Temple of Doom wasn't horror. It was gory simply to gross people out (and usually played for comedic effect), but did not remotely approach the horror genre. Closer to splatter comedy than horror, but the true genre is adventure/comedy. Of all the movies in the franchise, this is the one that has the most comic elements, and is especially slapstick heavy.
Raiders was not straight action, either, but adventure. As was Crusade. Both had comedic elements. Crusade was lighter than Raiders, but both were very much in the same genre. These are the two movies in the franchise which are the most alike.
Kingdom should have been Sci-fi if Lucas's justification for the aliens held true, but wasn't. That, too, was adventure. The alien element (and let's face it, they were aliens) were treated the same way as the mcguffins of the other movies.
Cool story...you didn't answer the question, though.share
I did. The question is based on a false premise, since this franchise doesn't explore different genres, either. The closest I can think of is the Mad Max franchise, where the first movie is a (pretty dreadful) police movie set in the future for some reason, and then the sequel suddenly declares that, "oh, there's been a nuclear war and we're now in a post-apocalyptic world where gasoline is the most important commodity. Max's wife, who survived in the last movie? She's dead, and he's all alone and quite bitter."
There is absolutely nothing linking the two movies, neither in genre, tone, plot, anything at all, except that they decided the character was the same. Might as well have named the character Jim Hawkins and claimed that after his adventures in Treasure Island, Jim was mystically transported to a post-apocalyptic future, in the movie called Treasure Island 2.
That's a lot of words. Do you have a real job or do you just do this all day?share
If you can't handle two paragraphs, that might explain why I am gainfully employed and you're not.share
I don't feel that was a lengthy reply at all. I think you realized he put you in a corner regarding the false premise question, and your only way to reply without acknowledgement of that was to failingly attempt to mock himshare
MAD MAX's WIFE DIES IN MAD MAX....JEEZshare
No, she doesn't. She's hospitalised, critically injured and will "probably" die, but she doesn't actually die in the movie.share
YEAH CAUSE A RUN OVER COMATOSE WIFE WHO ISNT EVER GETTING UP AND A DEAD KID TO BOOT ISNT BAD ENOUGH.LETS SEE THE CORPSE....BRING OUTTHE CORPSE,MAKE IT DO A LITTLE DANCE FOR MAX.share
You do realise you're the only one writing in all-caps?share
OBVIOUSLY...YOU DO REALIZE RICK GRIMES IS LOOKING FORYOU?share
There's a key on the far left of your keyboard - it should be the third one from the bottom, far left. Try pressing it again.share
This. The “question” was a stupid one.
I feel the same way about Crystal Skull even if I do still like it. They were too scared to call it what it was. We didn't even see a hint of true science fiction elements until the 3rd act and only then is the skull's extraterrestrial nature confirmed.share
Completely wrong, Temple of Doom incorporated many horror aspects into it. Last Crusade was a straight up slapstick comedy, a really bad on while I'm at it.share
What horror aspects were used in Temple? Instead, Temple contained slapstick in almost every scene. Crusade toned it down considerably - though it still contained a lot more of it than did Raiders.
And you're ultimatehippo, don't even try to deny it - you're the only one in the entire world with such bizzarre opinions.
I know I am I never denied it. As for the horror aspects just watch from the hour mark to about the hour 25 mark.share
Watch the scene where Indy is forced to drink from a decayed skull, there is nothing slapstick about that, that is pure demonic sh!t, heck it looks like the kind of thing Mercyful Fate would incorporate into one of their shows.share
I suppose that would qualify as a horror element, but it wasn't particularly scary. But then again, loads of fiction falls into the horror genre without being particularly scary. Dracula, for example, is the mother of gothic horror, but I never found it scary. Likewise, much as I like Lovecraft, he has never succeeded in instilling a sense of fear in me.
That said, the humour is ever present throughout this movie. The scene you mention here is one of the very few exceptions. And much of the humour is very juvenile. The car chase in the beginning, the poker scene, the dinner scene, the bugs, the roller coaster scene, everything involving elephants, hell everything involving Short Round, all the slapstick in these scenes and others, were all meant to target a younger audience. Young boys in particular. Which is precisely why I loved this movie as a kid. I still do like the movie, but I like it the same way I like the Goonies or the Addam's Family. If I hadn't been exposed to it as a kid, I doubt I'd think much of it today.
I think the problem here is trying to classify Indiana Jones in a modern genre. Indiana Jones is pulp, and pulp is a genre by itself.
Actually, most of XXth century gothic horror is just pulp with vampires. Call him Captain Kronos instead of Indiana Jones. And some Lovecraft stories don't lie far.
Pulp as a genre has some distinctive features: a sense of adventure, non-scary horror elements, light action, hidden mysteries, resolute characters and some naive comedy. You can't fit it in some pure genre as action or modern horror. It's like trying to classify a western in a modern genre: period drama? action? adventure? You can't.
