Conference noted::sf

I have always wondered why the Indiana Jones movie (now movies) counts as
Science Fiction??? Maybe, very maybe, it counts as Science Fantasy.

I know that it furthers the careers (and financial standing) of some
people who made their mark in Science Fiction moviedom; and further promotes
both of Harrison Ford's acting styles (On & Off), but is it SF??

The ARPA SFL-Digest degenerated into Indiana Jones gainsaying when the
first move came out; I hope this isn't going to go the same way.

Nigel
ps: I wonder how many cunning and sneaky (sic) references there will be
in this one to previous Lucas/Spielberg movies. Well, at least it provides
something for the trivia lovers to wear out their braincells with.

In re 75.1:

Maybe it's because Religion was the first form of Science Fiction... and
maybe it's final form.

		bob wyman

	That's heavy Bob - real heavy...        {-:

No, please, let's not, like the ARPA/Usenet sf-lovers, start degenerating into
a "that's not sf, it's fantasy" business. Sure, I realize that the name of the
notesfile is SF.NOT, but there are a lot of people (including myself) who lump
the two together and for simplicity's sake call it "sf".
	No, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was not "science fiction", but it *was*
fantasy, and discussion of it has a place here. As for TEMPLE OF DOOM, I don't
know if it has any fantastic elements in it, but what the hell, if ROMANCING
THE STONE can be discussed here, why not Indy Jones movies?

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian)

I understand the problem with discussing this flick here. Indiana Jones is
a borderline SF/F subject, but I think the opinions expressed here would be
more interesting than those in the (little-used) MOVIES file. I first put
this note in the MOVIES file and then thought better of it and put it here.

Now you'll just have to live with it...

-- Bill

Well, what's the index of the file for, anyway? If someone doesn't think 
IJatToD is an appropriate sf topic, why bother reading the note? Being upset
because someone wants to discuss a topic in a notes file seems a bit absurd,
unless disk space is critical or the topic poorly labeled. Variety of opinion
and taste lends color to life and NOTES files. 

Have at it, I say!

John O.

As for why _Temple_of_Doom_ and _Raiders_ might be considered as SF :
Indiana states in the latest "I am a scientist".  No one said that 
the science in SF had to be limited to physics & chemistry...(granted,
the science part in _Temple_ is even thinner than that in _Raiders_)

As for allusions to other Lucas & Speilberg productions in _Temple_,
check out the name of the nightclub in the opening scene (which is
great!).

We had been warned that there were some pretty gruesome scenes in
the new movie, and there certainly were, although not quite as bad
as we had been led to believe.   If you hate bugs & snakes you'll
be covering your eyes in a couple of places...

Someone likened the movie plot to a couple of kids telling horror
stories in the middle of the night, trying to top each other.
A particular dinner scene comes to mind which supports this likening.
The first course is pretty gross, the second course is worse, when
a disgusted dinner guest asks for something 'simpler' it is, of
course, just as bad.  Dessert definately tries to outdo all of
the previous courses.

Just as the original, it's worth paying full price to see.  The 
sequel is definately not disappointing (as long as you aren't
expecting a philosophical masterpiece).

				Barbara

	While I'm a strong Science Fiction fan, I confess to having read
	fantasy, and I don't have a grievance about putting fantasy items
	herein. In fact, I think we settled this long ago when "You picked
	the best" included fantasy entries.

	This town IS big enough for the both of us.

Actually, I *was* somewhat disappointed in TEMPLE. Not a whole lot; it was
very enjoyable and I'm glad I saw it. However:

1. While not being gross-out city, it was more gruesome than it needed to be
	and even then, it was inconsistent. Why didn't the High Priest try
	his "heart trick" with Willie? I think the grue definitely puts this
	film onto a more adult level than RAIDERS. <NB - I'm not a "prude"
	in this matter; I like well-done gore as much as the next pervert.
	It just seemed out of place here.

2. There were times when this seemed more like a James Bond movie than an
	Indiana Jones movie.

3. The "mating ritual" scene was a tad overdone. I thought it dragged on
	too long.

4. Some (though few) of the special effects weren't convincing.

5. It had a tad too much seriousness to it.

6. Instead of being content to being another RAIDERS (in style), it felt like
	Spielberg felt obliged to top everything in RAIDERS with something
	Bigger and Better.

