Ok here it goes since no one seems to understand. God was supposed to be looking out for Indy since God didn’t want the Nazis getting ahold of the Ark. That and I think either in the book or the comic Indy ties himself to the snorkel so even if they did submerge to snorkel depth he was still ok.
I’m up in the air about which movie I like more ToD or LC. For some reason I didn’t take to LC all that much and liked ToD. I also own a coin-op game of ToD.
I sat through TOD in a state of shock. The movie was so incredibly intense (to an impressionable teenager like myself, anyway), it literally had me enduring it rather than enjoying it. I almost fainted several times. The scene with the guy pulling out the other guy’s beating heart nearly had me hitting the floor.
But I did think that the mining cart ride scenes were pretty cool. I didn’t look close enough to recognize that they were just tiny dummies in many of the shots.
And what was with those crocodiles, anyway? They loved to turn around in circles, but I didn’t see them eating anyone. Just rolling around in the water like pigs in the mud while dummies fell on top of them. It was kind of funny.
I can’t say the movie was totally unenjoyable for me, but it definitely had its downside. I think I enjoyed the original Raiders movie much better than the other two.
ToD is most often the one credited (blamed?) for the creation of PG-13. Even Spielberg has admitted that he went overboard with the violence.
At least one movie has gone from R to PG-13. I know because The Blues Brothers was the first R movie I saw with my parents, now it’s PG-13.
Spielberg led the drive for creation of PG-13. The stated, clearly false “intended” application was to take R movies and “clean them up” a little bit to gain the PG-13 rating.
Instead, of course, R movies stayed R and PG movies were “dirtied-down” to PG-13.
Not that all the MPAA’s decisions aren’t arbitrary to begin with.
I think there’s a certain threshold of disbelief in action movies that varies somewhat from viewer to viewer, but seems to be disregarded by many directors with increasing and distressing frequency. At some point in his career after the original Raiders, Spielberg seems to have bought into the philosophy that absurdity is part of the charm of action movies, and the more ridiculous the action set-piece, the better. I think the majority of action movie fans, though, feel a bit betrayed by such tricks. It seems a bit like laziness or simple lack of craftsmanship on the part of the screenwriter and director to not bother to come up with a plausable way out of the hero’s predicament… kind of like a mystery novel where the solution is a clue that the author never reveals, or the killer is a character that we’re never even introduced to until the final pages. The raft and the gap-leaping mine car scenes were the key crossings of the threshold for me. While there is much else to dislike about Temple of Doom, I might have been more willing to cut those failings some slack if not for those key credibility lapses.
For the record, while it’s true that WWII-era subs didn’t run submerged for substantial distances (and that’s always been my rationale for how Indy made it to the secret Aegean island base), you can hear the sub captain saying “Tauchen das U-Boot” (“dive the sub”) during that scene. In fact, footage was apparently shot in which Indy is seen clinging to the periscope as it cuts through the water. Spielberg apparently decided to cut that bit to leave the specifics of Indy’s trip vague, but didn’t bother to cut the German dialog.
I think the screenplay was weakened by having as its centerpiece the hunt for the “sacred Sankara stones”. Whatever their actual Hindu mythological foundations might be, these are artifacts unfamiliar to most of the audience, and which are not explained sufficiently to give them any sense of their importance or capabilities. The idea that some cult in rural India might pose a threat to all of civilization if it gets ahold of some glowing rocks is a bit of a stretch in the absence of a compelling mythological reference or sufficient exposition. When your story deals with the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, western audiences are pretty much on the same page with you from the start, and the exposition can be handled a bit more casually (though certainly having Denholm Elliot or Sean Connery to intone it for you is a bonus).
I would point out that, to the extent Temple of Doom was supposed to be a “prequel” to Raiders of the Lost Ark, all of that magical heart ripping completely lacks continuity with Indy’s remark to Brody about not believing in “all that supernatural hocus pocus” as he leaves to pursue the Ark.
I must also say I enjoyed the whole intro musical number/struggle for the antidote bit, in spite of the questionable idea of Indy selling an artifact. That whole sequence was Spielberg at the top of his directorial form, and really having some fun with his '30s setting. While the last half hour or more of the film was certainly breathtakingly paced, and often spectacular, it just seemed like it wasn’t in the service of very much at all.
I think the effects criticisms seen here are an artifact of seeing the film repeatedly, and/or on video, which tends to make one more aware of such things. Perhaps there’s a sort of “innocence of the eye” that made such things look more impressive back in the '80s than they do today. I know I saw the original Star Wars over a dozen times in the theater back in the '70s, and never noticed the defects in the bluescreen work that I do on video today.
For the record, the instinctive behavior of all crocodillians is to roll after they bite their prey in an effort to drown and/or fatally maim it. I’d guess that chicken-stuffed dummies were used for that scene, and if it’s not clear what’s being bitten, then that’s either poor editing, or perhaps an intentional effort to make the scene less gruesome.
I don’t think Short Round himself was that much of a weakness, so much as all of the nauseating kid-pandering stuff with the young prince and the slaves. The film heavily suffered from the taint of “Hook”, the film which, like a case of malaria, has left parasites in Spielberg’s creative bloodstream and continues to haunt him with sweating flashbacks of cloying juvenility.
Well, I guess that covers everything. Now, on to the Last Crusade thread…
Cisco I don’t how to break this to you, but everyone in your entire life has either lied to you or suffers fairly severe Bizaro-World syndrome. 
The order you listed is exactly backward from most of the rest of the world.
Kate Capshaw’s character in ToD is an eerie forshadow of Jar-Jar Binks from Star Wars Episode I:
Kate - Annoying and unfunny
Jar-Jar - Annoying and unfunny
Kate - Borderline offensive characterization of women
Jar-Jar - Borderline offensive characterization of (insert ethnic group here)
Kate - Colorful but goofy looking
Jar-Jar - Colorful but goofy looking
Kate - Pretty much ruined ToD, which didn’t have ALOT going for it in the first place
Jar-Jar - Pretty much ruined Ep. I, which didn’t have alot going for it in the first place
Could Kate have been George Lucas’s inspiration??
The implication being that Hook came before ToD. It did not.
I stand corrected… confusing a flashback with the original affliction.
Crocs and gators actually do this, it’s how they tear pieces small enough to eat off of a large critter.
But what about the dummies? You’d think Spielberg and Lucas could afford to wander into some third world country and throw real peasants to the crocs. But, no, versimilitude tainted for the sake of saving a few bucks on plane fare.
That’s cool. The sooner they’re both forgotten, the better anyway.
We purchased the boxed set because there was no way I we were going to let our boys not experience the thrill ride that is Indiana Jones. They love the movies and have watched them many times in the short time we’ve owned them.
They are 8 an 11 and when asked they are split on which movie is the best, Raiders and The Last Crusade.
That being said, Temple of Doom isn’t an awful movie. It just doesn’t compare to the other two.
Does anyone else besides me wish that Indiana would come out of retirement to go on one more adventure? I always wondered what happened to Indie after WW2. It’s not likely that he settled down to the sedate life of a professor is it?
Yeah, their names are Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg. Production should start once all three are available simultaneously.