Well there are very few horror films I actually find scary actually the closest a film has come to scaring me is the scene in the factory in the terminator. Also there is a difference between being a full fledged comedy (Last Crusade) and having comic relief (Raiders and Temple), if it makes you feel better I don’t think the comedy in temple or crusade were very goodshare
Give it a rest, already. Crusade has a significantly more serious tone than Temple. Temple only ever flirted with the seriousness of the plot, but there were very few breaks from the humour, which was ever present. In Crusade, while there was a lot of humour, we were reminded at key intervals the importance of the mission: the grail must not fall into the hands of the nazis. In Crusade, slapstick elements are confined to actions sequences. In Temple, a higher portion of action sequences have slapstick elements, and it also features an entire slapstick scene, namely the poker scene. Temple is more fast paced and action filled, but with that comes more of the Lucastrian/Spielbergian physical humour, too.share
Crusade had a more serious tone than Temple??? OK you just lost all credibility. Temple while had some bad comic relief was a serious action adventure film and 99.9% of the comic relief was in the first half. There was no suspense or tension or reason to care in Crusade, it was nothing more than a campy, cartoony, kiddie fest. (and I don't even have to cite the Mickey Mouse joke)
You say Crusade is serious because of the mission (yet Monty Python had the exact same plot, it had to fall into the hands of those that God had chosen), yet in Temple I would argue the stakes were much higher because if the Thuggees got their hands on the last two stones they would be able to take over the world with the Hindu version of Satan (and actually the Christian God is just as evil as Satan so that removes any reason to pull for Indy), Crusade was very small scale in comparison. Not to mention the Thuggees were using child slaves.
Ha go watch Last Crusade and leave the mature discussions to more intelligent people.
Crusade had a more serious tone than Temple??? OK you just lost all credibility. Temple while had some bad comic relief was a serious action adventure film and 99.9% of the comic relief was in the first half.
There was no suspense or tension or reason to care in Crusade, it was nothing more than a campy, cartoony, kiddie fest. (and I don't even have to cite the Mickey Mouse joke)
ou say Crusade is serious because of the mission (yet Monty Python had the exact same plot, it had to fall into the hands of those that God had chosen), yet in Temple I would argue the stakes were much higher because if the Thuggees got their hands on the last two stones they would be able to take over the world with the Hindu version of Satan, Crusade was very small scale in comparison.
Not to mention the Thuggees were using child slaves.
I did watch it and the majority of the comic relief was in the beginning, the second half we had a kid getting hit in the head with a hammer and a shot of short round karate chopping a few guards but that is about it. The second half of Temple and the entirty of Raiders both had roughly the same amount of humor and it was for the most part Dark humor. The campy humor in Temple was all in the beginning and I agreed it wasn't good. Crusade however was dull, lifeless, boring and the humor was Kindergarten level (kind of like Willie falling off her elephant into a puddle, that's the kind of humor Crusade appealed to). Temple was aimed at adults, Crusade was aimed at preschoolers. The Holy Grail is fictional also whoever came up with the fictional artifact is irrelevant, there is no such thing as the Holy Grail. In the context of the films (which is set in a fantasy universe) the Thuggees did pose a greater threat.share
he second half we had a kid getting hit in the head with a hammer and a shot of short round karate chopping a few guards but that is about it.
The Holy Grail is fictional also whoever came up with the fictional artifact is irrelevant
In the context of the films (which is set in a fantasy universe) the Thuggees did pose a greater threat.
None of those jokes were as childish as "don't worry we're well out of range"....BOOM. And Willy slapping Indy wasn't meant to be a joke, she didn't know if he was still possessed and even so she was still kind of pissed at him for chaining her to a cage and lowering her down to be sacrificed to Kali Ma. Indy casually reaching for the gun is a reference to Raiders, the joke is unlike Raiders he can't just shoot the swordsman he has to actually fight them. None of that was kiddie humor unlike Crusade.
And the Holy Grail is fictional the only difference is it is a more widely known piece of fiction but now we are discussing something completely different. The legend of the Sankara Stones was well fleshed out and we understood what they were, what they meant and what they did.
And in the real world the Nazis never would have been able to use the Ark or the Grail or the Stones or whatever. Fantasy elements don't exist in the real world so none of the movies could have ever actually happened. We go to the movie to escape from reality and that is how we judge them. In the context of the films the Thuggees were a greater threat because they wanted to blanket the world in the equivalent of Satanism and the Stones were more powerful than the Ark or the Grail.
None of those jokes were as childish as "don't worry we're well out of range"....BOOM.
Indy casually reaching for the gun is a reference to Raiders, the joke is unlike Raiders he can't just shoot the swordsman he has to actually fight them.
