Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (James Mangold, June 30 2023)

[Hitch 57]

I doubt that doubt very much.

[fommes 153]

No doubt I have no doubt that you doubt that doubt.

[Hitch 57]

I'm doubtful

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

Stunning that nearly 300 posts have been dedicated to a film that does not only not excist, but there's very little doubt that it ever will excist...

"Excist"?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

i always wonder why you spell it like that

[King Mark 3,631]

will it be scored by Desplat?

maybe the film will be to dark to use the Raiders march

[Richard Penna 3,688]

Williams will declare himself too tired, and Spielberg will hire Zimmer who will give Indy a new 2-note theme.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Didn't we do most of these jokes back in 2007?

[gkgyver 1,645]

Williams will declare himself too tired, and Spielberg will hire Zimmer who will give Indy a new 2-note theme.

will it be scored by Desplat?

maybe the film will be to dark to use the Raiders march

"Both Spielberg and Williams, as well as George Lucas, made it clear they wanted to work with each other. 'Of course' Spielberg said, 'he is my god!' George Lucas adds that 'in order for Johnny to score the film, I would have had to show him a rough cut, and I was like, I can't show a rough cut to John Williams!' "

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

ironically... the problem with the prequels is showing him rough cuts...not the finished films!

[gkgyver 1,645]

That's why ... I posted it.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Remember how the worst rumors about Indy IV turned out to be true?

[gkgyver 1,645]

As far as I'm concerned, Indy IV is yet to be made.

[Red 75]

As far as I'm concerned, Indy IV is yet to be made.

Because I don't like something it doesn't exist?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

Williams will declare himself too tired, and Spielberg will hire Zimmer who will give Indy a new 2-note theme.

He wouldn't be that generous...or that talented

[Datameister 2,042]

Red Rabbit, that's nothing new, refusing to accept part of the canon as...well, canon. I've done it before, too. Not for Indy IV, but sometimes something is just so bad that your brain can't categorize it with its superior predecessors.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

Red Rabbit, that's nothing new, refusing to accept part of the canon as...well, canon. I've done it before, too. Not for Indy IV, but sometimes something is just so bad that your brain can't categorize it with its superior predecessors.

Such as..?

[Red 75]

Red Rabbit, that's nothing new, refusing to accept part of the canon as...well, canon. I've done it before, too. Not for Indy IV, but sometimes something is just so bad that your brain can't categorize it with its superior predecessors.

It's sometimes hard for me to accept the Prequels as being canon; but part of that isn't even because they aren't good movies, it's because they just don't fit very well with the original trilogy.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Of course it is, obviously, canon, but I just can't accept it as an Indiana Jones movie. It's more like an overwrought spin-off to me.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

As far as I'm concerned, Indy IV is yet to be made.

Because I don't like something it doesn't exist?

If it is not in our archives, it does not exist!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Who knew the Jedi were such arrogant dickheads. Certainly not I before the prequels. I kinda like 'em.

[King Mark 3,631]

Didn't we do most of these jokes back in 2007?

yes,but we recycle our material here

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Bad Indy Jokes

Except this time, it's a reboot.

Oh, snap!

[Wojo 2,453]

As far as I'm concerned, Indy IV is yet to be made.

That makes sense. Since ToD was technically the prequel to Raiders, if Raiders was Indy I, ToD was Indy 0. That means TLC was Indy II, and KotCS was Indy III.

Ok, it only makes sense to me and ETAE4E.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Well, there's the prologue in TLC, though that's technically just a segment. So if we ignore the TV show and the EU since they suck:

-1 TLC Prologue

0 TOD

1. ROTLA

2. TLC

3. KOTCS, I guess

[Nemesis 245]

Why is ToD the prequel to Raiders?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

It takes place a year before.

[Nemesis 245]

Ah I see.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Why a year?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I figure because Harrison would still look around the same age, unlike in Last Crusade where he clearly looked older and had a totally different body.

[gkgyver 1,645]

I see. So you're pretty much making it up?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

As I go.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I thought Temple Of Doom being a prequel was a known fact?

[gkgyver 1,645]

But not exactly one year apart.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Apparently not. It usually comes up in related conversations and there's always someone with a life that's unaware.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I see. So you're pretty much making it up?

I take it you missed the big "SHANGHAI, 1935" legend that pops up in bright red capital letters at the beginning of the movie?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Correct.

Temple Of Doom is 1935, Raiders Of The Lost Ark is 1936.

[Wojo 2,453]

I've read that one of Lucas' explanations for making ToD a "prequel" to Raiders was so that the Nazis would not be the villains of the movie.

This is silly. The Nazis had control of Germany from 1933 to 1945. Moving the next Indiana Jones movie back one year from 1936 meant that anywhere Indy met German influence, he would meet Nazis. Set the movie in, say, 1932 (and make Indy four years younger while Ford ages three), and then I would believe Indiana Jones would not encounter Nazis. Lucas reinforced this idea by setting the film in places where Germany didn't hang out yet, like India and China.

