Character development

Arizona Smith

New member
My biggest gripe with Temple of Doom was the character of Indy. He's mostly unchanged from RotLA, but I can't really see him as a mercenary working for shady people like Lao Che. Many of you will say it's character development, that's fine and all but I'm not sure if the person I considered a hero in RotLA and TLA went after 'Fortune and Glory' a year earlier.

I'd accept this development if there was a 10 year gap between ToD and RotLA.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Arizona Smith said:
My biggest gripe with Temple of Doom was the character of Indy. He's mostly unchanged from RotLA, but I can't really see him as a mercenary working for shady people like Lao Che. Many of you will say it's character development, that's fine and all but I'm not sure if the person I considered a hero in RotLA and TLA went after 'Fortune and Glory' a year earlier.

I'd accept this development if there was a 10 year gap between ToD and RotLA.

There is zero character development with Indy in TOD. Adding character depth requires a little more than simple lines of dialogue like "fortune and glory". Furthermore, TOD is the movie where (IMHO), Indy became little more than a comic book character. The movie had a potential to build on the Indiana Jones we see in Raiders, not by making him harder/more brutal, but by adding layers. Unfortunately, I felt like they profoundly regressed the character.

Saying that, within context of what is a comic book movie, a 2 dimensional Indy works fine...
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
There is zero character development with Indy in TOD. Adding character depth requires a little more than simple lines of dialogue like "fortune and glory". Furthermore, TOD is the movie where (IMHO), Indy became little more than a comic book character. The movie had a potential to build on the Indiana Jones we see in Raiders, not by making him harder/more brutal, but by adding layers. Unfortunately, I felt like they profoundly regressed the character.

Saying that, within context of what is a comic book movie, a 2 dimensional Indy works fine...

Reality is, unfortunately, 180 degrees from what you've written here.

ToD is the film with the most clearly defined character arc (for Indy - LC has a pretty clear one for Henry.)

Dialogue illuminates Indy's character, but it's not confined to dialogue. It's all about his actions. In the opening of the film, Indy is SELLING an artifact. In the end of the movie, he's GIVING an artifact away.

Yes, it's not terribly complex, but it's pretty clean, clear and obvious. Indy's actions define him.

The character IS made more layered in TOD since we see a different side of his personality.

Far from "regressing" the character, he's given extra dimensions in "Doom", since we see his mercenary tendencies, which he overcomes by film's end.

In "Raiders", Indy is fairly one dimensional, a tried and true good guy from beginning to end. The only remotely discernible arc Indy has in "Raiders" relates to his skepticism about the Ark, but that's far more oblique than what happens in "Doom".
 

tambourineman

New member
I agree, there is a very straightforward, cut & dry, almost childishly simple, character progression in ToD. In the beginning he is a tomb robber interested only in "fortune and glory" as he himself tells us. He has no interest in helping the villagers, his only interest is getting the hand on the stones. Even the movie opens with him selling a priceless relic to a chinese gangster instead of giving it to a museum. By the end of the films end he is handing the stones over to the villagers.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Lance Quazar said:
Reality is, unfortunately, 180 degrees from what you've written here.

ToD is the film with the most clearly defined character arc (for Indy - LC has a pretty clear one for Henry.)

Dialogue illuminates Indy's character, but it's not confined to dialogue. It's all about his actions. In the opening of the film, Indy is SELLING an artifact. In the end of the movie, he's GIVING an artifact away.

Yes, it's not terribly complex, but it's pretty clean, clear and obvious. Indy's actions define him.

The character IS made more layered in TOD since we see a different side of his personality.

Far from "regressing" the character, he's given extra dimensions in "Doom", since we see his mercenary tendencies, which he overcomes by film's end.

In "Raiders", Indy is fairly one dimensional, a tried and true good guy from beginning to end. The only remotely discernible arc Indy has in "Raiders" relates to his skepticism about the Ark, but that's far more oblique than what happens in "Doom".

Oh please... I quite enjoy TOD (although it's my least favorite), but you are imbuing the movie with qualities that are just not there. It's like me stating that KOTCS showed the intrigue/espionage side of his personality, simply because they made passing reference to him and Mac being spies in WWII.

I'm more than happy for you to have that take on TOD, but there is very little to substantiate a discernable development of character. Also, if Indy is such a different hard-nosed mercenary in TOD, why does he hang around with an orphaned kid from the start? Why is he so respectful to the elders in the Indian village ("you're insulting them and embarrassing me")? I see nothing in the movie (other than some throw away lines) that suggests Indiana Jones went through some significant emotional journey. He's basically the same man that retrieved the fertility idol from the South American jungle; he's the same man that retrieved the Cross of Coronado.

Besides, if you go down that road... you may as well state that Willie had the best story arc out of all the leading ladies, simply because she was a selfish socialite, who by the end of the movie, was quite selfless. We'd both know that would be exceedingly generous, and not quite accurate.
 

Crusade>Raiders

New member
Darth Vile said:
Oh please... I quite enjoy TOD (although it's my least favorite), but you are imbuing the movie with qualities that are just not there.

