• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Temple of Doom versus Crystal Skull

Which movie do you prefer?


  • Total voters
    74
I don't understand why lots of people seem to have a problem with the aliens. The ark of covenant with ghosts coming out of it and melting people's faces made more sense? The 800-year old knight who guards the holy grail is more logical?
I don't have a problem with aliens per se, but I kinda have a problem with aliens who aren't aliens who live in spaces between spaces.
 
I just don't get the hate for ToD; I love it, my favourite Indy not far behind Raiders. Personally, I love the pacing and slightly "darker" feel. It doesn't bother me in the slightest it's lighter on action or "pace". These qualities do not equate to inferior for me.
 
That's really hard to say. Temple has some great action sequences in it but I don't like the storyline and I don't like the girl. Kingdom has a lot going for it but I didn't care for Mutt too much and there were a few lame elements. I declare it too close to call!
 
Like Light here, I find the choice tough to call. Both films were very disappointing when I first saw them in the theatre. Yet over the years, I found that "Temple of Doom" became more and more enjoyable. Maybe it was the softening over time. Maybe it was the headache I had when walkign out of the theatre after that first viewing.

Curiously, something similar has happened with "Crystal Skull". There was no way it was going to live up to the advanced expectations I had set for it. Consequently after a time I went back with a sort of reflexively lowered set... and found I had a good deal more fun with it. In the end I give it the edge over "Temple" for primarily one thing - it was a joy to see Karen Allen back as Marion.

Neither comes within a continent of "Raiders of the Lost Ark", which I contend is one of the best made films of all time. Yet when all is said & done they don't embarrass the franchise either. The last time I hosted a marathon viewing of all four, all of the guests sat and relished all four films.
 
KotCS by a mile. I don't much like it, but Willie's constant screaming alone makes ToD unwatchable. Who knows, maybe someday when I'm an old fart I'll appreciate KotCS on a pure cheese level as much as Ebert - unlikely, but stranger things have happened. But I'll be damned if I ever enjoy ToD.
Thank you! I'm glad to know I wasn't the only person Kate Capshaw ruined Temple for.

For all its faults, at least Crystal Skull keeps the plot moving pretty well. Like Canadave said in the first post, Temple grinds to a halt after the dinner scene and doesn't wake up again until the final act. That plus Willie puts Temple squarely on the bottom of the list for me.
 
Not a difficult decision at all. Temple has it's flaws, but it's a fun flicks.

Crystal Skull is actually a bad movie. Unequivocally. When even the people behind the film itself are quietly admitting it wasn't all that great barely a year after its release, you know it sucks.
 
I don't know, Temple had Dan Aykroyd but Skull had Jan Itor.

I CAN'T CHOOSE!!!

Who is Jan Itor? Some false name I'll guess. Some janitor?

Neil Flynn. Better known as The Janitor from Scrubs. Often posed as Dr. Jan Itor.

He's one of the Feds shaking Indy down after the fridge business.

Another cool part of that scene is the general who comes to Indy's rescue. None other than Alan Dale aka Charles Widmore!
 
Temple is better than Skull; it is also better than Raiders and possibly Crusade.

You know, I honestly can't understand this. To each their own, I know, but what makes Temple the better film for you? It honestly bores me to tears, while the others do not.
Mola Ram in general; the scene where he pulls that guy's heart out then burns him is better and creepier than the face-melting of Raiders; the banquet scene is great; Short-Round is excellent; the final confrontation with Ram is better than the analogous scenes in Crusade, Raiders and Skull; and the situation where Willie has to put her hand into the wall full of large, centipede-like arthropods is, to me, the most frightening creature bit in the Indiana Jones series--even if all the others were, technically, more dangerous.

Actually, I'd probably have let Indy and Short-Round eat it. :p

Now, of course, the OT films are all extremely good, and it is difficult to rank them, but Temple hits my favorite notes the most fully, so I choose it.

I do admit that part on the elephant is boring as shit. As a kid, almost twenty years ago, I had a recorded VHS copy where I'd fastforwarded the original through that bit, so it's all tracking lines for like a full minute until the story resumes.
 
What gets me is that in the last scene in Crystal Skull, Indy is just a participant, not a driver of anything. He and his gang go see the aliens, Cate Blanchett wakes the aliens, and everyone just watches them blast off. That's it. You could claim that's the case in Raider's as well - they get tied to a pole and that's it. But at least in that movie, there was mystery behind the ark. Nobody knows what's going to happen when the Nazis open it. That anticipation is what drives the ending. In Skull, there is no mystery to any of it, and therefore little to anticipate. From the first scene, we know there are aliens involved (don't we even see a body at the beginning?), so when they finally appear, it's no big deal . In the end, the movie relies solely on "cool" CGI to create the wow factor.
 
Temple is better than Skull; it is also better than Raiders and possibly Crusade.

You know, I honestly can't understand this. To each their own, I know, but what makes Temple the better film for you? It honestly bores me to tears, while the others do not.
Mola Ram in general; the scene where he pulls that guy's heart out then burns him is better and creepier than the face-melting of Raiders

Mola Ram is fucking awesome!
 
It's not an easy comparison to make. ToD suffered in my view because it dropped a lot of the characters from RotLA (I felt the absence of Marion particularly keenly). Many of the supporting cast were brought back in LC to good effect.

That's probably because ToD takes place a year before RotLA. Yes the film that has Indy dealing with magic stones, that he sees doing supernatural stuff like burn through his bag takes place BEFORE the film where he is sceptical of supernatural artifacts, Then theres the whole how he goes from what looks like selling artifacts on the black market to respectable teacher in a year.
 
I personally don't see why it was necessary to make Temple a prequel. At first, it didn't even occur to me that it was.
 
The original plan was to make each successive film a prequel. That is the kind of slightly-twisted thing Lucas and Spielberg could come up with together.

Of course, it was rendered moot because Harrison does age.
 
I would have to say that I enjoyed Crystal Skull quite a bit more than Temple of Doom. Out of all four Indy movies, I liked ToD the least. The Last Crusade was by far my favorite. Followed by Raiders of The Lost Ark, Kingdom of The Crystal Skull, and finally Temple of Doom.
 
Raiders, then Last Crusade, then Temple, & then Crystal Skull.

I was enjoying Skull, right up until the Jungle Fight sequences, the fire ants, and then the 17 drops off the waterfalls they somehow lived through...

Despite the irony, I lost my suspension of disbelief before the "alien" explorers even showed up.

I was actually commenting on Crystal Skull this weekend when I saw "The A-Team".

Despite the craziness of the Tank Scene... I bought that.

I don't know. It's all subjective.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top