Temple is First?

H

Henry-Defance

Guest
So according to the Lost Journal, Temple is chronologically first in the trilogy, and the diamond Lao Che has is the peacocks eye from the chronicles.
 
metalinvader

metalinvader

Well-known member
Shanghai, 1935

South America, 1936

Yup,Temple comes first.I never knew this was a problem with people as the film clearly states it.Oh well.
 
Joosse

Joosse

New member
I thought this was common knowledge.

It does, by the way, also show that George Lucas can actually make a good prequel.

Too bad he had lost that skill when he started working on the Star Wars ones....:sleep:
 
Stoo

Stoo

Well-known member
Henry-Defance said:
So according to the Lost Journal, Temple is chronologically first in the trilogy...
Click to expand...
To quote Mutt: "You're a...teacher?":p Welcome to The Raven.
 
Crack that whip

Crack that whip

New member
Joosse said:
I thought this was common knowledge.

It does, by the way, also show that George Lucas can actually make a good prequel.
Click to expand...

In a way, actually, most of the whole Indy series does, since pretty much every Indy movie and/or TV show made after Raiders of the Lost Ark is at least partly a prequel to something that's come before - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is set entirely before Raiders, the first several minutes of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is set before either of the first two movies, most of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles / The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones takes place before anything in the three movies except the Crusade prologue (and the segments with the youngest young Indy take place even before that), and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull takes place before the old Indy bookends that originally framed most episodes of the Chronicles.

Indiana Jones - prequel city!
 
Nurhachi1991

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
Henry-Defance said:
So according to the Lost Journal, Temple is chronologically first in the trilogy, and the diamond Lao Che has is the peacocks eye from the chronicles.
Click to expand...


You just figured this out now?
 
Professor Jones

Professor Jones

New member
Dear Henry-Defance, I quote from your profile:

Henry-Defance said:
throughout my life my interests have changed a great deal excluding my love for the Indiana jones franchise.
Click to expand...

1. You should have not waited to read the Indiana Jones lost Journal to discover that TOD comes before ROTLA, if yours it's true love!!! ;)

2. It's Henri Defense, by the way.:eek:

Anyway, welcome on (the) board!
 
H

Henry-Defance

Guest
Professor Jones said:
Dear Henry-Defance, I quote from your profile:



1. You should have not waited to read the Indiana Jones lost Journal to discover that TOD comes before ROTLA, if yours it's true love!!! ;)

2. It's Henri Defense, by the way.:eek:

Anyway, welcome on (the) board!
Click to expand...

Yeah that spelling was already taken. I'm just recently catching up on the reading. Growing up I only watched the films and the series.

Thanks for the warm welcome though.
 
TheMutt92

TheMutt92

New member
Don't feel bad. I owned the trilogy on vhs, and the subtitles were so small and distorted on that that it made it seem like ROTLA was set in 1938, the same year as LC! :p
 
Kevin

Kevin

Member
I was watching these movies before I could read, so I never knew that TOD was a prequel. So, I've always considered TOD to be a sequel, and I actually like it better that way.
 
TheMutt92

TheMutt92

New member
Kevin said:
I was watching these movies before I could read, so I never knew that TOD was a prequel. So, I've always considered TOD to be a sequel, and I actually like it better that way.
Click to expand...

Personally, I feel it works better to have LC come off of ROTLA as opposed to TOD, it just feel more connective. Don't know how ROTLA feels though coming off TOD (I still have yet to perform that Indy marathon idea I came up w/ two months back!)
 
Kevin

Kevin

Member
TheMutt92 said:
Personally, I feel it works better to have LC come off of ROTLA as opposed to TOD, it just feel more connective.
Click to expand...

I think the release order (ROTLA, TOD, then LC) makes more sense for the character arc of Indiana Jones.

In ROTLA he goes after artifacts for the purpose of contributing them to a museum's collection. Obviously the money doesn't hurt and the thrill of the hunt helps break up the monotony of academic life, but I feel like ROTLA Indy's main interest is getting important relics into the hands of a museum (this fits nicely with the ethos of the young Indy we see in the beginning of LC). Also, it is clear that ROTLA Indy does not yet believe in the supernatural power of artifacts.

However, at the end of ROTLA, Indy and the museum get screwed out of the Ark by the US government. Jaded by this experience, Indy goes mercenary. At the beginning of TOD, we see him as essentially an archeologist for hire, willing to trade important artifacts for other relics with a higher dollar value. However, his experiences during TOD make him realize that there is more to relics and artifacts than "fortune and glory." Someone in another thread likened TOD to Indy's "descent into hell," wherein he is punished for his mercenary ways, and is ultimately redeemed when he rescues the children and returns the stone to the village. With regard to the supernatural, it's not necessarily that Indy doesn't believe in the power of the stones, but he is more interested (at first) in the value attached to them.