I always hated that argument. "That stuff isn't there." "You're looking too much into things". No, it IS there; I JUST SHOWED IT TO YOU. "Well, that wasn't the author's original intention". And? That doesn't make it any less valid.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Crusade>Raiders said:
I always hated that argument. "That stuff isn't there." "You're looking too much into things". No, it IS there; I JUST SHOWED IT TO YOU. "Well, that wasn't the author's original intention". And? That doesn't make it any less valid.

So that can of course be applied to anything can't it??? E.g. the relationship/dynamic between Indy and Mac, Marion and Mutt. One could posit that the peril/danger was evident in KOTCS simply because Spielberg SHOWED Indy running down some retracting steps shouting "hurry". If that is the case, then KOTCS is indeed faultless.
 
Darth Vile said:
Besides, if you go down that road... you may as well state that Willie had the best story arc out of all the leading ladies, simply because she was a selfish socialite, who by the end of the movie, was quite selfless. We'd both know that would be exceedingly generous, and not quite accurate.
Oh MAN!(Shudders)
That's dirty pool! The example works pretty well, but even to say Willie had ANY redeemable qualities is just downright wrong! Not just incorrect but morally reprehensible!

You and I know that even when she pulled Shorty up on the rope bridge, it was only so he be around for her to push in front of her or hide behind later.

NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!

;)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Oh MAN!(Shudders)
That's dirty pool! The example works pretty well, but even to say Willie had ANY redeemable qualities is just downright wrong! Not just incorrect but morally reprehensible!

You and I know that even when she pulled Shorty up on the rope bridge, it was only so he be around for her to push in front of her or hide behind later.

NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!

;)

I was scraping the barrel somewhat... ;)
 

Vendetta08

New member
tambourineman said:
I agree, there is a very straightforward, cut & dry, almost childishly simple, character progression in ToD. In the beginning he is a tomb robber interested only in "fortune and glory" as he himself tells us. He has no interest in helping the villagers, his only interest is getting the hand on the stones. Even the movie opens with him selling a priceless relic to a chinese gangster instead of giving it to a museum. By the end of the films end he is handing the stones over to the villagers.

LOL! And he was such a three dimensional and multi-layered complex character who goes through such an "emotional journey" in Raiders of the Lost Ark, right?

Indy undergoes no less character development in ToD than he does in Raiders.
 

lao che & sons

New member
Arizona Smith said:
My biggest gripe with Temple of Doom was the character of Indy. He's mostly unchanged from RotLA, but I can't really see him as a mercenary working for shady people like Lao Che. Many of you will say it's character development, that's fine and all but I'm not sure if the person I considered a hero in RotLA and TLA went after 'Fortune and Glory' a year earlier.

I'd accept this development if there was a 10 year gap between ToD and RotLA.

before you say this, you have to know that the Eye of the Peacock wan't just a diamond for "fortune and glory" It goes back to alexander the great and Indy had searched for it many times with Remy and in the Lost Journal there is a letter from Short Round saying that he has found the location. Indy was probably wanting to put it in a museum rather than in his pocket;) So INdy was just doing what he could to get the diamond. No character development here(y) (y) :whip:
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
lao che & sons said:
before you say this, you have to know that the Eye of the Peacock wan't just a diamond for "fortune and glory" It goes back to alexander the great and Indy had searched for it many times with Remy and in the Lost Journal there is a letter from Short Round saying that he has found the location. Indy was probably wanting to put it in a museum rather than in his pocket;) So INdy was just doing what he could to get the diamond. No character development here(y) (y) :whip:

Sorry, but just because that "explanation" was retconned in decades later doesn't mean squat.

That was certainly NOT the original intention when "Temple of Doom" came out, since, of course, "Peacock's Eye" was a decade away at that point.

That's just a bit of fan wankery that made its way in a bassackwardsly into the Indy EU.
 

Kevin

Member
Darth Vile said:
I'm more than happy for you to have that take on TOD, but there is very little to substantiate a discernable development of character. Also, if Indy is such a different hard-nosed mercenary in TOD, why does he hang around with an orphaned kid from the start? Why is he so respectful to the elders in the Indian village ("you're insulting them and embarrassing me")? I see nothing in the movie (other than some throw away lines) that suggests Indiana Jones went through some significant emotional journey.

No, I do think there is a change of Indy's character in TOD. It is indeed evident in his words, as you have pointed out, and in his actions, as Lance has mentioned.

In fact, we see the very moment he changes. He has just picked up the stones, and is about to walk away, when he hears the screams of the slave children, and he hesitates. You can tell that he wants to keep going, but something inside won't let him. Perhaps that inner goodness is what causes him to care for an orphaned kid and be respectful to elders; he is basically a good guy who has been "pushed out of the light," and is redeemed through his actions in the temple.

Alternatively, you could say that he keeps Shorty around because he needs someone to drive his getaway car and watch his back, and he is polite to elders because he wants their help in getting to Delhi. Either way, the man we see at the end of the film has profoundly different priorities and motivations than the one we see at the beginning.