But, as I said, these were all nagging points. I really did enjoy myself. Did
anyone recognize Dan Ackroyd in the airport scene?

"No, thanks. I had bugs for lunch."		--- jerry

I enjoyed the film; it certainly does make "Raiders" look slow.  Still,
after I calmed down (it's an exhausting movie to watch), I realized that
it was somewhat disappointing.  There's no emotion, no light-heartedness
to it.  It's as if Spielberg had programmed a computer to produce the
ultimate action-adventure flick.  Also, there were some of Indy's escapes
that seemed totally unimaginative to me, such as the one from the airplane.

None of this matters; it's a film I would gladly see again, and will buy
the videotape whenever it comes out.

And, as for references to past Spielberg/Lucas films: during the Shanghai
chase scene you get a glimpse of a "Club Obi-Wan".  There is also a
reference to a popular scene in Raiders, which they even use in promos
(too bad, 'cause it's a spoiler).  The Raiders scene I refer to is the one
where Indy, being menaced by a guy with a big sword, shoots him.

If there's one redeeming value in ToD, it's the Vietnamese kid who plays
Short Round.  He's the real star of this flick!  Let's just hope that they
don't turn him into the next Gary Coleman.
						Steve

	The 'science' in these films is Archaeology, although, as one of the 
discussions in the film points out, Indy comes closer to being a Treasure
Hunter/Grave Robber than to a professional archaeologist. 

	I don't see how the water from the big bucket could have gone where it 
did.

	I wonder if any amusement park is going to try to put togeather an 
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom ride?

re:.10

I agree --- Short Round was the film's biggest asset.

--- jerry

Anyone for lunch? I know this great little place...

Charlie

Generally disappointed by this film (I compared it unfavorably to ST III
in the MOVIES file, if you care). As with the others unhappy with it I
thought it was based on the values of a roller coaster ride (Bigger! Faster!
Scarier!) rather than those of fiction. I really didn't care if something
ate the girl or boiled her in oil. And though Short Round was gutsy (I
did like the swing through the air scene) I couldn't sustain my interest
in him.

I really enjoyed the film up to the rafting bit (ooooo eeeee!) but it felt
strained after that.

I hope the inevitable third movie goes back to the kind of pic Raiders
was, rather than continuing the trend.

"An ugly 'Temple of Doom'" - by George F. Will (a syndicated columnist)
reprinted without permission from the Boston Globe, June 2, 1984, page 15.

    WASHINGTON - I well remember my first adventure with Indy.   Indiana Jones, 
that is.  I am, I feel, on a first-name basis with him, we have been through so 
much together.

    Our first adventure was three summers ago and I had a seven-year-old on my 
lap.  I was ready to steady and comfort him during the assault of what I had 
been warned were jolting scenes in "Raiders of the Lost Ark," such as the early 
scene where gobs of tarantulas fall on Indy's back.  That scene, even though 
anticipated, was a turn-the-bones-to-jelly shocker, for father.  The 
seven-year-old sighed contentedly and said in the measured cadence of that 
season's sophistication: "Excellent!"

    Parents are pleased to believe, against all evidence, that their children's 
souls are sensitive flowers - orchids, not marigolds - and that, therefore, care
must be taken lest the little creatures be traumatized by exposure to this or 
that cultural excess.  Actually, they are more durable - perhaps "impervious" is
a better word - than we think.  But there are limits to what they should 
experience, and "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" oversteps those limits.

    I have nwo had my second adventure with Indy, the archaeologist with the 
bull whip and the thirst for excitement.  "Raiders" was stimulating enough, 
thank you, with pits of vipers, villains diced by airplane propellers, faces 
melting and corpses perforated by arrows, like San Sebastian.  But "The Temple 
of Doom" sets a standard for violent action at which subsequent movies will 
shoot, in vain, I hope.

    I saw it with an exacting critic, a 12-year-old who was impatient for the 
snakes to slither on stage, the snake motif being strong in this genre.  He was 
soon satisfied because the eating of live little snakes is part of a meal that 
includes beetles, eyeball soup and chilled monkey brains served from staring 
skulls.  That meal was comic relief from giant roaches and other creepy crawly 
things, and from children-flogging sadists who are led by a live-wire who with 
his bare hands plucks the hearts from the chests of victims.

