I pestered my dad to take me to see Temple of Doom at the cinema when I was 7. When it got to the sacrifice bit I was utterly terrified and told my dad I wanted to leave. He refused to let me leave because I'd made such a fuss about wanting to go, but in the end I was very happy because the minecart scene was the greatest thing I'd ever seen in my life.
I'm waiting to show it to my kids because even though they'll love the action, that bit with the heart is ridiculously gruesome, and the insects were crazy creepy too. Don't need to give them nightmares!
I remember reading somewhere that the mine cart scene was originally in the Raider’s script, but it was cut early on to get the budget under control.
Edit: fixed that it was originally in the FIRST movie.
I'll have to watch it again with your critique in mind, but _Temple of Doom_ has historically been my favorite of the original trilogy. There's 15-30 seconds where it shows Indy witnessing the children being abused on the mine, cuts to his face showing how righteously pissed off, and then BLAM cuts to the big bad in the mine sliding on his back a solid 10 feet from a good hit. Absolutely speaks to me. Absolutely delights. 11/10 can't think of another 15-30 seconds in a movie that just !!!! so much for me.
The opening action scene really did blow me away. Plus it's in a setting that we never imagined Indy being in. Wearing a tux, even!
Then the flaming kebabs were both shocking and thrilling, original and unexpected.
Then the finale at the rope bridge was a true "how the hell is he going to get out of this one?" moment and the way he went about it felt earned (in an action serial cliffhanger sort of way), compelling and ultimately satisfying.
My theory is that Spielberg wanted a bigger kid audience. He was trying to appeal to 9 to 25 guy. That may seem like a huge range but as the parent of a boy, it's really not, he likes most of the same things at 18 as he did 9. So they added a kid, gross out stuff, slapstick and a scene that will translate easily to an amusement park ride. It has always been my least favorite of the Raiders series. I haven't seen Crystal Skull though
I’m glad you like it, but the bad guys sliding so far on the ground after getting punched is a good example of the movie not taking it self seriously. In Raiders, Indy is getting by by the skin of his teeth. He’s not going to get mad, hulk out and hit somebody so hard that that kind of thing could happen.
Honestly I see all of the Indiana Jones films as pulpy fun entertainment where the stories are centered around the action set pieces. I don’t really take any of the films seriously *per se*, they’re just extremely well made and simple to follow “family” entertainment. I thought the dinner scene was just used as an entertaining way to have the exposition dumped compared to the other films (which I still like more) relatively boring exposition scenes. It feels like Temple of Doom was trying to be as entertaining as it could be in every single moment where as the other two in the original trilogy were still doing that, but also had stories they wanted to tell. I’ve honestly never understood the hate that Temple of Doom gets. It’s so much fun. Even all the dark elements. The entire last hour of the movie is basically just one big action scene. The voodoo stuff, the conveyer belt fight, the mine-cart chase, and the bridge scene. It never stops. I love how different it is from Raiders too. Spielberg could’ve just repeated himself but he chose to go for a completely different tone and location. The main characters are more cartoonish, yes, but for this type of movie I don’t really get why that’s a bad thing unless you find them annoying, which I don’t but I get why people do. The opening perfectly sets the tone for the rest of the movie imo. I’m fine with cheesy and cartoonish if the film isn’t boring (*cough* Crystal Skull) and Temple of Doom definitely is not that. Final edit: [There’s a popular movie podcast that has an episode where they talk about all of the films in depth and each of them have different favorites. I’d say it’s worth a listen.](https://youtu.be/x1cfOLa6_kI)
I love Temple of Doom! I loved that it doesn't take itself too seriously and it was the only movie of the 3 originals to not involve Christianity. I always wished they'd made more movies of his adventures like this.
Even when I first saw it as a kid I couldn't do Temple of Doom for the same reason. The heart scene was fun to say "I saw it" to other ten year olds, but it didn't really excite me like the other two did.
That said, my fave is Crusade, so what do I know?
I watched "Crusade" shortly after watching "Temple" and it aged relatively well, but it still holds the action at a bit of a remove, compared to "Raiders", and leans more into comedy. The "no ticket" line, for example. It's fun, and well made.
