Lucky KOTCS doesn'tOsceola 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.
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.
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.Grizzlor said:That doesn't really make sense because the Germans never encroached into India
Well, that's the beauty of cinema, no?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.
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?
Weren't the (actual) Aryans from around India?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.
WillKill4Food said:Weren't the (actual) Aryans from around India?
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.