SunMonkey

Yeah, ignore the thread crappers....

To stay on topic, I would suggest watching them in release order. There are too many continuity issues if you watch them chronologically.

Strafe

While I did come into this thread scratching my head as to why someone would ask this, this is the first time I've heard that Temple was chronologically first. Where can I find more info on that?

Hokeyboy

Wasn't coming down hard on you bro. Sometimes a perfectly ridiculous thread is a good thing, like a colonic flushing.

But you seem like a good kid. Have a muffin!

Josh H

Just watched them all yesterday. Raiders, Temple, Crusade.

SunMonkey

Toward the beginning of each film it tells you what year it is.

1935 for Temple
1936 for Raiders
1938 for Crusade (1912 for the prelude)

theman1971

No sweat Matt!

Josh - Can't believe you watched it all yesterday! What is that? 6 hrs? That's hardcore man!

Thong

rennervision

On a side note, TOD takes place before Raiders - but, in Raiders, Indy admits he doesn't believe in "superstition" or "hocus-pocus." Couple that with the fact that no one, ever, for the last 20 years, has been able to explain why TOD is supposed to take place before Raiders, and I say it is the most useless example of a "prequel" ever.

I swear I would be more inclined to think the "1935" at the beginning of TOD is a misprint, and should read "1937."

Josh H

Yep, right around 6 hours. I've been waiting for these since getting my first DVD player in X-mas of 1998, and I hadn't seen any of them for a few years prior to that. Plus I had nothing better to do.

Pants

One reason is that Temple of Doom is more '30s than the other two films. Raiders and Crusade have a whole looming WWII nazi 1940s thing going on. Doom has more art deco, Busby Burkley, Lost Horizon, Thin Man type stuff going on. It isn't a WWII story like the others, so it's better that it happens earlier. But it's true there are inconsistancies. The continuity of the trilogy is hardly anything to take too seriously, however it is possible (however unlikely) that even having seen everything in Temple of Doom, Indy might remain a skeptic who doesn't believe in the mumbo-jumbo of fanatics.

big whoppa

Temple was the best movie of the lot. All action from the very start to the end. Don't understand why it's crapped on.

Last Crusade put me to sleep.

Pants

You say that as if Raiders doesn't have "all action from the very start to the end".

Inverse

The Mummy Returns has even more action in it than Temple of Doom. So surely that means it's a better picture, right?

big whoppa

Hey, it's my opinion. I'm entitled to it.

Raiders had alot of action but not to the extent of Doom. I'm not putting it down. I just thought Doom was much more interesting. To its credit, Raiders was a bit more mental of the two.

Joel

Seeing it in release order will be good. At least that's how the producer and the director wanted it to be seen that way, am I right?

Release order: Raiders, Temple, Crusade.
My fave: Crusade, Temple, Raiders.

And oh, I think Kate Capshaw and that little boy lightened up the temple.