Raiders/Temple of Doom "Prequel" question
 

All -

I apologize if this is a dumb question, but... I've always heard/read that "Temple of Doom" is actually a prequel to "Raiders of the Lost Ark," but I've never understood just what makes ToD a prequel. I researched on-line, and all that I could find was that ToD is set in 1935, while RotLA is set in 1936.

Is that the ONLY reason ToD is a prequel? And if so, then what the heck difference does that make? I mean, plot/character-wise, couldn't RotLA be set before ToD and make no difference to the stories whatsoever?

Please enlighten me...

Mr. Flix

You're correct about the timeline. And that is the only reason why TOD was considered a prequel.

When the idea of Raiders was brought out, Lucas' & Spielberg's intention was to make a series of films about Indiana Jones and that these films basically can stand on its own.

I wonder if part of why they made it a prequel, however, was TOD Indy is (at first) interested in Fortune & Glory whereas in ROTLA he's after the Ark to stop the Nazis. As a character, he's a little more responsible in ROTLA than TOD.

I've heard a rumor that they didn't want people asking why he wasn't with Marion in the sequel, so they made it a prequel. That seems like a stupid reason, though.

Interesting point. Consider though that in the Temple of Doom Indy witnesses voodoo first hand, cursed blood, and still-beating hearts, yet he doesn't seem to believe in things like this in Raiders, at least not until the ending.

I'm not really sure if they ever gave an official reason for why TOD was dated as it was. I have read about a lot of possibilities over the years.

- writing around Marion and casting Capshaw.
- explaining the absence of the Nazis.
- the stones were no where near the historical find that the Ark was.
- writing around the 1937 Battle of Shanghai, or perhaps saving it if they came back to Shaghai in a further sequel. I believe they never finished the story with Lao Che.

I have also read that Lucas wanted Jones to have a more "Bond-Like" introduction.
So they gave him one, and he had hoped in the future that people would watch TOD first, so they made it set before raiders.

Personally, to me TOD is the second film. It's still and will always be the way I watch it. Nothing happens in the film other than the date to make it set before raiders.

Good stuff you guys brought up in this thread.

Makes you wonder where he left short round.

Short Round ran off to find pirate treasure. Duh.

<p>That's the way I took it at the time. Of course, this being a Lucas film, the very next film in the series presents us with further backstory that makes the fortune and glory hunting seem completely out of character- as does the fact that he trades a genuine cultural relic at the begining for a big ass diamond that, since the story doesn't make a point of any historic or cultural significance afterwards, seems to only have intrinsic value (operating towards the "fortune" part of his creed at that point). Even before we see Indy as an earnest strident kid in TLC going on about how such and such "belongs in a museum" it never sat well with me that he would trade an obvious archeological relic of some prestige to a private gangster for a generic diamond payoff. That really cheapened the character to me just for the opportunity to have him execute an opening set-piece while wearing a James Bond style tux. One reason I don't rate the sequels in this series highly at all.

Yep, Temple of Doom doesn't fit in with the storyline established in Last Crusade at all.

Doom would have made sense except for the intro to Crusade's character - which honestly was just a cute way of explaining things like the persona (from the robber), the whip, and the fear of snakes.

Raiders had Nazi troops running around British occupied Egypt. I don't think historical research was a high priority when writing the script.

Thats a good point that I didn't even think of .... but didn't the Brititish seem to tolerate the Nazis in the early to mid 30s though? It's possible they were allowed into the country on a small scale.

The beginning of TOD is very ambiguous to say the least. Perhaps Indy had his partner there to double cross them and get both the diamond and the statue. When his partner was shot his plan could have gone to shit. It's obvious he walked into a situation where he didn't trust the people he was doing business with.

I was always interested in Lao Che having his own plane crashed instead of just having the pilots shoot Jones, or at least try and throw him out. That plane in the 30s might have had a similiar value to the diamond they were fighting over in the first place.

I hope the new movie is good, because if it is, I'll throw out Temple of Doom and just keep Raiders, Crusade and Kingdom as the 'real' Indiana Jones trilogy.

I look at Doom as the Never Say Never Again of the Jones movies.

I cannot understand how anyone can prefer the slapstick stupidity of Last Crusade over Temple of Doom.

I do like Last Crusade much more than Temple of Doom but I've just never understood the extreme hatred for Doom. I mean it's not that bad. It's just that it's sandwiched in between a truly great movie and a very good one.

All three movies have heavy doses of slapstick action and comedy in them. Temple of Doom might have the most.

Over Sean Connery's performance?!

Raiders is the best of the bunch, but I like all 3 movies, but Doom is my favorite follow-up to Raiders. Last Crusade has some parts to it, and I like the general vibe about fathers/sons but overall is somewhat even.

Why the hate towards Doom? Its probably the most graphic, and the last 45 minutes is non-stop action. I love the bridge scene..and the fight with the guard in the cave rocks.

Doom is my favorite after Raiders too. Lot's of hate for it. I even saw the DVD reviewer in the paper mention that with last week's new separate releases you can finally skip buying Temple Of Doom.

Besides the fact that it's a blatant ripoff of Gunga Din? How about the film's bigoted treatment of Indians? The whole movie is premised on the idea that brown skinned people are incapable of solving their own problems and are dependent upon a white guy wandering in to save them. It's a paternalistic endorsement of colonialism! Then there's that absurd dinner scene -- "Ho, ho, look at the silly brown skinned people with their eye-ball soup and snake surprise! Aren't they whacky." And then the villainous Thuggees are portrayed as an evil sect of Hinduism, when in fact they were non-denominational -- the original Thuggees included Muslims and Sikhs.

Are you being serious?

But Crusade needed that intro. It was reminiscent of those afternoons in so many young boys' lives when the many and varying aspects of our personalities are all developed in the course of a few hours.

I love Temple of Doom. I don't get the recent backlash against the film. It's got 30 minutes of nonstop action at the end. A great score by John Williams. One of the few decent child sidekicks in movie history. A deliciously over-the-top villain in Mola Rom. A dark and downbeat middle act with Indy turning evil, kids being tortured, and beating hearts being ripped out. Hell, it even finds room for a musical number to open the film. What's not to like?