A better sequel than TOD?


This movie is a masterpiece. And the characters are great.
But the filmmakers wanted to go for the new 007, so the sequels just show a bunch of other adventures with new characters and stories and no connection to Raiders.

Would a direct sequel, with Marion and no Willie, continuing this story timeline with something like Last Crusade but with more direct continuity, be a better sequel than TOD?

They tried to mix this idea in once they abandoned the "new 007" project after TLC. The results are abysmal, with a senile Marion and a bastard child that adds nothing.
But maybe if they focused on a continuous series since the first sequel, things would have turned better or more interesting.
What could be a better 1984 sequel to Raiders?

reply

I'm probably in a minority, but I quite liked Temple Of Doom.

reply

I like it too.

reply

I love TOD, not as well as Raiders but it’s still really good and way better than TLC and KOTCS.

reply

Look, TOD has its merits and its problems, I don't dislike it but compared to Raiders it's a far cry.

Besides TOD quality, we can all see that it is not a direct sequel (it's actually an indirect prequel).
So my OP is just asking, would a DIRECT sequel (like in SW, or Matrix, ecc) serve better this character?

I like the original idea of turning this into a new 007. But that idea was sabotaged after TLC, and instead of making more adventures with Ford etc, they just called it a trilogy.
Till the 2008 unwatchable debacle.

So, in retrospect, I think that maybe a real sequel in '84, picking up the story right after Raiders, might have been better for a more epic and less episodic trilogy (which could have ended during or with WWII).

reply

I totally get what you’re saying, but I for sure like the different adventures for each movie style when it comes to Indiana Jones.

I love Raider’s. It’s my favorite of the trilogy. I’m also glad it’s a stand alone movie. So no, I like the way Spielberg & Lucas went with these movies taking place at different times/different adventures.

Star Wars original trilogy was more about the characters & one big overall story, so it works great the way it was done over the three films. Indian Jones on the other hand is more like you said 007, & not as character driven. Which makes it perfect for the serialized/stand alone films. Which is exactly what Spielberg/Lucas were going for. And it works.

reply

Yes, like I said, the original idea of a different adventures for each movie is the best format for a character like Indy and for the 80s in general.
But
this plan never came to fruition. Three movies only, for such a guy, with such a line of work, is extraordinary low. TLC is not an end of an arch or of a series. They clearly left the project halfway, maybe out of fear or boredom.
They needed two or three more legitimate single standing adventures in the 90s, when the filmmakers were still in great form and the audience wanted them, and after that they needed a new actor, like for 007. What we got instead was that shitty tv series, which only cheapened the IP.
So, from my 2022 perspective, I wish they just shot a real trilogy, with Indy and Marion, and possibly Connery for the last chapter.
Hence this second adventure could have shown an evolution of those characters and story, set after Raiders, in India, maybe adding Short Round but no mrs Spielberg.

reply

See for me I can not see anyone else playing Indiana Jones other than Harrison Ford. I’m glad they didn’t try to do a bunch of movies with each being worse than the last, aka Crystal Skull… I like the trilogy format for Indy. This character doesn’t really call for a continuation because Indiana Jones is kinda a loner, Dottie.

He doesn’t really need to grow as a character & build relationships with preexisting characters. And we as an audience don’t really need to see this evolution. Just stick to the adventures. I never watched the tv show for this very reason.

reply

Well, I see your point and I agree, he should not change nor evolve nor grow.
But again, that is true for the original plan, the new 007 archeologist.
That plan was aborted halfway. That is why I would have preferred, with the knowledge of today, a different, more cohesive trilogy. A different plan alltogether, since the trilogy we have was not intended as such, but its natural continuation never happened (crystal turd is not a legitimate sequel, it's a too little too late effort at trying to fix the abandonment of the original plan).

After 6 GOOD movies with Ford, I could have seen a new actor in the role, maybe even a young version of Indy, but as a solid movie series, not that crap on tv.

reply

I’m just glad they didn’t make a Big Top Indy. 😀

reply

They are using time travel to kill off old AND YOUNG Indy and replacing him with Phoebe.

