I love all three films, perhaps more than most because I grew up with them. Short Round was a favorite character, while Capshaw generally annoyed the hell out of me.

I didn't have too many issues with any of them the first time I saw them, but one thing always weirds me out - when Brody starts spewing apparently mindless drivel at Dr. Jones Sr. in the tank (I've figured it out now, but the first couple of times it really seems out of place) - thought he was totally nuts.

Yes, I consider Temple of Doom a horribly racist movie -- worse even than its antecedents like King Solomon's Mines and Gunga Din, which at least had heroic natives. ToD was nothing more than a glorification of the White Man's Burden -- the poor darkies can't even take care of their own children, so the noble White Man must save them. He's already turned Short-Round into a baseball cap wearing American, now it's time for the Indians.

There's a reason India wouldn't let Spielberg shoot in the country with the script he showed them. After the film came out, Ford apologized for the portrayal of Indians:

And in the DVD documentary Spielberg and Lucas are clearly uncomfortable with the film and race each other to see who can distance themselves from it the fastest.

They should do an updated, politically correct, version of Temple of Doom where Indy rescues the kids from a Dell call center sweatshop.

i think the new one is going to suck...

because the most conspicuous fool, the biggest hack in the film industry is involved - George Lucas...

i predict it will be comparatively boring and painfully predictable...

How about the fact that 95% of the white men in Raiders and the last Crusade are Nazi scumbags or collaborators. Calling Doom racist is plain stupid. Or how about the King in Crusade, I mean that guy had dark skin and all he wanted was that stupid Bentley.

Honestly, Doom isn't about the White Man's Burden...in fact if the Thugee cult had gained power and credibility in the region, it was because the British overlords had overlooked it, dismissed it and the rajah had little real power to confront it.

I thought overdrive political correctness ended sometime around the backlash over the mulva joke in Seinfeld but I guess some feel its their film school duty to show how bad the white man portrays dark skinned people.

Don't worry, the dark skin people got back at the Nazis when the PC police forced the change from Arab terrorists to neo-nazis in Sum of All Fears. If Indiana hadn't been replaced by Ben Affleck in the series, he could have kicked ass - and done it in a PC manner - because the baddies were just flag waving Uber Allies goosestepping pigs.

I'm not talking about Raiders or Crusade.

And my objection isn't to the idea of Indian villains (although portraying the Thuggees as a purely Hindu cult, which is historically inaccurate, is offensive to Hindus). It's that the good Indians are portrayed as being incapable of handling their own affairs. That's paternalistic claptrap, and inherently racist.

Pssst! Dude. I'm not a liberal.

I watched it last night, and the white man wasn't really able to help the Indians either. The Indians were saved by the Asian kid. So it's actually a movie about how Indians need help from Asian children, not white men.

Yeah, fuckin' hack who changed the way we enjoy film and television today. What a douche! Take that THX, ILM and all the rest and shove it up, Lucas!

Context is important, Mr. O'Hara. If you are going to sit and demonize one movie for its completly racist overtones then you should look at the body of the work in which it sits - which is a homage to the serials of the 30s, 40's and 50's of which Gunga Din and the idea of the evil Nazi German was pervasive. If you want to say those movies should never be referred to again because they are pervasively racist, thats fine but its still bullshit and I would like to see you condemn every other Indiana Jones movie for perpetuating stereotypes of (1) Germans as all Nazis (2) all French as sniveling douchebags (3) all Chinese as no good double dealing con artists.

I don't see the Indians being portrayed as not being to handle their own affairs - I see a village (which could be any nationality) on the brink of starvation.

I also see that the rajah which is basically a puppet of British colonialism ineffective to do anything because (1) he was like 13 years old and (2) he was under a magic voodoo spell and (3) the occupiers of India, the white men who really had the power to do something in that period, refused to believe that there was a massive insurgency taking place right underneath their feet...which says more about the british than it does about their indian allies.

Sean O'Hara, are you of Indian descent? If not, then it's none of your business and you shouldn't concern yourself with how Indians were portrayed in this film. You say that the Indians in "Doom" couldn't help themselves and they needed the "white man" to protect them. If Indians have a problem with "Doom" then they can talk about it themselves. They sure don't need you to come to their political correct aid.

