This movie takes place a year before the events in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1935 vs. 1936). Since all of these films are self-contained for the most part, was there a reason this one wasn't set in, say, 1937?
shareThe reason was they wanted it set before he met Marion. That's pretty much the reason.
shareWell, since he'd known Marion for 10 years, they got their math a little wrong.
shareIt was definitely because they wanted a different female character in each film and didn't want to explain why Indy and Marion weren't together.
But I'm curious how many people back in '84 realized that TOD is set before ROTLA. I know each film has the year at the beginning, but did many people actually remember that ROTLA was set in '36? As a kid it didn't hit home w/me and I just assumed this was a sequel.
I didn't realize it until years later. I think most casual fans think it's a sequel.
share"Indy and Marion weren't together."
But then dosent that raise the question of why Indy and Screamy Lady werent together in Raiders?
Or did they part company at the end? , i cant remember
No, it ends with them kissing. But they are of total different worlds, so once the pheromones settled .... I would not bet on their relationship. Unlike the one with Marion
shareThey didnt have to explain why Indy wasnt with Annoying Lady a year later.
Nobody could stick a year with her.
It allows more Narrative Freedom, including but not limited to going with the Different Woman for Each Film motif. Not being bound to anything in Raiders, including Tone and Characters. Not that it necessarily made a huge difference in writing but TOD is definitely like another Realm compared to Raiders or The Last Crusade. Personally, I think it's far better than The Last Crusade and it's not far off Raiders at all. I'd probably call it a draw, depending on my mood. I know at the time it was viewed negatively by many involved and a lot of Critics/Fans etc... But when I look at the original Trilogy, I don't see how people think this doesn't hold up, simply because it's Darker in Tone. The Last Crusade is too similar to Raiders IMO and as much as i like it, feels a bit redundant.
sharePeople don't dislike it because it's allegedly darker in tone. I would dispute that point, the villain's scheme is actually much less diabolical when compared to Raiders and Last Crusade where Nazis are trying to get superweapons to take over the world. ToD also has a over the top scream queen and a kid as Indy's sidekicks and is full of childish gross out humor.
I don't like ToD because the pacing is so hyperactive that there isn't time for any of the great character moments from Raiders like Indy and Marion in the boat. On the whole the supporting characters just aren't as good. The movie is just a paper thin story that serves as an excuse to string action sequences together, and the action sequences aren't even as good as the ones we get in Raiders. Spielberg and Lucas have pretty much admitted that they phoned this one in (partly because Lucas was busy with his messy divorce) and from watching the movie I believe it.
I agree that Last Crusade is redundant and also pales in comparison to Raiders, but at least it has Sean Connery and his relationship with Ford, Elsa as a great femme fatale, and some great action beats (the prologue with River Phoenix, the tank chase, and the boat chase) that rival anything in Raiders.
"Spielberg and Lucas have pretty much admitted that they phoned this one in (partly because Lucas was busy with his messy divorce) and from watching the movie I believe it. "
I would absolutely like to see where they admitted something of the sort. I do not believe that for a second. The movie is a very well crafted and very much loved action adventure with great set pieces and scenes. If it was a standalone movie nobody would complain. The problem is it is totally different from the first one excluding Indy as a character and the adventurous tone and people should be happy. For once we dont get a sequel that is a rehash.
If crusade came straight after raiders it would have raised some questions about being too similar.
I love every film in the trilogy (fourth one can suck it for the most part) and I think Temple is something of a masterpiece in the saturday adventure sort of genre and a great look in to the then still imaginitive minds of Spielberg and Lucas and there is no reason for them to feel any shame for the movie.
Sorry for the ramble but tired of the hate for this gem.
I remember in ‘89 when Last Crusade was coming out reading a magazine article that he did the third film partly as an apology for Temple of Doom. What exactly he was apologizing for I can’t remember though.
shareIn addition the Marion issue, the film is emulating 30's UK adventure films set in India like Gunga Din, as opposed to Raiders which was based on WWII era b-films about Nazis. A slightly earlier setting was appropriate.
shareI didn't like the fact that it was set before Raiders of the Lost Ark. The reason I don't like it is because you know for a fact that he survives. It kind of takes away some of the 'danger factor' for the character because you know he's going to get out of it okay.
shareI think we **all** knew he was going to survive...
shareIt was necessary to depict Indy as being motivated by "fortune and glory" and still slightly naive about the real power of ancient artefacts.
In Raiders, Indy is still skeptical over Brodie's warnings but when it counts, he ultimately knows that you don't mess with stuff you don't fully understand. And it saves his and Marion's lives.