When did history rewrite and this Indy film become the "bad" one?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
HandsomeBoyModel — 10 years ago(March 24, 2016 11:24 AM)
There's something I really don't get. I was a kid in the 1980s and everyone loved Temple of Doom. If you looked at the reviews at the time, most critics put it on par with Raiders. Temple of Doom on VHS was mandatory watching for us who grew up in the 80s and 90s.
But in the past 10 years or so, it has gotten the reputation as the "bad" one out of the original three. (We can all agree Crystal Skull doesn't deserve to be in the discussion as it is an abomination of an Indy film)
The two common unoriginal complaints was that Willie Scott was annoying (which has some merit) and that it is different than Raiders and Last Crusade. Oh God forbid, they tried something unique and different! And people argue that this is for kids when it is probably the most violent and brutal out of all the Indy movies.
I just don't get it. What's with the rewrite of history? -
Karl Aksel — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 04:41 AM)
Temple was the "bad" one until Kingdom came along. Crusade was, in a way, Steven Spielberg's apology for Temple.
Also, you're downplaying criticisms of Temple by claiming it's because it's "different". Tea with sugar is different from tea without sugar. Tea with sugar is also different from castor oil. Just saying "different" isn't really giving a lot of information. -
thylacine80 — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 07:31 AM)
I do agree that people kind of convinced themselves that TOD is bad, probably because they read such statements on the internet and just go along the popular "belief".
My explanation is that in people's mind, the Indiana Jones franchise is basically "archeolgy, desert and nazis" films.
So, when they think about Temple of Doom, a dark story with a supernatural cult in India, it just doesn't match their expectations of the formula.
To me, this movie is close to perfection, and it doesn't matter what Indy movies "are suppoed to be" or that "it is different from the others".
It is exotic, well paced, full of action, scary and fun.
That's all I need.
I like the 2 others (I pretend KOTCS never happened), but this one is perfection. -
McTibb — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 02:22 PM)
Spielberg announced it was his least favourite of all the indy films except for meeting his wife. It was at this time, coincidentally, folk started saying it was the bad one. Before that we all loved it. I'm a big fan of Indy since I watched raiders at about 8 years old and I loved ToD and still do.
-
Arvin-G-Borkar — 9 years ago(December 24, 2016 05:30 PM)
It is something that people, who do not like the unknown, would not understand. You would have to go into it with an open mind. Indiana Jones was a Caucasian hero that triumphed significant Caucasian related obstacles. For instance Raiders was a HUGE thing that Americans would be familiar with. Was WWII not a huge part of Western history?
The only individuals I would think, who would like this movie, are probably the British and Indians (and that is if they do not take it as an insult, rather as a satire).
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR. COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS HERE!!!
