MovieChat Forums > Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Discussion > A better sequel than TOD?

A better sequel than TOD?

posted 4 years ago by Heisenberg (6730)
38 replies | jump to latest

This movie is a masterpiece. And the characters are great.
But the filmmakers wanted to go for the new 007, so the sequels just show a bunch of other adventures with new characters and stories and no connection to Raiders.

Would a direct sequel, with Marion and no Willie, continuing this story timeline with something like Last Crusade but with more direct continuity, be a better sequel than TOD?

They tried to mix this idea in once they abandoned the "new 007" project after TLC. The results are abysmal, with a senile Marion and a bastard child that adds nothing.
But maybe if they focused on a continuous series since the first sequel, things would have turned better or more interesting.
What could be a better 1984 sequel to Raiders?

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

Temple is the best indy

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Well, I'm not arguing about its quality (which, in my opinion, is a big step backwards from Raiders, but that's an impossible act to follow).

I am just arguing about its orientation.
It aimed at establishing a 007 series, it kinda succeded, but that whole project was abandoned after just the second sequel.
Could a continuous series have been a better choice?

I think a 007 series was a fine idea, they simply NEEDED to shoot 4 and 5 in the nineties, not that godawful tv series and waaay too late the unspeakable old indy sequels.

[–] davodikum (6212) 2 years ago

I half agree