Why does everyone hate Temple Of Doom?

[Dr.Jonesy]

That article was a good read. Well written and very interesting. A few things I didn't know about before, as well.

Making-Of articles and videos are always fascinating to watch. Even if it's a film I don't like or don't care to see, I'll still watch the making-of stuff or read about it. It's just very cool to see what goes into making a film, especially one as polarizing/divisive as TOD.

The interviews and stuff were great. Cool stuff, thanks for the link!

 

[Dr.Jonesy]

One of the things I noticed since 2008, KOTCS made TOD even more off the black sheep/odd one out because KOTCS continued the ROTLA/TLC formula and flow/villains/themes...and TOD is now even more of the odd duckling since it's really the only severe departure from the others.

I love TLC/KOTCS but I also don't care for the fact that they further isolated TOD.

 

[Henry Jones VII]

I don't hate it, actually I found it to be very interesting because they went for a different kind of story. It has some memorable scenes, just like the bridge scene.

 

[IndyForever]

In pure entertainment terms I value LC & TOD way above ROTLA even KOTCS has aged less than ROTLA.

TOD is the most entertaining movie of the Quadrology I suspect Spielberg has grown to like it a lot more but because of the dark tone downplays that so small children & impressionable young adults do not get the wrong idea about it & re-enact some of the darker moments in real life!

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

...because of the dark tone [Spielberg] downplays [Temple of Doom] so small children & impressionable young adults do not get the wrong idea about it & re-enact some of the darker moments in real life!

No.

Spielberg is embarrased by the film, and its where he sold out Indy for sex. Capshaw is a constant reminder of his mistake...

How would you like to be married to David Lee Roth?

...or Joan Rivers?

 

[LeHah]

I like TOD a lot because its something entirely different than Raiders.

But the "jokes" at the expense of the story - like Indy going to pull his pistol ala the sword fight in Raiders - really hurt things.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

But the "jokes" at the expense of the story - like Indy going to pull his pistol ala the sword fight in Raiders - really hurt things.

Surprising. Of all the attempts at humor in the film the nod to Raiders is more like the style of humor IN Raiders than what I think fails in Temple...the sledgehammer would have been a better example.

 

[Henry W Jones]

Surprising. Of all the attempts at humor in the film the nod to Raiders is more like the style of humor IN Raiders than what I think fails in Temple...the sledgehammer would have been a better example.

I like the scene but the nod is terrible if you think about it. It is a prequel so if you watch them in order by storyline it doesn't work. That gag would have worked better if TOD followed Raiders

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

I like the scene but the nod is terrible if you think about it. It is a prequel so if you watch them in order by storyline it doesn't work. That gag would have worked better if TOD followed Raiders

Well Temple DID follow Raiders, and the gag did work...of course this is an example of how Temple was made for movie goers and not as Chapter 23 in the Continuing Adventures.

 

[AndyLGR]

My biggest issue with TOD on first viewing was the lull from landing in India to discovering the temple. That bit I found boring and overlong as a kid. However having watched it many times in odler age I think this film stands up really well, and I aren't judging it based on my love for ROTLA anymore, maybe time ends up changing our perception of things.

However the passage of time has made me more annoyed with the addition of Shortround. I don't think this works at all.

The odd bits of humour don't hurt the film for me, but I think that come TLC and definitely KOTCS then there were bits of attemtped humour that fell really flat.

 

[replican't]

Film doesn't have enough comedy racism.

 

[The Drifter]

My biggest issue with TOD on first viewing was the lull from landing in India to discovering the temple. That bit I found boring and overlong as a kid. However having watched it many times in odler age I think this film stands up really well, and I aren't judging it based on my love for ROTLA anymore, maybe time ends up changing our perception of things.

However the passage of time has made me more annoyed with the addition of Shortround. I don't think this works at all.

