Re: Something that bugs me about "Temple of Doom."

[ Reply ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Nick Kismet from 209.210.100.51 on July 14, 1999 at 08:09:02:

In Reply to: Something that bugs me about "Temple of Doom." posted by ROB T. on July 14, 1999 at 03:34:49:

: Two things happen at the beginning of "Temple" that I haven't heard anyone on this forum address.
: First, when Indy, Short Round and Willie jump out of the plane. Even using the inflatable raft to cushion their fall, the height is so high and the raft so flimsy that they would have been killed when they hit the ground. Instead Willie doesn't even break a nail. Then they fall again from another incredible height into the river for another injury-free landing. Even Indiana Jones could not survive either of these falls. The raft doesn't afford enough protection for a splatter landing on the hard ground (not even if you factor in the snow) and a river is not that soft a landing when you consider the height they fell from.
: This happens in movies all the time and it bugs the heck out of me. Zorro jumps thirty feet and we're supposed to believe his coat acts as a parachute. In "Rush Hour" Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker fall some fifty feet to a hard landing and are barely bruised. Then they show Jackie hanging from a beam that's about the same height and we're supposed to believe his life is in danger if he falls.
I think the respondent meant to say "Suspension of disbelief"

But Rob is correct. If something happens that is so anomolous as to make a viewer scratch his head for a few minutes, then the filmmaker has erred. The exploding plane in that scene is exactly what's wrong, not only with ToD, but a lot of Spielberg movies. That plane didn't have to explode...it could have and should have just smashed apart. That would have been just as dramatic.
Similarly, the raft falling scenes could have been staged at more realistic heights, though I personally thought the raft scenes were kind of fun, and I could almost accept that the raft accted as a drag chute, slowing the rate of fall enough to make the crach survivable.

However, filmmakers do have an obligation to make things believable. If we find ourselves saying "That could NEVER happen" then the movie loses credibility with us, and we spend 2 hours picking the stunts apart, instead of just enjoying the film. A good example is ...well almost anything in either of Joel Schumacher's Batman movies, though realistically, I don't think anything could have made those watchable.
A better example would be some of the really over the top James Bond movies, You Only Live Twice comes to mind. Those aren't nearly as enjoyable as the ones that opt for more realistic stunt work.
If a director factors in the realism when planning the stunt, then he can find a way to make it more believable...he doesn't have to throw it out altogether.
Of course if we the fans don't call them on it from time to time, they are going to think they canget away with it. Good call, Rob

: The second one I'm not as certain about. When they bail out of the plane isn't it out of gas? If it is then why does it explode on impact? This happens in movies a lot too. Vehicles that crash because they're out of fuel and yet they still explode. Without fuel there is nothing combustable about a crashing plane.
: But like I said, I'm not sure that the plane Indy was on is out of gas. It's been awhile since I saw "Temple."




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:  


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