Bazooka and other heavy ordnance - Empire magazine photos

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Well to be honest if you look back at all the Iniana Jones movies we have:

(Im not strictly defining these but this is what I see when looking back)

Raiders of the Lost Ark- Straight up action adventure

Temple of doom- Darker, more of a horror movie, but not a horror film.

Last Crusade- More of a comedy than the ones before it.

...and now in theory

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- More of a science fiction vibe.

To me this all seems like it will fit well together. Haven't seen "Kingdom" but seems like its just as in place as the previous three.
 

No Ticket

New member
TheLastCrusader said:
You seriously think I didn't knew that? Btw, Temple is a sequel as much as it is a prequel.

I seriously figured you did knew that. I was just messing with you. And, no, it's a prequel. That's like saying The Phantom Menace is just as much a sequel as it is a prequel because it came after ROTJ.

Me thinks we should have an Indiana Jones trivia thread now. haha. If someone makes one... SEARCH FIRST! hahaha.
 

TheLastCrusader

Active member
No Ticket said:
I seriously figured you did knew that. I was just messing with you. And, no, it's a prequel. That's like saying The Phantom Menace is just as much a sequel as it is a prequel because it came after ROTJ.

Me thinks we should have an Indiana Jones trivia thread now. haha. If someone makes one... SEARCH FIRST! hahaha.
Well I think we're all entitled to our opinions :)
Phantom Menace specifically has Episode I in its title, so that's indisputable.
 

No Ticket

New member
TheLastCrusader said:
Well I think we're all entitled to our opinions :)
Phantom Menace specifically has Episode I in its title, so that's indisputable.

I'm pretty sure the opening of TOD says 1935 while ROTLA says 1936. Sure it's not in the title. But... a real fan would have known that right? Right!? haha.

Come to think of it. Now I think it's kind of lame the SW prequels had Episode I/II/III in their titles. I'd rather it just be Star Wars The Phantom Menace or whatever.
 

TheLastCrusader

Active member
No Ticket said:
I'm pretty sure the opening of TOD says 1935 while ROTLA says 1936. Sure it's not in the title. But... a real fan would have known that right? Right!? haha.

Come to think of it. Now I think it's kind of lame the SW prequels had Episode I/II/III in their titles. I'd rather it just be Star Wars The Phantom Menace or whatever.
I've been reading many of your posts and it's as if everything is a joke to you roflol :p
 

TheLastCrusader

Active member
Actually I was correct anyway, because if Temple is a prequel, than Raiders is technically a sequel and so Skull will be the third sequel :p
Life is good...
 

Mutt Williams

New member
TheLastCrusader said:
Actually I was correct anyway, because if Temple is a prequel, than Raiders is technically a sequel and so Skull will be the third sequel :p
Life is good...

You are also correct, sir.
 

No Ticket

New member
TheLastCrusader said:
Actually I was correct anyway, because if Temple is a prequel, than Raiders is technically a sequel and so Skull will be the third sequel :p
Life is good...

Yes yes. But then wouldn't that make TOD not a prequel at all... since it is not taking place before anything but now the first in the series?

... :confused:
 

commontone

New member
TheLastCrusader said:
Ok, so do you think the series will be reinvented with this third sequel? :rolleyes:

Uh, I think you should pry your eyes away from the shiny pretty screen and contemplate the important things in life. Whoa, Nelly!

For the record, the word "sequel" was around long before "prequel." Sequel implies a film that is a purposeful continuation of the same universe as a previous movie--basic story principals, characters, etc. Prequel was apparently invented by George Lucas to describe ToD, so it's more of a neologism. Sequel implies "sequential," meaning in sequence with another movie. Before or after is not really prudent. So I would argue "prequel" is actually a subset of "sequel." ToD is both a sequel and prequel. ;)

OK, I should now probably take my own advice from my first line...
 
Last edited:
TheLastCrusader said:
Ha, that's easy right?
I'd rather have you discussing something instead of pointing your finger, standing on the sideline.


Yes, dad.

Because your authoritative claim to "true fandom" isn't in the least bit pathetic....
 

Adamwankenobi

New member
Maybe this example will help illustrate the concept to you guys:

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is a prequel to Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, but Empire is not a sequel to Phantom Menace.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones is both a sequel to Phantom Menace and a prequel to Empire.
 

Darth Vile

New member
The concept can differ greatly from reality. If Lucas thinks that KOTCS is closer in feel to Raiders, I believe him. If Marshall thinks it's closer in tone to Crusade, I don't dis-believe him. Sitting on the fence, I'd say that Marshall probably has the most pragmatic view as he's a lot less close to the actual story/concept.

I'll be happy with either to be honest...
 

agentsands77

New member
QBComics said:
Me too. I mean come on. It is Indiana Jones finally back on the big screen with an all new adventure!!:whip:
Some adventures aren't worth having. ;)

That said, I do think things are shaping up nicely for KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. I don't imagine that it will really be either LAST CRUSADE or RAIDERS in tone. It will probably be somewhere in the middle.
 
Top