Nick1Ø66

Indeed. I know certainly there are Indians who may not have appreciated the portrayal (notably the Indian government at the time), and, well, fair enough. But frankly, most of the people I've seen take great offence at this film haven't been Indians, but rather the usual sort who are eager to take offence on behalf of someone else.
 
I think it's just as silly to expect that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom be a complete, and accurate portrayal of Indians as it is to expect The Godfather to be a complete and accurate portrayal of Italians. I grew up watching wuxia films but I never thought every Chinese person was a martial arts expert who spent their days fighting. 
 
The great Amrish Puri (Mola Ram), put it best...
 
"It's based on an ancient cult that existed in India and was recreated like a fantasy. If you recall those imaginary places like Pankot Palace, starting with Shanghai, where the plane breaks down and the passengers use a raft to jump over it, slide down a hill and reach India, can this ever happen? But fantasies are fantasies, like our Panchatantra and folklore. I know we are sensitive about our cultural identity, but we do this to ourselves in our own films. It's only when some foreign directors do it that we start cribbing."
 

Kate Capshaw is unbelievable in this movie.

Temple of Doom has really grown on me.  I've come to appreciate it more over the years, and judge it on its own terms rather than as a sequel to Raiders. The opening musical number, and the entire opening scene in fact leading up to the plane escape in particular, is fantastic.  It's certainly not in the same league as Raiders, and while I personally prefer Crusade, I'll give TOD points for originality and taking a risk.  It's also one of those instances where a reappraisal makes the film look better in comparison to more recent entries in the series.
 
I've also come to like Willie Scott more, and now actually find her less annoying than Marion. 
 
As to whatever sensitivities people may have developed regarding this fun flick over the years, to paraphrase the brilliant Stephen Fry, "You're offended? Well so f*cking what"?

Indeed. I know certainly there are Indians who may not have appreciated the portrayal (notably the Indian government at the time), and, well, fair enough. But frankly, most of the people I've seen take great offence at this film haven't been Indians, but rather the usual sort who are eager to take offence on behalf of someone else.
 
I think it's just as silly to expect that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom be a complete, and accurate portrayal of Indians as it is to expect The Godfather to be a complete and accurate portrayal of Italians. I grew up watching wuxia films but I never thought every Chinese person was a martial arts expert who spent their days fighting. 
 
The great Amrish Puri (Mola Ram), put it best...
 
"It's based on an ancient cult that existed in India and was recreated like a fantasy. If you recall those imaginary places like Pankot Palace, starting with Shanghai, where the plane breaks down and the passengers use a raft to jump over it, slide down a hill and reach India, can this ever happen? But fantasies are fantasies, like our Panchatantra and folklore. I know we are sensitive about our cultural identity, but we do this to ourselves in our own films. It's only when some foreign directors do it that we start cribbing."
 

Indeed. I know certainly there are Indians who may not have appreciated the portrayal (notably the Indian government at the time), and, well, fair enough. But frankly, most of the people I've seen take great offence at this film haven't been Indians, but rather the usual sort who are eager to take offence on behalf of someone else.
 
I think it's just as silly to expect that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom be a complete, and accurate portrayal of Indians as it is to expect The Godfather to be a complete and accurate portrayal of Italians. I grew up watching wuxia films but I never thought every Chinese person was a martial arts expert who spent their days fighting. 
 
The great Amrish Puri (Mola Ram), put it best...
 
"It's based on an ancient cult that existed in India and was recreated like a fantasy. If you recall those imaginary places like Pankot Palace, starting with Shanghai, where the plane breaks down and the passengers use a raft to jump over it, slide down a hill and reach India, can this ever happen? But fantasies are fantasies, like our Panchatantra and folklore. I know we are sensitive about our cultural identity, but we do this to ourselves in our own films. It's only when some foreign directors do it that we start cribbing."
 

Indeed. I know certainly there are Indians who may not have appreciated the portrayal (notably the Indian government at the time), and, well, fair enough. But frankly, most of the people I've seen take great offence at this film haven't been Indians, but rather the usual sort who are eager to take offence on behalf of someone else.
 
I think it's just as silly to expect that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom be a complete, and accurate portrayal of Indians as it is to expect The Godfather to be a complete and accurate portrayal of Italians. I grew up watching wuxia films but I never thought every Chinese person was a martial arts expert who spent their days fighting. 
 
The great Amrish Puri (Mola Ram), put it best...
 
"It's based on an ancient cult that existed in India and was recreated like a fantasy. If you recall those imaginary places like Pankot Palace, starting with Shanghai, where the plane breaks down and the passengers use a raft to jump over it, slide down a hill and reach India, can this ever happen? But fantasies are fantasies, like our Panchatantra and folklore. I know we are sensitive about our cultural identity, but we do this to ourselves in our own films. It's only when some foreign directors do it that we start cribbing."
 

Agreed. But some seem to bristle at any depiction of a culture that doesn't present it 100% accurately or in the best possible light. And poking any fun at them is, certainly, a big no-no today.
 
Personally, I don't look to movies for an accurate depiction of anything—or to teach me about anything. License is taken all the time to augment their effect—be it dramatic, comedic, or whatever.
 
