I think the Docs shoot holes in that theory. Speilberg clearly didn't want to have anything with a "Grail" movie at the time of TOD.

I think I don't care. Temple of Doom comes after Ark, in my mind. I don't even think about the date of the movie, and probably would have never noticed (or thought twice) about it unless it got brought to my attention. (I think I first noticed it with the VHS sets that were released in 99, with TOD having an earlier chapter number on it than Ark.)

In my mind, this is the crux of argument. Realstically, if you went through what Indy and Marion did in Raiders, how could you possibly be a skeptic or a cynic about anything? I mean, it would change your life in everyway, either validating what you believed, or proving what you believed about God wrong. At least in ToD, there is a enough ambiguity for a person to remain a cynic or skeptic. Indy seems to believe in the Last Crusade, but is shocked by what he sees in the end.

So pulling the heart out of a guy, watching his skin close back up and seeing the guy still breathing would just look like a parlor trick to you?

I've seen a pentecostal faith healer pull cancer, a liver and a spleen out of people's bodies and have the wound heal instantly all in one night. And yes, THAT was a grand parlour trick.

As for Indy, maybe he percieved it the same way, some sort of a gag.

I think that potential fakery is a far cry from seeing a canyon full of Nazi's turn into thin air.

I think you are missing an important point about Indy's journey.

Throught TOD, Indy really only cares about money - he gives a priceless artifact to a gangster, he at first only cares about "fortune and glory" with the Shankara stones..but I think he changes after he is awoken from the Black Death - "We are going home, all of us" and when he goes back for the kids, I think a softer Indiana Jones is born. That is the Jones from Raiders, who works to get things in museums, etc.

I know its not a perfect theory - but Lucas/Spielberg really made Indy a more of a mercenary at the beginning of Temple of Doom.

I'd agree to an extent Chanster, but he seems fairly cold blooded at the start of Raiders, to me. He's chasing the idol, chasing the ark, and I don't think he believes in WHAT he's going after, it's all just a trophy to him. Which would be in line with his decision not to let the stones sit in a musuem, but he seems to revert to chasing for the thrill of the chase in Raiders.

Yeah, but Indy didn't see this...he had his eyes shut! For all he knows, those Nazis could have just ran the hell out of there...

Of course, the flashback sequence at the beginning of "Last Crusade", where the young Indy insists that an artifact "belongs in a museum", sort of contradicts the theory that a "new Jones" was born at the end of TOD.

Yeah, well, like I said, my theory wasn't perfect..but I am going to stick to the natural progression of Indy through at least TOD.

But in the prologue of Last Crusade when the guy takes it from him he says, to paraphrase, "that belongs in a museum." And then gets it back on the ship, and gives it to the museum. That that theory is pretty much debuncked. He always liked the thrill, but always believed in getting artifacts to the museum

Not really. Indy gives the remains of the first emperor of the Manchu dynasty in returrn for a diamond. Thats not a museum.

I think the problem might be that we've given more thought to the character's consistency of action than the authors may have.

I understand the emperor was teriyaki flavor to boot!

Not true at all!

First of all, Lucas has basic storylines for the entire Star Wars trilogy. That much is certain. That doesn't mean he had every detail planned out. He never said otherwise. As for the Indy trilogy, Lucas never claimed he had 3 stories written out. Instead had ideas and concepts. Big difference.

I still find it amazing that Indy got his trademark hat, bullwhip, chin scar, and mode of dress all in a single afternoon!

I don't know if it was set in 1935 in the original script or not, because Indy and Shortround talk about the Japanese invasion of Shanghai, which didn't happen until 1937. Plus, Shortround drives a 1936 Auburn Boat-tail Speedster. Its possible they only slapped the 1935 date on the beginning of the film in post-production.

In my mind, TOD is a direct seequel to Raiders, plain and simple. There is absolutely nothing in the film that suggests it takes place before Raiders other than that date in the beginning. The film even cracks jokes about events of the first, like with the swordsman/gun thing, etc.

Supposedly, the reason it takes place before is that George Lucas was interested in origin stories and thought people would want to know more about what made Indiana Jones who he is. Well, George, sorry but theres nothing in TOD that explains who he is any more than stuff in Raiders did. The prologue of LC is the only real origin story (until that young IJ tv show they made).

Looking forward to having the Young Indy set on DVD. I never saw it when it was on but I've heard good things about it.

Does it fill in much about Indy's past? Are those stories considered "canon"?

It fills nearly evry year of his young adult life, from his battles in the trenches during WWI to meeting Teddy Roosevelt, T.E. Lawrence etc. On the whole I found the show decent if sometimes boring. It's not an 'action' show, that's for sure. The one episode with Harrison Ford as a slightly older Indy was cool to see.

Or as it is otherwise known, the "having too much time on your hands" syndrome. This ain't Citizen Kane for god's sake.

That's very interesting. I am more inclined to believe the "1935" was a post-production mistake that no one has wanted to admit to for the last 20 years.

Not a mistake, the first post has your answer - they were afraid audiences wouldn't understand why Indy and Marion weren't togther if it was a sequel...so they made it a prequel.

Sorry - but to me, Marion missing from The Last Crusade has always negated that theory. (Unless Indy left her at home while cavorting around Europe with Elsa! )

It doesn't negate it at all - there had already been one movie in between Crusade and Raiders, audiences have a short attention span - and an 8 year time span in real life (81 - 89).

If they were that concerned about Marion, they certainly could have still included Willy in TOD, but just not had her and Indy kiss at all. They didn't need to have it take place before Raiders.