Temple of Doom is celebrating 40 years in 2024

[Edmilson 10,347]

Another beloved 80s blockbuster with a classic John Williams score is celebrating 4 decades of existence this year: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which was released in the US on May 23, 1984.

 

If adventure has a name, it must be Indiana Jones

 

 

 

I love the classic Indy movies!

 

How will you celebrate ToD's 40th birthday? Re-watching it? Listening to the epic John Williams score? Doing all of those things? 

[Andy 5,864]

My favorite Indiana Jones movie.  I had the foldout poster magazine, I had the Marvel adaptation, and I got the collectors edition movie program when I saw it opening day.  Here are the original newspaper clippings I've saved from over the years (there's some Raiders in there too)

 

 

I remember my sister had a job at the local (brand new) multiplex theater, so she saw everything back then.  She hated the stuff I was into, mostly Spielberg and Lucas stuff.  I remember opening up the poster mag to the gatefold image of Indy on the rope bridge surrounded on both sides, and even my sister admitted "Yeah, I gotta admit that was pretty cool".  High praise from her back then.

 

I wear a fedora daily.  It is based on Temple of Doom style, and has an image of the 3 Sankara stones inside the sweatband, with the inscription "Fortune and Glory"

 

I'll watch it again.

[Mr. Hooper 4,953]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

How will you celebrate ToD's 40th birthday? Re-watching it? Listening to the epic John Williams score? Doing all of those things? 

Yes! 😄

 

1 hour ago, Andy said:

Almost as impressive as my 'Jaws: The Revenge' clipping collection... 
 

1 hour ago, Andy said:

...and even my sister admitted "Yeah, I gotta admit that was pretty cool".

My older brother mocked the 'Jaws: The Revenge' trailer when it came out, and his opinion hasn't changed in 2024...

[Andy 5,864]

One thing about the newspaper clippings, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive.  There was no inclination toward the negativity that somehow emerged in the internet era. 

[Groovygoth666 1,142]

Watched this (for the second time) in the cinema last month. And gotta tell ya that's the best way to see it. 

 

It's interesting to hear that the reviews where positive, I've always heard it was poorly received or at least that was the impression I got. 

 

A general sentiment is Willie's really annoying, which I agreed with, but after watching with an cinema audience and everyone laughing at just how over the top she is it clicked into place that that's the point of her. The juxtaposition between not only her and Indy but Marion as well makes her more memorable, that she's not just a copy of Marion and a completely different character who arguably has something of an arc in this film. 

 

Then there's of course Short Round, the chemistry between Ke Huy Quan and Harrison Ford comes through their performances so naturally. That you really feel that Indy cares for this little pickpocket. 

 

Also like the film the score was something that I only really appreciated after the various leaks had been combined and @rubisetcie put out their version and it was in this most complete form that I have been able to really enjoy it. 

 

As for what I'll do, well an Indy marathon (of just the first 3) and probably a revisit of the scores as well. 

[Mr. Hooper 4,953]

34 minutes ago, Andy said:

One thing about the newspaper clippings, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive.

I'm reminded now of the most "positive"—or at least neutral-sounding—review quote Universal could find to put on 'Jaws: The Revenge' ads:

 

"Jaws strikes again!"

 

Well, I was sold on it. lol

 

 

(OK, I'll stop talking about Jaws now.) 

 

 

[Edmilson 10,347]

29 minutes ago, Groovygoth666 said:

It's interesting to hear that the reviews where positive, I've always heard it was poorly received or at least that was the impression I got. 

 

The king of film critics Roger Ebert really liked it and gave it a 4/4:

 

Quote

Roger Ebert gave the film a perfect four-star rating, calling it "one of the greatest Bruised Forearm Movies ever made. You know what a Bruised Forearm Movie is. That's the kind of movie where your date is always grabbing your forearm in a viselike grip, as unbearable excitement unfolds on the screen...Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom makes no apologies for being exactly what it is: Exhilarating, manic, wildly imaginative escapism. No apologies are necessary. This is the most cheerfully exciting, bizarre, goofy, romantic adventure movie since Raiders, and it is high praise to say that it's not so much a sequel as an equal... You stagger out with a silly grin -- and a bruised forearm, of course."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_and_the_Temple_of_Doom#Critical_response

[Andy 5,864]

Or in other words, Anything Goes. 
 

Truly, two simple words that sum up this perfect epic of entertaining mayhem, never to be taken as seriously as its predecessor.  Critics often use the phrase “Roller Coaster Ride” metaphorically, and I’d argue that if it didn’t begin with Temple of Doom, there’s no better film that fits that description. Literally. 

[Datameister 2,420]

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.

[Groovygoth666 1,142]

Also I'd like to address one of the films biggest controversies - the banquet scene. 

