[deleted]
[deleted]
Temple of Doom wasn't horror. It was gory simply to gross people out (and usually played for comedic effect), but did not remotely approach the horror genre. Closer to splatter comedy than horror, but the true genre is adventure/comedy. Of all the movies in the franchise, this is the one that has the most comic elements, and is especially slapstick heavy.
Raiders was not straight action, either, but adventure. As was Crusade. Both had comedic elements. Crusade was lighter than Raiders, but both were very much in the same genre. These are the two movies in the franchise which are the most alike.
Kingdom should have been Sci-fi if Lucas's justification for the aliens held true, but wasn't. That, too, was adventure. The alien element (and let's face it, they were aliens) were treated the same way as the mcguffins of the other movies.
Cool story...you didn't answer the question, though.
shareI did. The question is based on a false premise, since this franchise doesn't explore different genres, either. The closest I can think of is the Mad Max franchise, where the first movie is a (pretty dreadful) police movie set in the future for some reason, and then the sequel suddenly declares that, "oh, there's been a nuclear war and we're now in a post-apocalyptic world where gasoline is the most important commodity. Max's wife, who survived in the last movie? She's dead, and he's all alone and quite bitter."
There is absolutely nothing linking the two movies, neither in genre, tone, plot, anything at all, except that they decided the character was the same. Might as well have named the character Jim Hawkins and claimed that after his adventures in Treasure Island, Jim was mystically transported to a post-apocalyptic future, in the movie called Treasure Island 2.
That's a lot of words. Do you have a real job or do you just do this all day?
shareIf you can't handle two paragraphs, that might explain why I am gainfully employed and you're not.
shareI don't feel that was a lengthy reply at all. I think you realized he put you in a corner regarding the false premise question, and your only way to reply without acknowledgement of that was to failingly attempt to mock him
shareMAD MAX's WIFE DIES IN MAD MAX....JEEZ
shareNo, she doesn't. She's hospitalised, critically injured and will "probably" die, but she doesn't actually die in the movie.
shareYEAH CAUSE A RUN OVER COMATOSE WIFE WHO ISNT EVER GETTING UP AND A DEAD KID TO BOOT ISNT BAD ENOUGH.LETS SEE THE CORPSE....BRING OUTTHE CORPSE,MAKE IT DO A LITTLE DANCE FOR MAX.
shareThis. The “question” was a stupid one.
I feel the same way about Crystal Skull even if I do still like it. They were too scared to call it what it was. We didn't even see a hint of true science fiction elements until the 3rd act and only then is the skull's extraterrestrial nature confirmed.
shareCompletely wrong, Temple of Doom incorporated many horror aspects into it. Last Crusade was a straight up slapstick comedy, a really bad on while I'm at it.
shareWhat horror aspects were used in Temple? Instead, Temple contained slapstick in almost every scene. Crusade toned it down considerably - though it still contained a lot more of it than did Raiders.
And you're ultimatehippo, don't even try to deny it - you're the only one in the entire world with such bizzarre opinions.
I know I am I never denied it. As for the horror aspects just watch from the hour mark to about the hour 25 mark.
shareWatch the scene where Indy is forced to drink from a decayed skull, there is nothing slapstick about that, that is pure demonic sh!t, heck it looks like the kind of thing Mercyful Fate would incorporate into one of their shows.
shareI suppose that would qualify as a horror element, but it wasn't particularly scary. But then again, loads of fiction falls into the horror genre without being particularly scary. Dracula, for example, is the mother of gothic horror, but I never found it scary. Likewise, much as I like Lovecraft, he has never succeeded in instilling a sense of fear in me.
That said, the humour is ever present throughout this movie. The scene you mention here is one of the very few exceptions. And much of the humour is very juvenile. The car chase in the beginning, the poker scene, the dinner scene, the bugs, the roller coaster scene, everything involving elephants, hell everything involving Short Round, all the slapstick in these scenes and others, were all meant to target a younger audience. Young boys in particular. Which is precisely why I loved this movie as a kid. I still do like the movie, but I like it the same way I like the Goonies or the Addam's Family. If I hadn't been exposed to it as a kid, I doubt I'd think much of it today.
I think the problem here is trying to classify Indiana Jones in a modern genre. Indiana Jones is pulp, and pulp is a genre by itself.
