Why no Kasdan?
He had the best ideas in Raiders, Lucas hadagreat streak with him.
Why chanea winning team?
What happened here? Anybody knows the dirty details?
[deleted]
Thanks for the info. Hack & Katz should go back to their real occupation.
I have to say TOD has exactly that Howard the duck feel!
Last Crusade does not.
Was Lucas snorting coke or something in mid 80s?
[deleted]
For what I gather, with Raiders, Lucas and Spielberg told him a basic idea and he wrote the whole script.
He came up with the story, characters etc. Spielberg than did his best job ever, shooting the action.
And the actors filled in the rest. But Kasdan was pivotal.
TFA, that's 35 years past his prime, and I have the feeling that the new producers just wanted his name on it like they used everything else from original SW: to talentlessly exploit them. I wonder how much of it he really came up with.
>>I have to say TOD has exactly that Howard the duck feel!
You must have tripped on acid when you saw it if you think that.
No, it has that outlandish, in your face feel of an out of control filmmaker telling his audience "I'm in charge here and I'm gonna shove your way whatever I feel it's necessary"`
shareSteven Spielberg makes one of the best adventure movies ever made, and you call him out of control.
If you had used that description for 1941, then maybe, but for Temple of Doom it doesn't work. And to quote the man himself:
"The movie is not called the Temple of Roses, it's called The Temple of Doom".
Who the hell is talking about Spielberg here? Have you read what I wrote?
share>>No, it has that outlandish, in your face feel of an out of control filmmaker telling his audience "I'm in charge here and I'm gonna shove your way whatever I feel it's necessary"
I read what you wrote, but I thought you meant Spielberg here since he, you know, directed it. He was the main filmmaker of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. He directed it, it's his film.
And you're kinda dropping the ball on Lucas in this context (i.e. bashing him too much) because his ideas for Temple were great.
Yeah I was talkin about Lucas, since the OP.
It's his film as much as Spielberg's.
Which of his ideas do you find great?
Famously, Lucas was going through a divorce and Steven was in a good mood after E.T. Lucas brought many dark elements: religious cult, child slavery, black magic and ritual sacrifice along with the India elements also delivered by Bill Huyck and Gloria Katz - who was very interested in India (the reason Lucas hired them). Personally I'm not a sucker for these kind of dark elements, but with Steven Spielberg as the director this becomes an adventure tale, an "Indiana Jones movie". As Steven said: "I heard a couple of things — Thugees, temple of death, vooodoo and human sacrifices — so what came to mind immediately was torchlight, long shadows, and red lava light. I wanted to paint a dark picture of an inner sanctum" - he mixed this material with a lot of comedy, and charm. So when you watch the film today, it is not scary, it is entertaining, funny and damn charming.
Lucas also delivered other elements (unused set peices from the Raiders script): The mine cart chase and the skydiving raft sequence. Both of which I love.
Lucas also came up with the Anything Goes opening musical number, which he had to convince Spielberg to do. It's a great opening and introduction to Willie Scott, the era and Club Obi-Wan.
You mention Lawrence Kasdan. He should shut up about Temple of Doom. He has said:
“There’s nothing pleasant about it. I think Temple Of Doom represents a chaotic period in both their lives, and the movie is very ugly and mean-spirited.”
Wow, what a pal he was here. Complaining about other peoples creative endeavour. The guy hasn't made anything near the quality of Temple of Doom in his directing career, and I'm a fan.
To sum it up. George Lucas has failed many times (prequel trilogy), but he has succeeded many times as well. Temple of Doom ended up being a great film, and we can thank both Lucas and Spielberg for that. Comparing it to Howard the Duck. I wonder which film you saw?
Do you dislike all elements? Even the John Williams score?
Thanks for the great repli Interlepos.
Just to be clear, I like TOD. It's a great adventure!
BUT being it part of a trilogy, it's quite a waste of 2 hours, and lots of bad decisions have been made.
Let me expand: if Indy was, like it looked in 1984, the new James Bond, with a series of 20 adventures, than TOD would be exactly, as intended, a wonderful Indian mission for Indy. I could even tolerate short round and the screaming bitch.
In reality the creators, starting with Ford, decided to "not get stuck in Indiana Jones" and sabotaged the whole concept. So it turned into a trilogy. They tried to change idea once again with that fucking abortion I won't mention here.
But TOD being the second part of a trilogy make it a film where most of the ideas you describe from Lucas become just a waste of time and a wasted opportunity for some substance.
I have to say I'm quite on Kasdan side, and his quote is interesting and explains a lot.
I don't agree that there's nothing pleasant about it, but it's true it's quite ugly and mean spirited, and probably he's right it's a reflection of what happened in their private lives.
For me one thing that is awesome is the OST, so is Ford's acting and the main premise.
But most of the pizzazz they injected in it felt like they forced in elements that they just wanted to shoot, no matter what. The musical number is idiotic in this context (again, it's good for a series, not a trilogy). The kid should have had 5 minutes of screen time in China, instead they forced him on us dumbing the whole movie down. The action becomes cartoonish (raft and carts and the final battle).
The mood and the focus dramatically shifted from Raiders: it went from a modernization of classic treasure hunting adventures, to a show off of outlandish stunts and situations. They cranked up the horror and the humour and the evil (even the nazi appear like sound minded enemies compared to these savages) to one up Raiders, instead of continuing from what they built.
Heisenberg, likewise to you. A good post and very interesting read. Even though our opinion differs, you have many good points.
First and foremost, I love Short Round. I love the character, his relationship to Indy, the actor’s performance, and that great Short Round musical theme. I think his character elevates the film. I have an allergic reaction to dumb characters, and most of all irritating characters. His relationship to Indy comes off as completely genuine to me. They have great chemistry. Your dislike of him might come down to just taste. Not saying your taste is wrong.
The Indiana Jones trilogy might be the best trilogy ever made, quantity wise, if you just measure the films by their level of quality. What I mean by that is that all of them are five-star films. As trilogies goes, it might only be topped by the original Star Wars trilogy, which has a perfect beginning, middle and end structure. Return of the Jedi though, as great as it is, is not a perfect film, so quantity wise, Indy wins. And that’s how I see the three Indy films. They are 3 adventures by Indiana Jones, and they don’t need to be more than that. They don’t need the SW structure, nor the Bond structure, nor any structure at all. they have their unique thing going on, and the character of Indy evolves thorugh Harrison's portrayal. I love the fact that Temple of Doom is so different from Raiders, and that the third film focuses on Indy's relationship to his father. The character of Indy is the most important thing.
To me, all the ideas that Lucas presentet for Temple, and especially what Steven did with those ideas -- ended up working magically. I don’t really care about the connection to Raiders, or the connection to Crusade, I care about how the good the film in front of me is. And the film I see when I'm watching Temple of Doom, is to me near flawless. I might have one or two problems with it (some effects don't hold up), but that's Ok.