I like this movie, probably more than most. That being said, why is it a prequel? All making it a prequel does is make several inconsistencies in the plot of raiders. Has there ever been an explanation as to what the reason was?
shareDon't know why this is set before Raiders, and it is hard for me to accept that the Indy in Raiders is actually older than the Indy seen here. As far as I'm concerned, this is a follow up to Raiders taking place a few years after. I know that is not official canon but it is my own "personal" canon, for lack of a better term. 😊 After everything Indy went through in Temple of Doom it's seems out of character for him to tell Marcus he does not believe in superstitious mumbo jumbo.
sharehe does that in all of them, I guess it's part of the "serial" thing. He calls the grail legends bedtime stories in LC.
shareSteven Spielberg and George Lucas didn't want to make the Nazis the villains again. That was their main reason. I actually love this movie because it's so different, in tone and atmosphere, to Raiders. Last Crusade was great as well, but how many times can you fight Nazis?
shareWhy would he have to automatically fight the Nazi's? This story takes place nowhere near anything that was influenced by the Nazi's.
The story itself removes him from the Nazi's, what does the timeline have to do with it?
I had heard they originally wanted Marion for it, so they must have wanted it to be set after Raiders.
I think if they couldn't get Karen Allen, they made it a prequel so as not to rattle fans of Indy and Marion together by giving him a new woman.
When they saw that Indy's popularity wasn't contingent on his being with Marion, they allowed him to have a new woman in Crusade and not need to make it a prequel.
That is just my theory, I'm not even sure if it's true that they wanted Marion in this and couldn't get KA.
I think it should have been set in '37 because it didn't make sense for Indy to still be cynical about magic as he was in Raiders, after all he saw with the stones and temple rituals.
Quite the opposite. The studio did not want Marion back, which is why its a prequel. They were trying to mirror the James Bond franchise where he is with different women in the next film.
shareThey also didn’t want the Nazis to be the villain and since there were no Nazis in 1935 it was set before Raiders.
shareI happen to be a history whiz. The Nazis began their ascension to power in 1930 and in 1932, they were the largest political party in Germany. Please delete your above post. Its not helpful to post disinformation on these boards
shareIt works in so much that Ford was in fact at his career physical peak for Temple. He looks & acts a bit younger, & more carefree, here than Raiders.
To be fair, it's 1935, a mere year before Raiders' 1936. Crusade was 1938, so they did squeeze in one more pre-WWII adventure.
...top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/
Lucas said in an interview that if they had made it a sequel, people would have been confused with Marion not being around.
And because they wanted a new girl for a better comic relief, they made it a prequel so Indy is not supposed to have reunited with Marion yet.
I don't know either and it's my biggest grip about the film. I know they didn't want to use the Nazis again but that's no reason to have this set before Raiders. I did see an old interview with Harrison Ford on YouTube and he's pretty confused about why it was decided to be a prequel too.
shareIt still p!sses me off this was a prequel. There's no reason for it, and it ruins Indy's arc in Raiders.
I've heard all kinds of theories that don't add up.
Didn't want to use Nazi's again? Well, it only takes place in Shanghai and India, why would that be a problem if was after Raiders?
Lucas and Spielberg thought people would be confused why he wasn't with Marion? No, people break up and move on. What's even more confusing and makes no sense is making a prequel where Indy witnesses an heart removal, is possessed and sees the stones glow, even though in Raiders he told Marcus he doesn't believe in black magic, superstition etc.
They wanted Indy to be someone out for his own personal fortune? Fair enough but it still contradicts Indy's arc in Raiders.
Why not just make it a sequel, Indy's become disillusioned with what he does and lost trust in people after the government took the Ark away at the end of the first movie, and now he's out for himself. A bit of dialogue to Willie where it makes that clear solves that problem and doesn't contradict Raiders. Baffling.
My brother and I as kids watching Temple used to think they accidentally screwed up the order of the films, and we didn't realize it was infact a prequel. We used to say things like, "Those idiots, this takes place in 1937! They screwed up the order!" lol
share