Does anybody know why Temple of Doom was made a prequel? Why did it have to be? Was there some historical event in it that required it to be set before Raiders?
People always say its because they wanted to do an Indy adventure without Nazis....but they could have just as easily set it in 1937 rather than 1935, so that reason doesn't fit.
Like I said, I think it was to show a more rogue-ish, soldier of fortune Indy before the events of Raiders.
Character reason aside, I saw on the bonus DVD that they were going to use Marion again, but decided to give Indy a new girl in each film. To make it easier without having to explain what happened to Marion, it would be easier to make it a prequel. Audiences would not expect an explanation if the movie took place before the events of Raiders. They also wouldn't expect to know what happened to Willie because Raiders takes place after, but was filmed before. I hope am I making sense.
Now, since LC was filmed a few years later, and they had the original James Bond, a man who was the epitome of "love 'em and leave 'em," they probably didn't care enough to explain what happened to Marion. They probably thought that not explaining what happened to female leads hadn't been a problem for Bond films, it probably wouldn't matter much in this franchise either.
Character reason aside, I saw on the bonus DVD that they were going to use Marion again, but decided to give Indy a new girl in each film. To make it easier without having to explain what happened to Marion, it would be easier to make it a prequel. Audiences would not expect an explanation if the movie took place before the events of Raiders. They also wouldn't expect to know what happened to Willie because Raiders takes place after, but was filmed before. I hope am I making sense.
Now, since LC was filmed a few years later, and they had the original James Bond, a man who was the epitome of "love 'em and leave 'em," they probably didn't care enough to explain what happened to Marion. They probably thought that not explaining what happened to female leads hadn't been a problem for Bond films, it probably wouldn't matter much in this franchise either.
I see, NiteShade007, thanks for that. Although I never understand why people need an explanation about why female love interests disappear from one film to the next. They broke up, it doesn't have to be explicitly stated.
While Indy is packing for his quest to go find the ark, Marcus warns him of the ark's great power. Indy dismisses Marcus's concerns saying that he doesn't believe in all that superstitious, hocus-pocus stuff. This seems quite odd from Indy since "Raiders" takes place chronologically after "Temple of Doom" in which Indy saw several examples of 'magic' at work and even practiced some himself (remember... he was hanging from the rope bridge fighting w/ Mola Ram. Indy activated the 'magic' of the Sankara stones by chanting 'you betrayed Shiva')
While Indy is packing for his quest to go find the ark, Marcus warns him of the ark's great power. Indy dismisses Marcus's concerns saying that he doesn't believe in all that superstitious, hocus-pocus stuff. This seems quite odd from Indy since "Raiders" takes place chronologically after "Temple of Doom" in which Indy saw several examples of 'magic' at work and even practiced some himself (remember... he was hanging from the rope bridge fighting w/ Mola Ram. Indy activated the 'magic' of the Sankara stones by chanting 'you betrayed Shiva')
There's no "in universe" reason for that, there's only a real world reason, which is simply that Raiders must have been written as Indy's first adventure involving the supernatural. They didn't know they were going to do the next one as a prequel.
Here's another one: how did Indy lose 20lbs of muscle between Temple of Doom and Raiders?
I'd argue that, "in universe," it's always been a tad unclear to me whether Indy is sincere or not when he says, "yes, I understand its power now." It's always sounded like there's an ironic tinge to how he's saying it, most likely alluding to how much trouble is gone to and how much suffering occurs over the stone. Also, y'know, I'd easily imagine that Indy puts these things out of his head once they happen.
I'd argue that, "in universe," it's always been a tad unclear to me whether Indy is sincere or not when he says, "yes, I understand its power now." It's always sounded like there's an ironic tinge to how he's saying it, most likely alluding to how much trouble is gone to and how much suffering occurs over the stone. Also, y'know, I'd easily imagine that Indy puts these things out of his head once they happen.
When he smirks and laughs when he says "Yes, I understand its power now", he's not being sarcastic.
Imagine you burnt your hand on a hot stove and someone said to you "Now you understand why you need to be careful around a stove?". Its like that. He's restraining himself from saying "You dumb old sh it, OF COURSE I understand its power now!", or words to that effect.
