[geordielady]

Just wondering as many trailers indicate it was not also the start of the film just gives the impression something came before it.

[grps3]

it was the first movie but temple of doom (The sequel) was actually a prequel

[Helbore]

I think the opening to Raiders is meant to give the impression that this is an ongoing series of movies and you are just catching the latest one. Lucas and Spielberg were inspired by the 20s-30s era cinema serials, so its meant to be like one "episode" in the middle of a series.

Same thing with the first Star Wars film being "Episode 4," and opening with a scroll of text that explained what had happened "last week."

[LykkieLi]

Originally Posted by grps3

it was the first movie but temple of doom (The sequel) was actually a prequel

Really?

[-GONZO-]

Originally Posted by LykkieLi

Really?

Yep, Raiders Of The Lost Ark is set in 1936 and Temple Of Doom is set in 1935.

[geordielady]

OK thanks guys, like others I never knew temple of doom was a prequel, guess it makes sense now.

[Moboloco]

I never knew that, great quiz question lol.

[rfonzo]

Originally Posted by geordielady

OK thanks guys, like others I never knew temple of doom was a prequel, guess it makes sense now.

Originally Posted by -GONZO-

Yep, Raiders Of The Lost Ark is set in 1936 and Temple Of Doom is set in 1935.

Originally Posted by grps3

it was the first movie but temple of doom (The sequel) was actually a prequel

I did not know that either. How does it make sense that the temple of doom was a prequel?

[LykkieLi]

Originally Posted by -GONZO-

Yep, Raiders Of The Lost Ark is set in 1936 and Temple Of Doom is set in 1935.

I didn't know that either! Whoa!

[rfonzo]

Is the Temple of Doom where they walk in a cave and they tread in all those bugs.

[Aneechik]

It does actually say at the start of the movies what year they're set in.

[geordielady]

Originally Posted by rfonzo

I did not know that either. How does it make sense that the temple of doom was a prequel?

What I meant by that comment is I can now understand why at the start of the movie it appears people know each other and that, obviously because all that happened in the temple of doom as it was a prequel.

I thought maybe there was like a series and the first movie carried on from the series.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by geordielady

What I meant by that comment is I can now understand why at the start of the movie it appears people know each other and that, obviously because all that happened in the temple of doom as it was a prequel.

I thought maybe there was like a series and the first movie carried on from the series.

ToD being set before Raiders has nothing to do with characters appearing to know each other at the start of Raiders. Indeed, none of the characters of ToD appear in Raiders.

The familiarity between the chracters at the start of Raiders is to illustrate the ongoing adventurous nature of the central character rather than an ongoing narrative...

...although part of me thinks you already know that and are just up to your usual tricks.

[Listentome]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

It has nothing to do with ToD being set before Raiders. Indeed, none of the charcters in ToD appear in Raiders.

The familiarity between the chracters at the start of Raiders is to illustrate the ongoing adventurous nature of the central character rather than an ongoing narrative...

...although part of me thinks you already know that and are just up to your usual tricks again.

Just what I was going to say. Given Indy is the only character to appear in ToD and Raiders. Indy's history with characters like Balloq is there to establish the competitve nature of their history that will play a part in getting to the Ark first.

Actually, I can think of few movies that don't begin with the central characters having a history that we haven't witnessed.

I find it hard to believe that someone familiar with Raiders could think there were prior films featuring the same characters.

[revans9]

i remember seeing a making-of documentary when Doom came out with Harrison Ford saying he got 3 years older and the character got 2 years younger.

so here's a head scratcher for you. Just before the rope bridge bit in Doom, Indiana is confronted by two swordsmen. They swing their swords and Indiana just smirks and reaches for his gun (which isn't there). This is a reference to the shooting-the-swordsman bit in Raiders. But how can he remember something that hasn't happened to him yet?

[-GONZO-]

The begining of The Last Crusade you get to see the start of Indy's adventures.
And if you want to know all that went on from then up to the films you've also got the Young Indiana Jones series.

