Why is Temple of Doom a prequel?
- Thread starter oki9Sedo
- Start date
ClintonHammond
Guest
Have you not seen the movie?
The Indy in Temple is different from the Indy in Raiders (And WAY different from the Indy in Last Crusade)
If I thought that George, Steven and Harry did it on purpose I could go on for a long time about the evolution of the Indy character.... But I don't.... I think it was just dumb luck that Indy did as well as he did... even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.
The Indy in Temple is different from the Indy in Raiders (And WAY different from the Indy in Last Crusade)
If I thought that George, Steven and Harry did it on purpose I could go on for a long time about the evolution of the Indy character.... But I don't.... I think it was just dumb luck that Indy did as well as he did... even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally.
Raiders is set in 1936. The Battle of Shanghai was lost to Japan in 1937, so I think that's why Doom is set in 1935.
IrishLuck1980
New member
I think Lucas was smokin grass.
Why making Temple of Doom a prequel doesn't make sense:
1. Harrison Ford has aged three years, and he's supposed to look one year younger.
2. The plot of Temple of Doom has absolutely nothing to do with Raiders. If Indy had died in Raiders, then obviously they would have had to make Temple of Doom a prequel.
3. "I don't believe in magic, alot of superstitious hocus pocus"-spoken by Indy in Raiders. Voodoism, Sankara Stones and possession didn't quite do the trick then.
George Lucas still doesn't get it either. If its to do with them wanting to do an adventure not involving Nazis, they didn't have to set it before Raiders to accomplish that, they could have just set it in 1937 India rather than 1935 India.
As for the Battle of Shanghai argument, they could have set it in 1937 before that battle.
1. Harrison Ford has aged three years, and he's supposed to look one year younger.
2. The plot of Temple of Doom has absolutely nothing to do with Raiders. If Indy had died in Raiders, then obviously they would have had to make Temple of Doom a prequel.
3. "I don't believe in magic, alot of superstitious hocus pocus"-spoken by Indy in Raiders. Voodoism, Sankara Stones and possession didn't quite do the trick then.
George Lucas still doesn't get it either. If its to do with them wanting to do an adventure not involving Nazis, they didn't have to set it before Raiders to accomplish that, they could have just set it in 1937 India rather than 1935 India.
As for the Battle of Shanghai argument, they could have set it in 1937 before that battle.
quigonkyle
New member
A reason for it being a prequel could have been the relationship with Indy and Karen Allen
Grizzlor
Well-known member
You also have to question why The Last Crusade was set in 1938, 8 years after Raiders was made, but only 2 years in the films? I know that the real life German Otto Rahn who looked for the Grail died in 1939, but the historical realities were still in place by at least 1943, when Italy was seized by Germany and the war in Europe really was getting larger. There was no need to refer to the area as the Republic of Hatay, which lasted 9 months, but simply Turkey.
René Belloq
Guest
oki9Sedo said:
Because Temple is set in 1935 and Raiders in 1936.
Chris Jones
New member
I always considered it to be a sequel even trhough it displayed the year in letters at the bottom of the screen in the beginning.
When they released the movie, the trailer said nothing of it being a prequel it made it sound more like a sequel. So im sure there alot of people who think it is a sequel rather than prequel.
When they released the movie, the trailer said nothing of it being a prequel it made it sound more like a sequel. So im sure there alot of people who think it is a sequel rather than prequel.
René Belloq
Guest
ClintonHammond said:
What is with you and the blind squirrel? That's at least the second time you've posted that line.
ClintonHammond
Guest
Shows what you know... That phrase comes up an awful lot in relation to Indy...
Vlad Dracula
New member
Give him a bit more back story?
Dr.Sartorius
New member
oki9Sedo said:
A more intriguing question would be why ISN'T Casino Royale a prequel?
Baron Brunwald
New member
René Belloq said:
Hahaha, nicely put.