Why is Temple of Doom a prequel?

Osceola

New member
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

New member
Osceola said:
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

Well-known member
Osceola said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Osceola

New member
Grizzlor said:
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

New member
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.
 

Adolf Hitler

New member
chemeleon26 said:
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?;)
 

Indy's Fist

New member
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

New member
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

New member
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

New member
Michael24 said:
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

New member
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

New member
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

New member
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

New member
WillKill4Food said:
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

New member
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

New member
oki9Sedo said:
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.
 
Top