 

In the film the characters are presented with a selection of....unusual plates, now an audience that is perhaps ignorant of the cuisine of India would take this as being the norm. Snake surprise, eyeball soup and chilled monkey brains are so readily enjoyed by the guests that someone who doesn't know that Hindus are primarily vegetarian wouldn't think twice about what was happening on screen. Now this was such a big problem that the film was banned in India for some years because of it. But in the script there was a scene following the banquet that would of clued audiences in - 

 

Now I don't know if this follow up scene was filmed but if this brief exchange had happened during the banquet instead it probably could of helped inform the audience that things weren't right, and certainly delt with one of its biggest controversies. 

[Andy 5,864]

It made it as far as a children’s book and record and the comic book adaptation.  But not sure it was filmed either. 

[Groovygoth666 1,142]

Hearing it made it into some adaptations is a relief, but it really needed to be in the film to at least show the audience things aren't right. It certainly could of helped with those controversies.

[Jay 42,232]

Wow I didn't know about tat scene.  I learned something today!

[Andy 5,864]

Me, singing along to Parade of the Slave Children:

 

 

[Chen G. 5,103]

13 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

in the script there was a scene following the banquet that would of clued audiences in - 

 

Interesting, but seems a little too strong as a piece of foreshadowing.

[Mr. Hooper 4,953]

13 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

It certainly could of helped with those controversies.

I wouldn't be surprised if they put an advisory before the movie now...

 

"This movie is a product of its time. It presents depictions that were unacceptable then and are unacceptable now. Rather than not show the movie, we present it as-is to encourage progressive discussions. Yada yada..."

[Schilkeman 1,436]

Yes, God forbid we all learn to be more sensitive to societal representation . There's plenty of stuff I love about Temple of Doom, but there's also plenty about it that is very much from 1984, and should probably stay there. 

[Thor 9,304]

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.

[Jurassic Shark 14,820]

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

[Naïve Old Fart 11,512]

14 hours ago, Andy said:

Me, singing along to Parade of the Slave Children:

 

Er... that would be 'Slave Children's Crusade' 

 

 

Is the film getting a cinema rerelease?

[Sweeping Strings 2,831]

26 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

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

Amen, brother. Amen. 

[Jurassic Shark 14,820]

15 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Interesting, but seems a little too strong as a piece of foreshadowing.

 

I think you're right - the film doesn't need any more foreshadowing than it alredy has.

[Chen G. 5,103]

3 hours ago, Thor said:

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).

 

I'm sure I've said it before, but I never found Temple of Doom "darker' in the usual sense of the word. Its scarier, more violent but all within the realm, of as you say, "its happy-go-lucky comic book pace and structure" which is characteristic of the entire series. Hence its not dark in the sense that The Northman is dark or even in the sense that The Two Towers is dark.

 

What it is, is its more macabre. And I'm fine with macabre, except that in the case of this particular film, I don't feel like its conducive to the film's goal, which is to have fun.

[Jurassic Shark 14,820]

20 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

What it is, is its more macabre. And I'm fine with macabre, except that in the case of this particular film, I don't feel like its conducive to the film's goal, which is to have fun.

 

It's also supposed to be a bit scarier than the previous film, which it achieves.

[GerateWohl 5,875]

Temple of Dooms was the last time that Spielberg seemed to take the series kind of serious as an original hero story. All sequels including Last Crusade looked already like a parody of the franchise. 

[Chen G. 5,103]

Eh. All the Indy films are kind of aware of their own ridiculousness: not the degenerate Marvel sense, Lor forbid, but still. I like the more comedic touch of The Last Crusade the best.

 

50 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

It's also supposed to be a bit scarier than the previous film, which it achieves.

 

It does. I still have trouble disentangling how much of that is Lucas' personal life and how much of that is his, by then, belief that the second film should feel more intense than the first. The timeframe of Lucas' marriage coming undone and the earliest sketched ideas for Temple of Death (as it was initially called) is a little elusive, although for the moment I'm happy to defer to Brian Jay Jones' spectacular biography, which presented them as a one-two punch.

 

Having said that, the fact that some conceptual elements like the "all that glitters is not gold" aspect of both Pankot Palace and Cloud City are mirrored between the two films, alongside comments made by both Lucas and Spielberg, suggest that the autobigraphical motive is certainly not the only factor at play there.

[Frank Vincent 253]

4 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

Er... that would be 'Slave Children's Crusade' 

 

I guess he's singing along with this version:

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 11,512]

What?! You mean he's not singing along with Seth MacFarlane? 

[Schilkeman 1,436]

5 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

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

I don't even know what that means. I think it's enough to say that aspects of it wouldn't fly, if it came out today. It didn't, so I accept its issues, but there is no harm in pointing them out. Some stuff was once ok, and now it isn't. It's fine. That's how it's supposed to work. 

 

It's a very fun movie, with the best cinematography, music, and sets in the series. For want of a couple of lines of dialog, it could be better, that's all.

