Eventhough I like all the Indiana Jones movies, I think ToD just has a certian lacking to it,that and they make Indy all wacked out from drinking the blood. That kinda stuff isn't supposed to happen to the hero.And besides on your money gross question, I'm assuming that people saw Raiders and they figured ToD would be just as good.
I wouldnt say that ToD was a bad film the climax of the movie is the best action sequence in Indy...
However the film takes a very long time to get going, it starts off well but the village and Pankot scenes just dont seem to add anything (why do they need to hide their secret temple under their own palace)
Willy is dragged along for no reason and is a character that is on the screen an enormous amount of time is no real point to her tiresome antics or development which Marion and even Elsa (who was on the screen for about 1/5th of the time of Willy) had.
Mola-Rom is just a cartoon character
The Shankara Stones have no cultural resonance and apparently no powers other than to light up and add as general good luck talismans (TM) Indy goes after what seems like bric a brac compared to the Ark or the Grail
First, this was supposed to take place before raiders. Before "the man became a hero."
The Sankara stones were just diamonds. That's it. Indy and Willie both wanted them for their own gains.
My only problem with Temple of Doom is that they didn't spend enough time choreographing Short Rounds fight scenes. I would've preferred it if they made Shorty a little more believable by making his fights scenes a little more (Jackie Chanish?) believable. Oh, and the slalom on Mt. Humol. Please cut out that stupid fall off the cliff where they float down to the river. That has annoyed me for years. Those things get fixed up, Temple of Doom becomes my favorite.
a) Willie beats Marion and Else for two reasons: Elsa is evil for nearly all of Indy 3 and Marion - okay, she beats out Elsa.
b) It has the most continuous action out of the 3.
c) It's a great film and is better than any crap released these days.
Don't forget the horrible continuity issues. As a prequel, it just doesn't jive with 'Raiders.' In Temple, Indy and Short Round are nearly inseperable, why ONE year later not even a mention of him. Also, in Raiders, Indy tells Marcus he doesn't believe in "Magic, a bunch of superstitous hocu-pocus." You'd think that a man who only one year earlier had seen a man's still beating heart pulled out (and chest then seal itself) had been attacked with voodoo dolls, used a sanskrit incantation to set rocks on fire and had been possesed by the Black Sleep of Kali would be a little more open minded on the subject.
Plus, Raiders comes across look a cool adventure film with a few humoruos moments where as Temple is full of slapstick comedy.
Not to mention, the action was so over the top it wasn't remotely believable anymore. The most ridiculous thing Indy did in Raiders was get dragged for a couple of minutes under a truck. Jumping out of a plane in a rubber raft is just plain stupid.
A lot of people say Temple was 'darker' than Raiders. I thought it was the exact opposite. Raiders was more even keeled and 'realistic.' Temple was a goofy kiddie movie.
I think, though everything that has been said certainly has merit, that there are two main reasons for people not liking ToD as much as Raiders (I'm not going to get into LC right now).
1) The mixture of dark stuff, over-the-top adventure, and slapstick comedy was too much for some people.
2) Folks wanted another Raiders, and came up short in that regard. Instead of a singing Egyptian, they got a Chinese kid. Instead of a tough dame, they got a shrieking damsel in distress. Instead of a slimy Frenchman, they got a cult leader. Instead of Nazis, they got something they've never even heard of. Instead of the Ark of the Covenent they got, once again, something they've never even heard of.
Again? Oh, well, as I've said before ToD is a great movie, but in some peoples' opinion is not good at all, so for us who like it, just be happy and I suggest not to care what any other person think. As for the ones who don't like it, well, all I can say is try not to consider it part of the trilogy, but you'll be making a "Big mistake, Indy!"
Part of the mystique of the Indy series is that the artifacts are real. The adventure doesn't end when you leave the theatre, 'cause the artifact is still missing and the concept of the artifact REALLY existing launches the imagination. I want to know what the ark really is, I mean, IS it a radio for talking to God? Does the Holy Grail exist? Could it grant YOU eternal life? But who cares about a couple of glowing rocks that don't do anything. Who wants those?
What are you guys talking about?!? I have no favourites in
the Trilogy but I've probably watched ToD the most (probably
around 6 more times) and I love it! When I saw Temple of Doom I was in like some kind of"Christian sortof-extremist"(My school hadn't done a single religion class
ever. instead it was gym and I was kind of fed up with
that so I read the Bible through like 3 times that year
and that's what I mean. You know the bible: people worshiping other gods and God getting mad) And I was
thinking what the heck? How could this be possible if Shiva
and Kali aren't real? Well then I tried figuring stuff out
and found out religions are all the same and that all those
people believe in some great power as much as "different" religions and there would be no way of telling which ones
are wrong and which ones are right since A. That is the stupidest conflict ever and B. There is no answer. So know I'm not Agnostic but don't believe in just one religion. None of this would have been thought of by me. And oh yeah, I think Indy didn't have an open mind to the Ark because
he thought it could just be like the Sankara Stones which
were kind of like a good luck charm and not some terrifying
power from the Occult of Hebrew religion and He probably didn't tell Brody about the Temple and didn't really want to.