Lance Quazar said:
Far from "regressing" the character, he's given extra dimensions in "Doom", since we see his mercenary tendencies, which he overcomes by film's end.

In "Raiders", Indy is fairly one dimensional, a tried and true good guy from beginning to end. The only remotely discernible arc Indy has in "Raiders" relates to his skepticism about the Ark, but that's far more oblique than what happens in "Doom".

I agree with your comments on Indy's character in Doom, but disagree with your statement that his only arc in Raiders is in regards to his skepticism. Remember he also develops with regard to his feelings for and treatment of Marion. In the beginning, he really only cares about getting the headpiece and, by extension, the Ark. Sure he's sad when he thinks she's been killed, but by that night he's completely re-focused on his Ark quest. Even when he finds Marion alive, he leaves her prisoner so that he can continue to look for the Ark, disregarding the strong possibility that she might be tortured or killed as a result. By the film's end, however, he is perfectly willing to let the Nazis keep the Ark in exchange for Marion, quite a change from his earlier behavior.
 

Cole

New member
I agree that arch is pretty clearly evident in 'Temple of Doom.' Perhaps that's why they set it a year earlier.

I don't know. If there's an arch in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' it's not particulalry clear/intriguing to me.

'Raiders' is just the best all-out action film maybe of all-time. Indy and Marion are highly likeable characters, but their love story is fairly routine with the whole happy "buy you a drink" ending.

I think by the time 'Last Crusade' rolls along.........it was clearly a more ambitous effort in terms of character development.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Kevin said:
I agree with your comments on Indy's character in Doom, but disagree with your statement that his only arc in Raiders is in regards to his skepticism. Remember he also develops with regard to his feelings for and treatment of Marion. In the beginning, he really only cares about getting the headpiece and, by extension, the Ark. Sure he's sad when he thinks she's been killed, but by that night he's completely re-focused on his Ark quest. Even when he finds Marion alive, he leaves her prisoner so that he can continue to look for the Ark, disregarding the strong possibility that she might be tortured or killed as a result. By the film's end, however, he is perfectly willing to let the Nazis keep the Ark in exchange for Marion, quite a change from his earlier behavior.

I missed this when you originally posted it. Yeah, that's a nice piece of analysis there.

Indy is obsessed with finding the Ark throughout the movie, but, by the time they get to Nazi island, his priorities have changed. (at least kinda - he does let himself be captured so he can see the Ark opened.)

By the end, he is basically forced to abdicate his pursuit of the Ark and Marion is there as a nice consolation prize. It's not all quite as voluntary as you suggest it is, nor is it as clear as Henry Sr.'s arc in "Last Crusade", but it's a nice bit of business nevertheless.
 

Zeppelin

New member
From my perspective, all of the original three have character development to some extent. It always has to do with Indy (vaguely) overcoming his mercenary/skeptic ways and finding something better - as seen by his choosing Marion over the Ark, getting over the "fortune and glory" thing, and reconnecting with his father.

The thing is, these are really more action films than character studies, and so these developments tend to get shown only through brief scenes and lines of dialogue. Just enough so that we can get back to the fighting and chase scenes. The arcs are there, but are kind of vague and sketchy because they take a back seat to the action.
 

Dayne

New member
I'm of the opinion that KOTCS has the most character development of the entire series.

First, you get to see where Indy is after a 19 year gap in his life. We see him as a much older person where he is wiser and more knowledgable than the last time we've seen him, and although he's grown alittle-bit soft, I would say his fighting capabilities are in the prime of his life.

Secondly, you have Mac's apparent character arc along with Mutt's and Oxley's. Mac starts off as a close allie to Indy, before succuming to his own addiction to greed and betraying him. His loyalty is still somewhat tied to Indy as seen in the tent scene, while at the same time motivated by his own lust for riches. By the time he's holding on to Indy's whip for dear life, he knows his actions are unforgivable and decides to take his chances one last time by letting go.

As for Mutt, we see an arrogant teenager go through some hormonal episodes of irrational emotion and learn by the end to respect Indiana Jones and apprieciate him as a father. And the audience learns how important it is to finish school and how valuable knowledge is. Done and done.
 

Kevin

Member
Lance Quazar said:
Indy is obsessed with finding the Ark throughout the movie, but, by the time they get to Nazi island, his priorities have changed. (at least kinda - he does let himself be captured so he can see the Ark opened.)

True, he was bluffing about blowing it up, but it still seems that he was willing to simply walk away, provided they let Marion go.
 

Cole

New member
Kevin said:
True, he was bluffing about blowing it up, but it still seems that he was willing to simply walk away, provided they let Marion go.
That theme may be there subtly......."losing" the Ark, but gaining something that really matters in Marion.

"Fools. Beauracratic fools. They don't know what they've got there."
"Well I know what I've got here."

But it's handled much more profoundly in 'Last Crusade,' and even 'Crystal Skull' to an extent.

I guess the most profound, interesting theme of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is respecting supernatural powers that are incomprehensible to us.
 
Top