For the record, as a kid I didn't come away from TOD thinking that Indians ate "eyeball soup," "Snake Surprise," or "chilled monkey brains" as part of their diet... It was an obviously broad attempt at humour.
 
But whether or not you find it "funny" is of course a matter of personal opinion.

Temple of Doom has really grown on me.  I've come to appreciate it more over the years, and judge it on its own terms rather than as a sequel to Raiders. The opening musical number, and the entire opening scene in fact leading up to the plane escape in particular, is fantastic.  It's certainly not in the same league as Raiders, and while I personally prefer Crusade, I'll give TOD points for originality and taking a risk.  It's also one of those instances where a reappraisal makes the film look better in comparison to more recent entries in the series.
 
I've also come to like Willie Scott more, and now actually find her less annoying than Marion. 
 
As to whatever sensitivities people may have developed regarding this fun flick over the years, to paraphrase the brilliant Stephen Fry, "You're offended? Well so f*cking what"?

Temple of Doom has really grown on me.  I've come to appreciate it more over the years, and judge it on its own terms rather than as a sequel to Raiders. The opening musical number, and the entire opening scene in fact leading up to the plane escape in particular, is fantastic.  It's certainly not in the same league as Raiders, and while I personally prefer Crusade, I'll give TOD points for originality and taking a risk.  It's also one of those instances where a reappraisal makes the film look better in comparison to more recent entries in the series.
 
I've also come to like Willie Scott more, and now actually find her less annoying than Marion. 
 
As to whatever sensitivities people may have developed regarding this fun flick over the years, to paraphrase the brilliant Stephen Fry, "You're offended? Well so f*cking what"?

To George's credit (words which have never passed Chen's lips), he did the same with the Prequels. Love them or hate them, he didn't simply try to remake Star Wars.

Some of the main criticisms at the time related to the film's darker tone, its violence and its happy-go-lucky comic book pace and structure (Looney Tunes maestro Chuck Jones had been involved on storyboard level). However, over time these aspects have turned into strenghts. It's a great film; I still remember seeing it for the first time, on VHS, in the late 80s while visiting some friends of my parents in Denmark. Good times.

There's a difference between being sensitive and over-sensitive. It's a wonderful film.

I'll say this for TOD: It has many weaknesses, and almost every one of them can be viewed as a sort of strength. Is it a betrayal of everything Raiders stood for or a sterling example of a second film that's brave enough to do everything differently? Yes, yes it is.
 
And then there are the elements that are just pure strengths, no matter how you slice it. The score, the cinematography, the fight scenes, the mine car chase … there's definitely stuff to love here.
 
I'm sure I'll watch it at some point this year. And the score gets a lot of listening time from me no matter what.

Hmmmm. This is the type of UFO story I can see later-day Spielberg telling...he's often spoken about how, when he made CE3K, that version of himself would have flown away on the Mothership, but later in life, as a husband and father, he said he wouldn't.  So I always thought it would be interesting to see a film about Roy Neary returning to Earth after decades away with the CE3K aliens (i.e. ET). I mean, the guy had a wife and kids and essentially abandoned them, and it would be interesting to see how he, and they'd, react to his homecoming and how he'd adjust to life on a completely unrecognizable Earth. Dreyfuss is probably too old for the part, but you could recast for a younger Roy Neary (proving Einstein right).

The simple truth is that, in every case, release order is the preferred order for watching a film series for the first time. 
 

Featuring another excellent performance by Karen Allen!

Have you seen UNTIL SEPTEMBER, and THE PERFECT STORM?
She's good, in both.

Phenomenal film.
 
Not only does Hollywood not make films like this any more, I've pretty much resigned myself that they never will again.

I hadn't seen that for over 10, maybe 15 years and I finally decided to buy the blu-ray.
Masterpiece and a masterful score that gave me a couple of hair-raising moments!

I get your point indeed. Those scenes in the various prequels tend to rob the original scenes of much of their power, especially, I imagine for a first time viewer who foolishly chose to watch the films in in-universe "chronological" order.
 
Of course, the same can be said for The Hobbit trilogy, which has many callbacks to images and sequences to those done (better) in The Lord of the Rings.  Seeing dark Gandalf say "I am not trying to rob you" isn't as powerful and shocking once you've seen the same bit done with the "If I say Bilbo Baggins is a burglar..." in the prequel.
 
Anyone who watches Star Wars or Middle-Earth for the first time in "sequence" is robbing themselves of something very special that they can never get back.

Sure. Kids make up their own mind on what they like. If the kid doesn't like Star Wars '77, not much to be done about it. 
 
But just because a kid prefers McDonalds doesn't mean I'm not making them eat their vegetables.
 
 

Sure. Kids make up their own mind on what they like. If the kid doesn't like Star Wars '77, not much to be done about it. 
 
But just because a kid prefers McDonalds doesn't mean I'm not making them eat their vegetables.
 
 

Well that's just bad parenting.

Well that's just bad parenting.

The simple truth is that, in every case, release order is the preferred order for watching a film series for the first time.