Temple is First?

[Henry-Defance]

So according to the Lost Journal, Temple is chronologically first in the trilogy, and the diamond Lao Che has is the peacocks eye from the chronicles.

[muttjones]

i know you are new and all but, this is an indy forum. Of course we know that.:p

[metalinvader]

Shanghai, 1935

South America, 1936

Yup,Temple comes first.I never knew this was a problem with people as the film clearly states it.Oh well.

[Joosse]

I thought this was common knowledge.

It does, by the way, also show that George Lucas can actually make a good prequel.

Too bad he had lost that skill when he started working on the Star Wars ones....:sleep:

[Stoo]

So according to the Lost Journal, Temple is chronologically first in the trilogy...To quote Mutt: "You're a...teacher?":p Welcome to The Raven.

[Crack that whip]

I thought this was common knowledge.

It does, by the way, also show that George Lucas can actually make a good prequel.

In a way, actually, most of the whole Indy series does, since pretty much every Indy movie and/or TV show made after Raiders of the Lost Ark is at least partly a prequel to something that's come before - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is set entirely before Raiders, the first several minutes of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is set before either of the first two movies, most of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles / The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones takes place before anything in the three movies except the Crusade prologue (and the segments with the youngest young Indy take place even before that), and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull takes place before the old Indy bookends that originally framed most episodes of the Chronicles.

Indiana Jones - prequel city!

[Nurhachi1991]

So according to the Lost Journal, Temple is chronologically first in the trilogy, and the diamond Lao Che has is the peacocks eye from the chronicles.


You just figured this out now?

[Professor Jones]

Dear Henry-Defance, I quote from your profile:

throughout my life my interests have changed a great deal excluding my love for the Indiana jones franchise.

1. You should have not waited to read the Indiana Jones lost Journal to discover that TOD comes before ROTLA, if yours it's true love!!! ;)

2. It's Henri Defense, by the way.:o

Anyway, welcome on (the) board!

[Henry-Defance]

Dear Henry-Defance, I quote from your profile:



1. You should have not waited to read the Indiana Jones lost Journal to discover that TOD comes before ROTLA, if yours it's true love!!! ;)

2. It's Henri Defense, by the way.:o

Anyway, welcome on (the) board!

Yeah that spelling was already taken. I'm just recently catching up on the reading. Growing up I only watched the films and the series.

Thanks for the warm welcome though.

[TheMutt92]

Don't feel bad. I owned the trilogy on vhs, and the subtitles were so small and distorted on that that it made it seem like ROTLA was set in 1938, the same year as LC! :p

[Goonie]

I was under the impression My First Adventure was first. ;)

[Kevin]

I was watching these movies before I could read, so I never knew that TOD was a prequel. So, I've always considered TOD to be a sequel, and I actually like it better that way.

[TheMutt92]

I was watching these movies before I could read, so I never knew that TOD was a prequel. So, I've always considered TOD to be a sequel, and I actually like it better that way.

Personally, I feel it works better to have LC come off of ROTLA as opposed to TOD, it just feel more connective. Don't know how ROTLA feels though coming off TOD (I still have yet to perform that Indy marathon idea I came up w/ two months back!)

[muttjones]

I was under the impression My First Adventure was first. ;)

hahaha. very funny. :p

[Kevin]

Personally, I feel it works better to have LC come off of ROTLA as opposed to TOD, it just feel more connective.

I think the release order (ROTLA, TOD, then LC) makes more sense for the character arc of Indiana Jones.

In ROTLA he goes after artifacts for the purpose of contributing them to a museum's collection. Obviously the money doesn't hurt and the thrill of the hunt helps break up the monotony of academic life, but I feel like ROTLA Indy's main interest is getting important relics into the hands of a museum (this fits nicely with the ethos of the young Indy we see in the beginning of LC). Also, it is clear that ROTLA Indy does not yet believe in the supernatural power of artifacts.

However, at the end of ROTLA, Indy and the museum get screwed out of the Ark by the US government. Jaded by this experience, Indy goes mercenary. At the beginning of TOD, we see him as essentially an archeologist for hire, willing to trade important artifacts for other relics with a higher dollar value. However, his experiences during TOD make him realize that there is more to relics and artifacts than "fortune and glory." Someone in another thread likened TOD to Indy's "descent into hell," wherein he is punished for his mercenary ways, and is ultimately redeemed when he rescues the children and returns the stone to the village. With regard to the supernatural, it's not necessarily that Indy doesn't believe in the power of the stones, but he is more interested (at first) in the value attached to them.

Thus, by the time we get to LC, Indy has come full circle, and is once again obtaining artifacts for humanitarian (and in the case of the Cross of Coronado, personal) reasons. His experiences in the first two films have opened his mind to the possibility that there are supernatural powers attached to artifacts (note that he asks Marcus what he believes about the Grail). Thus, while the historical significance of the Grail is important to Indy, he is also clearly interested in keeping a potentially dangerous weapon out of the hands of the Nazis.

By the time we get to KOTCS, archeology has changed, and so has Indy. The focus of archeology is no longer on obtaining important relics and expanding museum collections, but rather on studying artifacts (often inconsequential in and of themselves) to get a better understanding the the society that produced them. Thus, by 1957, Indy is no longer looking for golden idols, but pieces of pottery (which are promptly smashed by Dovchenko). The search for the Crystal Skull is prompted more by the necessity to help a friend in danger (Oxley).

Anyway, that's my take on the matter. I should probably mention that I haven't read the novels or watched the Young Indy Chronicles; my thoughts are based solely on the contents of the four films.

[Stoo]

Nice post, Kevin, but if one chooses to ignore the on-screen dates, then the series could also work with "Doom" being 3rd!:eek:

[Crack that whip]

Interestingly (well, to me, anyway; YMMV :p ), the release order of the movies -

Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

- is exactly the reverse of the alphabetical order of their titles:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Raiders of the Lost Ark

The significance of this is, of course, nil - that is, unless the pattern is being actively adhered to rather than simply happening by chance, in which case we have a vital clue to the title of Indy V: the first word after "Indiana Jones and the" will begin with a letter before "K" in the alphabet! :eek: Quick, someone contact AICN...

[Kevin]

Nice post, Kevin, but if one chooses to ignore the on-screen dates, then the series could also work with "Doom" being 3rd!:eek:

You mean this order: ROTLA, LC, TOD? I'm not so sure. I think there is a disconnect if we have Indy riding into the sunset with his dad in LC, followed by Indy as a mercenary tomb raider at the beginning of TOD. What is the motivation, the reason for the change? The reason is given at the end of Raiders. The government told Indy "Forget the artifact, take the money", and Indy took that message to heart; hence his willingness to sell Nurhachi's ashes to a gangster at TOD's opening. It's all hypothetical, but still fun to think about.

[chr0n0naut]

When I was a kid (and thus before I paid attention to the dates) I thought ToD came after. This was reenforced when Indy used the same trick on the Thugeee guards as he did with the Cairo Swordman, only to find his gun wasn't in his holster. :gun:

I got the impression he was using the same trick twice so it made sense that he did Raiders first. I'm pretty sure this was put in for the fans but did create confusion for me when I finally noticed the dates. :confused:

[Raider Indy]

I think the release order (ROTLA, TOD, then LC) makes more sense for the character arc of Indiana Jones.

In ROTLA he goes after artifacts for the purpose of contributing them to a museum's collection. Obviously the money doesn't hurt and the thrill of the hunt helps break up the monotony of academic life, but I feel like ROTLA Indy's main interest is getting important relics into the hands of a museum (this fits nicely with the ethos of the young Indy we see in the beginning of LC). Also, it is clear that ROTLA Indy does not yet believe in the supernatural power of artifacts.

However, at the end of ROTLA, Indy and the museum get screwed out of the Ark by the US government. Jaded by this experience, Indy goes mercenary. At the beginning of TOD, we see him as essentially an archeologist for hire, willing to trade important artifacts for other relics with a higher dollar value. However, his experiences during TOD make him realize that there is more to relics and artifacts than "fortune and glory." Someone in another thread likened TOD to Indy's "descent into hell," wherein he is punished for his mercenary ways, and is ultimately redeemed when he rescues the children and returns the stone to the village. With regard to the supernatural, it's not necessarily that Indy doesn't believe in the power of the stones, but he is more interested (at first) in the value attached to them.

Thus, by the time we get to LC, Indy has come full circle, and is once again obtaining artifacts for humanitarian (and in the case of the Cross of Coronado, personal) reasons. His experiences in the first two films have opened his mind to the possibility that there are supernatural powers attached to artifacts (note that he asks Marcus what he believes about the Grail). Thus, while the historical significance of the Grail is important to Indy, he is also clearly interested in keeping a potentially dangerous weapon out of the hands of the Nazis.

By the time we get to KOTCS, archeology has changed, and so has Indy. The focus of archeology is no longer on obtaining important relics and expanding museum collections, but rather on studying artifacts (often inconsequential in and of themselves) to get a better understanding the the society that produced them. Thus, by 1957, Indy is no longer looking for golden idols, but pieces of pottery (which are promptly smashed by Dovchenko). The search for the Crystal Skull is prompted more by the necessity to help a friend in danger (Oxley).

Anyway, that's my take on the matter. I should probably mention that I haven't read the novels or watched the Young Indy Chronicles; my thoughts are based solely on the contents of the four films.

I love this...it makes ABSOLUTE sense :up:

[Grizzlor]

I agree, Temple was composed and shot as a sequel. I have never heard a good reason from Steven or George as to why it was given an earlier date.

[The Golden Idol]

I agree, Temple was composed and shot as a sequel. I have never heard a good reason from Steven or George as to why it was given an earlier date.

They didn't want the baggage from the first, and didn't want Marion to return, so they made it a prequel.

[Udvarnoky]

I agree, Temple was composed and shot as a sequel.

I agree. Even though the movie takes place before Raiders, it's pretty clear to me that it's supposed to be watched after Raiders.

As for why they set it before the first movie, in addition to what The Golden Idol said, there were thematic motivations behind setting it before Raiders. The fist half of Temple of Doom shows Indy as a deadly, roguish Bogart/Bond type of character who's more interested in money and fame than anything else. By the end of the story, he finds his morals in rescuing the kids and becomes the character that he is in the other movies. The idea behind Indy in Temple of Doom is that he's basically Belloq, and the story goes that in early incarnations of Temple's story Belloq was actually going to be in it as Indy's sidekick, as they were still friends at that point. The conversation between Belloq and Indy in Cairo in Raiders where he says "You and I are very much alike" alludes to a past relationship between the two that was broken by a difference in principles, and Temple of Doom basically serves to explain when exactly Indy saw the light.

The thing I've always been bothered about is that Last Crusade's prologue, fun though it is, sort of ruins Temple's character arc. Indy is depicted as a literal boyscout do-gooder who has inherent moral principles, believing that the Cross of Coronado "belongs in a museum" even as a kid. They way I try to explain it is by saying that Indy going rogue was an attempt to impress/shame his neglectful father, or perhaps we're supposed to read that the robber guy who gives him the fedora has set an example that he'll follow for a lot of his adult life.

[Crack that whip]

The thing I've always been bothered about is that Last Crusade's prologue, fun though it is, sort of ruins Temple's character arc. Indy is depicted as a literal boyscout do-gooder who has inherent moral principles, believing that the Cross of Coronado "belongs in a museum" even as a kid. They way I try to explain it is by saying that Indy going rogue was an attempt to impress/shame his neglectful father, or perhaps we're supposed to read that the robber guy who gives him the fedora has set an example that he'll follow for a lot of his adult life.

While Indy has always been a bit of a rogue, I never got the impression he was ever meant to be anything other than basically good at his core, even if a bit cynical and mercenary at points. Certainly he's not supposed to have ever been an out-and-out villain, of course (and yes, I do know you didn't say or mean that he was; I'm just pointing it out).

That said, if you're unacquainted with The (Adventures of) Young Indiana Jones (Chronicles), this might be one particular good reason for you to check it out (though not the primary one, IMO). Among other things, it does a remarkable job of portraying a young Indy's progression from a highly idealistic youth to a more cynical, world-weary one, with experiences in WWI and the politics surrounding it that provide all the explanation one might want and then some as to how/why he might undergo such a dramatic perceived shift in character.

[Udvarnoky]

I'm with you on Indy never being someone truly villainous at his core. If anything, these evaluations cause you to see Belloq in a more sympathetic light, since it's definitely implied that he and Indy were very much alike in their time. Belloq does not like the Nazis, but unlike Indy he is willing to view them as a necessary evil to get his personal agenda accomplished. That doesn't necessarily making him a good guy, but certainly complex and not necessarily evil. These are adjectives I'd probably use to describe the Indy we see in the first half of Temple. I've personally always found Indy as a character much more fun in that movie than any of the others, because for the immature adolescent in me it is still sort of satisfying in that comic book hero way seeing a two-fisted badass cut his way through a constantly life-threatening adventure with desires that boil down to money and women. Plus, Temple of Doom really is Ford at his Indy best, in my opinion.

[Grizzlor]

Yeah, I always felt Temple's Indy was much more of a rough cut of the character, whereas he is more polished in Raiders. I too found it a bit out of character for Indy to be selling off a rare archeological find for a diamond. I suppose, as Chattar Lal said in the film, Indy spent much of the time between YIJC and TOD "robbing graves."

[aJakeinthePlane]

thats true he almost got his misunderstanding cut off.:o