Raiders and Temple are the only good ones - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Discussion

[–] Threadkiller (2967) 6 years ago

I don't dislike Crusade nearly as much as the OP but I do strongly disagree with the "popular" consensus that it's better than Temple(my personal favorite) and believe it is a generally overrated near beat for beat retread of Raiders, with only Sean Connery to "somewhat" save it from being a complete copy and paste job.

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

It's been a while since I saw Crusade but aside from the Nazis going after Judeo-Christian relics, how are the movies the same?

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2967) 6 years ago

Well we can't simply downplay the repeated plot of Indy vs Nazis in search of Judeo-christian Christian artifact yet again as that's essentially the entire plot. It follows many of the same beats & we have largely returning supporting characters from Raiders with the addition of Sean Connery.

The films were similar enough to me that i constantly got them confused as a kid. Temple's uniqueness in the series likely played a big part in why I always appreciated it the most, because it was different & stood out.

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

Indy fought Nazis a lot though. That’s kind of his thing. As for returning supporting characters, that isn’t too odd for a series is it? To me, Temple seemed like the odd man out as a kid. It is probably why Temple was the least popukar movie until Skull.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

No way. Raiders is the best. The Last Crusade is second.

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

Temple was over the top and campy. They had to go back to being more serious when they made Crusade.

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

Wait hold on, are you seriously trying to tell me that Crusade is the more serious film??? What about it did you find serious? The campy boat chase? Young Indy hopping on top of a circus train? The Mickey Mouse jokes?

Thanks for the laugh buddy, Crusade was a kiddie film while the first two were more for teenagers to adults.

By the way I am the Ultimate Hippo, I had to make a new account.

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

Temple gave us a little kid sidekick, the mine chase (far goofier than the boat chase), a perpetually screaming woman, and a ridiculous monkey-brains eating scene. All three movies were aimed at kids but Temple was the campier one and you are the only person I've met to say otherwise. You sound like those DC fans who constantly whine about "kiddie Marvel".

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

Temple dealt with very mature subject matter such as black magic and child slavery, while it did have some comic relief overall it took itself very seriously and presented a real sense of danger for the heroes as did Raiders. Last Crusade was a film for 4 year olds, it was just one lame joke after another, the boat chase was the worst boat chase I have ever seen (and yes I've seen the boat chase in Moonraker), it has this light hearted "prancing through a prairie" music and the fact that Indy and the guy who just tried to kill him walked away best friends was dumber than dumb. Last Crusade was all about humor, the adventure didn't matter, it was alot like Monty Python in the sense that the plot wasn't the focus, the jokes were, the only difference is Monty Python was actually funny. Not to mention that Last Crusade had hands down the WORST acting I have ever seen in a major motion picture, how anyone like it is beyond me.

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

Dude, Temple was not mature and had tons of silly little jokes. Most of those jokes came from the little kid that tagged along and since he was in most of the scenes, there were multiple jokes in every scene. And they weren't even good jokes. They were mostly there to talk about how icky everything was. And talk about bad acting? You thought the chick in Temple was good? When she wasn't screaming, she was whining about immaterial things. She was a total princess. There was nothing mature about anything in that movie. And once again, ALL these movies are for children. Are you DCEUFanticArmy under a different name?

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

Ok now I think you’re trolling me. All you’re doing is cherry picking bits and pieces of comic relief out of Temple and acting like it made up the whole movie, it didn’t, Temple was a serious adventure film with traces of comic relief, Crusade was all comic relief just really really bad comic relief. I noticed you didn’t site the sacrifice scene, the whipping scene or the bridge standoff

Yes Crusade had atrocious acting, Glover was a great Bond villain I have no idea what happened here and Alison Doody was PAINFUL to listen to (capshaw wasn’t). She seriously sounded like she was just regurgitating what she was reading off a TelePrompTer she wasn’t acting. The story was lame, there was no sense of danger or excitement and the film is riddled with plot holes. Again Raiders and Temple are the only ones I count.

