of the individuals, including Indy himself. It was hard edged and sadistic. It was an environment where Toht would be right at home. When you place these horrors of 1935 before the events of ROTLA, you can then really feel Indy's pain and frustration when the bureaucrat tells him that the Ark won't be going to any museum. Indy's experienced horrors abroad, and now he's experiencing the nightmare realization that there is no sympathy within his own Government. The two films together present the alienated anti-hero, who feels justified in chasing his own goals, because he feels that he's alone in understanding the things that lay beyond general perceptions.

Attila the Professor said:
Yes, it invites that - but it also doesn't get me to engage with its female heroine or its sidekick or its villain the way Raiders can.

I totally agree. Willie was annoying and Shorty was unbelievable. So I find myself engaging in Indy's journey, and leaving his companions on the periphery.

Attila the Professor said:
So I guess that's what it is to me now. Even Crystal Skull is richer, even if there are other elements in which Temple of Doom is more appealing

I'm not sure that KOTCS felt any richer to me. Mutt was as unappealing as Shorty, though there was a warmer atmosphere to the relationships with his family. Oxley and Mac seemed to be distant and unengaging characters, just as Willie and Shorty were unengaging. They were like sounding boards rather than full characters. For real characters I look to Belloq, Marcus, Marion...
 
Last edited:

shazamtd

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
LA Times May 23, 1984

"I don't care if this film makes $100 million. Since when does big box office equate with Intelligence, quality, culture or even a smidgen of social conscience?

I LOVE THIS QUOTE!! I'll have to try to remember it if/when I find myself in a debate about movies.
 

Darth Vile

New member
DeepSixFix said:
OK, name a better adventure movie since TOD? (Not counting Last Crusade or Crystal Skull--not saying they are better, just opening up the question) I can't.

TOD is not so much an adventure movie as an 'action' movie, and I think TOD has been surpassed by many over the years. Two that immediatley spring to mind (and are relative contemporaries of TOD) are Aliens and Terminator 2, which manage to both up the action stakes, progress the story and evolve the characters. These two examples, for me at least, are far superior works to TOD. Even Batman Returns, Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight (and I'm not a big fan of superhero movies) were 'richer' sequels to TOD (IMHO).
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
ROTLA had similar flaws, which came about through the ignorance of it's creators: such as using Nepal as the location for a bar catering for multi-national visitors; or German troops operating openly in British-protected Egypt; the Afrika Korps; the rocket launcher; the MP-38 machine pistols, and so on. These were flaws derived either from ignorance or an intentional disregard for history. We can get round them by placing Indy in a pulp world.

:hat:

Montana Smith said:
The emotional rewards of TOD, for me, were the trip into the darkness. The brutality of the environment. The callous nature of many of the individuals, including Indy himself. It was hard edged and sadistic. It was an environment where Toht would be right at home. When you place these horrors of 1935 before the events of ROTLA, you can then really feel Indy's pain and frustration when the bureaucrat tells him that the Ark won't be going to any museum. Indy's experienced horrors abroad, and now he's experiencing the nightmare realization that there is no sympathy within his own Government. The two films together present the alienated anti-hero, who feels justified in chasing his own goals, because he feels that he's alone in understanding the things that lay beyond general perceptions.

I certainly agree with this, although I have come to doubt how much of this narrative is necessarily intentional. (It's still possible, whether it's their narrative plan or simply ours - each film certainly has him beginning in a rather different position, professionally and personally.) And one supposes we see the alienation you reference continuing on in Last Crusade, especially in that great shot of Indy in his office.


Montana Smith said:
I'm not sure that KOTCS felt any richer to me. Mutt was as unappealing as Shorty, though there was a warmer atmosphere to the relationships with his family. Oxley and Mac seemed to be distant and unengaging characters, just as Willie and Shorty were unengaging. They were like sounding boards rather than full characters. For real characters I look to Belloq, Marcus, Marion...

Richer not in characterization, no. (We can probably set Roshan Seth's and Ray Winstone's performances against each other as the most intriguing supporting work in each film, respectively. Puri sinks his teeth deep into the role - and the scenery - but I don't care about his internal life the same way I do with Freeman and, somehow, Glover's work.)

Richer in themes, though? Perhaps. The deeply self-conscious obsession with knowledge (cf. "I know things, I know them before anyone else," "you don't know him, you don't know him", "...you gotta get out of the library," "peer across the world and know the enemy's secrets," "I want to know everything," "knowledge was their treasure,"), the parallel track of collective action (Communists, ants, aliens), the half-baked aging stuff (especially, I suppose, Stanforth's cut line about age and identity). Some of its hackneyed, but they put more work into it than Temple did, I think. That isn't to say that Kingdom is better - and arguably the seams show a little too much - but it all hangs together, especially with the mythology of the artifact, in a way that the Sankara Stones never mesh thematically that much with the rest of Temple.
 
Top