Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny trailer

[Goblin19]

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.

[Liu Bei]

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.

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.

[Goblin19]

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.

[sprytel]

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."

It wasn’t foreign people, it was worshippers of Kali and the Thuggee cult.

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.

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.

[Liu Bei]

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."

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.

[Bruce Banner]

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".

The Thuggee were a real cult of bandits and murderers in India, active for many hundreds of years. However, they did not rip the hearts from sacrificial victims or induce the Black Sleep of Kali. (Well, at least not that we know of).

There is a lot of misogyny in how Indy interacts with Willie.

Of course there is... (well, maybe more sexism than outright misogyny). But that's been a part of Indy's character from the outset. He's a rogue, an adventurer and a womanizer who lives by his own two-fisted code of honour.
Don't forget, he was romantically involved with Marion Ravenwood when she was 15 and he was 25 (although Lucasfilm have since attempted to retcon the ages in an attempt to make it less unsavoury). The novelization of Raiders also suggests that he's having an affair with one of his students from Marshall College. He's no saint!


Temple of Doom problematic? Nah. Not so much for a movie set in the 1930s during the last years of the British Raj. But viewed through the fragile lens of today's modern sensibilities however, I suppose I can see how there may be a fair few delicate souls out there who might have a problem with the movie's themes and overall premise.

As for the Pankot Palace feast, there's a similar scene in Octopussy, also set in India. But of course, James Bond is also considered a misogynistic, sexist, imperialist oppressor these days, isn't he?

[Goblin19]

I think Temple has some good parts, too. I don’t hate the movie. I just don’t like it. I like the opening, Short Round and the mine ride scene is fun, though ridiculous.

[sprytel]

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.

That is fair. But "Last Crusade" shows Indy as a boy facing down the Cross of Coronado grave robber and declaring "It belongs in a museum." So if that was the intent, they seemed to change their mind for the third movie.

I'd also argue that in "Raiders" Indy and Belloq are supposed to be viewed as foils. Both are treasure hunters and on the surface, not altogether different. But Indy wants the discovery and to share the find with the world; while Belloq is in it for the fortune and willing to work with anyone that can further his goals. Which again, that moral high horse seems misplaced if Indy was doing the same thing as Belloq just a year prior.

Again, my original point being that "Temple of Doom" just feels a little off. Lucas had just gotten divorced. Spielberg was coming off a breakup with his longtime girlfriend. It has been well reported how that influenced the darker tone. For me, it feels just a bit too cynical and cruel. It doesn't quite work for me.

But hey... if you don't have issue with it, I'm not trying to change your mind.

[sprytel]

The Thuggee were a real cult of bandits and murderers in India, active for many hundreds of years. However, they did not rip the hearts from sacrificial victims or induce the Black Sleep of Kali. (Well, at least not that we know of).

The Thuggee existed as a historical entity. Whether or not they were a cult or just a criminal organization is under some debate. Modern scholarship now knows that many of the British stories of the Thuggees were largely exaggerated or invented.

It is sort of like how the Freemasons are a real group... but probably not secretly the Illuminati.

[Bruce Banner]

The Thuggee existed as a historical entity. Whether or not they were a cult or just a criminal organization is under some debate. Modern scholarship now knows that many of the British stories of the Thuggees were largely exaggerated or invented.
It is sort of like how the Freemasons are a real group... but probably not secretly the Illuminati.

Yeah, over the years I've read some of the research presented by the historians who are skeptical of the Thuggee's cult status, claiming that it was largely a British fabrication.
A.L. Macafie's work is perhaps the most well presented speculation.
But I've seen nothing that could be considered particularly convincing that these "findings" are much more than exercises to vilify colonialism and further villainize the British Raj.
But who knows, eh?

[Liu Bei]

That is fair. But "Last Crusade" shows Indy as a boy facing down the Cross of Coronado grave robber and declaring "It belongs in a museum." So if that was the intent, they seemed to change their mind for the third movie.

I'd also argue that in "Raiders" Indy and Belloq are supposed to be viewed as foils. Both are treasure hunters and on the surface, not altogether different. But Indy wants the discovery and to share the find with the world; while Belloq is in it for the fortune and willing to work with anyone that can further his goals. Which again, that moral high horse seems misplaced if Indy was doing the same thing as Belloq just a year prior.

Again, my original point being that "Temple of Doom" just feels a little off. Lucas had just gotten divorced. Spielberg was coming off a breakup with his longtime girlfriend. It has been well reported how that influenced the darker tone. For me, it feels just a bit too cynical and cruel. It doesn't quite work for me.

But hey... if you don't have issue with it, I'm not trying to change your mind.

Using Crusade as evidence for Temple’s characterization being off doesn’t work because it is a sequel to both Raiders and Temple.

I think, chronologically, (Temple/Raiders/Crusade) we see a pretty clear progression of the Indy character. That said, Indy was obviously always more of a treasure hunter than traditional archaeologist. After all, his tools are a pistol and a bull whip, not a shovel and sifter. Marcis Brody telling Indy that the museum would buy his pieces “as usual, no questions asked” reinforces what we’d already learned about Indy at the beginning of Raiders.

I’d say what feels most odd about the character is young Indy saying “it belongs in a museum!” in a Crusade, which is at odds with the character in the first two films. But we do get some hint about Indy’s future, as he dons the hat and general dress of the thief who stole the cross of Coronado from him. I read originally that character was supposed to be Abner Ravenwood, which would make a lot of sense and explain how Indy went from traditional archaeologist to two-fisted treasure hunter.

Anyway, I agree the tone of Temple is different from that of Raiders (as it was designed to be), but not that the tone of Indy is off. Nor do I agree that the film was “mean” or “ugly” or whatever. It’s a great adventure film.

[libby 1957dog]

The Thuggee were a real cult of bandits and murderers in India, active for many hundreds of years. However, they did not rip the hearts from sacrificial victims or induce the Black Sleep of Kali. (Well, at least not that we know of).




Of course there is... (well, maybe more sexism than outright misogyny). But that's been a part of Indy's character from the outset. He's a rogue, an adventurer and a womanizer who lives by his own two-fisted code of honour.
Don't forget, he was romantically involved with Marion Ravenwood when she was 15 and he was 25 (although Lucasfilm have since attempted to retcon the ages in an attempt to make it less unsavoury). The novelization of Raiders also suggests that he's having an affair with one of his students from Marshall College. He's no saint!


Temple of Doom problematic? Nah. Not so much for a movie set in the 1930s during the last years of the British Raj. But viewed through the fragile lens of today's modern sensibilities however, I suppose I can see how there may be a fair few delicate souls out there who might have a problem with the movie's themes and overall premise.

As for the Pankot Palace feast, there's a similar scene in Octopussy, also set in India. But of course, James Bond is also considered a misogynistic, sexist, imperialist oppressor these days, isn't he?

I think Temple has some good parts, too. I don’t hate the movie. I just don’t like it. I like the opening, Short Round and the mine ride scene is fun, though ridiculous.

i would worry India got its own back by remaking the film for them selves lol

and heres the opening part lol

[Nostalgiabuff]

while TOD is my least favorite of the original trilogy, i love it. Yes, it is dark and some of it is disturbing, but it's a rollicking, crazy adventure. which of course is what makes it a great movie. I also loved KOTCS, goofy parts and all

[Bruce Banner]

New clip:

[TrekStar]

I can’t believe he’ll be 81 in July, and still going strong.