Actually, most of XXth century gothic horror is just pulp with vampires. Call him Captain Kronos instead of Indiana Jones. And some Lovecraft stories don't lie far.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a-maI6KegWs/VH3RVrvnXgI/AAAAAAAAHnA/XHQiNLGjNro/s1600/ast_3602.jpg
Pulp as a genre has some distinctive features: a sense of adventure, non-scary horror elements, light action, hidden mysteries, resolute characters and some naive comedy. You can't fit it in some pure genre as action or modern horror. It's like trying to classify a western in a modern genre: period drama? action? adventure? You can't.
Well there are very few horror films I actually find scary actually the closest a film has come to scaring me is the scene in the factory in the terminator. Also there is a difference between being a full fledged comedy (Last Crusade) and having comic relief (Raiders and Temple), if it makes you feel better I don’t think the comedy in temple or crusade were very good
shareGive it a rest, already. Crusade has a significantly more serious tone than Temple. Temple only ever flirted with the seriousness of the plot, but there were very few breaks from the humour, which was ever present. In Crusade, while there was a lot of humour, we were reminded at key intervals the importance of the mission: the grail must not fall into the hands of the nazis. In Crusade, slapstick elements are confined to actions sequences. In Temple, a higher portion of action sequences have slapstick elements, and it also features an entire slapstick scene, namely the poker scene. Temple is more fast paced and action filled, but with that comes more of the Lucastrian/Spielbergian physical humour, too.
shareCrusade had a more serious tone than Temple??? OK you just lost all credibility. Temple while had some bad comic relief was a serious action adventure film and 99.9% of the comic relief was in the first half. There was no suspense or tension or reason to care in Crusade, it was nothing more than a campy, cartoony, kiddie fest. (and I don't even have to cite the Mickey Mouse joke)
You say Crusade is serious because of the mission (yet Monty Python had the exact same plot, it had to fall into the hands of those that God had chosen), yet in Temple I would argue the stakes were much higher because if the Thuggees got their hands on the last two stones they would be able to take over the world with the Hindu version of Satan (and actually the Christian God is just as evil as Satan so that removes any reason to pull for Indy), Crusade was very small scale in comparison. Not to mention the Thuggees were using child slaves.
Ha go watch Last Crusade and leave the mature discussions to more intelligent people.
Crusade had a more serious tone than Temple??? OK you just lost all credibility. Temple while had some bad comic relief was a serious action adventure film and 99.9% of the comic relief was in the first half.
You didn't watch the rest of the movie? The first half was more comedy-heavy, yes, but the comedy continued to the very finish. In every single action scene - and the latter half was almost all action. And the action wasn't serious. The first Terminator movies had serious action. The Alien movies had serious action. But even at what was supposed to be the most serious, Temple couldn't resist adding humour and levity. "Hang on, lady, we going for a wide."
There was no suspense or tension or reason to care in Crusade, it was nothing more than a campy, cartoony, kiddie fest. (and I don't even have to cite the Mickey Mouse joke)
Temple was the movie clearly aimed at kids. It had a kid sidekick, for heaven's sake, why do you think that was? And no, no matter how many times you repeat your mantra, there was no Mickey Mouse joke in Crusade. The name "Mickey Mouse" got mentioned, exactly once, but not as a joke. The joke came after.
ou say Crusade is serious because of the mission (yet Monty Python had the exact same plot, it had to fall into the hands of those that God had chosen), yet in Temple I would argue the stakes were much higher because if the Thuggees got their hands on the last two stones they would be able to take over the world with the Hindu version of Satan, Crusade was very small scale in comparison.
The thing is, the Thuggee in Temple were a cult. The nazis ruled a country which was about to set out to conquer the world. The Grail is a legendary artefact all Westerners are familiar with. The Sankara stones are entirely fictional. This makes it easier to take the Grail seriously. The Sankara stones, what are they? Yes, they are magical, but in what way? This was never explained. One stone brought prosperity to a village, but how? In Raiders and Crusade, however, the magical properties are explained in sufficient detail.
Not to mention the Thuggees were using child slaves.
