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?

:lol:

I love all three films, perhaps more than most because I grew up with them. Short Round was a favorite character, while Capshaw generally annoyed the hell out of me.

I didn't have too many issues with any of them the first time I saw them, but one thing always weirds me out - when Brody starts spewing apparently mindless drivel at Dr. Jones Sr. in the tank (I've figured it out now, but the first couple of times it really seems out of place) - thought he was totally nuts.

Yes, I consider Temple of Doom a horribly racist movie -- worse even than its antecedents like King Solomon's Mines and Gunga Din, which at least had heroic natives. ToD was nothing more than a glorification of the White Man's Burden -- the poor darkies can't even take care of their own children, so the noble White Man must save them. He's already turned Short-Round into a baseball cap wearing American, now it's time for the Indians.

There's a reason India wouldn't let Spielberg shoot in the country with the script he showed them. After the film came out, Ford apologized for the portrayal of Indians:

And in the DVD documentary Spielberg and Lucas are clearly uncomfortable with the film and race each other to see who can distance themselves from it the fastest.

They should do an updated, politically correct, version of Temple of Doom where Indy rescues the kids from a Dell call center sweatshop.

i think the new one is going to suck...

because the most conspicuous fool, the biggest hack in the film industry is involved - George Lucas...

i predict it will be comparatively boring and painfully predictable...

How about the fact that 95% of the white men in Raiders and the last Crusade are Nazi scumbags or collaborators. Calling Doom racist is plain stupid. Or how about the King in Crusade, I mean that guy had dark skin and all he wanted was that stupid Bentley.

Honestly, Doom isn't about the White Man's Burden...in fact if the Thugee cult had gained power and credibility in the region, it was because the British overlords had overlooked it, dismissed it and the rajah had little real power to confront it.

I thought overdrive political correctness ended sometime around the backlash over the mulva joke in Seinfeld but I guess some feel its their film school duty to show how bad the white man portrays dark skinned people.

Don't worry, the dark skin people got back at the Nazis when the PC police forced the change from Arab terrorists to neo-nazis in Sum of All Fears. If Indiana hadn't been replaced by Ben Affleck in the series, he could have kicked ass - and done it in a PC manner - because the baddies were just flag waving Uber Allies goosestepping pigs.

I'm not talking about Raiders or Crusade.

And my objection isn't to the idea of Indian villains (although portraying the Thuggees as a purely Hindu cult, which is historically inaccurate, is offensive to Hindus). It's that the good Indians are portrayed as being incapable of handling their own affairs. That's paternalistic claptrap, and inherently racist.

Pssst! Dude. I'm not a liberal.

I watched it last night, and the white man wasn't really able to help the Indians either. The Indians were saved by the Asian kid. So it's actually a movie about how Indians need help from Asian children, not white men.

Yeah, fuckin' hack who changed the way we enjoy film and television today. What a douche! Take that THX, ILM and all the rest and shove it up, Lucas!

Context is important, Mr. O'Hara. If you are going to sit and demonize one movie for its completly racist overtones then you should look at the body of the work in which it sits - which is a homage to the serials of the 30s, 40's and 50's of which Gunga Din and the idea of the evil Nazi German was pervasive. If you want to say those movies should never be referred to again because they are pervasively racist, thats fine but its still bullshit and I would like to see you condemn every other Indiana Jones movie for perpetuating stereotypes of (1) Germans as all Nazis (2) all French as sniveling douchebags (3) all Chinese as no good double dealing con artists.

I don't see the Indians being portrayed as not being to handle their own affairs - I see a village (which could be any nationality) on the brink of starvation.

I also see that the rajah which is basically a puppet of British colonialism ineffective to do anything because (1) he was like 13 years old and (2) he was under a magic voodoo spell and (3) the occupiers of India, the white men who really had the power to do something in that period, refused to believe that there was a massive insurgency taking place right underneath their feet...which says more about the british than it does about their indian allies.

Sean O'Hara, are you of Indian descent? If not, then it's none of your business and you shouldn't concern yourself with how Indians were portrayed in this film. You say that the Indians in "Doom" couldn't help themselves and they needed the "white man" to protect them. If Indians have a problem with "Doom" then they can talk about it themselves. They sure don't need you to come to their political correct aid.

Honestly, why would you waste so much of your brainpower thinking about how Indians were supposedly negatively portrayed in a movie that came out almost 25 years ago? What's the point of getting riled up about it?

How were peaceful villagers supposed to protect their children from heart ripping crazies with weapons?

This is just silly. You don't have to be Indian to be concerned with racism against Indians (whether this movie represents that or not).

What would you say to all the white people that marched with Martin Luthor King Jr.?

Not sure what this has to do with this thread, but you do realize that Lucas wrote the previous three installments?

No, he provided the story for them...someone else supplied the screenplay.

For what it is worth...I just finished watching all three films...and for some reason or another, this was the first time I ever watched ToD or TLC (I've seen Raiders countless times).

After ToD...I was actually really dissapointed. I never really got it until this thread...it's like James Bond with a whip. It wasn't nearly as fun as Raiders, and for someone reason seemed smaller in scope than Raiders. It's not that I didn't like it...but I sure as heck didn't love it.

I just finished TLC...and let me tell you...if Indy IV is anything like that...I will be very pleased. I had about as much fun watching TLC as I did Raiders (but I still think Raiders is the better film). It was just a "sit back and enjoy the ride" type of film. Indy was back to teaching, not hussling in a tux. I never knew I could see Connery as a bumbling fool yet still have a sophistication to him. It was great....now bring on KotCS!