While Indy is packing for his quest to go find the ark, Marcus warns him of the ark's great power. Indy dismisses Marcus's concerns saying that he doesn't believe in all that superstitious, hocus-pocus stuff. This seems quite odd from Indy since "Raiders" takes place chronologically after "Temple of Doom" in which Indy saw several examples of 'magic' at work and even practiced some himself (remember... he was hanging from the rope bridge fighting w/ Mola Ram. Indy activated the 'magic' of the Sankara stones by chanting 'you betrayed Shiva')
Just more of George Lucas' love of backwards storytelling, which of'course always leaves plotholes.
People always say its because they wanted to do an Indy adventure without Nazis....but they could have just as easily set it in 1937 rather than 1935, so that reason doesn't fit.
Like I said, I think it was to show a more rogue-ish, soldier of fortune Indy before the events of Raiders.
Yeah, that makes no sense, its not like the entire world was filled with Nazis, Doom takes place in China and India far away from the influence of the third reich. It could have been set in 1937 after Raiders and the absence of Nazis wouldnt need any explanation.
Honestly it makes sense for Doom to be after Raiders and before Last Crusade for the simple reason of Indy claiming not to believe in "hocus pocus" at the begining of Raiders. In terms of his character being more "rogue" in Doom well that could have been because he didnt like his run in with "beaurucratic fools" in Raiders and had a distrust of authority after that but by Last Crusade he had matured a bit from his experiences in Raiders and Doom.
Honestly I wouldnt even know that Doom is a prequel if I didnt know what year it takes place in and most more casual Indy fans dont know either. Ask the average moviegoer who happens to like the Indy films and knows the order in which they were released but doesnt pay attention enough to memorize the year that each films take place and most will assume its a sequel to Raider's. They didnt need to make it a prequel to explain anything, its an independent story from Raider's.
When he smirks and laughs when he says "Yes, I understand its power now", he's not being sarcastic.
Imagine you burnt your hand on a hot stove and someone said to you "Now you understand why you need to be careful around a stove?". Its like that. He's restraining himself from saying "You dumb old sh it, OF COURSE I understand its power now!", or words to that effect.
I heard once that in an interview about ToD, Ford said he was sorry he ever made the movie and that he really didn't like it. Then again, that's just what i heard on the grapevine...
Anyone ever think maybe they just made it a prequel for no reason at all!? lol.
It's supposed to be like, based on old serials right? So I'm guessing it's just random adventures. Some are in the year 1935, some in 1936... or whenever.
Or maybe it's the character thing. That's a good reason too.
I heard once that in an interview about ToD, Ford said he was sorry he ever made the movie and that he really didn't like it. Then again, that's just what i heard on the grapevine...
I don't think so. IIRC Ford is actually the one who still loves it out of Spielberg and Lucas.
I heard once that in an interview about ToD, Ford said he was sorry he ever made the movie and that he really didn't like it. Then again, that's just what i heard on the grapevine...
I think the only reason that Ford may not have the best memories of Temple of Doom is because he hurt his back during filming. It still apparently causes him pain (at least at the time of the DVD interviews). Also, the film was poorly reviewed, was not as successful as Raiders, and certainly not as popular as Last Crusade.
However, I doubt that he regrets making the movie, however. He, Spielberg, and Lucas all seem to have a great relationship, so I'm sure it was fun just to work with them again. I do know that it is Spielberg's least favorite, but he was glad he made it because he met Kate Capshaw.
Ford has many times implied that Indiana Jones is his all-time favorite role. It doesn't say what he thinks of those movies as individual pieces of course, but it's hard to imagine he'd loathe any of them with passion.
And he's probably having the time of his life playing the character once again!
Ford has many times implied that Indiana Jones is his all-time favorite role. It doesn't say what he thinks of those movies as individual pieces of course, but it's hard to imagine he'd loathe any of them with passion.
And he's probably having the time of his life playing the character once again!
He said he likes Temple of Doom in an interview with Empire Magazine.
