Temple of Suck
Apr. 2nd, 2008 11:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
To hell with completeness' sake; I should just institute a rule that I'm never watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom ever again, for any reason. Every time I watch the thing, it gets worse -- and it's not like it was good to start with.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 05:56 am (UTC)(Ow.)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 05:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 11:52 am (UTC)But I suppose you are talking about it being bad in other ways ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 12:52 pm (UTC)We ended up having a family discussion when the British troops arrived at the end about whether this was a movie in which Muslims were portrayed as good guys. With their turbans and what I know of Anglo-Indian history, my contention was that Sikhs were the ones coming to the rescue at the end.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:03 pm (UTC)That was this round's contribution to "worse every time I watch it."
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:12 pm (UTC)UmmmNO.
sikhs
Date: 2008-04-03 05:06 pm (UTC)Re: sikhs
Date: 2008-04-03 06:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 01:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:06 pm (UTC)One step forward (Marion), seven steps back (Willie).
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 02:11 pm (UTC)There, there, go watch some Whedon. You'll feel better.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:07 pm (UTC)Hence the statement that "completeness' sake" can officially go to hell.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:18 pm (UTC)Or you can read this fun book called Doppelganger. It has lots of cool women characters and religious upheaval. It be the good. ;) No stupid sexist stereogypes whatsoever.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 02:55 pm (UTC)What I mean is that I watched and loved Temple of Doom when I was a child, so now I irrationally love it.
If someone were to break it down and point out all the parts that are bad about it, I will agree with them, but will not stop loving that movie. <chuckles>
Also, I have a deep-seated despair about Indy 4. =\
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:10 pm (UTC)(Probably it was my attempt to look at Short Round as a relatively bright spot that made me realize how inexcusably awful Willie is, in the social dynamic of the film.)
The new one . . . I'm hoping, but worried. Because they've updated the time period, which carries certain problems, and it involves Central America, which I know more about than may be compatible with enjoyment, and one of the frames in the trailer shows something with the word "Roswell" stenciled on it. And if aliens get involved in an Indiana Jones movie, I'm getting up and walking out of the theatre on the spot.
My hope is that the big warehouse from Raiders is actually at Roswell, and that's why the name shows up. It would make sense, and not annoy me too much.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:32 pm (UTC)=(
The "Crystal Skull" thing is almost certainly from an alien civilization, and if you've seen any pictures of the skull itself, you'll notice that it looks EXACTLY like the head of a Gray.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:45 pm (UTC)Or rather, if you're inclined to hold your breath, perhaps this would be a good time to do so, because you won't be holding it for very long! =D
no subject
Date: 2008-04-04 04:14 am (UTC)You are wise.
It may simply be those pytamid/alien associations you mention at work, but the mention of a Mesoamerican Indiana Jones movie and aliens instantly suggested certain Stargate SG-1 tropes, such as unearthing a long-lost alien goddess with glowing eyes, who naturally wakes up mad and wreaks havoc on the excavating archaeologists. There's something kind of overlappingly archetypical about action flicks in general, so that it seems very easy to combine them if the flavors don't clash too much.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-03 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-04 06:31 am (UTC)