No I am no DCEUfanatic, other than the dark knight films I don’t do superheroes

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

Cherry picking the comic relief? It's every scene with those two idiots mugging for the cameras with their constant "INNNNDDDDDYYYY!" screams. You talk about the boat chase, but that cart chase aged poorly from the horrible blue screen, the big jump from one track to the next, the "spooky" caution signs that look like they're from a haunted ride, and the bad guy randomly grabbing the annoying kid for no other reason than to put a sidekick in peril. Watch this and tell me it's "a serious movie for adults": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVGl1d8hRBI Hell, I'd forgotten that they used roller coaster sounds effects for the mine cart.

You go on and on about maturity in kid's movies and the funny thing is, I liked Temple as a kid but it wasn't until I saw it as an adult that I understood where all the hate came from. The Indy movies have a reverse Star Trek curse in that all the good ones are odd numbers and the shitty ones are the evens.

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

I think what's most important is to take a good hard look at the primary focus of each film: Temple despite having a little bit of comic relief through Willie (who I fully admit wasn't as good as Marion) is primarily about the Thuggee Cult and the Temple of Doom and about Indy undergoing a character arc where at first he is only about finding his fortune and glory to a guy who is willing to risk his life to do what is right which is saving the kids and conquering the Temple of Doom. Crusade on the other hand is completely about slapstick humor and Mickey Mouse jokes, the quest doesn't matter, the characters don't matter, Spielberg realized he had to dumb down his 3rd movie to appeal to little children and I guess he figured 4 year olds don't care about complex character development or believable acting (both Glover and Doody gave 2 of the worst performances I have ever seen).

Again when you were trying to justify Temple being a kids movie I noticed you conveniently left out the voodoo doll, the heart sacrifice, the whipping, the bridge standoff, etc. You are biased and you are dishonest. As far as the Indiana Jones films go the first half is really good, the second half is a bunch of mindless nonsense.

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

All three movies are kids movies despite bloody parts. It's why they invented PG-13. Just because Temple of Doom had scenes of hearts getting ripped out, it doesn't make it any less cheesy. Crusade toned down the violence due t complaints but gore does not make a movie more or less "adult".

And again, Temple had plenty of slapstick humor, such as the dinner scene or the inclusion of Short Round in any capacity. The kid had no relevance to the plot and was there to be funny and cutesy.

As for arcs, Temple didn't cover any ground that wasn't already covered in Raiders. Crusade at least had family reconciliation going for it.

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

The only moment in Crusade that even remotely suspenseful was Donovan's death and that only lasted about 15 seconds and then it was right back to the campy nature that ruined the rest of the film. Toning down the violence was an idiotic move, Spielberg was just trying to appeal to parents who complained that Temple was too dark and scary for children despite the film having a "Parental Guidance Suggested" warning and did they even see the first film? What the hell did they expect?

Crusade was basically a rehash of Raiders, Temple went and did something different and I respect that a lot. Any humor in Temple again was meant to be comic relief to ease the tension but again it wasn't the main focus, the kiddie slapstick humor was the focus of Crusade and that is why Marcus and Henry had basically been reduced to Jar Jar Antics.

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

Quick question: Even though it's obvious that Temple is objectively better than Crusade why is it that you consider Crusade to be a great film but Crystal Skull to be a bad film? To me they are pretty on the same level of buffoonery, I just found Crystal Skull to be less obnoxious.

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

As for Crystal Skull: I hated Shia LeBeuf's character (and I'm not a fan of the actor), I thought the ants were horribly animated and looked stupid onscreen, the car chase/sword fight made no sense, the opening nuke scene was idiotic, Harrison Ford is too old to be an action hero now, and aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones movie. I find very little to like. Temple was better in comparison.

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

I didn't like LeBeuf either but I'll take him over Doody, Glover or Elliot, hell I'd take him over Connery in Last Crusade. The ants were a cool scene, maybe they shouldn't have made the CGI so obvious. The nuke scene I can't defend, but Ford's age didn't bother me.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6031) 6 years ago

Temple is objectively better? Did I miss something?

