Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / IndianaJonesAndTheTempleOfDoom

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** He's still a scientist. He sees things that don't correspond exactly with his and the world's current understanding of science, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's willing to buy into the occult; it just means that as far as he's concerned, science hasn't reached a point where it can explain how the things he has seen actually work.


Added DiffLines:

** Drugs are powder; they dissolve and disappear into the water. Conversely, the stones are, well, relatively large stones. If Indy drops them, they'll sink to the bottom of the river, and they'll only be carried along by the current so far before they settle at the bottom. So they'll be there to be found somewhere. It might not be easy, and it might take a long time, and it might cost people's lives, and he might not ''want'' to spent a lot of time and effort and resources and lives to find them, but Mola Ram is willing to do so. He's just trying to call Indy's bluff by pointing out that he's still in a better position, albeit far from an ideal one; if Indy drops them, he and his friends will die almost immediately afterwards, but while Mola Ram might not have the stones immediately he's still got the chance of finding them again. He just underestimates Indy's resolve in being willing to risk ''everyone's'' life rather than letting Mola Ram have them.


Added DiffLines:

** Indy's a guy in the 1930s. It wasn't exactly an age where men were expected to be in touch with their emotions and openly express them in order to process and share their grief. He's putting on a stiff upper lip about it, basically.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Perhaps the spikes prevent the ceiling of the crusher room from going all the way to the floor when triggered, with it going just far enough to impale anyone in the room on the spikes?


Added DiffLines:

** Every movie introduces characters that have been on unseen prior adventures with Indy. It's part of the "30s action serials" idea. Indy does tell Short Round about his death in the novelization.


Added DiffLines:

** It might not be just fire - we don't really see a lot of people we know were brainwashed receive a lot of pain through other methods without also getting killed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** There may be a bit of RealitySubtext as to why Willie’s sacrificial ceremony was so different. The real life Thugee cult forbade the killing of women and children for their sacrifices; only men could be sacrificed. So Mola Ram could not do the full ceremony for Willie because their beliefs forbade it, and also why he passed responsibility of securing Willie to the cage to Indy. By having a true nonbeliever like Indy shackle Willie to the cage and lock her in the cage, the cult can claim LoopholeAbuse for her ceremony as ''they'' aren’t the ones who technically sacrificed her.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Can someone please explain why, during the mine cart chase, Indy knocks down a hanging lantern and the camera even cuts away from the action to show a shot of the lantern falling to the ground and breaking while the flame from it flickers? This lantern is never shown again, nor is its presence and/or the focus on it explained. In a movie with very deliberate shots and expert cinematography/editing, this has always stood out to me ever since I was a teenager. The best I can figure is it's some vague allusion to the impending danger of WATER -- i.e., a fake-out of sorts, as the shot gives the impression that the fire might spread.

to:

* Can someone please explain why, Why, during the mine cart chase, does Indy knocks knock down a hanging lantern and the camera even cuts away from the action to show a shot of the lantern falling to the ground and breaking while the flame from it flickers? This lantern is never shown again, nor is its presence and/or the focus on it explained. In a movie with very deliberate shots and expert cinematography/editing, this has always stood out to me ever since I was a teenager.explained. The best I can figure is it's some vague allusion to the impending danger of WATER -- i.e., a fake-out of sorts, as the shot gives the impression that the fire might spread.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Why is fire specifically needed to make people snap out of the Black Sleep, instead of just anything really painful? Is it due to the FireIsPurifying trope?

to:

* Why is fire specifically needed to make people snap out of the Black Sleep, instead of just anything really painful? Is it due to the FireIsPurifying FirePurifies trope?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* Why is fire specifically needed to make people snap out of the Black Sleep, instead of just anything really painful? Is it due to the FireIsPurifying trope?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Failure of imagination. It was the glass of Lao-Che's son, who had just withdrawn his gun. Ater foiling that blunt threat, Indy thought we has out of the woods again, regarding his foe as one who only knows brute-force direct approaches. Indy was not expecting that kind of underhandedness.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* Why would Indy drink the beverage that Lao-Che included with the reluctantly-surrendered daimond? Lao is the same man who sent one of his goons after Indy to try and steal the daimond and who Indy had to threaten Willie with a knife to force Che to go with their agreement. Lao-Che is by that point obviously a crooked cheating bastard, so why assume the drink included is harmless?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added discussion of Voodoo Dolls and Sympathetic Magic.