[MissDexter]

Originally Posted by Listentome

Just what I was going to say. Given Indy is the only character to appear in ToD and Raiders. Indy's history with characters like Balloq is there to establish the competitve nature of their history that will play a part in getting to the Ark first.

Actually, I can think of few movies that don't begin with the central characters having a history that we haven't witnessed.

I find it hard to believe that someone familiar with Raiders could think there were prior films featuring the same characters.

I was thinking the same thing - there's nothing whatsoever in Raiders that connects to Temple in terms of characters.

The relationship we between Indy and.....whoever - is just the relationship that exists in the "created history" to give the film some grounding.

[RebelScum]

Re the gun scenes - because it's a move he probably relied on regularly, not just the twice we saw.

[-GONZO-]

Originally Posted by revans9

i remember seeing a making-of documentary when Doom came out with Harrison Ford saying he got 3 years older and the character got 2 years younger.

so here's a head scratcher for you. Just before the rope bridge bit in Doom, Indiana is confronted by two swordsmen. They swing their swords and Indiana just smirks and reaches for his gun (which isn't there). This is a reference to the shooting-the-swordsman bit in Raiders. But how can he remember something that hasn't happened to him yet?

It's in reference to the character and that particular scene from an audiance perspective, not through Indy's eyes.

[Eddie Badger]

I always thought that the start was a sort of hommage to the Bond movies where you usually see Bond finishing off a previous mission before the titles.

[geordielady]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

ToD being set before Raiders has nothing to do with characters appearing to know each other at the start of Raiders. Indeed, none of the characters of ToD appear in Raiders.

The familiarity between the chracters at the start of Raiders is to illustrate the ongoing adventurous nature of the central character rather than an ongoing narrative...

...although part of me thinks you already know that and are just up to your usual tricks.

Why was it that once I saw who had made that post a comment like this was expected. People dont really want to see trolling baiting comments in this thread, leave people to chat and discuss without trying to cause arguements.

[geordielady]

Originally Posted by Listentome

Just what I was going to say. Given Indy is the only character to appear in ToD and Raiders. Indy's history with characters like Balloq is there to establish the competitve nature of their history that will play a part in getting to the Ark first.

Actually, I can think of few movies that don't begin with the central characters having a history that we haven't witnessed.

I find it hard to believe that someone familiar with Raiders could think there were prior films featuring the same characters.

What a comment, had it ever crossed you mind that some people may not be fan boys of the movie and not remember every single word that was said. Some of us saw these movies origionally decades ago and have had a life since.

[Virgil Tracy]

There is an odd bit in Raiders tho where Marcus is warning Indy about the powers of the Ark and Indy laughs and shrugs it off saying he doesn't believe in all that hocus-pocus stuff (wtte) and yet just a year before he'd witnessed all sorts of magic in Temple of Doom !

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy

There is an odd bit in Raiders tho where Marcus is warning Indy about the powers of the Ark and Indy laughs and shrugs it off saying he doesn't believe in all that hocus-pocus stuff (wtte) and yet just a year before he'd witnessed all sorts of magic in Temple of Doom !

The only supernatural elements in Doom are when the young prince is using a voodoo doll against Indy (which Indy doesn't see cause he's too busy fighting) and the other when the stones light up, something a sceptic could easily dismiss as a light trick. Certainly nothing there from his point of view to turn him into a believer.

[Johnny Clay]

Originally Posted by Eddie Badger

I always thought that the start was a sort of hommage to the Bond movies where you usually see Bond finishing off a previous mission before the titles.

It may well be. Legend has it Spielberg once said to George Lucas that he'd love to do a James Bond film. Lucas replied that he had a better idea. This gave birth to Raiders, which does roughly follow the Bond template of globe-trotting action/adventure with a dashing hero and a dash of humour.

Didn't they try to rebrand it as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, btw?