Re: Was Temple REALLY intended to be a PREquel?

Posted by Satipo from webcache26b.cache.pol.co.uk on February 23, 1999 at 11:14:57:

In Reply to: Was Temple REALLY intended to be a PREquel? posted by nitzsche on February 23, 1999 at 10:11:02:

: We all know that it was set in 1935, a year prior to Raiders, but was this really intended or was it a mistake? Could it possibly be that the trilogy was to take place over three years--1936, 1937, and 1938, but they mislabeled the Temple of Doom as being prior to the events in Raiders?

: You see, there are reasons that it might seem that Temple was after Raiders in the Indy chronology. Subtle things like Indy's costume (in particular his Wested) looking more disheveled or battered, his encounter with the swordsman where he slyly grins before trying to repeat what he did in Raiders by simply blowing the guy away--but his gun is missing. Doesn't the music even cue the scene from Raiders? The loss of his original gun during the Lao Che chase scene, and other little things.

: What do you all think?

: --nitzsche

I know what you mean. I think that the reminder of the Raiders swordsman scene was intended to give the audience both an in-joke and a sense of familiarity in a film that the makers were perhaps realising was going to be totally different in style to Raiders.

Adios,

Satipo

Follow Ups:

Re: Was Temple REALLY intended to be a PREquel? Sad little Phoenix 20:03:08 2/23/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : We all know that it was set in 1935, a year prior to Raiders, but was this really intended or was it a mistake?  Could it possibly be that the trilogy was to take place over three years--1936, 1937, and 1938, but they mislabeled the Temple of Doom as being prior to the events in Raiders?

: : You see, there are reasons that it might seem that Temple was after Raiders in the Indy chronology.  Subtle things like Indy's costume (in particular his Wested) looking more disheveled or battered, his encounter with the swordsman where he slyly grins before trying to repeat what he did in Raiders by simply blowing the guy away--but his gun is missing.  Doesn't the music even cue the scene from Raiders?  The loss of his original gun during the Lao Che chase scene, and other little things.

: : What do you all think?

: : --nitzsche

: 
: I know what you mean. I think that the reminder of the Raiders swordsman scene was intended to give the audience both an in-joke and a sense of familiarity in a film that the makers were perhaps realising was going to be totally different in style to Raiders.

: Adios,

: Satipo

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]