Added DiffLines:

*** Using effigies of a person to target them by way of SympatheticMagic is a pretty frequent part of folklore across the world. Not to mention the classic voodoo doll is very much a case of HollywoodVoodoo.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* How exactly do the Shankara Stones work? Do they need to be "activated" by a mortal before they can function? Indy tells Mola Ram that he's betrayed Shiva after claiming the Stones for himself, and then the Stones promptly burn his flesh. Why then and there? Why not previously? What with him being the leader of a brutal cult that's twisted the valid worship of a God into something monstrous, it kind of seems like Mola Ram betrayed Shiva ''way'' before that.

to:

* How exactly do the Shankara Sankara Stones work? Do they need to be "activated" by a mortal before they can function? Indy tells Mola Ram that he's betrayed Shiva after claiming the Stones for himself, and then the Stones promptly burn his flesh. Why then and there? Why not previously? What with him being the leader of a brutal cult that's twisted the valid worship of a God into something monstrous, it kind of seems like Mola Ram betrayed Shiva ''way'' before that.

Added: 104

Changed: 1186

Removed: 1133

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Removed complaints and meta questions/natter


* If the movie is supposed to be set before the events of ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' did it never occur to the writers that it messed up continuity? Where are Willie and Short Round after this movie? Why did Indy scoff at the suggestion of magic at the start of ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' when he has clear evidence of its existence in this movie?
** Lucas and Spielberg were influenced by James Bond when they created the Indiana Jones series and it's inferred Bond and his love interest break off the romance between each movie. In Indiana Jones IV gives some meat to this issue by having Indy marry one of his leading ladies. Short Round might have just grown up.
** They really should've set this film after Raiders. After all, they didn't bother explaining Marion's absence in ''Last Crusade''.
** Some fans do prefer to think of this as a sequel, and the date subtitle at the beginning is merely a "continuity error".
** Who's to say Indy doesn't have a girl in every port?

to:

* If the movie is supposed to be set before the events of ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' did it never occur to the writers that it messed up continuity? Where are Willie and Short Round after this movie? Why did Indy scoff at the suggestion of magic at the start of ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' when he has clear evidence of its existence in this movie?
** Lucas and Spielberg were influenced by James Bond when they created the Indiana Jones series and it's inferred Bond and his love interest break off the romance between each movie. In Indiana Jones IV gives some meat to this issue by having Indy marry one of his leading ladies. Short Round might have just grown up.
** They really should've set this film after Raiders. After all, they didn't bother explaining Marion's absence in ''Last Crusade''.
** Some fans do prefer to think of this as a sequel, and the date subtitle at the beginning is merely a "continuity error".
** Who's to say Indy doesn't have a girl in every port?
movie?



** Willie and Indy just kissed at the end because they had that special experience together. It seems unlikely they're compatible in a longer term relationship. She's very squeamish about adventuring
** About the first question; where same can be ask about The Last Crusade, he clearly changes love interest from one movie to another and he probably can't just go around with an orphan boy everywhere he goes (I'm pretty sure he at least had to sign some papers) and for the second question ScullySyndrome.



* As annoying as Willie's constant shrieking can get, remember that she's just an average woman who until recently was living a very pampered life caught up in what at many times is an utterly ''terrifying'' situation, and suddenly her reactions are a lot more understandable.

to:

* As annoying as Willie's constant shrieking can get, remember that she's just an average woman who until recently was living a very pampered life caught up in what at many times is an utterly ''terrifying'' situation, and suddenly her reactions are a lot more understandable.



* There's some discussion above about how some people do take this movie to be a sequel and the title card being a continuity error, but I'm surprised to see that I've never heard of anyone pointing to the actual continuity error in the movie that results from this time stamp. Indy says he saved Short Round from the Japanese bombings in Shanghai. Japan only went to war with China in 1937. Coupled with how there is zero narrative reason for the story to be a prequel (and even a narrative reason for it to be a sequel with Indy's little smile and reach for his gun when confronted by swordsmen and the inexplicable absence of Short Round in Raiders), I think, yeah, they just fucked up and had the wrong year in the subtitle. Unless the Pacific Theater of World War II inexplicably started earlier in the Indyverse.

to:

* There's some discussion above about how some people do take this movie to be a sequel and the title card being a continuity error, but I'm surprised to see that I've never heard of anyone pointing to the actual continuity error in the movie that results from this time stamp. Indy says he saved Short Round from the Japanese bombings in Shanghai. However Japan only went to war with China in 1937. Coupled with how 1937.
** As pointed out on the AluminumChristmasTrees entry,
there is zero narrative reason for the story to be was a prequel (and even a narrative reason for it to be a sequel with Indy's little smile and reach for his gun when confronted by swordsmen and the inexplicable absence Japanese bombing of Short Round Shanghai in Raiders), I think, yeah, they just fucked up and had the wrong year in the subtitle. Unless the Pacific Theater of World War II inexplicably started earlier in the Indyverse.1932.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* There's some discussion above about how some people do take this movie to be a sequel and the title card being a continuity error, but I'm surprised to see that I've never heard of anyone pointing to the actual continuity error in the movie that results from this time stamp. Indy says he saved Short Round from the Japanese bombings in Shanghai. Japan only went to war with China in 1937. Coupled with how there is zero narrative reason for the story to be a prequel (and even a narrative reason for it to be a sequel with Indy's little smile and reach for his gun when confronted by swordsmen), I think, yeah, they just fucked up and had the wrong year in the subtitle. Unless the Pacific Theater of World War II inexplicably started earlier in the Indyverse.

to:

* There's some discussion above about how some people do take this movie to be a sequel and the title card being a continuity error, but I'm surprised to see that I've never heard of anyone pointing to the actual continuity error in the movie that results from this time stamp. Indy says he saved Short Round from the Japanese bombings in Shanghai. Japan only went to war with China in 1937. Coupled with how there is zero narrative reason for the story to be a prequel (and even a narrative reason for it to be a sequel with Indy's little smile and reach for his gun when confronted by swordsmen), swordsmen and the inexplicable absence of Short Round in Raiders), I think, yeah, they just fucked up and had the wrong year in the subtitle. Unless the Pacific Theater of World War II inexplicably started earlier in the Indyverse.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* There's some discussion above about how some people do take this movie to be a sequel and the title card being a continuity error, but I'm surprised to see that I've never heard of anyone pointing to the actual continuity error in the movie that results from this time stamp. Indy says he saved Short Round from the Japanese bombings in Shanghai. Japan only went to war with China in 1937. Coupled with how there is zero narrative reason for the story to be a prequel, I think, yeah, they just fucked up and had the wrong year in the subtitle. Unless the Pacific Theater of World War II inexplicably started earlier in the Indyverse.

to:

* There's some discussion above about how some people do take this movie to be a sequel and the title card being a continuity error, but I'm surprised to see that I've never heard of anyone pointing to the actual continuity error in the movie that results from this time stamp. Indy says he saved Short Round from the Japanese bombings in Shanghai. Japan only went to war with China in 1937. Coupled with how there is zero narrative reason for the story to be a prequel, prequel (and even a narrative reason for it to be a sequel with Indy's little smile and reach for his gun when confronted by swordsmen), I think, yeah, they just fucked up and had the wrong year in the subtitle. Unless the Pacific Theater of World War II inexplicably started earlier in the Indyverse.

Added: 634

Changed: 657

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

*So, Wu Han...uh...what was the point of him? He shows up to spectacularly fail at helping Indy at all only to die and not influence the story at all. We get just enough exposition to know he's Indy's partner and they've been on many adventures together...only for Indy to really not give a single flying fuck about the guy's death five seconds after it happens. He doesn't even tell Short Round about it, I mean, those two characters must have known each other. Aside from explaining how Indy has booked passage for three people on a flight...with no actual seats, it feels entirely pointless an addition. Was it just some kind of actor cameo or something?
*There's some discussion above about how some people do take this movie to be a sequel and the title card being a continuity error, but I'm surprised to see that I've never heard of anyone pointing to the actual continuity error in the movie that results from this time stamp. Indy says he saved Short Round from the Japanese bombings in Shanghai. Japan only went to war with China in 1937. Coupled with how there is zero narrative reason for the story to be a prequel, I think, yeah, they just fucked up and had the wrong year in the subtitle. Unless the Pacific Theater of World War II inexplicably started earlier in the Indyverse.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** It's less like converting and more like DemonicPossession. In the original shooting script, evil Indy [[BreathWeapon breathes fire]](!) at Willie when he reveals that he's turned evil. It's completely supernatural.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* Why are there intact skulls in the crusher room? Should the DescendingCeiling have crushed them all?

Top