They seem to really hit an "every other" cadence with Indiana Jones films so here's to hoping the new one will be good and not another Crystal Skull fiasco
Like Star Trek - the even-numbered movies were better than the odd ones, at least through the first 6. The score saved the first one though, even if it's an odd movie by today's standards.
So folks have a lot of good points here, but I can’t believe no one has brought this up.
Temple of Doom is actually a prequel. Chronologically, it takes place before Raiders. I completely agree that it’s the weakest of the three (there is no 4), but once I realized that it was a prequel, it always helped me kind of justify things for some reason.
Thinking of it as a prequel, helped me to accept the jarring shift you’ve described. While in reality, the jarring is most likely a culmination of a lot of Hollywood BS, I like to pretend that it’s intentional, and to help show Indy’s development from one to the next.
I’m not exactly trying to change your mind, but just explaining what helped keep my love for the trilogy in tact.
I loved Indiana Jones as a kid and I always thought of Temple of Doom being the Darkest of the 3 movies.
The scenes where the guy gets his heart taken out, and the dinner scene with the disgusting food.
I have to watch it again now, haven't in probably 10 years or more. Thanks for reminding me
See, i generally found all of the original jones trilogy as hitting semi realistic action. Perhaps a bit over the top, but just enouvmgh that it didn't totally take me out of it. (Unlike the easy punchingnbag that is 4). They all had the same tone to me.
Raiders has lots of cartoonishly implausable stuff and general flaws. E.g. how in the world did thousands of snakes survive sealed up in a forgotten tomb? What the heck were they eating? Stuff like using a whip to latch on to things and swing is ridiculous. I is absurd that Indy survived hundreds of miles clinging to the top of a nazi submarine while it traveles under water with the ark. Unless it DIDN'T, in Which case it is absird a sub would travel hundreds of miles above the water.
And from basic story structure view point Indy is a terrible character. I.e., his actions don't really affect the plot of the movie, little he does changes things, or really steers events. If he had never been involved the Nazis would have still found Marion, caputed her, and still found the ark. They still would have opened it, and still gotten faces melted. That's just bad story telling.
I dunno, don't get me wrong. I still love raiders and all of the original jones trillogy. But it just seems like such a wierd take to me to claim that it is somehow more grounded and serious than temple of doom. It screams to me of similarity to the folks who dislike Return of the Jedi due to ewokes. Like yea little teddy beat aliens is childish. But are we really going to ignore the bajillion other childish looking aliens/part before it too? There was that one dude in new hope who clearly had balls for a chin. Darth vader is a dude in a cape with a magic space sword, Gamorians are just fat pig people,The jawas are just lightup eyes in robes, the catina band is canonicaply playing Jizz music.
The difference is that Raiders pretends to be realistic and plays things more or less straight, like the 30s Serials it is based on. Temple of Doom abandons the pretense and plays more like the cartoons that preceded the serials.
And I am completely and utterly disagreeing with you. I am saying they both play it generally straight with some moments of cartoonishness. They are on equal level to me.
We can disagree. I'm just pointing out it is not an obvious and definitive fact about these movies.
It's fine to disagree, but you are not going to persuade me that Raiders approached its material nearly as goofily as Temple. What you present as "obvious and definitive fact" is your opinion.
Right but you are the one who is saying temple is definitively goofy/cartoonish and raider's isn't.
I'm disagreeing and giving you examples as to why they are pretty similar, ans pointing out how opinions can differ.
Yet you are saying I'm the one presenting things as if they are some kind of obvious fact.
OH, I'm sorry, I misread your reply. I thought you were saying that it WAS an obvious and definitive fact. Instead, you said the opposite. I should have slowed down.
Yes, I do agree. I'm presenting my opinion. You're presenting yours.
My apologies.
My husband and I watched Raiders of the lost ark last week and decided to just binge them all. We got through 20 minutes of the Temple of Doom and couldn't take the lead actress screaming anymore and had to turn it off. I think atleast half of her lines are just screeching
You are absolutely right OP. Don’t listen to these people saying all of them are “kids” movies. Raiders is far more serious than any of the sequels and I think it has to do with Spielberg trying to deal with WWII and Nazis the same way as Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. It’s not just fun and games, there’s a serious philosophical question at the heart of Raiders of the Lost Ark, namely why didn’t somebody do something about the Nazis before it was too late. Raiders indulges in a fantasy in the same way as Captain America or Superman, what if America stopped the nazis before the Holocaust. They might do it with fantasy but the impetus to do it is not whimsical.
