# Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Couple of things. Those awards need sources more reliable than IMDb. Not doubting they won the awards, but we don't cite IMDb for anything in the article, not even things as simple as awards. Second, I don't think the 6 reviews in the "Cream of the Crop" are really representative enough to warrant mention. The fact that we normally get 7 to 8 times that with newer films (mainly because this is the internet age, and this film came out before the internet was really mainstream), it seems like undue weight to cite 6 people. I think the 58 reviews in the overall review page are enough in this instance. 
What does--"George Lucas advised to editor Michael Kahn for a "fast-pace film". Lucas was dissatisfied with some shots for the dinner scene at Pankot Palace, feeling they "were not gruesome enough". More shots were commissioned.[4] James Kahn wrote the film's novelization released in May 1984.[12] Suzanne Weyn wrote a novelization released on May 1, 2008.[13] Hasbro will release a toy line based on the film in September 2008."--have to do with "Reception"? 
There are also several quotes that do not have ending quotation marks, which is neither here nor there, because the "Reception" section relies too heavily on quoting, instead of paraphrasing like it should be.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB stuff has been fixed. In terms of "Reception" I think prior I called it "Release". I forget. I got sick reading out of those stupid Lucas/Spielberg books for research. Quotes are easy and I don't want to read through a 10-page review because someone loved or hated the film. I don't really see a big problem. Oh and I fixed the "Top Critics" thing.—Wildroot (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not the point. We should not be heavily quoting people, we should be paraphrasing their work. Wikipedia should be its own thing, not a mirror of other people's works. There will obviously be times when it is too difficult to paraphrase someone, and you need to pull the entire piece of their dialogue, but that's generally not the case with reviews (especially when you just stated it's more about what was "easier"). It is not hard to read an entire review and pull some important pieces that the author notes and paraphrase into the article. Just grabbing quoted portions of their work actually does more harm because you aren't getting the full effect of their opinion. If you paraphrase, you can get more info in a smaller space.
In further clarification of the reception section. With only 5 reviews, you're going to need a source to support the statement, "The film received mixed reviews at the time of its release." Since we cannot count on Rotten Tomatoes to give an accurate view of the reception when it was released, we need someone else (someone that was around at that time will probably note such a thing) to verify that for us.
I just took a gander at the video game and soundtrack - both seem to fail WP:TOY (Currently, WP:TOY is proposed, so use the general WP:NOTE as the official criteria for the video game) and WP:NMG#Albums. They could easily be used to expand this article, which is currently sitting at 26kb of space (at readable prose, it's probably 15kb, which is extremely small for an article about a film of this proportion). I would suggest merging them into this page (trimming that game's plot down quite a bit) and sourcing where appropriate. You could use some of the game's external links to source some basic facts about the game. I would also brifely mention the NES verion of the game, but that seems ok to leave where it is (so just link to the NES game in the video game section).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I reverted the Soundtrack into the film. I plan on putting the video game article in the Release section. —Wildroot (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, there really wasn't anything encyclopedic in that article at all. I was able to put the whole thing in like two sentences. —Wildroot (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Everything's looking pretty good. Here are a few suggestions/comments:

In the lead, maybe specify where Elstree Studios are. Anyone not familiar wouldn't have a clue where they were, considering we've just been discussing India.
Ford suffered a severe spinal disc herniation during filming - Harrison Ford's full name isn't mentioned before this, so now's a good time.
When talking about Kate Capshaw, maybe mention that Marion Ravenwood was from Raiders of the Lost Ark, so as not to assume that readers know this already.
The character is named after a 17th century Indian painter - a particular one, or no?
I think Temple of Doom represents a chaotic period in both [Lucas and Spielberg] their lives - should "their" go before the square brackets?
Posessive "Lucas's" or "Lucas'"? Pick one, and sweep through the article to make it consistent. We have Lucas's initial idea but then on the line below "Lucas' Alaskan Malamute".
Budgetary inflation caused Temple of Doom to cost $8 million more than Raiders of the Lost Ark - maybe mention how much it did end up costing.
Again, under Filming, maybe mention where Elstree Studios are. They could be in New Zealand!
8/9 sound stages at Elstree occupied the filming of Temple of Doom - first, it might be better to say "...Elstree were occupied with..." just because one doesn't say "The bathroom occupied me"; instead, they'd say "I occupied the bathroom" or more crudely "The bathroom was occupied with me". Second, does "8/9" mean eight out of nine? If so, maybe write it that way to avoid confusion and to spell out small numbers per WP:MOSNUM.
a second was compiled by costume designer Anthony Powell - maybe reword. One doesn't really "compile a dress".
Macau was used to double for Shanghai,[9] Slocombe caught fever through June 24—July 7 and could not work - the Slocombe bit isn't really a logical add-on, IMO. I'd go with two separate sentences.
Rotten Tomatoes has collected 58 online reviews, which indicated 84% of the critics enjoyed the film - tense confusion: "has collected" but "which indicated".
the most cheerfully exciting, bizarre, goofy, romantic adventure movie since "Raiders," - get rid of the quotes and place "Raiders" in italics, no? Otherwise, go with single-quotes as there are double quotes around the whole statement.
That's about all - the GAN will be on hold for a week. Good luck with the changes! —97198 (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
All of your suggestion have been put to use. I'm ready when you are ready. —Wildroot (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I'm happy with all the changes and will promote the article :) —97198 (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Elstree Studios are outside London in Borehamwood, and: part of the set for Raiders is at Madam Tousaud's London with the Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones model.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C  20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is wrong when it says "Harrison Ford suffered a severe spinal disc herniation while riding elephants.". He mentions that it was uncomfortable, but he really hurt his back in the fight in the bed room, when he flips the Thug over his back and they had to cut to deal with his pain. This is in the special features of the DVD set. How would one cite that? LaRoza (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Raiders of the Lost Ark article references a couple of those videos like this: The Stunts of Indiana Jones. Paramount Pictures. 2003. {{cite AV media}}: |format= requires |url= (help)
{{cite video | title = The Stunts of Indiana Jones | format = DVD | publisher = [[Paramount Pictures]] |date= 2003}}.

That should probably also have people = Bouzereau, Laurent (Director). For convenience you might also note that this short video is found in the special features of the DVD set. Is this what you mean? —Mrwojo (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the responses from a few Indians about how "they" were portrayed. To be clear: the Sri Lankans standing in for "all" Indians were described as vegetarians and shown as good people. The Thuggee Indians at Pankot are clearly shown to not be vegetarians and thus do not represent "all" Indians. (This is fiction, after all.) Not all Indians are vegetarians anyway, nor are they all Hindi. There are some Muslim Indians, not just Muslim Pakistanis (and the movie takes place BEFORE the split after all), but Muslim Indians, and even Christians and other sects.
The controversy is just a case of a single individual taking a personal insult when it's not intended. A case of someone over-reacting and getting his particular panties in a twist. This individual also gets upset about the portrayal of Kali and the Thuggees in the movie, even after it's clearly explained as a twisted version of the cult, and not a "real" version inside of a fictional movie. Raiders came out before Temple, and the twisted panties author makes no defense of the South Americans portrayed as "naked savages" in that movie, nor is there any account of South Americans being insulted by that portrayal. 
Again, a single individual with his panties in a bind does not a controversy make. 
IF IF IF someone somewhere can come up with more than just one individual crying "foul" then please link to it, otherwise, I suggest it be struck down as someone's personal nonsense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 

It's not "a single individual with his panties in a bind" it's actually the Indian government, who placed a temporary ban on the film. This article is written in a neutral point-of-view, with the addition of reliable sources. Why are so hyper-sensitive about this issue? Wildroot (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A large portion of talk page entries appear to have been blanked - there is no visible archive and this page now has four entries - the page has been around since 2002!  Past discussions need to be archives, not blanked. -207.245.179.136 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it got blanked here [1].  There was no archive created that I could see. -207.245.179.136 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
There was an archive created. It's linked on top of this page, where the talk header is. Wildroot (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Short Round was origanly 11 in the movie...But Indy first met him when he was five...Many websites get his age wrong...He is not 8.

Dude! We ALL know that he is 11 and he's Indy's sidekick. Get your facts right!

From what I've heard, the lyrics as they are pronounced don't make sense anway, but on and off the internet the opinions seem to differ whether they're supposed to be in Mandarin or Cantonese (or Shanghainese??)... can anyone offer a definite answer? -- megA (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It states right in the article that Capshaw "learned to sing in Mandarin" for the musical number. -  theWOLFchild 13:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this actor listed in the article as "Jonathan Ke Quan"? I realize that the westernized name is what he goes by now, but for consistency shouldn't the name in the infobox and the "Cast" section go by how he was credited in the actual movie? -- 24.212.139.20 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be that wp:commonname applies, which is a silly policy, so don't expect anything to make sense. -  theWOLFchild 13:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I edited out this parenthesis at the end of this sentence:
Spielberg and Lucas attributed the film's tone, which was darker than Raiders of the Lost Ark, to their personal moods following the breakups of their relationships (Spielberg with Amy Irving, Lucas with Marcia).[13]
It is incorrect; Spielberg had not yet married (his now ex-wife Amy Irving)  until 1985. The citation does not mention Irving.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjcherno (talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 

There needs to be some more discussion about the criticism of this film. In recent years, this film has faced controversy as a classic example of post-colonial cinema of the 1980's, perpetuating stereotypes of colonized peoples and casting colonialism in an artificially positive light. Specifically, the final scene, with respect to the miraculous arrival of colonial army, ought to be discussed at greater length. Jsweeney1 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Then go get some reliable sources, write a proposed addition in your sandbox, then post it on this talk page for consensus. Simple. -  theWOLFchild 13:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz, Taeyebaar, to add a third opinion, I find it best to keep the genre in the opening sentence straightforward. WP:FILMLEAD says, " At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." All the Indiana Jones films have supernatural elements in them, but the films are far more known as adventure films than supernatural ones. I think it is sufficient for the premise in the lead section's first paragraph to reflect to readers the supernatural elements (e.g., "black magic" being mentioned). Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the entire Indiana Jones is viewed as an adventure film series, not a supernatural one. I don't see it as an appropriate description, much less primary identifier. Liz Read! Talk! 13:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear! I meant to say in the first place that I prefer just calling it an adventure film and leaving it to the description of the premise to point out supernatural elements. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It can be both. There's a lot of adventure films that have no supernatural elements in them, so it's bad to confuse them. The last Indiana Jones film has been called "adventure science fiction". --Taeyebaar (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
A quick look at Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb show these films to be action & adventure, so it's clear that it is the primary genre. I don't find that there is confusion because being an adventure film does not mean it will be without supernatural elements. The premise is briefly conveyed and shows these supernatural elements, anyway. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the connection to the "white savior narrative" really the only thing we can put under see also? There have to be more relevant articles that connect with this that are not part of some "critical film studies" jargon that may just be a fad like the so called "white washing controversy".--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just removed the link to White savior narrative in film, as it is not relevant to this article. This is not to say that this article isn't relevant to that article and topic, but if that subject is to be brought up on this page, it should be done so by reference in the Critical response section, not by simply adding a link to the See also section as a sort of tag or category. Again, please don't take my removal of this link as suggesting that this movie is not a “white savior” film. We just don't label things this way.
Incidentally, this led to the removal of the section. Obviously if there are links worth adding here, then do restore it; but don't simply search for things to add because the section is there. — Harry (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If you think it should be elsewhere, do so, but simply deleting it is not the appropriate response.  It is relevant to this article, so it should be listed in the see also section. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I take it the current revision resolves that misstep? (And the See also section) — Harry (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211052459/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828111945/http://www.empireonline.com/indy/day1/2.asp to http://www.empireonline.com/indy/day1/2.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808115736/http://www.empireonline.com/indy/day10/ to http://www.empireonline.com/indy/day10/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1219724364138
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The category "obscenity controversies in film" is getting added/removed, and I think we need to talk about it. The film was banned in India for "racist portrayal of Indians and overt imperialistic tendencies". But a film being banned for offensive content doesn't necessarily qualify as an "obscenity controversy". Obscenity is the only grounds for banning a film under US law, but not necessarily India's. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I've re-removed the category. Trivialist (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)