Thus, by the time we get to LC, Indy has come full circle, and is once again obtaining artifacts for humanitarian (and in the case of the Cross of Coronado, personal) reasons. His experiences in the first two films have opened his mind to the possibility that there are supernatural powers attached to artifacts (note that he asks Marcus what he believes about the Grail). Thus, while the historical significance of the Grail is important to Indy, he is also clearly interested in keeping a potentially dangerous weapon out of the hands of the Nazis.

By the time we get to KOTCS, archeology has changed, and so has Indy. The focus of archeology is no longer on obtaining important relics and expanding museum collections, but rather on studying artifacts (often inconsequential in and of themselves) to get a better understanding the the society that produced them. Thus, by 1957, Indy is no longer looking for golden idols, but pieces of pottery (which are promptly smashed by Dovchenko). The search for the Crystal Skull is prompted more by the necessity to help a friend in danger (Oxley).

Anyway, that's my take on the matter. I should probably mention that I haven't read the novels or watched the Young Indy Chronicles; my thoughts are based solely on the contents of the four films.
 
Stoo

Stoo

Well-known member
Nice post, Kevin, but if one chooses to ignore the on-screen dates, then the series could also work with "Doom" being 3rd!:eek:
 
Crack that whip

Crack that whip

New member
Interestingly (well, to me, anyway; YMMV :p ), the release order of the movies -

Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

- is exactly the reverse of the alphabetical order of their titles:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Raiders of the Lost Ark

The significance of this is, of course, nil - that is, unless the pattern is being actively adhered to rather than simply happening by chance, in which case we have a vital clue to the title of Indy V: the first word after "Indiana Jones and the" will begin with a letter before "K" in the alphabet! :eek: Quick, someone contact AICN...
 
Kevin

Kevin

Member
Stoo said:
Nice post, Kevin, but if one chooses to ignore the on-screen dates, then the series could also work with "Doom" being 3rd!:eek:
Click to expand...

You mean this order: ROTLA, LC, TOD? I'm not so sure. I think there is a disconnect if we have Indy riding into the sunset with his dad in LC, followed by Indy as a mercenary tomb raider at the beginning of TOD. What is the motivation, the reason for the change? The reason is given at the end of Raiders. The government told Indy "Forget the artifact, take the money", and Indy took that message to heart; hence his willingness to sell Nurhachi's ashes to a gangster at TOD's opening. It's all hypothetical, but still fun to think about.
 
chr0n0naut

chr0n0naut

New member
When I was a kid (and thus before I paid attention to the dates) I thought ToD came after. This was reenforced when Indy used the same trick on the Thugeee guards as he did with the Cairo Swordman, only to find his gun wasn't in his holster. :gun:

I got the impression he was using the same trick twice so it made sense that he did Raiders first. I'm pretty sure this was put in for the fans but did create confusion for me when I finally noticed the dates. :confused:
 
R

Raider Indy

New member
Kevin said:
I think the release order (ROTLA, TOD, then LC) makes more sense for the character arc of Indiana Jones.

In ROTLA he goes after artifacts for the purpose of contributing them to a museum's collection. Obviously the money doesn't hurt and the thrill of the hunt helps break up the monotony of academic life, but I feel like ROTLA Indy's main interest is getting important relics into the hands of a museum (this fits nicely with the ethos of the young Indy we see in the beginning of LC). Also, it is clear that ROTLA Indy does not yet believe in the supernatural power of artifacts.

However, at the end of ROTLA, Indy and the museum get screwed out of the Ark by the US government. Jaded by this experience, Indy goes mercenary. At the beginning of TOD, we see him as essentially an archeologist for hire, willing to trade important artifacts for other relics with a higher dollar value. However, his experiences during TOD make him realize that there is more to relics and artifacts than "fortune and glory." Someone in another thread likened TOD to Indy's "descent into hell," wherein he is punished for his mercenary ways, and is ultimately redeemed when he rescues the children and returns the stone to the village. With regard to the supernatural, it's not necessarily that Indy doesn't believe in the power of the stones, but he is more interested (at first) in the value attached to them.

Thus, by the time we get to LC, Indy has come full circle, and is once again obtaining artifacts for humanitarian (and in the case of the Cross of Coronado, personal) reasons. His experiences in the first two films have opened his mind to the possibility that there are supernatural powers attached to artifacts (note that he asks Marcus what he believes about the Grail). Thus, while the historical significance of the Grail is important to Indy, he is also clearly interested in keeping a potentially dangerous weapon out of the hands of the Nazis.

By the time we get to KOTCS, archeology has changed, and so has Indy. The focus of archeology is no longer on obtaining important relics and expanding museum collections, but rather on studying artifacts (often inconsequential in and of themselves) to get a better understanding the the society that produced them. Thus, by 1957, Indy is no longer looking for golden idols, but pieces of pottery (which are promptly smashed by Dovchenko). The search for the Crystal Skull is prompted more by the necessity to help a friend in danger (Oxley).

Anyway, that's my take on the matter. I should probably mention that I haven't read the novels or watched the Young Indy Chronicles; my thoughts are based solely on the contents of the four films.
Click to expand...

I love this...it makes ABSOLUTE sense (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top