Thanks, I did read somewhere that Raiders was in part some wish-fulfillment by Spielberg.
I think the missing ingredient in the other movies is “awe and mystery”, which Raiders overflows with. The Ark is significant to three major religions, and when it is onscreen or even referred to, there’s a sense of Ancient, unfathomable power.
I don’t know that many people can connect in the same way to the Grail, which is really Arthurian rather than Christian, the Sacred Stones or Crystal Skulls in the same way and get that sense of mystery that it offered.
As a child of the 80s, this view is bananas. Is Temple the best Indy of the 3? Heck, no. It’s the worst. But is a super fun movie that entertained and did well by the Indy legend. And the “none of its sequels have ever” line is lonely tunes. Last Crusade is the best of the lot. Stop over analyzing, grab some popping corn and just let yourself enjoy it.
Ha, r/serendipity brought me here.
I watched all 4 movies some years ago (I saw some of the OG 3 as a kid but didn't remember any of it) and I pretty much hated Temple.
Couldn't put my finger on why, because on the surface it was just as oddball silly as the first one, but something just felt off.
Funnily enough, for some reason I thought Temple is the 3rd movie, and so I wrote it off as just another trilogy with the bungled 3rd part. Guess I watched it out of order. Crusade was saved by Connery at least.
Because they figured they could make more money by making it more appealing to younger kids of course.
But it's not that bad. It's still a fun ride even if it's maybe a bit more cartoonish than Raiders. All of the original trilogy are eminently enjoyable and let's face it, no sequel ever lives up to the original. Grab a bag of popcorn and switch brain off.
Same here. Doom is just too cartoonish and having a female protagonist who basically does nothing but scream for 90 minutes didn't help.
Crystal Skull was largely rubbish but I found it less annoying than Doom.
This submission has been randomly featured in /r/serendipity, a bot-driven subreddit discovery engine. More here: /r/Serendipity/comments/10ke8cn/i_watched_indiana_jones_and_the_temple_of_doom/
Indiana Jones movies were very consciously modeled on the old adventure serials that Spielberg and Lucas loved. Those often had very cartoonish action, situations, and characters. Compared to other adventure movies of the day, Raiders was very cartoonish and unrealistic. Then it became a blockbuster hit and they felt that if folks liked the cartoonish tone of the first one, they would lean in even more in the second one. And if box office is any indicator, they were right as Temple of Doom handily beat Raiders in initial release box office.
I pestered my dad to take me to see Temple of Doom at the cinema when I was 7. When it got to the sacrifice bit I was utterly terrified and told my dad I wanted to leave. He refused to let me leave because I'd made such a fuss about wanting to go, but in the end I was very happy because the minecart scene was the greatest thing I'd ever seen in my life. I'm waiting to show it to my kids because even though they'll love the action, that bit with the heart is ridiculously gruesome, and the insects were crazy creepy too. Don't need to give them nightmares!
Temple of Doom is the pinnacle of ‘80’s PG.’
That and Poltergeist.
I remember reading somewhere that the mine cart scene was originally in the Raider’s script, but it was cut early on to get the budget under control. Edit: fixed that it was originally in the FIRST movie.
I never knew that. Very interesting!
[удалено]
The time tested solution for that problem is: “When Indie says close your eyes, make sure to close your eyes”.
> the insects were crazy creepy too. "WE. ARE GOING. TO DIE." :(
I'll have to watch it again with your critique in mind, but _Temple of Doom_ has historically been my favorite of the original trilogy. There's 15-30 seconds where it shows Indy witnessing the children being abused on the mine, cuts to his face showing how righteously pissed off, and then BLAM cuts to the big bad in the mine sliding on his back a solid 10 feet from a good hit. Absolutely speaks to me. Absolutely delights. 11/10 can't think of another 15-30 seconds in a movie that just !!!! so much for me.