So what? share
I did watch it and the majority of the comic relief was in the beginning, the second half we had a kid getting hit in the head with a hammer and a shot of short round karate chopping a few guards but that is about it. The second half of Temple and the entirty of Raiders both had roughly the same amount of humor and it was for the most part Dark humor. The campy humor in Temple was all in the beginning and I agreed it wasn't good. Crusade however was dull, lifeless, boring and the humor was Kindergarten level (kind of like Willie falling off her elephant into a puddle, that's the kind of humor Crusade appealed to). Temple was aimed at adults, Crusade was aimed at preschoolers. The Holy Grail is fictional also whoever came up with the fictional artifact is irrelevant, there is no such thing as the Holy Grail. In the context of the films (which is set in a fantasy universe) the Thuggees did pose a greater threat.
sharehe second half we had a kid getting hit in the head with a hammer and a shot of short round karate chopping a few guards but that is about it.
"Water! Water! ... WATER!!!!"
"Willie! Willie! Wake up!"
Willie air-punching in synch with Indy.
Indy casually reaching for his gun and... "heh"
Like I mentioned before, "Hang on, lady, we going for a wide." "Oooh myy GAAAAAHD, is he nuts?" "He no nuts. He crazy."
"Ha ha, very funny, all wet!"
A flipping roller coaster ride.
Those are examples from the top of my head. With the exception of Willie slapping Indy - which was pretty funny, and quite appropriate to help prevent the movie from being too dark - all those examples are aimed precisely at immature audiences - that is, kids. I used to be like you, thinking Temple was the best one, because of the action and humour - but in my defence, I was 12. Crusade was always the more serious of the two. And I see it in the younger generations, too: kids laugh more from Temple, adults laugh more from Crusade.
The Holy Grail is fictional also whoever came up with the fictional artifact is irrelevant
On the contrary, it speaks to familiarity. Whether you believe, as I do, that the Holy Grail is fictional, is neither here nor there. It's a legend we are all very familiar with. The Sankara stones, on the other hand, is not a legend at all, but a piece of modern fiction - which means we don't know jack about them. And after watching Temple, we are none the wiser.
In the context of the films (which is set in a fantasy universe) the Thuggees did pose a greater threat.
But in the real world, where the audience lives, the nazis are perceived as the greater threat all the same. share
None of those jokes were as childish as "don't worry we're well out of range"....BOOM. And Willy slapping Indy wasn't meant to be a joke, she didn't know if he was still possessed and even so she was still kind of pissed at him for chaining her to a cage and lowering her down to be sacrificed to Kali Ma. Indy casually reaching for the gun is a reference to Raiders, the joke is unlike Raiders he can't just shoot the swordsman he has to actually fight them. None of that was kiddie humor unlike Crusade.
And the Holy Grail is fictional the only difference is it is a more widely known piece of fiction but now we are discussing something completely different. The legend of the Sankara Stones was well fleshed out and we understood what they were, what they meant and what they did.
And in the real world the Nazis never would have been able to use the Ark or the Grail or the Stones or whatever. Fantasy elements don't exist in the real world so none of the movies could have ever actually happened. We go to the movie to escape from reality and that is how we judge them. In the context of the films the Thuggees were a greater threat because they wanted to blanket the world in the equivalent of Satanism and the Stones were more powerful than the Ark or the Grail.
None of those jokes were as childish as "don't worry we're well out of range"....BOOM.
With the exception of the slap, they ALL were. Much more so. And yes, the slap was meant to be a joke, precisely because she was still pissed at him. It's not the usual reaction you expect when you show care and concern for someone. It is a genuinely funny moment, as it takes the sting out.
Indy casually reaching for the gun is a reference to Raiders, the joke is unlike Raiders he can't just shoot the swordsman he has to actually fight them.
Of course it is a reference to Raiders. So what? It's still a joke, and Indy's sheepish smile to the swordsmen is still silly. Kiddie humour, if you will.
And the Holy Grail is fictional the only difference is it is a more widely known piece of fiction
Exactly. The Grail doesn't need as much introduction. The Sankara stones do, however. But we never got it.
but now we are discussing something completely different. The legend of the Sankara Stones was well fleshed out and we understood what they were, what they meant and what they did.
Bull. Tell me, then, what the Sankara stones did. I've seen Temple hundreds of times, I knew every line by heart at one point, and I still don't know what the Sankara stones were supposed to do. And don't say "bring power" or "bring prosperity", because those are the consequences of the magical properties of the stones. The question is HOW the stones bring power and prosperity. This is never covered at all.
And in the real world the Nazis never would have been able to use the Ark or the Grail or the Stones or whatever.