Honestly, why would you waste so much of your brainpower thinking about how Indians were supposedly negatively portrayed in a movie that came out almost 25 years ago? What's the point of getting riled up about it?

How were peaceful villagers supposed to protect their children from heart ripping crazies with weapons?

This is just silly. You don't have to be Indian to be concerned with racism against Indians (whether this movie represents that or not).

What would you say to all the white people that marched with Martin Luthor King Jr.?

Not sure what this has to do with this thread, but you do realize that Lucas wrote the previous three installments?

No, he provided the story for them...someone else supplied the screenplay.

For what it is worth...I just finished watching all three films...and for some reason or another, this was the first time I ever watched ToD or TLC (I've seen Raiders countless times).

After ToD...I was actually really dissapointed. I never really got it until this thread...it's like James Bond with a whip. It wasn't nearly as fun as Raiders, and for someone reason seemed smaller in scope than Raiders. It's not that I didn't like it...but I sure as heck didn't love it.

I just finished TLC...and let me tell you...if Indy IV is anything like that...I will be very pleased. I had about as much fun watching TLC as I did Raiders (but I still think Raiders is the better film). It was just a "sit back and enjoy the ride" type of film. Indy was back to teaching, not hussling in a tux. I never knew I could see Connery as a bumbling fool yet still have a sophistication to him. It was great....now bring on KotCS!

Lucas didn't write the screenplay for Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. David Koepp did. Lucas provided the story, and was a producer; the same roles he had on the other movies.

What I find funny is that some people are worried the movie will suck solely because of Lucas, as if he did the writing and directing himself like on the Star Wars prequels.

George Lucas did turn down a script that was loved by both Spielberg and Ford. This script was written by Frank Darabont. I have no clue why the writer of the SW Prequels could turn down anything from the screenplay writer of Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile.


Spielberg also said in an interview that Lucas had made his own Indy 4 cut of the film. Even though Spielberg has final say in the final cut of Indy 4, he did say that he would use things he liked from the Lucas cut. Most likely the retarded stuff.

Maybe because it's the same guy who wrote The Majestic and The Mist? Darabont is very much hit and miss with his screenplays.

Well it all boils down to source material. Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile are two of King's best. The Mist, even though I love it, is pretty shallow.

The reason I said that is because his problem with "Doom" is that the movie made it seem like Indians weren't able to help themselves and needed Indiana Jones to save them. Him getting riled up about the portrayal of Indians is the same thing. He's acting as if Indians need him to come to their aid in order to stop the negative portrayals of them. In his opinon the Indians in the movie didn't need "the white man" to save them and in my opinion he should worry about something else other than how Indians were portrayed in a movie from 25 years ago. If Indians have a problem with it they can say something...they don't need him to speak for them.

Indians are Asians, so really, they helped themselves!

Indiana Jones is an Indian... with an A at the end.

don't forget the chin-scar, among other Indy trademarks - and all of them happened in the same afternoon, in just a matter of minutes. I fucking hate Last Crusade.

LOL!

I don't hate THE LAST CRUSADE, but I was certainly bored by it. The tank scene was unexciting, and reeked too much of the original chase from RAIDERS, and the motorcycle pursuit was slow and anemic. Some of the special effects were so shaky, I wondered how they were acceptable by Spielberg (the shot where the Nazi is shaking his fist at the zeppelin was painfully fake, as was the airplane dogfight and some of the boat chase). The saving grace was the final scene, where "the penitent man shall pass" which was different and had some dramatic edge.

I know TEMPLE OF DOOM really polarizes fans, and I agree that some of the jokes made at the Indians expense is regrettable. But out of the three sequels, it is the most distinctive and original.

LOL!!! I used to really love the Last Crusade (still like it though) but when I first saw the film with the intro basically explaining almost everything we know about Indy (scar, phobia with snakes, the whip, the fedora), I thought it was quite smart.

But now, it does look very rushed and weird that Indy pretty much developed his adult characterization inside that circus train!!!

But then, I guess Spielberg decided to film it since at that time, Last Crusade was supposed to be the last movie.