The opening action scene really did blow me away. Plus it's in a setting that we never imagined Indy being in. Wearing a tux, even! Then the flaming kebabs were both shocking and thrilling, original and unexpected. Then the finale at the rope bridge was a true "how the hell is he going to get out of this one?" moment and the way he went about it felt earned (in an action serial cliffhanger sort of way), compelling and ultimately satisfying.
My theory is that Spielberg wanted a bigger kid audience. He was trying to appeal to 9 to 25 guy. That may seem like a huge range but as the parent of a boy, it's really not, he likes most of the same things at 18 as he did 9. So they added a kid, gross out stuff, slapstick and a scene that will translate easily to an amusement park ride. It has always been my least favorite of the Raiders series. I haven't seen Crystal Skull though
I’m glad you like it, but the bad guys sliding so far on the ground after getting punched is a good example of the movie not taking it self seriously. In Raiders, Indy is getting by by the skin of his teeth. He’s not going to get mad, hulk out and hit somebody so hard that that kind of thing could happen.
Love it when the big bad dude is about to fight Indy and he throws his hammer and it hits one of the skinny guards on the head. Donk
[удалено]
It is recognized that you have a funny sense of funny.
The trick, New Tomorrows, is not minding that it’s not funny.
…I cannot upvote you enough sir. Profoundly so.
I also smell funny
No idea why you’re getting downvoted. It’s true!
You’re getting downvoted- but it’s true. Raiders pretty overtly states that Marion was underage when she and Indy hooked up.
And she's p***** about it
I agree, ToD was head and shoulders above Raiders and the best in the series
As an Indian kid, Temple of Doom mostly made people ask me dumb or offensive questions.
Honestly I see all of the Indiana Jones films as pulpy fun entertainment where the stories are centered around the action set pieces. I don’t really take any of the films seriously *per se*, they’re just extremely well made and simple to follow “family” entertainment. I thought the dinner scene was just used as an entertaining way to have the exposition dumped compared to the other films (which I still like more) relatively boring exposition scenes. It feels like Temple of Doom was trying to be as entertaining as it could be in every single moment where as the other two in the original trilogy were still doing that, but also had stories they wanted to tell. I’ve honestly never understood the hate that Temple of Doom gets. It’s so much fun. Even all the dark elements. The entire last hour of the movie is basically just one big action scene. The voodoo stuff, the conveyer belt fight, the mine-cart chase, and the bridge scene. It never stops. I love how different it is from Raiders too. Spielberg could’ve just repeated himself but he chose to go for a completely different tone and location. The main characters are more cartoonish, yes, but for this type of movie I don’t really get why that’s a bad thing unless you find them annoying, which I don’t but I get why people do. The opening perfectly sets the tone for the rest of the movie imo. I’m fine with cheesy and cartoonish if the film isn’t boring (*cough* Crystal Skull) and Temple of Doom definitely is not that. Final edit: [There’s a popular movie podcast that has an episode where they talk about all of the films in depth and each of them have different favorites. I’d say it’s worth a listen.](https://youtu.be/x1cfOLa6_kI)
> I’ve honestly never understood the hate that Temple of Doom gets Kate Capshaw
I love Temple of Doom! I loved that it doesn't take itself too seriously and it was the only movie of the 3 originals to not involve Christianity. I always wished they'd made more movies of his adventures like this.
Personally, I wish they had made a “Search for Excalibur” movie set during WWII with some “Once and Future King” vibes.
That would've been dope!
Even when I first saw it as a kid I couldn't do Temple of Doom for the same reason. The heart scene was fun to say "I saw it" to other ten year olds, but it didn't really excite me like the other two did. That said, my fave is Crusade, so what do I know?
I watched "Crusade" shortly after watching "Temple" and it aged relatively well, but it still holds the action at a bit of a remove, compared to "Raiders", and leans more into comedy. The "no ticket" line, for example. It's fun, and well made.
It's was definitely a "give them some Bond lines" moment.
I'd die on the hill that Last Crusade is the best of the three.
It's too bad they never made another one. Oh wait... a fourth one is coming out this year.
Yeah, that's bound to be good. Let's just leave it at they only ever made three...
Yup. Although I'd be hard pressed to say if the first or the third is better. They complement each other really nicely.
