Watching in Chronological Order or Release Order

[MolaRam2]

I'm excluding KOTCS from this on purpose since this forum is for the trilogy, it isn't an oversight.

Chronologically the films should be viewed in this order: ToD, ROTLA, LC.

If you view them in release order they should be viewed in this order: ROTLA, TOD, LC.

I perfer to view them in release order. ROTLA and LC are too similar to watch back to back in chronological order. Putting ToD in the middle mixes things up a bit.

[No Ticket]

Start at the end of LC and watch it backwards on rewind... repeat with Raiders and TOD last.

Followed up by YIJC series on fast forward.

(I guess you can't really call it rewind anymore since there's nothing to wind on discs, haha)

[The_Raiders]

Whenever I watch the trilogy I always prefer the chronological order, I'm not too sure why, but that's just what I prefer. :p

[Dust McAlan]

Temple of Doom, Raiders, Last Crusade.

That way, with Crystal Skull, there will (hopefully) be a couple of darker end caps to the series, chronologically speaking.

[jonesissparrow]

I'm kind of old fashion so I always watch it chronologically because too me it makes sense because TOD is set in 1935 and ROTLA is set in 1936 and LC is set in 1938. I'm the same way with the Star Wars saga I go to the prequels first then the original beauties.

[UltimateManGod]

I'm a chronological guy, if I plan on watching all three in a relative close amount of time. Not really sure why I prefer it that way though. I just like thing in some logical order sometimes, and going by internal chronology is logical enough.

[Crack that whip]

I'm currently attempting to get through all the previous Indy adventures on DVD in order of internal chronology before going to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull right now, actually (so, the three volumes of Young Indy in order, then Temple of Doom, etc.), though I'm not sure I have time enough to finish between now and my mignight showing. :eek:

How anyone should watch these is entirely up to the viewer, of course. It's a matter of personal preference.

I personally seldom have time to watch more than one in a viewing session, but when I do I sometimes go in release order, but usually prefer internal chronology.

[Vendetta08]

I perfer to view them in release order. ROTLA and LC are too similar to watch back to back in chronological order. Putting ToD in the middle mixes things up a bit.

Same here.

[Goodsport]

I'm excluding KOTCS from this on purpose since this forum is for the trilogy, it isn't an oversight.

It wouldn't matter even if you did include KotCS since it clearly takes place after the three previous films. ;)

But for the record, I like watching them in release order.


-G

[Major West]

Release order, otherwise the biggest gag in ToD doesn't make sense.

And the only reason ToD was set a year before Raiders was so they didn't have to explain what happened with Marion. So I don't see any big need to watch ToD first.

[marky_77]

i tend to go raiders then crusade, raiders crusade :rolleyes:

but if i did watch them all back to back i would watch them as they came out on the silver screen. the 1936 to 1935 doesn't bother me, i class them as 2 different films regardless of when they were set. i don't like to think of the doom exploits coming before raiders. what an awful thought! :sick:

[Young Indy]

I love watching all the YIJ so I also prefer watching the films in chronolgical order.

[Sir Galahad]

I watched the trilogy yesterday in chronological order, but I prefer the release order.

[oki9Sedo]

Temple of Doom was made as a prequel to Raiders, but not with the intention that you see it first. It was made with the intention that you see it second, having already seen what Indy will be like and therefore get to see some interesting backstory.

[Billy Ray]

Just watched all three this past weekend. My wife and kids wanted to watch all three before KOTCS and I figured we should watch them in the order they came out.

[oki9Sedo]

Just watched all three this past weekend. My wife and kids wanted to watch all three before KOTCS and I figured we should watch them in the order they came out.

Which is actually the film-maker's intended way, unlike the Star Wars prequels, where Lucas wants people to see I-III before IV-VI.

Temple of Doom was not designed with the intention of seeing it first. It was designed with the intention of seeing it second IN LIGHT of what we have seen in Raiders.

[ReggieSnake]

Release order. The three films subscribe in a way to the classic trilogy setup, without an actual continuity in storyline :

Raiders: Introduction, Adventure
Temple: Darker, Intense
Last Crusade: Meaning, Finality, Tying the loose ends together

I prefer to watch them in that order as well.

[LostArk]

I watch them in release order. Raiders is nidge better than Temple and its the perfect way to kick off a marathon. As oki9Sedo said, we aren't supposed to watch Temple first because we don't know what Indy does or anything and the intro would bore a newcomer to the series.

To each his/her own, I guess.

[Crack that whip]

It doesn't really matter for most purposes, though as noted earlier, I did lead myself into Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull by watching all Indy's previous adventures, in the order of the internal chronology (more or less) - so, going all the way through The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones and then to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and so on. It was immensely satisfying.

Watching them all in this way, with so much material to get through, obviated any impetus to view the first three movies as a "trilogy" with an ostensibly darker middle chapter, so this order was just fine. If I'd been watching just the three movies, of course, it's true that Temple assumes audience familiarity with Raiders even if it takes place before it, and there's no real need to watch them in order, so the release order might here be preferable, but again, it doesn't really matter.

[NoCamels]

Normally I watch the movies in release order, but watching them in chronological order is interesting once in a while.

I did find watching the completely chronological Indy-thon (all Young Indy episodes and the movies in chronological order of events) to be really interesting. The beginning of Last Crusade actually makes some kind of sense between the last Corey Carrier episode (Journey of Radiance?) and the first Sean Patrick Flanery episode (Spring Break Adventure). I too found it kind of satsifying.

[IndyFanSince3]

I prefer watching the films in chronological order.

ToD is my least favorite movie, so I find it nice to get it out of the way first.

It's also pretty interesting to see how Indy matures throughout the films. You really don't get to see that if you watch them in the order they were released.

[Goonie]

Ever since the first volume of Indy came out back in the fall, I've watched them all in chronologial order, including their corresponding documentaries. I then watched the films in Doom, Raiders, Crusade order before Skull came out. All I got to say is that's a lot of Indy. I'm ready to switchover to another franchise, X-files or Mummy, for a little while.

[Katarn07]

You don't need to watch them in order, even if you're new to the series. I saw LC first, then ToD, and then RotLA. Nowadays? Whichever one I'm in the mood for I watch. I don't need to see all three in a short amount of time as I do with the SW or LotR films.

[Mrs_Fedora]

It depends on what mood i'm in i guess (a 'Doom' mood or a 'Crusade' mood ;) ) Over the past 2 weeks i watched them backwards and that was fun too :up:

[Turtle]

I watch them in Chronological order. However, if I were showing them to someone who had never seen them before, I would suggest that they watch them in release order, simply to get some of the gags in Temple of Doom, where you have to have seen Raiders.

[Bullwhip]

Chronological, story-wise.

[Ignatius Stone]

Same with the SW movies, do it to suit whatever mood you're in. Both ways have their advantages.

[lancetoris]

The beauty of the three is that it doesn't really matter. I usually watch them in release order though.

[LostArk]

Chronological, story-wise.

It doesn't make any difference...It's not like the events of Temple are referenced to in Raiders. It's like it never really happened.

[Michael24]

Occasionally I've had little mini-marathons where I watch a certain series in order. Actually haven't done that with Indy (yet), but I usually just watch whichever one I'm in the mood for. Maybe when KOTCS comes out on DVD I'll have an Indy-a-thon and watch them all in a row, though I'll have to decide if I want release order or chronological order. Not that it really makes much of a difference in regards to Raders and Temple of Doom, as LostArk said.

[Crack that whip]

For that matter, it's not really all that often that I have enough time to watch two or more of the movies really close together anyway. I was able to do so with the entire run recently (all of The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones followed by the three original movies and capped with my first viewing of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in internal chronological order), but that was a rare and special event I made a point of making time for, prompted by the release of the new movie.

[The Stranger]

Now that you make me think about it... I usually watch them in chronological order. "Temple of Doom" being the first.

[TheMutt92]

I put down chronological order. But then again, I havn't really quite watched the series in any particular order at one time. But if I were showing the series off to a first timer, I would go in order of release (give them a better sense of the series. Not that TOD isn't a good first experience, it just seems better to show them off how they were made).

[Insomniac]

release order

[Swindle]

They are very episodic. There are some people not paying close attention to the dates, who to this very day think ToD happens after Raiders. Seriously, its true.

I actually just got done rewatching them in release order. I've never watch them back-to-back-to-back in chorological order. Not sure why, though I suspect, given that Raiders is my favorite, I'd always want to kick off an Indy-watchathon with it.

[michael]

Release order.

[weaponx24]

i usually go with release order...no particular reason why...

[mattzilla2010]

I prefer watching the films in chronological order.

It's also pretty interesting to see how Indy matures throughout the films. You really don't get to see that if you watch them in the order they were released.

I have always watched them in chronological order, but never really had a reason for it. But I really like your reason, IndyFan, so I think I'll use it from now on.:hat:

But I think release order is better for someone who has never seen them before. Raiders is a much better introduction for those who are unfamiliar with the character. And like others have said, you don't get the "missing-gun-gag" in Temple unless you've seen Raiders.

[TREN KROM]

Release order, don't really know why, I just like it that way.

[indyclone25]

i watch them in chronological order which then make the best story in the middle ( in my opinion)