Re: Temple of Doom

Posted by ROB T. from 162.10.138.28 on May 26, 1999 at 01:59:45:

In Reply to: Re: Sucky sequel disease... posted by sajnu on May 26, 1999 at 00:26:52:

: I love the Indy sequels because I think of them as what they should be thought of- just separate adventures. I think it was wise for them to name them "Indiana Jones and the..." instead of Raiders II or so on. I think this is a way of saying, "This isn't better or going to top the original, but here's a few more adventures that this character has been on".
: I think this is what they had in mind with Temple when they set it before Raiders. It's not just Indy vs. more nazis, but something different. Temple has always been a personal favorite of mine. I know everyone says it's a disappointment that just tries to outdo Raiders with more action, but a lot of my favorite moments are in the quieter scenes. Like the eerie mood in the village,
: the creepy atmosphere in the empty temple, the stillness in the air of the rope bridge, etc. I mean, no one really has that big of a problem with any of the books or comics, and that's the way I look at the sequels. There just a few extra stories with this character that was in a big story involving the Ark of the Covenant. I know Lucas and Spielberg like sequels
: for this same reason, they just like telling more stories, and the Indy series lends itself to this.

: This is why I would've like to have had Indy 4 sooner. I would've like to have seen part 4 be more like Temple, in that it's completely separate from Raiders and Crusade, (which I think was more of a sequel since they wanted some closure to the series). After that, it would've been cool to see them close the series with another "Raiders of the..." movie, (like Fallen Empire).
: I say this because I know the fourth will be the last now, and they'll probably want to go for some closure again. I think that's going to put more pressure on to bring back old characters or give it a sense of ending, (like they did with Star Trek VI). I know getting a part 4 and 5 would probably never have happened anyway, cause if they had done Indy 4 sooner they would have
: thought it was the last time too, but it would've been great to see happen.

: I do agree with you on other sequels, but I think Indy is spared the biggest problem which is having to rehash all the same old stuff, with all the same old characters. They do try to flesh out Indy a little more in each movie, like his self-less acts in Temple or his having to find some faith in Crusade, but they don't really make any drastic changes, (although Brody was played for
: laughs in Crusade). So the best advice is, just take it as an individual movie and have fun.

ROB T. here,

I agree with you about the Indy flicks being totally separate from each other and that this is better than if each film tried to start right where the last one left off.
I think my real gripe with "Temple of Doom" is with the villains. Mola Ram just isn't as compelling to me as Belloq and Toht. Belloq was sharp and had a history of competition with Indy. And Toht is just plain scary. Mola Ram was a primitive who had no interesting dialogue and didn't seem to me to be Indy's equal and in a great adventure it's important that the villain be equal to the hero.
In fact, I think the bad guy at the beginning of "Temple," the Chinese guy who gave Indy the poison, would have made a far more compelling villain for the main part of the film than any of the Sankhara stone stuff did.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: 
: : I love the Indy sequels because I think of them as what they should be thought of- just separate adventures.  I think it was wise for them to name them "Indiana Jones and the..." instead of Raiders II or so on.  I think this is a way of saying, "This isn't better or going to top the original, but here's a few more adventures that this character has been on".  
: : I think this is what they had in mind with Temple when they set it before Raiders.  It's not just Indy vs. more nazis, but something different.  Temple has always been a personal favorite of mine.  I know everyone says it's a disappointment that just tries to outdo Raiders with more action, but a lot of my favorite moments are in the quieter scenes.  Like the eerie mood in the village,
: : the creepy atmosphere in the empty temple, the stillness in the air of the rope bridge, etc.  I mean, no one really has that big of a problem with any of the books or comics, and that's the way I look at the sequels.  There just a few extra stories with this character that was in a big story involving the Ark of the Covenant.  I know Lucas and Spielberg like sequels 
: : for this same reason, they just like telling more stories, and the Indy series lends itself to this.

: : This is why I would've like to have had Indy 4 sooner.  I would've like to have seen part 4 be more like Temple, in that it's completely separate from Raiders and Crusade, (which I think was more of a sequel since they wanted some closure to the series).  After that, it would've been cool to see them close the series with another "Raiders of the..." movie, (like Fallen Empire).  
: : I say this because I know the fourth will be the last now, and they'll probably want to go for some closure again.  I think that's going to put more pressure on to bring back old characters or give it a sense of ending, (like they did with Star Trek VI).  I know getting a part 4 and 5 would probably never have happened anyway, cause if they had done Indy 4 sooner they would have
: : thought it was the last time too, but it would've been great to see happen.

: : I do agree with you on other sequels, but I think Indy is spared the biggest problem which is having to rehash all the same old stuff, with all the same old characters.  They do try to flesh out Indy a little more in each movie, like his self-less acts in Temple or his having to find some faith in Crusade, but they don't really make any drastic changes, (although Brody was played for 
: : laughs in Crusade).  So the best advice is, just take it as an individual movie and have fun.

: 
: ROB T. here,

: I agree with you about the Indy flicks being totally separate from each other and that this is better than if each film tried to start right where the last one left off.
: I think my real gripe with "Temple of Doom" is with the villains. Mola Ram just isn't as compelling to me as Belloq and Toht. Belloq was sharp and had a history of competition with Indy. And Toht is just plain scary. Mola Ram was a primitive who had no interesting dialogue and didn't seem to me to be Indy's equal and in a great adventure it's important that the villain be equal to the hero.
: In fact, I think the bad guy at the beginning of "Temple," the Chinese guy who gave Indy the poison, would have made a far more compelling villain for the main part of the film than any of the Sankhara stone stuff did.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]