You keep confusing fantasy with reality. The movie characters exist only in the realm of fantasy. We, however, the audience, exist in reality - but have a view into the world of fantasy. What the nazis would have been able to do in real life is irrelevant. However, it does constitute a plot hole in both Raiders and Crusade that anyone should fear Hitler's possession of those artefacts. As the movies revealed, the artefacts weren't going to work in that fantasy universe either (and theologically it wouldn't have made any sense, anyway). And the grail, even if it could have been removed from the temple, would have had no military application. Sure, it could conceivably be used by medics on the battlefield - but only one battlefield, and then there would be the definite risk of losing it to the Allies. Instead, the grail would have been kept by Hitler himself, where it would prevent him from dying of old age - but would not prevent him from losing the war.
And yet, we know the power of both the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail. We don't know the power of the Sankara stones. It is never explained. The Thuggee already had three of them, but they didn't seem particularly powerful. share
So wrong on so many accounts:
- It wasn't a joke, she didn't know who she was talking to: Regular Indiana Jones or Bizarro Indiana Jones, plus she was probably legitimately a little pissed at him for getting her into that. It was a natural reaction of hers based on the circumstances and it wasn't kiddie humor unlike the Mickey Mouse joke.
- It was dark humor just like Raiders had. All the Indiana Jones films have humor the difference is in the first two it is dark and mature while in the 3rd and 4th it is childish and campy. Big difference.
- Not sure if you were paying attention or what but we got plenty of explanations on the stones, I guess you were either asleep or it went straight over your head. How the stones got their power was conveyed several times, Indy practically spoonfed that exposition, why you didn't pick up on it is beyond me.
- Naw naw naw I am very clear on reality vs. fantasy, whether you are is unknown. I am talking about the context of the films, in the film universe the Thuggee's posed a greater threat than the Nazis, just the Nazis were more successful however had the Thuggee's been successful they would have been able to do far more damage to civilization than the Nazis ever could have within the universe of the films and real life. Your personal interpretation of the film is not a plot hole, because the characters and the plot devices are not set up the way you want them to be is not a plot hole. Again watch the movie again and actually pay attention and I think all of your questions will be answered.
No you are the one who is wrong here. Accept reality in the fact that the majority thinks last crusade is a better film than temple. It is better by objective data. I personally put more stock in majority opinion than you. You are in the minority it's time to accept it. Since you wanted to flaunt data back in the day it's coming back to you. If you understood last crusade you would like it better, I think the reason you don't like it is because you don't understand it.
shareI loved watching you bring that twisted logic to the Star Wars board and getting absolutely destroyed. You see it's not just me who thinks you're a deluded idiot.
shareLmao I destroyed everyone on that board including you. The numbers don't lie lol read them and weep.
shareLOL you didn't destroy anyone, they ripped you a new one and you were too stupid to notice.
shareLol nope. Disney's Star Wars is objectively better than the prequels according to data.
shareI loved watching them destroy you and your kindergarten logic.
shareThat's actually you lol. That a why you have so many accounts on here. You get put in your place on all of them lol.
shareDon't change the subject, everyone on that board saw you as the joke that I see you as.
shareHow about you stay on topic. This was about indiana jones and you diverted to Star Wars. So I figured dince you diverted I was free to do the same.
shareNot until you admit you got destroyed on the Star Wars board. If you won't man up and admit it then this conversation can serve no further purpose.
shareNot owning up to something false.
shareThen I have no need for you, please kindly screw off.
shareLol you want me to admit to something untrue rather lame. Remember how you thought Lord of the Rings was a science fiction film? Admit to that and then we can carry on.
shareI have no need for you if you aren't going to engage in an intelligent discussion, please kindly screw off.
shareOh I do. You are the one who went off topic.
shareEither man up and admit you got owned or I have nothing left to say to you.
shareYour opinion in my opinion I did not get owned. I actually owned everyone on there including you it was terrific.
shareThat's fine you can call a lamp a duck all you want doesn't make it so.
Lol you said a subjective claim. If it was objective you would be able to prove it. You have a habit of making baseless claims though. The same way you said Liv Tyler's acting was objectively bad in Lord of the Rings but then failed to back it up lol. You are a joke dude.
shareNow we're on LOTR? Geez dude you have the attention span of an 8 year old with ADHD
shareYour disection of the genres reminds me of the old sci-fi board on imdb,
where people woiuld argue endlessly over what was ans wasnt sci fi.
I learned that all scifi films have another genre or 3