Crusade is on the top 250 of imdb temple of doom is not. Crusade wins on RT, MC, box office and in Oscar nominations. What do you mean objective? Explain.

According to objective data crusade bests it in every way. So um yeah no. Crusade is objectively better. Temple is only better according to you period. You are in the minority. Nice try though.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4364) 6 years ago

Last Crusade pisses all over Doom, not as good as raiders but nearly

reply

[–] strntz (11266) 6 years ago

Look, I agree with you in that Crusade is a better film than Temple and place it very close to Raiders, but what does it matter??????

Not picking on you specifically but does anyone seriously think that their argument for or against Temple (or the others for that matter) will change anyone's mind???

Let's discuss the movie - not fight about it's placement in the trilogy (there is no fourth LOL!!)

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 6 years ago

It is all pointless bickering isnt it though. People have different preferences, there is nothing wrong with liking one film more than another, that said I am mystified by people that actually think KOTCS is a good film.

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

No matter what anyone says I will never stop hating Last Crusade

reply

[–] AP (5261) 6 years ago

Did Sean Connery kill your mother or something?

reply

[–] SpaceAce2001 (387) 6 years ago

Not at all he’s a great actor, I loved him in 5 of the 6 official James Bond movies he was in (Diamonds Are Forever being the exception) he singlehandedly saved The Rock , he was also awesome in films like the untouchables and the hunt for red October.

Because he’s so great I hate seeing him reduced to Jar Jar antics like he was in Last Crusade

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6031) 6 years ago

No he's just an in denial person. Notice how he claimed temple of doom was objectively better than last crusade? You have to forgive him he doesn't understand the meaning of the word objective.

By all objective data gathered crusade beats temple of doom. It is higher rated on imdb, metacritic, rotten tomatoes, and has more Oscar nominations. So when he says objective I do not understand what he means.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4130) 6 years ago

There is no objective data when it comes to film preference it is all SUBJECTIVE! If you say, popular opinion says Crusade is better than Temple, then that is fine.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6031) 6 years ago

Exactly my point. So when he said objectively temple is better what did he mean? Because if we go off of the data formed by the majority crusade wins by a landslide.

Am I saying someone can't prefer temple nope but acknowledge you're in the minority. It's an objective fact the majority prefers crusade. It shouldn't have any bearing on anyone's view but he likes to play to the ratings as long as it suits what he likes. I'm simply keeping him honest.

Notice how the ratings get discarded when it doesn't favor his preference. If temple of doom was rated higher than crusade I guarantee you he would cite that rating immediately.

reply

[–] overseas7 (3725) 4 years ago

Oh, the last crusade was a very good movie...

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Last Crusade is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

reply

[–] overseas7 (3725) 4 years ago

😯...why...?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

- Bad acting
- Atrocious dialogue
- Recycled plot from Raiders
- Wasted character with Connery
- Mickey Mouse joke
- Tons of plot holes
- Marcus being turned into Jar Jar Binks

reply

[–] overseas7 (3725) 4 years ago

In my opinion an excellent Indiana Jones movie

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I disagree with everything you just said.

reply

[–] overseas7 (3725) 4 years ago

Both Ford and Connery are great in this movie, also Marcus Brody's character is amusing. And referring to the Mickey mouse moment....I must always smile every time I watch it😉

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

LOL you have a very strange opinion. Ford, Connery and Elliot gave some of the worst performances I have ever seen, yes they were all worse than Jar Jar Binks. The Mickey Mouse joke was juvenile and childish and just showed that Spielberg was no longer interested in dark and mature subject matter, he wanted to make a kiddie film that would make all the little four year olds laugh after playing Ring around the Rosie.

reply

[–] overseas7 (3725) 4 years ago

I would not say strange 😅... but that is my opinion indeed ....and sorry but Jar Jar Binks is "unbeatable".

reply