Yes, erasing Indy before any of these adventures even occurred.

reply

This was the first movie in the series. Also I disagree. I don't like Temple of Doom but like Last Crusade and Krystal Skull.

reply

How do you know Short Round is a bastard? We are only ever told Indy found him trying to pick his pocket.

reply

Obviously, when I wrote bastard child I was not talking about Short Round....Thick as always, BillySlater.

reply

Or maybe your writing isnt that coherent? Nevermind its always someone else's fault, you can never be wrong! Well I might be "thick" but at least I know women dont know when their periods end ;)

reply

Nope, the writing is fine for everybody else but you. As always.
BTW, just fyi, in that other thread that you mentioned, you have NOT understood what is written there neither.
I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

reply

Your pity means nothing to me. While it is commendable you are trying to communicate in a second language, it really is obvious that it is your second language. fyi
Btw, your sentence should end with "either" not "neither", since your earlier use of "NOT" makes using "neither" at the end, redundant. But hey, I am not trying to be snooty, I just think you should tone down the arrogance, stubbornness and admit to being wrong for once, it will probably benefit you in the long run.

reply

Didn't Indy say Shorty's parents were killed by the Japanese? Or was that from expanded canon? I'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere.

reply

That's a much more sanitized explanation than the truth. Indy wanted a break from vijayjay, and developed a hankering for little boy ass, subsequently bought Short Round from a human trafficker

reply

Dark, dude. Dark.

reply

Dark, dude. Dark.

Still much lighter in color than what one finds in Idris Elba's toilet, immediately after he's scarfed down enchiladas and beans, then washed it down with a liter of prune juice

reply

Yeah, "The Godfather Part 2". It's not even close - TGP2 is the greatest sequel of all time.

reply

Who are you responding to?

reply

It looks like I was responding to you. I was under the impression you were asking if there was a better sequel than "Temple of Doom". I didn't read the rest of what you wrote. Did I misinterpret?

reply

It seems like you didn't even read my op then.
I have not asked if there is a better sequel in movie history than TOD.
Especially considering TOD is not that great.
I asked if they could have made a better sequel to Raiders than TOD by following a different strategy than the James Bond template.

reply

No I didn't read it - I just quickly read the title and responded quickly.

Yeah I agree, TOD was just ok. COuld they have made a better sequel? Well in fact they did - "INdiana Jones and the Last Crusade".

The recent one, I mean from 2008 - what was it called - Crystal SKull or something. One word on that one - unnecessary. Ive read a part 5 is currently cooking. Seems a bit embarrassing that a close to 80 years old Harrison Ford is playing Indy.

reply

TOD was awesome, Last Crusade is literally one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.

reply

It's usually written "GF2" by the way, not TGP2

reply

Naw, I prefer it when each film is just its own separate thing, I’m actually pretty disappointed that the James Bond franchise is now trying to have an overarching story arc.

reply

Yes but TOD is a prequel, instead of a sequel, because they wanted a separate thing but were not so sure (ie they did not want to let Marion go).
Maybe they could have done both things (make prequels more separate, sequels more consequencial).

Craig is not Bond so that whole fiasco can be forgotten.

reply

Right and if they wanted to make a “sequel” to Raiders all they had to do was just have any references to that film. Indy goes off on an adventure and that’s it.

reply

"but TOD is a prequel, instead of a sequel"

Which made zero sense and completely ruins Indy's journey as a character because he told Marcus at the beginning of Raiders that he doesn't believe in the supernatural.

reply

Yeah, we all know about that plot hole. No need to point it out again.
OTHER than that element, the sequel prequel choice was an easy option for them to just jump into a totally different place and cast without foregoing Marion.
Like I said, I think the best idea would have been to jump around in a series of prequels, continuing the storyline in a series of sequels. Make 7 movies continuously through the 80s/90s and you have a masterpiece, as long as you have planned everything from the beginning (which they clearly had not).

The filmmakers, unfortunately, had "better" things to do...

reply

All of the RAIDERS sequels are very poor to straight-up godawful. Insultingly stupid cash-ins and nothing more.

reply

I disagree.
Raiders is on another level (but come on, it's the greatest adventure movie ever made, anything pales in comparison), but the trilogy made sense as a Bond style series of adventures with a main protagonist and a few recurring characters. And it was properly done, with many great original ideas and stories and settings.
Of course there were a few mistakes and flaws, I would think that is a given once you take the serialization road (instead of, like I said in the OP, going a different route and make a true sequel to Raiders).

reply

They kind of did that with the Mummy and National Treasure flicks. It works too. I'm glad the Indy flicks are stand alone.

reply