LOL. Okay.Originally Posted by B-Lister
Career Member
LOL. Okay.
HULK SMASH!
"Are you trying to develop a sense of humour, or am I going deaf?"
Persistent Member
Oh wait, you’re serious?
Talkative Member
I somewhat agree. Never liked Temple of Doom, but don’t think it’s terrible. I do slightly prefer Crystal Skull. Temple of Doom is just so ugly and mean spirited.
Career Member
How was TOD ugly or mean spirited? Dark, yes. Ugly and mean spirited? Never heard that take before. What makes you say that?
Talkative Member
Lots of child abuse. A heart being ripped out of a chest. The foreigners eating chilled monkey brains and other gross things, because you know, that’s what savages do. To me that’s not dark, that’s ugly stuff.
It seemed to want to one up the over the top stuff from Raiders but did it with no sense of fun, other than the opening scene.
And, bear in mind, Raiders is one of my 2 favorite movies of all time.
Last edited by Goblin19; May 31, '23 at 5:45 PM.
Career Member
It wasn’t foreign people, it was worshippers of Kali and the Thuggee cult. Temple of Doom didn’t vilify Indians any more than Raiders vilified Germans in Raiders or Crusade, or Russians in Crystal.
The ripping out of hearts and child slave labor was dark, but calling the film “mean and ugly” is overkill.
Talkative Member
In your opinion.
Which is, after all, the only thing that any of us is giving. In my opinion, this is an unpleasant, ugly movie that missed the mark. Dark is Empire Strikes Back compared to Star Wars. This is closer to Saw being a sequel to Clue. The tone is completely wrong.
Feel free to disagree, but that doesn’t make a differing opinion incorrect.
And vilifying Nazis and Soviet era Russians isn’t quite the same, is it?
I also don’t like KISS, olives or licorice. Feel free to let me know why my opinion Is wrong.
Talkative Member
I rewatched Temple of Doom earlier this year, and I agree with most of your complaints. The tone is just off.
I mean, Indy starts the movie selling his archaeological find off to Chinese gangsters for a giant diamond. It is a far cry from "It belongs in a museum."
No, the disgusting feast happens while the palace is trying to avoid being detected as part of the Thuggee cult. The British officer is there at the palace, yet he doesn't seem phased. The movie implies this is not unexpected in India. (Of course, now we know the whole Thuggee concept itself was likely an invention of the British... out of that same demonization of the "other". So it kinda is two sides to the same coin.) The movie also leans pretty hard on white savior tropes... both with Indy and with the civilizing force of the British "cavalry" saving the day.It wasn’t foreign people, it was worshippers of Kali and the Thuggee cult.
There is a lot of misogyny in how Indy interacts with Willie. A lot of Short Round's dialogue is cringey (and only saved by Ke Huy Quan's performance being way stronger than the material). It is just a problematic movie.
Personally, I think there are also some redeeming things about Temple of Doom. And I have more issues with Crystal Skull. But I totally see where you are coming from, Goblin.
Career Member
Technically, Temple is a prequel to Raiders and obviously a prequel to Crusade. The comment about him being a grave robber rather than an archaeologist carries over into Raiders, where Indy steals the golden idol from the natives. Indy’s depiction as a treasure hunter was pretty consistent with the first two films. While Temple’s darker story might feel different in tone from Raiders, the character’s tone isn’t. He’s just younger, and rougher around the edges.
I’m not going to touch the political stuff. It’ll only get deleted anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
