Why is Temple of Doom a prequel?

[oki9Sedo]

Its got absolutely no connection to Raiders of the Lost Ark in any way whatsoever, so they might as well have just made it a sequel and set it in 1937.

[ClintonHammond]

Have you not seen the movie?

The Indy in Temple is different from the Indy in Raiders (And WAY different from the Indy in Last Crusade)

If I thought that George, Steven and Harry did it on purpose I could go on for a long time about the evolution of the Indy character.... But I don't.... I think it was just dumb luck that Indy did as well as he did... even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.

[oki9Sedo]

Have you not seen the movie?

The Indy in Temple is different from the Indy in Raiders (And WAY different from the Indy in Last Crusade)

If I thought that George, Steven and Harry did it on purpose I could go on for a long time about the evolution of the Indy character.... But I don't.... I think it was just dumb luck that Indy did as well as he did... even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.

Sure, Indy's a lot more light-hearted and fun in Temple of Doom than in Raiders. He was very serious and grim in that film most of the time. So what?

[Moedred]

Raiders is set in 1936. The Battle of Shanghai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai) was lost to Japan in 1937, so I think that's why Doom is set in 1935.

[IrishLuck1980]

I think Lucas was smokin grass.

[oki9Sedo]

Why making Temple of Doom a prequel doesn't make sense:

1. Harrison Ford has aged three years, and he's supposed to look one year younger.

2. The plot of Temple of Doom has absolutely nothing to do with Raiders. If Indy had died in Raiders, then obviously they would have had to make Temple of Doom a prequel.

3. "I don't believe in magic, alot of superstitious hocus pocus"-spoken by Indy in Raiders. Voodoism, Sankara Stones and possession didn't quite do the trick then.

George Lucas still doesn't get it either. If its to do with them wanting to do an adventure not involving Nazis, they didn't have to set it before Raiders to accomplish that, they could have just set it in 1937 India rather than 1935 India.

As for the Battle of Shanghai argument, they could have set it in 1937 before that battle.

[quigonkyle]

A reason for it being a prequel could have been the relationship with Indy and Karen Allen

[oki9Sedo]

A reason for it being a prequel could have been the relationship with Indy and Karen Allen

Well Last Crusade was a sequel, and it didn't have Karen Allen.

[Grizzlor]

You also have to question why The Last Crusade was set in 1938, 8 years after Raiders was made, but only 2 years in the films? I know that the real life German Otto Rahn who looked for the Grail died in 1939, but the historical realities were still in place by at least 1943, when Italy was seized by Germany and the war in Europe really was getting larger. There was no need to refer to the area as the Republic of Hatay, which lasted 9 months, but simply Turkey.

[oki9Sedo]

You also have to question why The Last Crusade was set in 1938, 8 years after Raiders was made, but only 2 years in the films? I know that the real life German Otto Rahn who looked for the Grail died in 1939, but the historical realities were still in place by at least 1943, when Italy was seized by Germany and the war in Europe really was getting larger. There was no need to refer to the area as the Republic of Hatay, which lasted 9 months, but simply Turkey.

Because WWII began in 1939. They wanted it set before the war, but during the rising of the Nazi regime, like Raiders.

[René Belloq]

Why is Temple of Doom a prequel?

Because Temple is set in 1935 and Raiders in 1936.

[Fish1941]

The only ones who can answer this question are George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. And quite frankly, I don't care.

[CMNeir]

I always considered it to be a sequel even trhough it displayed the year in letters at the bottom of the screen in the beginning.

When they released the movie, the trailer said nothing of it being a prequel it made it sound more like a sequel. So im sure there alot of people who think it is a sequel rather than prequel.

[René Belloq]

even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.

What is with you and the blind squirrel? That's at least the second time you've posted that line.

[ClintonHammond]

Shows what you know... That phrase comes up an awful lot in relation to Indy...

[Vlad Dracula]

Give him a bit more back story?

[Dr.Sartorius]

Its got absolutely no connection to Raiders of the Lost Ark in any way whatsoever, so they might as well have just made it a sequel and set it in 1937.

A more intriguing question would be why ISN'T Casino Royale a prequel?

[JK_Antwon]

Have you not seen the movie?

The Indy in Temple is different from the Indy in Raiders (And WAY different from the Indy in Last Crusade)

If I thought that George, Steven and Harry did it on purpose I could go on for a long time about the evolution of the Indy character.... But I don't.... I think it was just dumb luck that Indy did as well as he did... even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.

I hate to admit it, but ClintonHammond makes sense.:whip:

[Baron Brunwald]

Because Temple is set in 1935 and Raiders in 1936.

Hahaha, nicely put.

[James]

I once read that Spielberg/Lucas didn't want Indy mixing it up with Nazis again, so they just set it before Raiders. I really don't think there was much more to it than that.

[Adolf Hitler]

Ok, I've long wondered about this, but why is Doom set before Raiders? I've personally never seen an explanation for it and would be very grateful if anyone has any production notes of making of material that gives some sort of answer to this!

[Deckard]

Bcuz it was a cool idea. Maybe the first prequel? Not 100 % sure about that tho.

[ResidentAlien]

Bcuz it was a cool idea. Maybe the first prequel? Not 100 % sure about that tho.


Haha... no.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prequel

[Deckard]

Haha... no.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prequel

Thanks, cool page and something Ive often wondered about. I dunno about GF2, granted it has alot of time spent on Vito's Flashbacks, but rly, its Michael's story..

[salussolia]

Its becuase they wanted a new indy girl and did not want ot explain what happened to marion

[Adolf Hitler]

Its becuase they wanted a new indy girl and did not want ot explain what happened to marion
Um, so it was too hard to say "she left me"?

[salussolia]

Um, so it was too hard to say "she left me"?
maybe fan wouldnt be interested and would be wondering y
its best lef to your imagination

[Osceola]

On the DVD extras they also say that they made it a prequel to explain why there were no Nazis. Their idea was that after Raiders, Nazis would be consistent enemies, but they didn't want them in Temple of Doom. Last Crusade, a sequel, has them.

[Adolf Hitler]

On the DVD extras they also say that they made it a prequel to explain why there were no Nazis. Their idea was that after Raiders, Nazis would be consistent enemies, but they didn't want them in Temple of Doom. Last Crusade, a sequel, has them.
Lucky KOTCS doesn't ;)

[Grizzlor]

On the DVD extras they also say that they made it a prequel to explain why there were no Nazis. Their idea was that after Raiders, Nazis would be consistent enemies, but they didn't want them in Temple of Doom. Last Crusade, a sequel, has them.

That doesn't really make sense because the Germans never encroached into India (a British colony), and the closest the Japanese got was just over the far eastern border with Burma, in 1943.

The reason I always thought was that they were showing that Indy was all about "fortune and glory," and I guess grew as a person more, prior to Raiders. Then again, we never quite got to know how he went from Mr. Goodie Two-Shoes in the Young Indy chronicles to treasure hunter in TOD and Raiders.

However, in terms of history, the Japanese unleashed an all out attack on middle and southern China (had lost northern Manchuria in 1931) in the second half of 1937. That was known as the Battle of Shanghai, in which they bombed Shanghai into rubble. So ToD still could have been placed in the early half of 1937, following Raiders in 1936, with Indy in China looking for the Nurhaci in the interim.

[Osceola]

That doesn't really make sense because the Germans never encroached into India
Not the official German army as an invasion. However, the Nazis also didn't made an official invasion into Egypt in 1936. However, in the film, a small force protecting the Nazi archaeologists (who really did go all over the world looking for evidence of a pure superior Aryan race) were there.

[chemeleon26]

This thread is really interesting. I didn't even know that ToD was a prequel.

Anyway, I was thinking of the swordsman scene in ROTLA wherein Indy just shoots him nonchalantly. In ToD, there were 2 swordsmen and ,as we all know, he tried to do the same thing but the gun wasn't there.

If you watched the movie in the order of ToD then ROTLA, this particular scene wouldn't have worked that well in my opinion.

[CaliforniaJones]

Plus the music in that scene references Raiders. It doesn't work if you watch Temple first.:down:

[oki9Sedo]

No, it works far, far better if you watch Raiders first.

[Adolf Hitler]

This thread is really interesting. I didn't even know that ToD was a prequel.

Anyway, I was thinking of the swordsman scene in ROTLA wherein Indy just shoots him nonchalantly. In ToD, there were 2 swordsmen and ,as we all know, he tried to do the same thing but the gun wasn't there.

If you watched the movie in the order of ToD then ROTLA, this particular scene wouldn't have worked that well in my opinion.
Well, that's the beauty of cinema, no?;)

[Grizzlor]

Thankfully, Mr. Spielberg did not go back and edit Raiders in order to satisfy ToD.

[Osceola]

You know Lucas wanted to. He can't ever stop fiddling.

[Indy's Fist]

The only thing that makes it a prequel is the year. TOD is 1935 and Raiders is 1936. As far as the sword scene that's not a big deal. It's an inside joke really, nothing more.

[Kyle]

I don't really think its a big deal. The fact is...they're all great movies no matter what order they are in.

The whole swordfighter scene in Raiders and then the scene in TOD does raise questions...but as was said before...it's an inside joke :)

:hat:

[Michael24]

On the topic of TOD being a prequel..... Was Belloq ever rumored? I recall reading somewhere once that "Paul Freeman was expected to reprise his role in the sequel, though the idea was eventually dropped." Since the "sequel" turned out to be a prequel, it would have been possible for Belloq to be present again. Anybody else ever hear about this?

[No Ticket]

On the topic of TOD being a prequel..... Was Belloq ever rumored? I recall reading somewhere once that "Paul Freeman was expected to reprise his role in the sequel, though the idea was eventually dropped." Since the "sequel" turned out to be a prequel, it would have been possible for Belloq to be present again. Anybody else ever hear about this?

No, but if it's true I imagine they didn't do it so as not to confuse people into wondering how on earth he didn't die after his head exploded.

[oki9Sedo]

It seems to me that there are multiple reasons given as to why they made Temple of Doom a prequel rather than sequel.

The "We wanted to do an Indy film without Nazis" isn't valid in my mind. They could have set the film in 1937 and still had the Thuggees as the villains.

The reasons that make sense to me are Indy's backstory as a more mercenary-type figure, a loveable rogue and all that, and also the fact that they didn't want to have to explain Marion's absence; if it were set after Raiders audiences might be wondering what become of her, whereas if its set before that problem doesn't arise. You might say, "Well then why don't they ask where Willie's gone in Raiders?". The answer is because Raiders is alread rooted in people's minds and the won't criticize that film for not explaining it.

[Darth Vile]

For a follow on movie, story wise, where do you go after Raiders? After all, Indiana now has the rekindled love of a good woman, has just retrieved what would be one of the ancient wonders of the world, has defeated some of Hitler’s major cronies and has seen livin’ proof that there is some higher being/consciousness at work.

It’s clear that whilst TOD was more spectacular in scope i.e. bigger set pieces, the story was actually smaller in scale. Lucas and Spielberg just must of thought, “if we set it before Raiders we don’t have to follow up on the events of the first movie”. Thus alleviating some of the points above. Sounds reasonable to me.

In hindsight though, because TOD is a self-contained movie (similar to a James Bond adventure), it works on both levels i.e. as a sequel and as a prequel. Actually giving it a specific date in which events occur is largely academic (unless it features an historic event that is).

[WillKill4Food]

However, in the film, a small force protecting the Nazi archaeologists (who really did go all over the world looking for evidence of a pure superior Aryan race) were there.
Weren't the (actual) Aryans from around India?:confused:

[Lao Che Pun]

Weren't the (actual) Aryans from around India?:confused:

Last I heard, the studies of the Aryans (specifically the origins of the Proto-Indo-European Language speakers) originated out of the 7th century B.C.E., in the Anatolia area - which is modern day Turkey. But of course, anything that predates that far back in history is only theory and not well-substantiated.

[gear guardian]

It was unique to set ToD before RotLA. It was cool.

BTW Adolf, it is nice to see you again...

WHOA!! WATCH IT WITH THAT SWASTICA!

[Niteshade007]

It seems to me that there are multiple reasons given as to why they made Temple of Doom a prequel rather than sequel.

The "We wanted to do an Indy film without Nazis" isn't valid in my mind. They could have set the film in 1937 and still had the Thuggees as the villains.

The reasons that make sense to me are Indy's backstory as a more mercenary-type figure, a loveable rogue and all that, and also the fact that they didn't want to have to explain Marion's absence; if it were set after Raiders audiences might be wondering what become of her, whereas if its set before that problem doesn't arise. You might say, "Well then why don't they ask where Willie's gone in Raiders?". The answer is because Raiders is alread rooted in people's minds and the won't criticize that film for not explaining it.

I agree on your thoughts, and would say the same thing myself about the Indy girls, with the exception of the fact that Marion is completely absent from the third film. While this makes sense in the real world, it had, after all, been 8 years since Raiders, and her absense in the film's prequel would make it alright within the audience's mind that she wouldn't return, within the context of the film world, it's an interesting choice. A mere two years later, this love that was rekindled has already burned out. Obviously they couldn't fit Marion into the Last Crusade script, too many returning characters and two love interests would make it too complicated, but I do wonder IF it were possible, how the film would have turned out. It might have hurt Temple of Doom even more, however, if by completely ostracizing it and making it a totally seperate entity.

Anyway, I'm just rambling at this point.

[indyflys_solo]

Lucky KOTCS doesn't ;)

But Commies, on the other hand, are a different story altogether.

[indyflys_solo]

I agree on your thoughts, and would say the same thing myself about the Indy girls, with the exception of the fact that Marion is completely absent from the third film. While this makes sense in the real world, it had, after all, been 8 years since Raiders, and her absense in the film's prequel would make it alright within the audience's mind that she wouldn't return, within the context of the film world, it's an interesting choice. A mere two years later, this love that was rekindled has already burned out. Obviously they couldn't fit Marion into the Last Crusade script, too many returning characters and two love interests would make it too complicated, but I do wonder IF it were possible, how the film would have turned out. It might have hurt Temple of Doom even more, however, if by completely ostracizing it and making it a totally seperate entity.

Anyway, I'm just rambling at this point.

I like your rambling. It makes sense. (And Marion's coming back for KOTCS!):D

[Cagefighterkip]

Because Temple is set in 1935 and Raiders in 1936.

lol touche'