Why do people dislike Temple of Doom so much...

Why do people dislike Temple of Doom so much? It's not as structurally perfect as Raiders but it just has that perfect 30's/40's pulp atmosphere and it's not as overly comedic as The Last Crusade.

The comedy in Temple of Doom is there to balance the dark shit like the devil worshipping cult that rips out hearts and literal child slavery but the comedy is the Last Crusade is just overly goofy until the final part of the movie. It even turns Marcus into a bumbling retard for no reason.

And Temple is the only movie where Indy actually has agency in how the plot resolves itself. He saves the kids. He gets the Stones and returns life back to the village. He gets to personally beat up the villain before he falls to his death.

Because it was grotesque with the monkey brains, heart removal, and giant bugs

It's better than Raiders, which is shit.

>Willie Scott screaming every 30 seconds

Gee, why don't people love this?

>Trying this hard to bait.

Willie is a throwback to the screaming damsels of yesteryear and even then she's only like that in the earlier parts of the movie.

Pros: Mola Ram, Sacrifice Scene
Cons: Willie, Short Fucking Round

I quite like this movie, the way it starts feels like you're dropped into the end of this random Indy adventure and while another one is beginning. I think that captures the feel of those old serials quite well because sometimes I'd bet you'd miss a few and see one from the middle or the end of the adventure.

Its main flaw is that it stays in one location after they leave Hong Kong. I prefer the fun, globe-trekking adventures of Raiders and Last Crusade.

This is honestly the worst part about Star Wars: Episode I. Jar Jar legitmized the "goofy character" as a talking point. Now any character that has a mildly annoying quality to them is considered to be movie-ruining, even if it makes sense in the story. Now characters like Willie Scott and others are lumped in with actual shit characters like Jar-Jar and Alfrid from The Hobbit as given as evidence for why a classic film is "bad".

Raiders is worse than Temple

Kill yourself faggot

>cons
>short round

it's like you hate fun

No time for fun dr jones.

;)

Probably the same reason they dislike Crystal Skull: autistic cucks are scared of non-European culture

see: everyone is totally okay with unbelievable magical shit like a box that melts peoples' faces and the holy grail, but not okay with aliens which are essentially a central/south American creation myth

underrated

don't even compare crystal skull to temple

crystal skull is green screen over the top garbage

The difference is Temple of Doom is hardcore and violent and Crystal Skull is watered down Indiana jones for little kids. Try again.

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE LOOKS LIKE

the first three are fantasy, 4 is sci-fi, that alone makes it bad for an Indy film
also shorty is the best sidekick in film history

idk. I love it. It's my favorite actually. Some people think it's racist, but fuck them

It's my favorite too. It was one of the few movies my family owned alongside "Aliens" that we could enjoy without ever getting tired.

>racist
It's based off of 1930s adventure films like the Green Goddess that depicted India as dangerous and bizzare.

Crusade > Ark > Skull >>> Doom

It felt like a disney tier dtv Indiana Jones sequel

weak bait

The woman. She's a dumb annoying cunt who fucks up left and right when she's not complaining

>dislike Temple of Doom
I don't think anyone really dislikes it, it's just the weakest of the three.

Worked on you ;)

You really showed them, stupid faggot.

Of the first three it's third place but still a good movie regardless.

At least he got the best girl in Crystal Skull.

He's not the one that commented

It would have redeemed itself, if annoying blonde girl weren't protected by some hollywood magic and burned alive same way as a previous guy. Jeez, she was even lower, but still survived.

Everyone knows indians are like 10 times more flammable than white people.

Why does indy say he doesn't believe in fairy tale stuff like the arc of the covenant in raiders but has already seen magic stones and sorcerers just a couple years back

he was drugged, he probably doesn't trust himself or what he saw

Real talk, why didn't Hollywood make sequels to these movies in the 1990s when the stars were still able to portray their roles convincingly?

Coming back to these movies (rocky, indiana, die hard) just makes Hollywood look creatively bankrupt.

Mine too user.

>why didn't Hollywood make sequels to these movies
Because it wasn't hollywood's decision. Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford would all have to be on board before they made another one. They were all busy doing their own thing.

He believes in what he sees, he's probably seen more than one hoax.

Most frustrating that they are working on fifth film w/ Spielberg and Harrison. Since Spielberg didn't give a 2 shit last time, i don't think new one will be any good.
I would much prefer reboot in this specific case. Not soft reboot, cause it would move in fucking 70s or so. Just a new movie with new director and star.

But then you're risking to have Chris Pratt as Indy.

>Not wanting to sea Shia as Indy Jr. go into the heart of africa to find the crowns of kanz

I agree with this completely but having Chris Pratt as Indiana would ruin the whole fucking thing, He just doesn't fit the role. He's got charisma, but not 'Indiana' charisma.
Personally I think someone like Bradly Cooper would be perfect for the role, hes the right age, has the same look as young Harrison and can be funny at times.
But how good would a remake trilogy be with three new adventures and Harrison staring as a sidekick in the first movie, kind of like Connery in the holy grail. Would be perfect.