The benefit to making ToD a prequel is that you don't have to tie up any loose ends left after Raiders ended. Where's the Ark? Where's Marion? By being set one year before Raiders, it doesn't "have to" set up any of the key events in Raiders, like the expedition to Peru. It also doesn't explain the bad relationship between Marion and Indy, but it also doesn't mention what happens to Short Round when Indy returns to the USA.

In Raiders, Indy tells Marcus:

Oh, Marcus. What are you trying to do, scare me? You sound like my mother. We've known each other for a long time. I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus. I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man. Besides, you know what a cautious fellow I am.

He survives Pangkot Palace, with its voodoo dolls, mind-altering poison, living heart removal, and the magical stones that glow near each other, and he STILL doesn't believe in magic and hocus pocus? You're a man of science, how can you be unable/unwilling to learn?

The idea became that each Indy movie was a self-contained adventure that loosely fit within the 1930s, and that while standalone, there is more narrative between "installments" spread out over so many years that we are not being told, and don't need to know.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

In Raiders, Indy tells Marcus:

Oh, Marcus. What are you trying to do, scare me? You sound like my mother. We've known each other for a long time. I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus. I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man. Besides, you know what a cautious fellow I am.

He survives Pangkot Palace, with its voodoo dolls, mind-altering poison, living heart removal, and the magical stones that glow near each other, and he STILL doesn't believe in magic and hocus pocus? You're a man of science, how can you be unable/unwilling to learn?

This is the main reason why the whole prequel idea is silly. In fact, I believe the movie was always supposed to be set in 1937, only for the date at the beginning to be changed at the eleventh hour. There's even a reference in the movie to the Japanese bombing Shanghai, which didn't happen until... late 1937.

[fommes 153]

What's the reference?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Shorty's parents were killed when the Japanese bombed Shanghai.

[Ollie 1,059]

I've read that one of Lucas' explanations for making ToD a "prequel" to Raiders was so that the Nazis would not be the villains of the movie.

This is silly. The Nazis had control of Germany from 1933 to 1945. Moving the next Indiana Jones movie back one year from 1936 meant that anywhere Indy met German influence, he would meet Nazis. Set the movie in, say, 1932 (and make Indy four years younger while Ford ages three), and then I would believe Indiana Jones would not encounter Nazis. Lucas reinforced this idea by setting the film in places where Germany didn't hang out yet, like India and China.

The benefit to making ToD a prequel is that you don't have to tie up any loose ends left after Raiders ended. Where's the Ark? Where's Marion? By being set one year before Raiders, it doesn't "have to" set up any of the key events in Raiders, like the expedition to Peru. It also doesn't explain the bad relationship between Marion and Indy, but it also doesn't mention what happens to Short Round when Indy returns to the USA.

In Raiders, Indy tells Marcus:

Oh, Marcus. What are you trying to do, scare me? You sound like my mother. We've known each other for a long time. I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus pocus. I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man. Besides, you know what a cautious fellow I am.

He survives Pangkot Palace, with its voodoo dolls, mind-altering poison, living heart removal, and the magical stones that glow near each other, and he STILL doesn't believe in magic and hocus pocus? You're a man of science, how can you be unable/unwilling to learn?

The idea became that each Indy movie was a self-contained adventure that loosely fit within the 1930s, and that while standalone, there is more narrative between "installments" spread out over so many years that we are not being told, and don't need to know.

I blame it on Lucas' lack of paying attention to details. When he wrote Raiders, he didn't have Temple of Doom in mind. However when he wrote TOD, he forgot that line from Raiders.

And while little mistakes like that happen it seems to be something Lucas does way too often. The date at the beginning of TOD is a major error.

[Jay 37,363]

Mr. Breathmask is right. TOD was written and film intending to take place AFTER Raiders, but at the last minute the title card at the beginning of the movie was changed to a year before Raiders took place. There's been no official explanation why, but I'd imagine its so Indy/Marian fans aren't all pissed that they are broken up only a year after the events of Raiders

[fommes 153]

I don't mind, in fact I think it was a good idea to do a prequel. The only thing that bothered me a bit back when I first saw it was the gag with the swordsmen, which could only come after Raiders (considering both Ford's acting and the audience's knowledge). But maybe that's just Indy's standard way of dealing with swordsmen.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

williams was also fooled

[Jay 37,363]

I've always thought of it as a true sequel taking place after Raiders, I don't care what the title card says

[Ollie 1,059]

It's a good film and a fun ride, so these things, originally, didn't bother me. And truthfully I didn't and don't remember the exact date when the Japanese bombed Shanghai.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I've always thought of it as a true sequel taking place after Raiders, I don't care what the title card says

Same here. I just ignore the "1935" and assume it takes place somewhere between Raiders and Last Crusade.

[Sweetmeats 2]

There's even a reference in the movie to the Japanese bombing Shanghai, which didn't happen until... late 1937.

The Japanese also bombed Shanghai in 1932.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_28_Incident