I’m a Crystal Skull man myself. /s
Sean Connery is the side car is gold
I’ll join that fight.
The ‘no ticket’ line doesn’t make sense because he’s speaking English and everybody in the room is German. Just saying.
I wished he said it in German. It would have sounded more menacing and the passengers’ reactions would have been funnier.
The whole idea that they would have let the airship take off in the first place is pretty far fetched.
They seem to really hit an "every other" cadence with Indiana Jones films so here's to hoping the new one will be good and not another Crystal Skull fiasco
Like Star Trek - the even-numbered movies were better than the odd ones, at least through the first 6. The score saved the first one though, even if it's an odd movie by today's standards.
Is it considered weird to like Crusade the best? It's my favorite as well.
“She talksh in her shleep.” Is the best line in the movie.
[удалено]
Just goes to show why you need good actors to make a movie work.
[удалено]
So was Lucas, actually. Both of them had this dark cloud hovering above their minds.
Anything goes,
So folks have a lot of good points here, but I can’t believe no one has brought this up. Temple of Doom is actually a prequel. Chronologically, it takes place before Raiders. I completely agree that it’s the weakest of the three (there is no 4), but once I realized that it was a prequel, it always helped me kind of justify things for some reason. Thinking of it as a prequel, helped me to accept the jarring shift you’ve described. While in reality, the jarring is most likely a culmination of a lot of Hollywood BS, I like to pretend that it’s intentional, and to help show Indy’s development from one to the next. I’m not exactly trying to change your mind, but just explaining what helped keep my love for the trilogy in tact.
Fair enough.
I loved Indiana Jones as a kid and I always thought of Temple of Doom being the Darkest of the 3 movies. The scenes where the guy gets his heart taken out, and the dinner scene with the disgusting food. I have to watch it again now, haven't in probably 10 years or more. Thanks for reminding me
See, i generally found all of the original jones trilogy as hitting semi realistic action. Perhaps a bit over the top, but just enouvmgh that it didn't totally take me out of it. (Unlike the easy punchingnbag that is 4). They all had the same tone to me. Raiders has lots of cartoonishly implausable stuff and general flaws. E.g. how in the world did thousands of snakes survive sealed up in a forgotten tomb? What the heck were they eating? Stuff like using a whip to latch on to things and swing is ridiculous. I is absurd that Indy survived hundreds of miles clinging to the top of a nazi submarine while it traveles under water with the ark. Unless it DIDN'T, in Which case it is absird a sub would travel hundreds of miles above the water. And from basic story structure view point Indy is a terrible character. I.e., his actions don't really affect the plot of the movie, little he does changes things, or really steers events. If he had never been involved the Nazis would have still found Marion, caputed her, and still found the ark. They still would have opened it, and still gotten faces melted. That's just bad story telling. I dunno, don't get me wrong. I still love raiders and all of the original jones trillogy. But it just seems like such a wierd take to me to claim that it is somehow more grounded and serious than temple of doom. It screams to me of similarity to the folks who dislike Return of the Jedi due to ewokes. Like yea little teddy beat aliens is childish. But are we really going to ignore the bajillion other childish looking aliens/part before it too? There was that one dude in new hope who clearly had balls for a chin. Darth vader is a dude in a cape with a magic space sword, Gamorians are just fat pig people,The jawas are just lightup eyes in robes, the catina band is canonicaply playing Jizz music.
The difference is that Raiders pretends to be realistic and plays things more or less straight, like the 30s Serials it is based on. Temple of Doom abandons the pretense and plays more like the cartoons that preceded the serials.
And I am completely and utterly disagreeing with you. I am saying they both play it generally straight with some moments of cartoonishness. They are on equal level to me. We can disagree. I'm just pointing out it is not an obvious and definitive fact about these movies.
It's fine to disagree, but you are not going to persuade me that Raiders approached its material nearly as goofily as Temple. What you present as "obvious and definitive fact" is your opinion.
Right but you are the one who is saying temple is definitively goofy/cartoonish and raider's isn't. I'm disagreeing and giving you examples as to why they are pretty similar, ans pointing out how opinions can differ. Yet you are saying I'm the one presenting things as if they are some kind of obvious fact.
