Was Temple of Doom a prequel?

My wife saw an interview where it was stated that Temple of Doom occured prior to the events of Raiders. It has been forever and a day since I have seen Temple of Doom so I have no idea if this is true or not, but I have never heard this before.

Can anyone confirm or deny this for me?

 

Yes it's true. You can infer it from watching the movie since it's stated that it takes place in 1935, while Raider takes place in 1936.

 

Thanks, like I said it has been too long for me. I assume there is a date shown at the beginning?

 

Yes, the date each film begins is shown at the bottom of the screen during the opening sequence. I've heard that Lucas set ToD prior to RotLA because they could not get Karen Allen to reprise her role, and this jarred the flow from one film to the next, since Marion and Indy are obviously in love at the end of RotLA, as opposed to her being some kind of James Bond one-night stand.

 

That makes sense. The funny thing is that the interview my wife saw (she can't remember who was being interviewed) turned that logic around and stated that the reason Marion was not in Temple was because it took place first. I guess it all depends on who is getting interviewed and how good their memory is!!

Anyways, thanks for the answer.

 

The reasoning I heard behind the prequel status was:
George and Steven didn't want to include any Nazis or references to the Nazis in the second film. They clearly took a new direction with the franchise with the launch of "Temple." After Raiders, it was clear that Indy had become pretty involved with the hostilities in Europe. This is confirmed by "Last Crusade."

In terms of Marion--I heard (and I think this was through DVD commentary) that George and Steven had debated bringing her back but decided to have different women in each film (like Bond girls.) At least that was their thought back then.

-Seldon

 

I don't see how setting TOD after ROTLA would have made any difference to there being Nazis or not. There were Nazis around in 1936, after all.

Indy visited China, Nepal and maybe one other sub-continent country during the whole film. The Nazi reasoning makes no sense.

 

Yes, Temple of Doom is a prequel...and sometimes I watch them in chronological order rather than release order.

 

I'm well aware. Clearly Nazis wouldn't be turning up in India. I think it was for the sake of the story arch. "Temple" is a seperate adventure while the other two in the trilogy focus on conflicts with Nazi Germany. "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" are very similar films. They both portray Indiana as a professor, both feature Marcus and Sallah, and both revolve around a power struggle with Nazis. In contrast, "Temple" is something very distinct and seperated from that. At least that is what I thought the reasoning was. Not sure it had anything to do with the women.

-Seldon

 

I know all these guys have already confirmed that "Temple of Doom" was a prequel but I just wanted to add that if you bought the The Adventures of Indiana Jones VHX box set, that came out in '99, then you'll notice on the individual VHS sleeves that "Temple of Doom" is Chapter 23, "Raiders" is Chapter 24, and "Last Crusade" is Chapter 25, and this was done because the "Young Indy" series is Chapter 1 through 22.

The U.S. box set came with "Chapter 18: Treasure of the Peacock's Eye" which was a nice touch since the Peacock's Eye is a large diamond that looks like Lao Che's large diamond in "Temple of Doom", however, whether or not the Peacock's Eye was Lao Che's diamond was left ambiguous until just this year when the junior novelization of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" confirmed that both diamonds are one and the same. On a side note in a September 15, 1957 letter to Jones, Short Round claimed to have tracked the Peacock's Eye to Hawaii. According to Short Round, the diamond had fallen into the possesion of a group of natives on the island of Niihau.

I think "Temple of Doom" was a prequel because it shows the dark side of Indiana Jones. An example of this is when he sticks a carving fork in Willie's side and he's even accused of being a grave robber and he really is nothing but a tomb raider and this is made clear by his attempt to trade Nurhachi's remains for the Peacock's Eye, and because of his unethical ways he ends up empty handed in the movie's opening adventure. And then we see he didn't even want to help the people of the Indian village at first but then when he thinks he'll get the Shankara stones then he goes to Pankot Palace. And then in the end we see Indiana has changed and he even returns the only stone to the village. The fortune and glory was never the material riches; it was the freeing of the children. In "Raiders" Indiana is pretty much the all around hero but in "Temple of Doom" there is a character development that is carried over from "Temple of Doom" into "Raiders" and then in "Last Crusade" we see Indiana was never about getting the Holy Grail but was merely rescuing his father.

"Temple of Doom" is far superior to "Raiders" in regards to the story. I'll never understand why Spielberg talks smack about "Temple of Doom".

 

^ ^ That's an interesting and well-thought-out assessment about the arc of Indy's character. I can almost buy into it, too, except for one flaw (in the films rather than in your observations, immolated_one): In Raiders, Indy tells Marcus that he doesn't believe in all that supserstitious nonsense, the power of God and so forth. But at the end of Temple he tells the Hindi priest "I understand its power now." It seems contradictory and out of place, as though Temple is really meant to follow Raiders, but they switched it somewhat arbitrarily so they wouldn't have to deal with the Karen Allen problem, which arose (as I heard it years ago) because Allen refused to be in the sequel.