Well I guess you also have to realize, the Lost Ark and Holy Grail were real artifacts that have yet to be discovered (I believe The Ark has been destroyed in the temple fire some thousiond years ago ) while those stones were pure fiction?
And seriously, jumping out of a rubber boat!? Impossible to survive 2 falls, never mind just one it that thing!
But compare ToD to the volence in movies today and it looks like Howdy Doody time!
Originally posted by Aaron H bob, mind if I use some of what you said in my next column?
The Shankara Stones could have been set up to actually seem to be dangerous but the film did a very poor way of setting up the artifact in a film that has a lot of time to spare in the 1st act.
The cult's threat to the world isnt made particularly clear and they get blasted by the British, in Raiders and LC it is made pretty clear that the future of the world etc is at stake; I dont see what having all the stones would actually do.
Shorty is not a bad character but he is overused and the fact that he escapes from the thugees takes away from the threat of the cult.
Then there is the whole well known criticism of it being a bit morally suspect with Indy as the saviour of the Indians who although starving have not been able to do anything, the same problem is evident in the fact that none of the other cild slaves think of doing the same thing Shorty did.
However it is a big over the top movie it is a good film it is a rollercoaster ride for much of it; it is a brave sequel but something goes a bit sour for me in the 1st act
Oh come on it's just a movie. It's not like Back To The Future where they tried to make it as authentic as possible, it's just a movie where things happen that never could in real life. It's lots of fun and the most accesable of all the Indy movies IMO.
The best thing about the ToD is that it is not a carbon copy of Raiders. It's giving the audience something different although it is relying on the same ideas somehow. Would you have preffered a carbon copy of Raiders in the same manner that The Mummy series tried to do?
It was maybe weaker, maybe most people didn't enjoy it as much as the other two, but honestly it doesn't make it the worst movie to ever have been made, does it?
No, not the worst. But in the light of the other two, it simply pales. I like ToD, and as a stand-alone it would make a great action-adventure flick. But Willie was two-dimensional and Shorty was underdone. Mola Ram didn't make me hate him. At the risk of sounding flaky, I had no connection with any character but Indy. In my opinion, he was THE redeeming quality of this episode. ToD is, in my opinion, the Highlander 2 of the trilogy.
2. Way too many goofy jokes. Anyone who says this film is darker than Raiders must've slept through it.
3. Mola Ram is a pretty lame villain... and the cult members in the movie aren't as threatening as Nazis.
5. Characters have poor development compared to the other films, especially Raiders.
6. Special effects are worse than the other films.
7. The Sankara Stones, as previously mentioned, don't really do much besides glow, whereas the Grail and Ark have awe-inspiring powers and are more widely-known.
8. Continuity errors arising from ToD being before Raiders.
10. Things that are never explained because the scenes explaining them got cut out of the final version of the movie. (For example, how does Short Round know that burning Indy will wake him from the Black Sleep?)
And I'm sure I missed a few. Keeping all that in mind, Temple of Doom is still better than a lot of movies released today. But compared to the other two Indy movies, it's kind of a letdown. They made an awesome board game out of it though!
Well, hmm.....okay, so maybe Mola Ram is not the best villain, not bad but not the best, but still, I mean, doesn't it makes you wanna kill them all just because they torture the kids? that's enough for me to just wrip their hearts off! and about they cutting the scene where Shorty reliazes the fire thing....well, i would say its casuallity,plus, look at his face when indy is acting like threatening him, is as he didn't know that was suppose to cure him!
Originally posted by wolfgang Well, hmm.....okay, so maybe Mola Ram is not the best villain, not bad but not the best, but still, I mean, doesn't it makes you wanna kill them all just because they torture the kids? that's enough for me to just wrip their hearts off! and about they cutting the scene where Shorty reliazes the fire thing....well, i would say its casuallity,plus, look at his face when indy is acting like threatening him, is as he didn't know that was suppose to cure him!
Yeah, that's all true. I personally don't hate Temple of Doom. It's my least favorite of the three, but still pretty good in my opinion.
Originally posted by ccc123 That was kina silly, burn them with a torch and Mola's curse wears off? Please!
Yeah, it came off as silly, but the script (the one you can often download...it's an early draft) indicates that it isn't so much burning as pain that does it, which doesn't seem quite so bad. Of course, then I'm sure they realized that it wouldn't take much for all the Thuggees to be on Indy's side, once he punched each of them or something. Perhaps it was excessive pain...
ToD is not a BAD movie. However, it isn't as good as Raiders or LC. ToD uses gimmicky sidekicks (Shorty and Willie) who don't really advance the movie. The movie could have been just as good if Willie wasn't even in it. In Raiders, Marion is an important part, just as Elsa (and characters such as Henry Sr.) is an integral member of the LC cast.
The story isn't quite as good either. Though entertaining, it isn't as thought-provoking as the other two. They strike a moral fiber that ToD does not. With ToD you can just sit back and absorb the action. With the other two, you can't do that because you're almost part of the action.
The characters in Raiders and LC also have more depth. We care about their history and we know what made them who they are. Willie is just a lounge act and Shorty is some kid who Indy helps out. They don't have ties to Indy that begin far in the past. Heck, even Belloq has a past with Indy!!
Well, this isn't the most fluid post I have ever put together but hopefully you see some of my points. ToD is a good film, the other two are just far superior.