Sign In

Underrated Sequels/Prequels — Page 4

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DuracellEnergizer said:

I read that the dinner scene in TOD was supposed to indicate that the people living in Pankot palace were heretics -- mainstream Hindus wouldn't eat monkeys, for instance -- and there was a scene filmed where Jones addressed this, but for some unwise reason the scene was cut from the final film.

You're absolutely right, and it would certainly have helped the film to leave that in.

Of course that still doesn't solve the film's biggest problem: that it's basically a remake of Gunga Din starring Indiana Jones.

Something of the racism and imperialism of that earlier film carries over into Temple of Doom--as we see with the heroic British Army riding in and shooting down the troublesome natives.

Now, I don't have a problem with enjoying old films like Gunga Din (I do love the Conan stories of Robert E. Howard, after all), but they're definitely products of their time.

Any modern adaptation really has to get rid of the racism in those old works, but I don't think Lucas and Spielberg tried very hard to do that, as evidenced by the dinner scene.

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time

That really would have helped.  I wish Paramount would release the deleted scenes for a faneditor to work on.  In any case, the heroic British Army had Indian soldiers, and this was the reality of the day: the British Empire owned India, and Indian soldiers were part of the Empire's military.  Who else would drive off the Thugees, who, for the sake of the story, were necessarily Indian?  It makes logical sense.

What makes me laugh is the fact that no one complains about the treatment of the Germans or the Soviets in the other Indy movies.  They were clearly bad guys with their fair share of idiots.  But they were white evil idiots, and you can't be racist against white people.  Are folks aware of the fact that there were many good and noble men conscripted into the Nazi war machine, often against their will, often in ignorance of the nature of the crimes of their own fatherland.  But I enjoy the movies for what they were, in spite of the stereotypes against the Germans.

Author
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

darth_ender said:

Doom Trooper said:

The criticism that Temple Of Doom is racist is so ridiculous and just another cheap shot people like to take at it.

 I agree. George Lucas is anything but racist.

Indeed, his cultural sensitivity was solidified with the introduction of Jar Jar.

 Don't tell his African-American wife what a racist he is.  Honestly, Jar Jar was played by a black man, remember.  I fail to infer that those floppy ears were intended to represent dreadlocks and that "Meesa love yousa" talk as sounding anything close to a Caribbean accent.

Know what's a racist movie?  Mulan!  Remember that character who actually was quite clearly played by a black man sounding like a black man?  Yes, Mushu, the one who confused a horse for a cow, who destroyed the Great Stone Dragon with his clumsy antics, who personified the archetypal lower-class African-American in ancient China (figure that one out)?  Remember the big uproar over that movie and the racism in it?  Yeah, me neither.  Same could be said about Shrek (again with Eddie Murphy, of course), where Donkey is even more obnoxious and stupid and clumsy than Mushu.  And we laugh at it and don't give it a second thought.  The only reason I can think people harp on Jar Jar is because there may be some people who really squint till they perceive a character intended to represent black people, but unlike Eddie Murphy's characters, Jar Jar was not funny.  I guess if you have an annoying black character in your movies, you better make sure he's darn funny or else you're a racist, right? ;) 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

darth_ender said:

That really would have helped.  I wish Paramount would release the deleted scenes for a faneditor to work on.  In any case, the heroic British Army had Indian soldiers, and this was the reality of the day: the British Empire owned India, and Indian soldiers were part of the Empire's military.  Who else would drive off the Thugees, who, for the sake of the story, were necessarily Indian?  It makes logical sense.

What makes me laugh is the fact that no one complains about the treatment of the Germans or the Soviets in the other Indy movies.  They were clearly bad guys with their fair share of idiots.  But they were white evil idiots, and you can't be racist against white people.  Are folks aware of the fact that there were many good and noble men conscripted into the Nazi war machine, often against their will, often in ignorance of the nature of the crimes of their own fatherland.  But I enjoy the movies for what they were, in spite of the stereotypes against the Germans.

Do we actually see Indian soldiers in the British Army in the film, though? I honestly don't remember.

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time

I just checked the film and yes, they do show Indian sepoy troops in the final scene. Good for them at least being realistic in that regard.

I do think that Temple of Doom is certainly problematic in terms of racial issues. But let's be honest, that's also far from the only issue TOD has.

Kate Capshaw, for one. Gratuitous violence, for another (which was apparently toned down significantly from what Spielberg originally wanted to do).

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time

Won't argue with the Kate Capshaw problem.  I'm not a fan of her character.  She may be a great actress (only seen her in one other movie called Space Camp, and I was a child at the time and can't recall her acting ability), but her character Willie sure was not that charming.  Marion had a great deal of spunk and fun to her character, while Elsa had some nice complexity.  Yes, TOD is definitely the least even of the original three, but there are elements I really enjoy about it as well: the climax to me is most exciting, the villain most frightening, the cart chase very fun, the opening in China interesting (aside from "Anything Goes"), the focus on an Eastern religion noteworthy.  I miss seeing Indy's "mild mannered" persona, but on the other hand, as a prequel, it does show maturing as a character, from being a "fortune and glory" seeker to caring more about the people he saves.  And I have to say, Short Round is a great character IMO.  I loved the chemistry between him and Indy.  It has many moments of weakness, but I don't think it is without strengths.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Don't tell his African-American wife what a racist he is.

If recent events are any indicator, having a s.o. of another race doesn't preclude one's ability to still do racist things (re: D. Sterling).

I'm not interested in branding someone a "racist".  However, even the best of people do racist things sometimes, usually inadvertently.  Probably all of us do.  It should be possible to point out racist acts, without blanket labeling someone a racist... unfortunately most people can't separate the two.  I never called GL a racist (I have no idea if he is or isn't) - but I'm surprised that nobody suggested to him that the character might be considered insensitive by some people.  Whether or not you (or I) agree with that, a lot of people do consider the character to be borderline racist.  It doesn't mean GL is a racist, and perhaps he downplayed the character in the next episodes partly because of what he learned from the feedback that it stirred.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time

ATMachine said:


Any modern adaptation really has to get rid of the racism in those old works

 Why if they're based on another time?

Is any of you actually Indian? I for one hate this sympathy racism where a bunch of white people get offended about racism and like someone here said Indians themselves laughed at the scenes in TOD and couldn't care less. There is also a difference between a race and a culture. I've seen so many American shows to know they use all the old stereotypes about every culture (Russia, Germany, Britain, The Neatherlands etc.) which would be considered very racist if the people there weren't white. I think it's a bit ridicilous that when the skin color changes, it suddenly becomes racist. I'm kind of a "make fun of us all or then about no one" type of guy.

So how about those underrated sequels? Are there actually any underrated prequels? I can't think of any.

And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.

Author
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

darth_ender said:

Don't tell his African-American wife what a racist he is.

If recent events are any indicator, having a s.o. of another race doesn't preclude one's ability to still do racist things (re: D. Sterling).

I'm not interested in branding someone a "racist".  However, even the best of people do racist things sometimes, usually inadvertently.  Probably all of us do.  It should be possible to point out racist acts, without blanket labeling someone a racist... unfortunately most people can't separate the two.  I never called GL a racist (I have no idea if he is or isn't) - but I'm surprised that nobody suggested to him that the character might be considered insensitive by some people.  Whether or not you (or I) agree with that, a lot of people do consider the character to be borderline racist.  It doesn't mean GL is a racist, and perhaps he downplayed the character in the next episodes partly because of what he learned from the feedback that it stirred.

 I agree with this very much.  That's all I'll say to keep the thread on topic.

And back to Indy, TOD is technically a prequel, and I feel it is underrated.  I feel the same applies to the Hobbit movies, which I really enjoy, but seem to be heavily criticized.

Author
Time

Yes! 

I am not alone!

I have enjoyed them both.  They don't follow the books but then again most of Hitchcock's work didn't either and for me they work as films.  I am not sure watching the Dwarve get captured and saved by Gandalf for the whole story would have worked in a film any way.  I enjoy the cast and the energy and I think Howard Shore did an even better job with the scores to these movies then he did with the Lord of the Rings.

I know I am about to get jumped on by tons of people saying how wrong I am but I don't care,I have enjoyed these movies and I am not ashamed to say so.

Author
Time

Plenty of people like The Hobbit movies.  Not underrated.

Author
Time

They are definitely seen as inferior, especially on movie snob sites like originaltrilogy.com and fanedit.org.

;)

Author
Time

And every web critic out there keeps talking about how awful they are.  They are often mentioned in the same breath as Batman and Robin and the Transformers movies.  My close friends all like them but Darth Ender's post was the first time I had seen anything positive about them online and it seems most people cite them as proof that Peter Jackson is a no talent hack who got lucky with the Lord of the Rings films. So yeah I would say they are under rated.

Author
Time

DrCrowTStarwars said:

And every web critic out there keeps talking about how awful they are.  They are often mentioned in the same breath as Batman and Robin and the Transformers movies.  My close friends all like them but Darth Ender's post was the first time I had seen anything positive about them online and it seems most people cite them as proof that Peter Jackson is a no talent hack who got lucky with the Lord of the Rings films. So yeah I would say they are under rated.

You probably haven't seen my posts, then. I like the The Hobbit movies a lot more than the LotR movies.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.

I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!

—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3

Author
Time
 (Edited)

darth_ender said:

TOD is technically a prequel

Not in my personal canon, it ain't. =P 

TRANSMODERNISM > POSTMODERNISM > MODERNISM > PREMODERNISM

Author
Time

DrCrowTStarwars said:

And every web critic out there keeps talking about how awful they are.  They are often mentioned in the same breath as Batman and Robin and the Transformers movies.  My close friends all like them but Darth Ender's post was the first time I had seen anything positive about them online and it seems most people cite them as proof that Peter Jackson is a no talent hack who got lucky with the Lord of the Rings films. So yeah I would say they are under rated.

 I actually like them a lot more when I meditate on them. I love the fact that they portray things like the White Council, foreshadowing things like Saruman already knowing about the Ring, and Gandalf going to Dol Guldur. They do have some silly or tiring (that barrel chase was way too long, if you ask me) things within them, but... They're not problems that don't exist within the original films. They might be a bit more prominent, but it's not like they only just started in these films. I am looking forward to Battle of the Five Armies quite a bit!

I’m just here because I’m driving tonight.

Author
Time

I have never heard anyone put The Hobbit on the level of Batman and Robin or Transformers.  I demand links.  But even so, your problem is that you are listening to "web critics" who have no qualifications other than internet access.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I despise them because they are not The Hobbit.

Even with the rewritten riddles in the dark is not truly a prequel to the lord of the rings

The unfinished wholesale rewriting of the book to completely fit lotr was so out of tone with the original Tolkien never finished it thankfully.

Then again its Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy and Jackson's lord of the rings.

They are a separate universe from Tolkien so i don't get all tied up in fighting the battle of the books vs the movies.

Huge difference between Tolkien Enterprises and the Tolkien estate.

One was owned formerly by the now deceased Saul Zaentz  , the other Tolkien's heirs. 

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

ROTJ, Men in Black 3, TOD, Spider-man 3, Iron Man 2, and KOTCS (only a tiny bit, it's only slightly worse than TOD, IMHO)

Dboman said:

I don't care about spelling! I just want to find a mirror!

Author
Time

Doom Trooper said:

What are some sequels and prequels you feel are underrated and either get an undeserved negative reception or not enough recognition or credit? They don't have to be as good or better than the originals, just films you feel deserve a better reputation than what others typically make it out to be.

Bingowings said:

In my opinion ROTJ is very over-rated and largely regarded highly more out of nostalgia than it's qualities as a film (which a not that much better than TPM).

Yes, I know you think this. However, the original post asked for films we thought were underrated, not films we thought surpassed their predecessors. SW'77 is a classic, many outside the SW fan community know mostly the original film and bits and pieces of the others. In my opinion, neither ESB nor ROTJ surpassed SW in quality, story or otherwise. But I do think ROTJ recieves a lot more criticism than it deserves, as the original intent of this thread was to point out.

Dboman said:

I don't care about spelling! I just want to find a mirror!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

skyjedi2005 said:

I despise them because they are not The Hobbit.


...

They are a separate universe from Tolkien so i don't get all tied up in fighting the battle of the books vs the movies.

 Oh, okay....

Wait, what?

Author
Time

I loved the AvP movies, but I didn't go into them expecting something great. I just wanted to see aliens vs predators on the big screen.

Though I do wish they'd done it with Colonial Marines.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)