 

I never said it was all planned out from the beginning but that's what I feel you're saying I'm saying. All I said is there seems to be an Indian Jones character arc going on if you look at the trilogy with "Temple of Doom" as the starting point.

I'm well aware of the dialogue from "Raiders" that contradicts Indy's supernatural experiences in "Temple of Doom", and by the way, I never tried to pass off my interpretation of the Indy trilogy as the truth and that's why I began my statement with "I think" so "Nice try, Lao Che."

 

It was neither a sequel nor a prequel. It took place in a parallel universe that occurred when the ark was opened. This is made clear in the special features.

 

immolated_one, I'm just looking for a friendly discussion. I like your assessment of Indy's development from Temple to Raiders, and I was hoping you could help me work out this seemingly contradictory element regarding Dr. Jones' spiritual disbelief -- disbelief which is evident at the outset of both films. This was not a criticism of you nor an attempt at punching holes in your excellent observations. One might think that Lucas and his writers would have indeed planned this aspect of the movies out, especially if there is some discernble character arc over the course of the films. Maybe there's something I'm missing, and my hope was that you could help me discover it.

 

To me, the date of TOD is somewhat irrelevant. It could take place in 1932, 1939, or 1945. Its sort of timeless in that it nots linked to any particular era (other than being "sometime" in the 30's or 40's). I think the date that was stuck on the film in the beginning wasn't given much thought other than explaining away what happened to Marian. In terms of continuity, theres holes whether its a sequel or a prequel so this sort of becomes irrelevant anyway.

 

You know as well as I do there was no rhyme or reason why Indiana says what he says in "Raiders" when 1 year ealier in his life he watched a guy get his heart pulled out of his chest all while the same guy keeps on living and the heart keeps on pumping. He saw stones glow and he saw those same stones burn through his pouch as if they had a will of their own. Yes, you're right, there is no rational reason why Indiana wouldn't believe in the supernatural unless he himself was irrational. I recogonized this continuity issue long ago myself. The truth is George Lucas had a vision for a trilogy about a man in a leather jacket and fedora who wielded a bullwhip, but as you can hear Spielberg say, in the supplimental DVD that came with the Indy DVD collection, George didn't have three stories and they made them up as they went along. I doubt you'll ever find a good reason why Indy doesn't believe in the supernatural in "Raiders" other than it's just a continuity issue because of Lucas' penchant telling stories out of order. To me little dialogue like that is not important. What's important to me is that the movie actually says something. I believe "Temple of Doom" actually says something profound and that's where "Raiders" falls short for me. "Temple of Doom" is the one that is closest to its roots as well. By that I mean "Temple of Doom" is the Indy movie that most resembles the old serials from which it is based.

 

Just my opinion but I think the 1935 date given to ToD was done very late in the game and that the film was originally conceived to be set in 1937. It's interesting that RotLA is set in 1936 and TLC is set in 1938. I think ToD was meant to be set in 1937 but for what ever reason Spielberg and Lucas decided to change the date to 1935. It takes cares of a couple of contradictions but you have to realize that at the beginning of every movie Indy doubts the power or existence of each mythical object he later goes on to find.

 

That's true. Indy doesn't believe in the Authurian legend. What does it take to convince this guy that the supernatual and irrational legends are very much part of his world? I mean the guy personally witnesses the power of: black magic, a Hindu God, and the Hebrew God, but then the guy laughs at the legend of the Holy Grail quest. Indiana must either be a hardcore atheist or a blundering idiot. Either way the guy does get all the hot women.

 

Perhaps Indy has a problem with denial?

 

... wow...you all make interesting points and this makes me want to re-watch the trilogy again only this time start with TOD, Raiders and Crusade... hmm.

Good or bad idea??

 

I remember being disappointed in ToD when it first came out, but now it's right up there with the rest so far.

 

This is how I view the movies as well.

Temple of Doom starts with Indy being a grave robbing cad after some quick cash rather than an archaeologist. His trade of an artifact for a diamond and then using Willie as a hostage shows his "dark side." His misadventures are later confirmed at the palace when his host recounts that Indy is known more as a grave robber than an archaelogist and his problems in Honduras. Indy is there to get the stone for fortune and glory but along the way he learns the value of his friendships and the "magic" of the stones. He frees the children because it is the right thing to do. He returns the stones to the people because he knows it will save them. He also knows the evil that can arise from using the stones for power and glory. His character is highly ego-centric at the begining of the film and through the course of the film he learns that selfless acts are just as rewarding.

I don't believe Indy's disbelief is contradictory or a continuity issue. I take it as he takes things as they come. Kind of like how someone can believe in ghosts but not Bigfoot. There are different levels of spiritual or supernatural belief that people accept or reject based on their experiences and belief systems. Perhaps Indy doesn't believe any of it until he actually sees it or experiences it? Or perhaps his disbelief is part of a larger story arc of his spiritual awareness. I think an argument can be made either way.

 

That is a very thoughtful and well-written post. And I agree with it.

 

^^
Yeah, same here. I watched TOD not too long after reading that post and I view it in a different light now. I've always loved the film, and watching it with that idea in mind made it even better to me.