It does has a long lapse between the exiting opening until it heats up in the temple. I never really thought about it as a kid, but I could see why it would bore some.
And, why don't you think Short Round works?

 

[Gabeed]

As I've grown up, I've come to appreciate TOD more and more, to the extent that I might actually like it more than Last Crusade now. Temple of Doom is dark and terrifying, while Last Crusade, as good as it is, is the beginning of the unfortunate demystifying of the character of Indiana Jones (which continues in KOTCS, and the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, if you want to count those).

 

[replican't]

We desperately need a spin-off buddy movie with Jar Jar Binks and Short Round as mis-matched cops from the futurepast.

 

[AndyLGR]

It does has a long lapse between the exiting opening until it heats up in the temple. I never really thought about it as a kid, but I could see why it would bore some.
And, why don't you think Short Round works?

I aren't a fan of when they add an additional sidekick and it turns out to be a child. I know we suspend belief for an Indy movie, but I just don't think its a realistic leap of faith to think that a kid can be taken for along for adventures and possible death by some grisly method.

This may sound daft but here goes, I have always from day one thought that Raiders was more of a movie aimed at adults than necessarily straight out kids movie, I have always regarded it as a serious action film and even thought it was light hearted in places, it doesn't cross the line too often to be aimed straight at kids. I think Raiders is overall a more adult orientated film than it may be given credit for, yet at the same time in the main the attempts at humour in there work very well.

But ironically we come to TOD, the widely acknowledged dark Indy film and yet its offset by some scenes of humour and slapstick that when I first saw TOD I didn't relate to as bearing much resemblance to that in ROTLA, by that I mean cheap one liners and outright comedy moments that seemed to centre on Shortround and Willie. However over time I've grown to accept this, but possibly all that was a by-product of having a hopeless/helpless heroine too. Also, any action scene ends up being dumbed down even more when a kid is directly involved in it, like the karate scene in the mines for instance.

Possibly adding him could of been seen as an antidote to the darkness of some aspects of the film. In the 80's adding kids to films as a seemingly equal to the star started to be creeping more and more in to the films, but I have a real bug bear about children trying to act tough in films and also the kid is usually the one who the writers try to get a laugh out of. Maybe its just me being an outright miserable bastard though.

Incidentally I don't like his character in the Goonies either, too much of a smart arse.

Yet kids in films can work well, but not when they have to be smart arse, tough cookie or a joker. Stand by Me, a film with kids as the main leads is one of the films of the 80's for me, I enjoyed the cast of Super 8 too. Yet I hated the cocky little kid in the Mummy Returns.

 

[replican't]

'Aren't' is not a word. It's 'am not'.

Anyway, why bother going into detail about why Short Round is an annoying little ***** who - along with even more annoying Willie - ruins Temple of Doom? Its a fact.

Best thing they could do is digitally change the film to remove him and Willie - even if Indy has to act towards invisible spaces where they used to be, it'll be a vast improvement.

Other than those 2 rubbish characters, and the offensive racism and rubbish effects, the film's pretty good.

 

[AndyLGR]

'Aren't' is not a word. It's 'am not'.

I'm sure that little mistake, (that only the most pedantic and picky would actually post about), made it difficult to understand the sentence I had written.

 

[replican't]

I'm sure that little mistake, (that only the most pedantic and picky would actually post about), made it difficult to understand the sentence I had written.

Is that an apology?

 

[Vance]

I'm sure that little mistake, (that only the most pedantic and picky would actually post about), made it difficult to understand the sentence I had written.

"Aren't" is actually a word, the obvious contraction of 'are not', though it's for use in the plural... "Ain't" is the colliqual singular version for "am not" which is 'informal' English and frowned upon.

 

[replican't]

"Aren't" is actually a word, the obvious contraction of 'are not', though it's for use in the plural... "Ain't" is the colliqual singular version for "am not" which is 'informal' English and frowned upon.

I take it you ain't English? The guy used the word incorrectly, simple as that.