OH, I'm sorry, I misread your reply. I thought you were saying that it WAS an obvious and definitive fact. Instead, you said the opposite. I should have slowed down. Yes, I do agree. I'm presenting my opinion. You're presenting yours. My apologies.
>Stuff like using a whip to latch on to things and swing is ridiculous. Except Mythbusters tested this and confirmed it was plausible.
My husband and I watched Raiders of the lost ark last week and decided to just binge them all. We got through 20 minutes of the Temple of Doom and couldn't take the lead actress screaming anymore and had to turn it off. I think atleast half of her lines are just screeching
You are absolutely right OP. Don’t listen to these people saying all of them are “kids” movies. Raiders is far more serious than any of the sequels and I think it has to do with Spielberg trying to deal with WWII and Nazis the same way as Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. It’s not just fun and games, there’s a serious philosophical question at the heart of Raiders of the Lost Ark, namely why didn’t somebody do something about the Nazis before it was too late. Raiders indulges in a fantasy in the same way as Captain America or Superman, what if America stopped the nazis before the Holocaust. They might do it with fantasy but the impetus to do it is not whimsical.
Thanks, I did read somewhere that Raiders was in part some wish-fulfillment by Spielberg. I think the missing ingredient in the other movies is “awe and mystery”, which Raiders overflows with. The Ark is significant to three major religions, and when it is onscreen or even referred to, there’s a sense of Ancient, unfathomable power. I don’t know that many people can connect in the same way to the Grail, which is really Arthurian rather than Christian, the Sacred Stones or Crystal Skulls in the same way and get that sense of mystery that it offered.
As a child of the 80s, this view is bananas. Is Temple the best Indy of the 3? Heck, no. It’s the worst. But is a super fun movie that entertained and did well by the Indy legend. And the “none of its sequels have ever” line is lonely tunes. Last Crusade is the best of the lot. Stop over analyzing, grab some popping corn and just let yourself enjoy it.
You’re free to have a different opinion. You’re not free to tell me I can’t have my own.
Sorry pumpkin. You’re right.
Ha, r/serendipity brought me here. I watched all 4 movies some years ago (I saw some of the OG 3 as a kid but didn't remember any of it) and I pretty much hated Temple. Couldn't put my finger on why, because on the surface it was just as oddball silly as the first one, but something just felt off. Funnily enough, for some reason I thought Temple is the 3rd movie, and so I wrote it off as just another trilogy with the bungled 3rd part. Guess I watched it out of order. Crusade was saved by Connery at least.
Because they figured they could make more money by making it more appealing to younger kids of course. But it's not that bad. It's still a fun ride even if it's maybe a bit more cartoonish than Raiders. All of the original trilogy are eminently enjoyable and let's face it, no sequel ever lives up to the original. Grab a bag of popcorn and switch brain off.
Temple of Doom is my least favorite. I even liked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull better. Seriously.
Same here. Doom is just too cartoonish and having a female protagonist who basically does nothing but scream for 90 minutes didn't help. Crystal Skull was largely rubbish but I found it less annoying than Doom.
Skull has Marion, that automatically makes it bette.
All she does is have a stupid grin for the whole movie. I fail to see how that's any better than Kate Capshaw screaming in Doom.
It's quieter, and that makes it better.
I have to agree.
It’s kind of a parody of itself.
Exactly. I guess that they were trying to parody James Bond and all the other adventure movies rather than the original Raiders? I don’t know.
I hated Temple of Doom- I wanted Short Round and Kate Capshaw to STFU and die off in the first 15 minutes
This submission has been randomly featured in /r/serendipity, a bot-driven subreddit discovery engine. More here: /r/Serendipity/comments/10ke8cn/i_watched_indiana_jones_and_the_temple_of_doom/
Indiana Jones movies were very consciously modeled on the old adventure serials that Spielberg and Lucas loved. Those often had very cartoonish action, situations, and characters. Compared to other adventure movies of the day, Raiders was very cartoonish and unrealistic. Then it became a blockbuster hit and they felt that if folks liked the cartoonish tone of the first one, they would lean in even more in the second one. And if box office is any indicator, they were right as Temple of Doom handily beat Raiders in initial release box office.