Why is Temple of Doom a prequel?

indyflys_solo

New member
Niteshade007 said:
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.

I like your rambling. It makes sense. (And Marion's coming back for KOTCS!):D
 
oki9Sedo said:
Its got absolutely no connection to Raiders of the Lost Ark in any way whatsoever, so they might as well have just made it a sequel and set it in 1937.

Speilberg always resisted the playboy aspect of Indy's character and finally gave in to Georges whims for the opening of temple. Surely a rekindled relationship with Marion would have meant that lifestyle was behind him...(for while at least, a year or so?). The quickest and easiest way to explain it away would be to make it earlier. He still looks young enough to pull it off (not a big stretch in movie time) and it gives some life to the scripts line "fortune and glory", the motivation and arc of the character...something for Harrison to base his performance. Win win.

What else in the movie besides the opening credits place it in 35 and not possibly in 37 or 38? How long did the adventure take a week? 3 weeks? It doesn't seem to me it took more than summer vacation that's for sure!:dead:
 
Last edited:

jamesdude

Guest
René Belloq said:
What is with you and the blind squirrel? That's at least the second time you've posted that line.


blindsquirrel.jpg


"Who called me?"
 
the only thing weird to me about TOD being a prequel is the missing gun bit that is supposed to be a wink to the audience on the gun bit in Raiders. It wouldnt be funny if we watched the same bit over in proper continuity...well, maybe half as funny
 

Supernatural

New member
What makes it a prequel?

Although I saw the movies during their initial release and am pretty sure I know them inside and out, I'm always learning new things.

For instance, I never knew what team Short Round's hat belonged to until I found this forum.

So, other than Spielberg saying Temple of Doom is a prequel, I find nothing in there (other that the year, of course) to really give a clue that it is a prequel.

By the way, what was the purpose of making it a prequel?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Supernatural said:
So, other than Spielberg saying Temple of Doom is a prequel, I find nothing in there (other that the year, of course) to really give a clue that it is a prequel.

That's just it.

It precedes ROTLA, so it's a prequel, while TLC is a sequel.

Supernatural said:
By the way, what was the purpose of making it a prequel?

It's like Star Wars being Episode IV. ROTLA becomes Episode II. A retrospective nod back to the serials.

Thematically, being a prequel gave a chance to ditch Marion and avoid the problems of a permanent relationship, or get stuck into a formula. It was the opportunity to get in a new girl and see what Indy was like before Military Intelligence asked him to find the Ark.
 

Goodeknight

New member
Supernatural said:
He wound up ditching her anyway in Crusade.

Well, there was a lot more to it than that. See, there was this other professor and this weird dude named Oxley, and this skull made out of crystal -- well, it wasn't really made, it was an alien head. Then it drove "Ox" crazy and he started carving nutty stuff in an asylum floor. Oh, and there was this fatherless kid named "Mutt" who took fencing lessons and wanted to be part of a greaser gang. And he wanted Indy's hat, but Indy's like, "Dude, that's still my hat. Gimmee it." And he was like, "Dang." And there was a wedding, and Ox went un-crazy, and this Russian with both a bad accent and a bad wig had her eyes explode. Oh, also...

Never mind. It's a stupid story.

One final note on prequels, in Temple of Doom Indy says he doesn't believe in fairy tales, magic, and superstition. He has yet to see the power of the Ark of the Covenant. That, to me, is the biggest indicator that it's a prequel.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Supernatural said:
I've heard the Marion explanation before.
He wound up ditching her anyway in Crusade.

True, but by that point Raiders was eight years old and they probably figured fans had accepted the "new movie, new Bond girl" approach that the series took...until it didn't. The expectation/desire for Marion's return would have naturally been higher for the immediate sequel.

What Montana said motivated settingTemple prior to Raiders jives with the two explanations that I've always heard from the film makers:

1) It was a way to explain no Marion without having to explain it
2) It enabled starting the movie with a more rogue, graverobbing version of Indy than we saw in Raiders in order to justify the arc he's given in the movie. In the earliest concepts, Lucas or Spielberg considered reprising Belloq in the movie as a sidekick of Indy (when they were still friends), which would have hammered home Indy's evolution. The year the movie takes place in could partially be residue from that dropped concept.

I've always viewed Temple as a sequel "functionally" since the pistol gag callback makes it pretty clear it's still meant to be watched after Raiders of the Lost Ark.

goodeknight said:
One final note on prequels, in Temple of Doom Indy says he doesn't believe in fairy tales, magic, and superstition. He has yet to see the power of the Ark of the Covenant. That, to me, is the biggest indicator that it's a prequel.

And then of course in the later movies they just went ahead and continued the tradition of making Indy skeptical at the beginning anyway.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Udvarnoky said:
And then of course in the later movies they just went ahead and continued the tradition of making Indy skeptical at the beginning anyway.

Indy's skepticism is something that often gets brought up when discussing the prequel aspect of TOD. For me I find it easy to explain it as the difference between what Indy believes and knows, and what he's willing to impart to others.

He shields them from the truth of the supernatural, either to protect their saniity and view of the world, or to preserve his own professional integrity.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Goodeknight said:
One final note on prequels, in Temple of Doom Indy says he doesn't believe in fairy tales, magic, and superstition. He has yet to see the power of the Ark of the Covenant. That, to me, is the biggest indicator that it's a prequel.

The fact he says in ROTLA, "I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus" kind of kills the reasoning above. By the end of TOD he should totally believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus. He saw a man get his heart ripped out and live through it. He saw a village return to life with the return of a stone. He saw the stones heat up and burn though his bag when he recited a chant and people being possessed from drinking blood. At the end of TOD when the Shaman says, "Now you see the magic of the rock you bring back" Indy replies, "Yes, I understand it's power now". I always thought it was strange (after TOD's release) he acts so skeptical about magic in ROTLA. :hat:
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
He shields them from the truth of the supernatural, either to protect their saniity and view of the world, or to preserve his own professional integrity.

I don't get the impression that the moment in Last Crusade when he gets wide-eyed and serious and asks Marcus, "Do you believe the Grail actually exists?" was for Marcus' benefit.
 

Supernatural

New member
It really seems like whatever order you watch them in, his disbelief in the supernatural is always there. As if he completely forgot about the previous adventure.

Speaking of which, it really doesn't seem to matter what order you watch them in. With the exception of the gun gag refrence mentioned here earlier from Temple of Doom and the ark refrence under Venice in Last Crusade.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Henry W Jones said:
The fact he says in ROTLA, "I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus" kind of kills the reasoning above. By the end of TOD he should totally believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus. He saw a man get his heart ripped out and live through it. He saw a village return to life with the return of a stone. He saw the stones heat up and burn though his bag when he recited a chant and people being possessed from drinking blood. At the end of TOD when the Shaman says, "Now you see the magic of the rock you bring back" Indy replies, "Yes, I understand it's power now". I always thought it was strange (after TOD's release) he acts so skeptical about magic in ROTLA. :hat:

That's why I say it's the difference between what he knows and what he lets on. He wants to be taken seriously by those who would probably think him crazy. It also protects against falling for hoaxes, until he's proven the validity for himself.

That would also cover this situation:

Udvarnoky said:
I don't get the impression that the moment in Last Crusade when he gets wide-eyed and serious and asks Marcus, "Do you believe the Grail actually exists?" was for Marcus' benefit.

Each new instance of the supernatural must be put to the test.
 
Last edited:

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Supernatural[/quote said:
Speaking of which, it really doesn't seem to matter what order you watch them in. With the exception of the gun gag refrence mentioned here earlier from Temple of Doom and the ark refrence under Venice in Last Crusade.

What about Crystal Skull? There are more callbacks than usual in that movie, and Marion's return will mean more if you've seen Raiders.

Montana Smith said:
Each new instance of the supernatural must be put to the test.

Sure, but that's not the same as saying his cynicism is specifically to shield other people. He seems to undergo a pretty clear revelation himself in each of the movies.
 

Supernatural

New member
Udvarnoky said:
What about Crystal Skull? There are more callbacks than usual in that movie, and Marion's return will mean more if you've seen Raiders.

Ah, yes. You're right about that. But I tend to dismiss Crystal Skull. I'm not trying to be funny. I just do.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Udvarnoky said:
Sure, but that's not the same as saying his cynicism is specifically to shield other people. He seems to undergo a pretty clear revelation himself in each of the movies.

Indy's skepticism serves different purposes. On one level seeing the wonder through his eyes helps to accentuate the mystery for the audience.

Chronologically, there has to be an in-character explanation, because this is the same man who supposedly met a vampiric Vlad in 1918.

He is obviously aware that the supernatural exists, but not every suspected case of it will be authentic. He can shield others from the possibility of it, while also being aware that it may be true, and also something specific that he's not yet witnessed for himself.
 
Top