indyflys_solo
New member
Adolf Hitler said:Lucky KOTCS doesn't
But Commies, on the other hand, are a different story altogether.
Adolf Hitler said:Lucky KOTCS doesn't
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.
René Belloq said:Because Temple is set in 1935 and Raiders in 1936.
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.
René Belloq said:What is with you and the blind squirrel? That's at least the second time you've posted that line.
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.
Supernatural said:By the way, what was the purpose of making it a prequel?
Supernatural said:He wound up ditching her anyway in Crusade.
Supernatural said:I've heard the Marion explanation before.
He wound up ditching her anyway in Crusade.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Montana Smith said:Each new instance of the supernatural must be put to the test.
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.
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.