Is there any reason this was set before ROTLA?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
aluminum_foil — 9 years ago(December 14, 2016 02:19 PM)
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?
-
Fluke_Skywalker — 9 years ago(January 26, 2017 09:01 AM)
It 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. -
kmags84 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 02:49 PM)
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.