[oierem 199]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Eh. All the Indy films are kind of aware of their own ridiculousness: not the degenerate Marvel sense, Lor forbid, but still. I like the more comedic touch of The Last Crusade the best.

 

 

It does. I still have trouble disentangling how much of that is Lucas' personal life and how much of that is his, by then, belief that the second film should feel more intense than the first. The timeframe of Lucas' marriage coming undone and the earliest sketched ideas for Temple of Death (as it was initially called) is a little elusive, although for the moment I'm happy to defer to Brian Jay Jones' spectacular biography, which presented them as a one-two punch.

 

Having said that, the fact that some conceptual elements like the "all that glitters is not gold" aspect of both Pankot Palace and Cloud City are mirrored between the two films, alongside comments made by both Lucas and Spielberg, suggest that the autobigraphical motive is certainly not the only factor at play there.

 

The earliest story ideas for Temple of Doom are from fall 1981/early 1982, when Lucas had just adopted a baby and was in a "happy" moment of his marriage, as far as we know.

The story conferences were held in April 1982. Lucas wrote the treatment in May 1982. The first draft was delivered in August 1982.

Marcia Lucas asked for the divorce around summer 1982, I believe. It wasn't officially announced until June 1983.

 

So yeah, I don't believe the basic elements from Temple of Doom come from Lucas' personal crisis.

[Chen G. 5,103]

I also have a topical allergy towards reading biographical antecdotes of the artist's life into the work of art, and especially in the case of Lucas who clearly wants to project a certain image of himself, based on a kind of old-fashioned auteur theory where the artist inherently writes from his own life.

 

But my understanding is Lucas discovered Marcia had had an affair circa January or February of 1982, although they had tried to get over it for some time after that, with Marcia suggesting counseling and Lucas refusing. Its therefore not stretch that it will have had some effect on the gestating story.

 

My understanding is that the concepts Lucas hatched between July 1981 and January 1982 were for other possible films, not for what Temple of Doom ended up being: ideas like a chase on the chinese wall and discovering a "Lost World" (I've seen no convincing evidence that the "Monkey King" and haunted castle premises date from this time). So the idea of the human-sacrificing cult in India would have been hatched subsequently or at least closely to when Lucas learned of the affair.

 

But I do think the idea of "well, it worked so well for Empire" was just if not more forefront in his mind. The biographical spin is probably more apt when we look at the second Ewok film.

[Cindylover1969 80]

This movie was awesome. That is all.

[Nick1Ø66 6,711]

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"?

[Chen G. 5,103]

I'm considerably cooler towards the movie, but I do really, really appreciate that Lucas - in cahoots with the Hyucks and Spielberg, surely - clearly endeavoured to make a film as unlike Raiders of the Lost Ark as he could think of.

[Nick1Ø66 6,711]

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.

[Chen G. 5,103]

To some extent, yes. I mean, he wrote Episode I with one of his early drafts of Star Wars on his desk, so there are parallels to the original and to Jedi, but they're more in the abstract - getting stranded on a desert planet, leading an offensive of primitives and blowing up a space station - and they're probably less important than the differences.

[Mr. Hooper 4,953]

9 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

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

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.

[Holko 11,276]

In my Bond rewatches, when I got to Octopussy, I definitely thought "Seriously, people say Temple of Doom is racist?"

[Nick1Ø66 6,711]

6 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

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.

 

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."

 

[Brónach 1,316]

Kate Capshaw is unbelievable in this movie.

[Nick1Ø66 6,711]

4 minutes ago, Brónach said:

Kate Capshaw is unbelievable

 

That's what Spielberg said.

[Jurassic Shark 14,820]

She's hysterical. 

[Nick1Ø66 6,711]

The problem with her is the screaming.

[Mr. Hooper 4,953]

37 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The problem with her is the screaming.

That's what Spielberg said.

[Edmilson 10,347]

Spielberg even named her character after his willie 

[Jurassic Shark 14,820]

That's deep, man.

[Mr. Hooper 4,953]

9 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Spielberg even named her character after his willie 

 

He also bought the infamously named "Rosebud" sled from 'Citizen Kane.'

 

I see a pattern...

 

[Edmilson 10,347]

I wonder how Spielberg calls his dick? "Bruce the one-eyed shark"? "Close Encounters of the Sexy Kind"? "Little Indy"? "Willie Scott"? "The Extraterrestrial"? "Jurassic Pork"?

[Jurassic Shark 14,820]

6 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

I wonder how Spielberg calls his dick? "Bruce the one-eyed shark"? "Close Encounters of the Sexy Kind"? "Litle Indiana"? "Willie Scott"? "The Extraterrestrial"? "Jurassic Pork"?

 

Short Round. 

[Chen G. 5,103]

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

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.

 

Those sorts of people should be forced-fed Ralph Bakshi's Fritz the Cat: