Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom/Archive 1

Archive 1

copyright violation?

Isn't that image copyrighted? -- unsigned comment made by AstroNomer 6 Sep 2002

I don't know, but it doesn't matter, because it's fair use if it is. -- isis 6 Sep 2002

Um... I don't think that's a very safe assumption. You're using the entire image, after all, even if one at degraded resolution. I think that we should play it safe and remove copies of commercial images - besides copyright, there may be trademark issues too! -- April

It's not an assumption, it's knowledge. Do you have any trouble with people's putting pictures of the tapes they're selling on eBay? (Nobody else does, especially not the people who own the rights.) And that's commercial use which can be restricted under the Constitution, and this is pure-tee First Amendment fair use. -- isis 6 Sep 2002

Yep, you are probably right. I had not read the last version of wikipedia:copyright. There should be a note here, and anywhere it is the case, that the image is copyright of its owner, and used here under fair use doctrine. AstroNomer

The digital image I posted belongs to me, not to whoever has the copyright on the videotape box, just as Leonardo would be the only one who could copyright the Mona Lisa -- it may be her face, but it's his image of her face.
And I think somebody ought to post a better explanation of how the copyright law applies to Wikipedia, because too many folks here are afraid to use images in their articles for fear they might be running afoul of the copyright laws, and that's a real shame. -- isis 6 Sep 2002

---

Guys, Isis knows what she's talking about in copyright matters, and I agree that it would be a real shame if people are afraid to upload useful images--hell, I just had to reassure someone that it was OK to upload a picture of the Hollywood sign that he had taken! But it's also probably not a bad idea to make it clear that we are not claiming copyright and GFDL license for images used under "fair use", since we are claiming that for all our text, and some people might be confused about the difference. Probably the description page of such images should note that we are using under fair use here. Nothing fancy, just "Image of XXX, used under fair use." --LDC

And/Or if it's not clear from the context (as it is for the videotape covers) it might be good to say where it came from and not just what it is. (For book covers, for example, I often give the ISBN to identify the source.) The distinction LDC makes between text and images is an important one: The information conveyed is not copyrighted, the creativity (or originality) of how it's presented is. For an image, the information is what it's a picture of; if there's not something uniquely different about the way it's presented, NOBODY can copyright the image, which is why no one can copyright a photocopy. -- isis 6 Sep 2002

cover images are a-okay!

use the tag {{Video tape cover}}. the template is Template:Video tape cover. -- Zondor 16:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Banned in India?

Rumour has it that this movie was banned in India (it used to be very difficult or impossible to find it in Indian video/DVD stores). A bit of trivia that can possibly find a mention in the article. I first saw the movie on my first trip outside India. Unfortunately, I cannot find any authoritative source that says it indeed was banned. -- Binand 23:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The article says this in the Reaction section now, but cites the film's trivia page on IMDb. I don't think that source is good enough, since it doesn't cite its own sources (who said "racist portrayal of Indians and overt imperialistic tendencies") and it is very nonspecific (who banned it and when?). Business Week mentioned the ban too, but their description is only slightly more specific. --Mrwojo 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the movie was only banned for a few weeks because of the censors who thought that it was not a good portrayal of the movie. The business week source is more credible and less POV then IMDB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.3.236.134 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 April 2007.

I agree. I've removed the IMDb trivia ref. --Mrwojo 19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Was there ever a Theaterical release in India?. Regarding VHS, I did see it in VHS, but do not know it was an official release or some bootleg copy. What was the reason for not filming in India?. 70.44.248.202 (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Chant Translation

I'd be curious if we have any Punjab/Indian/etc zpeakers out there that could add to the trivia section what exact Motaram is chanting in his evil semrons. They parts I picked up sound like "Kali-ma shuc te-day" and "A-vis-te-da Mini-mut te-me-hey". When the ripped out heart victim is going down into the flames, it also sounds like Mot is screaming over and over again "Ba-lee ja car-do!". Any ideas what he was saying?

Kali-ma shuc te-day translates to " kali give me power/strength "

Ba-lee ja car-do! translates to " Sacrifice him/her" or "let the sacrifice begin" --Girish 05:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

i dont think this film was a good representation of india,cos it showed people eating worms,snakes and what not. a considerable number of inidans are vegetarians,and even if we eat meat we eat livestock and not wild animals.i think spielberg got confused between indians and chinese.--Jayanthv86 11:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I seem to recall a bit more of the chant - my best attempt at reproduction below. Translation would be appriciated (I know the last 2 lines were already done above, translation of the others would be appriciated):

Ba-lee cha hogay

Ba-lee mok-tee Kali ma

Mukte dagie kali ma

Kali ma

Kali ma

Kali ma shuc te-day

Then the constant repeating of: Ba-lee cha hado

Shador5529 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The Thuggee article mentions, "maaro maaro sooar ko, chamdi nocho pee lo khoon" - literally "Kill, Kill the pig, flay his skin, drink his blood"

Is that a reference to "Kill the pig, slit her throat, bash her in" in Lord of the Flies?

Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Interpretation of Indian Culture" section

This is a very low quality addition to this article which serves no purpose. Many films do not portray complete historical r factual accuracy, that's why it is a film and not a documentary. However, I cannot see how it is degrading or insulting to Hindus as sacrifice and murder was not attributed to them, but to the Thuggee, the Indian cult which is correct.

Any objections to the removal of this section? --Rayward 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to revert it myself, but left it in, in hopes that someone would re-word it. But, as you said, it is a film, not a documentary, and thus, is allowed to portray things differently for dramatic effect. The Wookieepedian 19:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have added a link to a website that I think is relevant (http://www.keithshortsculptor.com/templeofdoom.htm) to this article. The images are genuine production photos of sets pieces from the film. I know Wikipedia does not like too many external links but I am not going to upload images due to the risk of copyright fraud. Do you think the link is relevant or irrelevant? Should it stay or go? The link is for Keith Short, not for the other "film sculptor". If you want to read more on this issue please go to my user talk page. Thanks.--Chloecshort 16:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevant or not, I don't really find the link useful. --Mrwojo 07:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect trivia?

Correction! In the last trivia it is mentioned that Indy says "Thum Shive ko vishvas karte ho" after defeating Mola Ram. But in fact he says "Thum Shiva ke visvasghathi ho" which correctly translates as "You have betrayed shiva" and not possibly a joke as mentioned. --raghunc

I've removed it from the article (unless someone can verify it). The text in question is:

• When Indiana finally defeats Mola Ram and takes back the magic stones, he says to him, "You have betrayed Shiva!", whereas when he says the same thing in Hindi, he says, "Tum Shiva ko vishwaas karte ho!", which translates to, "You are faithful to Shiva!" (probably an inside joke from the Hindi-speaking crew).

--Mrwojo 22:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was the trivia section removed? Alientraveller said, "smote trivia, it's just a lazy way of giving info", but now the info isn't given at all! Unless the info can be incorporated into other sections, I think these interesting facts should remain. A lazy way of giving info is better than not giving it at all.--Tiberius47 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Torture reference

"Another reference to Star Wars occurs when Indy is tortured by having a Voo Doo of him held over a fire, paralleling how Harrison Ford as Han Solo was tortured in Cloud City over an open electrode"

Is this really a "reference" to Star Wars, or is it just a coincidence that Harrison Ford's tortured in both movies? I don't see how the two instances relate, how one "parallels" the other.

Theistheman 04:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the connection either. I've removed it from the article. --Mrwojo 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack split

Errr... no-one seems to be discussing the splitting of the soundtrack as a separate article. I'd be against such a split, and the tag should be removed if there is actually no discussion about it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaccormack (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

keep as is Natural number is e 04:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant not to split, rather than to keep the pointless split request, and I've removed it. You can always re-add it if you want --Amaccormack 15:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Character merge

I am proposing that Short Round, Willie Scott, and Mola Ram be merged into there. They are all fairly minor characters who have only made an appearnace in one film (WP:FICT). They're basically plot summaries that are just a slightly distorted view of the one prsented here. There's a lot of redundency and overlapping as a result. So it would be much better to discuss them all here, perhaps in a "Characters" header. hbdragon88 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to do that, Marion gets merged into Raiders. Elsa gets merged into Crusade. Han Solo gets merged into Star Wars. And basically you end up in a situation where no film character ever gets their own article. Willie etc. are fine as they are - that doesn't mean that their articles don't need 'upgrading' though, so your help would be much appreciated! Mikejstevenson 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Han Solo has appearances in the EU, and he also starred in all three films, so he has enough significant importance outside of just Star Wars. Marion is also a one-shot character, too, I wouldn't mind merging her. hbdragon88 02:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones has an EU too, and both Marion and Willie appear in it. As does Marcus Brody, and Sallah, and even Belloq. The problem we have here is that no-one has got around to adding any extra info over and above the film for Willie. Look at Belloq's page, for example, and you'll see that I've started to rectify that for these characters.86.129.134.160 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well I was vaguely aware of that, having partially read the Indiana Jones page and learning that the film trilogy is Chapters 23-25 of Jones' life. Okay, Scott/Marion has been dropped. What about Mola Ram and Short Round, though? Does Ram have a back story? hbdragon88 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that each Indiana Jones character should have his own article, and thus, I will remove the merge tags. --David Pro 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, David. Would someone please voice his/her opinion? hbdragon88 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

PG-13 (Theater) Vs. PG (VHS) Ratings

Shouldn't there be a note that the VHS release only has a PG rating? My family and friends have several copies of The Temple of Doom on VHS, and they're all rated PG, not PG-13. Jay (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for it? ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The film is still rated PG: it was the controversy over this that led the MPAA to create a middleground for other films released afterwards. Alientraveller (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ColdFusion650: I can provide a photo of it if you want. Alientraveller: So IJ: ToD itself was never actually rated PG-13? Jay (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a picture of anything for Temple of Doom (a commercial, a poster, etc) showing that it was rating PG-13 at any time, I would love to see it. Something like that could definitely be included in the article. As far as I know, it has always been PG. However, retroactive re-ratings are not unheard of. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant a photo to show my copy was PG, not PG-13. I think I misread something, as I thought the article meant that when it first came out, it was PG-13, and then somewhere down the line, for some unknown reason, it was labeled as PG on the VHS copies I've seen/own. The way the article reads, I took it to mean, they didn't want it to get rated R, and the MPAA wouldn't rate it PG, so they ended up creating the PG-13 rating. I must have misread it the first time though, as I just re-read it, and it doesn't come across like that as much as I thought it did. Jay (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Manos

Did anybody besides me see similarities between Mola Ram, the evil high priest and the Master from Manos: The Hands of Fate. Could one have inspired the other? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See Mola Ram's space on the encyclopedia. He is a mix of different religions. Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Racism

I seem to recall some accusations of racism or stereotyping in regards to the portrayal of Shortround and the some of the Indian characters. Does anyone else have this recollection, or aware of any still existing potential sources? 66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Conflict diamonds

It's probably too close to "original research" to add, but this movie struck me as one of the earliest manifestation of the idea of "conflict diamonds", since the children were pressed into slave labor by an army to dig for the stones, which Jones and girlfriend make a big point to mention contain diamonds inside them. Bear in mind that it was filmed in 1984 - while I think there must have been some reports about sinister conditions of kids mining diamonds in Liberia back then, it was before the civil war or any of the major publicity of this issue. Wnt (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues with production

Wanted to start up a convo here. Earlier I removed a line about Lucas and Spielberg "aiming" to make the movie darker because of their divorces, there was no source. A short while ago, the line was readded, with a source. The problem is, the souce of a "making of" DVD and it's impossible to check. Such a statement about how the two men were reacting to their own divorces has borderline BLP concerns, so I'd like to discuss exactly what is being said in the DVD. First, does it say they were "aiming" to make it darker, or rather the movie just became darker because of their moods. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already sourced, and not by the DVD. Alientraveller (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought though... the source says they aimed to make it "a little more edgy", but it ended up darker than they thought it would be. We have the paraphrasing a little off, a small point, but important regardless. Would you like to change it, or should I? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The DVD says specifically that they aimed to make it darker because of their personal lives, and it ended up even darker than they originally intended. They say it was similar to the "dark second act of Star Wars movies", The Empire Strikes Back. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, but here we have a reviewable online text source that just has them saying "a little edgy". Either way, I think it needs to be noted that it came out darker than they intended, something that is lost in the current way it is written. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I modded it just a little, take a look. I think it basically says what we agree on, and is backed by the text source. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I copyedited it myself: "Steven Spielberg and George Lucas attributed the film's tone, which was darker than Raiders of the Lost Ark, to their personal moods following their respective break-up and divorce." Alientraveller (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. That is an accurate statement. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Category deletion

Contributors to this article may be interested in this category deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_31#Category:Indiana_Jones_films. Miami33139 (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)