    The frolicsome movie proceeds without undue expenditure of nuance, which is 
fine, but suddenlyit becomes ugly.  There is salacious cruelty in the torture 
scene where a fellow is roasted alive.  But then, that is sort of the way it is 
apt to be with your basic torture scene.

    The flogging, roasting, and heart-plucking are not suitable for children.  
The movie concedes as much by warning that some scenes may be too "intense" for 
young children.  The adjective "intense" is the sort of mushy word that 
committees settle on when they are groping for a way to circle the truth without
having to barge into it.

The truth is that this movie as fare for children, is unsuitable, and as a 
cultural symptom is depressing.  It is not just another example of the 
inexorable tendency toward excess, like half-time shows at Super Bowls.  It is 
an example of the upward ratchet effect of shocking extremism in popular 
entertainment.  This march toward the shocking is producing a generation that 
would yawn through the parting of the Red Sea.  We who, when children, 
considered Hopalong Cassidy and Randolph Scott the last words in excitement now 
know better, but we doubt that our children are more fortunate.

    The two persons resonsible for "Temple of Doom," Steven Spielberg and 
George Lucas, are commercial geniuses.  The noun is right but is is severly 
limited and devalued by the adjective which also is right.  Their obseesion with
juvenile obsessions (repulsive creatures and food) may be evidence of their 
arrested development which is their problem.  But the sensory blitzkrieg they 
have produced to coin money is apt to stunt the imaginations of children, and 
that is our problem.  This movie is perfectly made for perfectly passive 
children - for children raised on electronic images reather than on reading, 
which requires imaginative involvement.

    Movies can engage the imagination but doing so requires art.  And whatever 
else art involves, it involves proportionality and subtlety - the ability to 
approach the edge of excess without falling in.  This movie leaps in 
exuberantly, and that is why there may not be a third Indy epic.  What is left 
to happen to him?  If the future takes such revenge for todays excess, well, 
ex-cel-ent.

Maybe it should have been R rated, although I seen worse gore in R movies,
but I enjoyed if anyway.  No personal conclicts?  Indy apparently has plenty 
of enemies.  And the romance was there, but she is such a twit sometimes
(and hilarious, gave me Ideas for a Traveller character).  To me, this
was a true adventure story (characters accidently get involved in something
bigger than they realize and must survive).  And the rooms (including trapped)
were great.  Oh well, I'll have to wait for my next fix of adventure.

The 11 year old daughter of a friend saw the movie. She found the 
'gruesome' bits by far the best and was recounting them in great 
detail. 


I thought that the movie was disappointing, nowhere as good as 
Raiders, nor Romancing the Stone.

Tim

The fact that the special stones were called "Shiva lingam" made
me laugh (and me alone of all the people in the theater).  The
phrase means "God's penis".  Its loss meant no fertility, remember?

I prefer Raiders, by a long shot.

			-jkb

"Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom" is definitely one of the worst movies
I have seen in quite a while. There seems to be no purpose except to show
Indiana Jones facing one difficult situation after another. It's almost like
two hours of excerpts from a much longer movie. You leave wondering what 
happened to the parts where plot development and story line and dialogue
occur.

Chris

RE: -1

Well I liked it. I do understand what you mean about feeling like there
was plot/character development missing. I read the novelization (by
Allen Dean Foster) before I saw the movie. There was a lot more 
plot/character development there so I may have "filled" things in
mentally while watching the movie.

Alfred

ADF did the IJatTOD novelization???  Gee, maybe there's hope for it yet.
I'll have to read it.

The main problem with the movie was that it wasn't a follow on to Raiders
in any reasonable sense, other than that it shared a common character.
The entire mood and spirit was radically different.  It lacked the humor
and "oh gosh" attitude, trying to substitute violent action and a fast
pace.  Very simply, it didn't work as well, and was nowhere near as
enjoyable to watch.

	/dave

RE: last two replies. Whoops, I messed up ADF did the novelization
	_The_Last_Starfighter_, which I read the day after IJatToD.
	I'll have to double check on the author's name but he did
	do a good job.

Alfred