And the Holy Grail is fictional the only difference is it is a more widely known piece of fiction
but now we are discussing something completely different. The legend of the Sankara Stones was well fleshed out and we understood what they were, what they meant and what they did.
And in the real world the Nazis never would have been able to use the Ark or the Grail or the Stones or whatever.
So wrong on so many accounts:
- It wasn't a joke, she didn't know who she was talking to: Regular Indiana Jones or Bizarro Indiana Jones, plus she was probably legitimately a little pissed at him for getting her into that. It was a natural reaction of hers based on the circumstances and it wasn't kiddie humor unlike the Mickey Mouse joke.
- It was dark humor just like Raiders had. All the Indiana Jones films have humor the difference is in the first two it is dark and mature while in the 3rd and 4th it is childish and campy. Big difference.
- Not sure if you were paying attention or what but we got plenty of explanations on the stones, I guess you were either asleep or it went straight over your head. How the stones got their power was conveyed several times, Indy practically spoonfed that exposition, why you didn't pick up on it is beyond me.
- Naw naw naw I am very clear on reality vs. fantasy, whether you are is unknown. I am talking about the context of the films, in the film universe the Thuggee's posed a greater threat than the Nazis, just the Nazis were more successful however had the Thuggee's been successful they would have been able to do far more damage to civilization than the Nazis ever could have within the universe of the films and real life. Your personal interpretation of the film is not a plot hole, because the characters and the plot devices are not set up the way you want them to be is not a plot hole. Again watch the movie again and actually pay attention and I think all of your questions will be answered.
No you are the one who is wrong here. Accept reality in the fact that the majority thinks last crusade is a better film than temple. It is better by objective data. I personally put more stock in majority opinion than you. You are in the minority it's time to accept it. Since you wanted to flaunt data back in the day it's coming back to you. If you understood last crusade you would like it better, I think the reason you don't like it is because you don't understand it.share
I loved watching you bring that twisted logic to the Star Wars board and getting absolutely destroyed. You see it's not just me who thinks you're a deluded idiot.share
Lmao I destroyed everyone on that board including you. The numbers don't lie lol read them and weep.share
LOL you didn't destroy anyone, they ripped you a new one and you were too stupid to notice.share
Lol nope. Disney's Star Wars is objectively better than the prequels according to data.share
I loved watching them destroy you and your kindergarten logic.share
That's actually you lol. That a why you have so many accounts on here. You get put in your place on all of them lol.share
Don't change the subject, everyone on that board saw you as the joke that I see you as.share
How about you stay on topic. This was about indiana jones and you diverted to Star Wars. So I figured dince you diverted I was free to do the same.share
Not until you admit you got destroyed on the Star Wars board. If you won't man up and admit it then this conversation can serve no further purpose.share
Not owning up to something false.share
Then I have no need for you, please kindly screw off.share
Lol you want me to admit to something untrue rather lame. Remember how you thought Lord of the Rings was a science fiction film? Admit to that and then we can carry on.share
I have no need for you if you aren't going to engage in an intelligent discussion, please kindly screw off.share
Oh I do. You are the one who went off topic.share
Either man up and admit you got owned or I have nothing left to say to you.share
Your opinion in my opinion I did not get owned. I actually owned everyone on there including you it was terrific.share
That's fine you can call a lamp a duck all you want doesn't make it so.
Lol you said a subjective claim. If it was objective you would be able to prove it. You have a habit of making baseless claims though. The same way you said Liv Tyler's acting was objectively bad in Lord of the Rings but then failed to back it up lol. You are a joke dude.share
Now we're on LOTR? Geez dude you have the attention span of an 8 year old with ADHDshare
Your disection of the genres reminds me of the old sci-fi board on imdb,
where people woiuld argue endlessly over what was ans wasnt sci fi.
I learned that all scifi films have another genre or 3
ROTLA is one of the few near-perfect movies.share
I feel in the Dark Knight Trilogy each film was a different type of film despite the tones being fairly consistent:
- Batman Begins - Neo-noir mystery film (Blade Runner)
- The Dark Knight - Crime thriller (Heat)
- The Dark Knight Rises - All out war epic (Braveheart)
How could the last film be a sci-fi, what constitutes that genre? The majority of the populace are aware of the existence of ETs, and interdimensional beings are around us all the time, which some of us communicate with as well, as long as you're familiar with inter-dimensional astral travelling. Lucas has been obviously familiar with such communities, as well as the whistleblowers coming out since the Roswell. However I can see the point by trying to define genres there based on tradition (that is the 1950's which that film reflects), no matter how outdated it may seem. All of them are horror, comedy, sci-fi, action and adventure in a way.share
So that's who keeps taking my socks!share
I happen to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no other intelligent life in the universe. Trust me.share
Alien = Horror
Aliens = Action
Alien 3 = Nihilism/Drama
Alien Resurrection = Camp/comedy