MovieChat Forums > Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Discussion > Explaining why Indy doesn't remember the...

Explaining why Indy doesn't remember the Indian Magic in Raiders

posted 4 years ago by motorcycledriveb (303)
24 replies | jump to latest

Indiana Jones actually spent a quarter of this movie being under the influence of Kali Ma. Thus, that's like being drunk or asleep. His mind was out of it for half the time he was in that dungeon/ritual place. His subconscious couldn't and wouldn't remember what happened afterwards.

Maybe he also felt some "sleepy/blank mind" side effects even after waking up from the Kali Ma possession - like near the end when he tried to pull out his gun on those two swordsmen and realized he didn't have it.

[–] millsey72 (10666) 4 years ago

This has to be the silliest question on this site. You do realize that this was the 2nd Indy film. Raiders was the first.

[–] Forky (1739) 4 years ago

This has to be the silliest answer on this site. You do realize that this was the 1st Indy film chronologically. Raiders was the second.

[–] millsey72 (10666) 4 years ago

This has to be the silliest response I ever got. Raiders was the 1st movie. Just look it up.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

This has to be the silliest response to a response to a silly question ever on moviechat: Temple of Doom might have come out second, but takes place before Raiders.

[–] Forky (1739) 4 years ago

Fun Fact: Silly string is neither silly, nor string. Discuss.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

👍👍👍

[–] millsey72 (10666) 4 years ago

If thats the case, then why in Raiders did Indy tell that guy that he doesn't believe in all that hocus pocus, etc about the ark. I am paraphrasing a bit. I don't remember his exact words. If Temple took place before, then why would Indy say this

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

sorry---Temple of Doom is a prequel whether you like it or not. Try to dispute it and you're going to look like a fool.

[–] millsey72 (10666) 4 years ago

You sound ridiculous. I just posted why Raiders came first. To say otherwise makes you the fool

[–] motorcycledriveb (303) 4 years ago

Forget internet comments, life in general is silly.

[–] Ldlamb (649) 4 years ago

The events in Raiders occurred after the events in Doom...Millsey just thinks this behavior is funny somehow

[–] janelsenor (2048) 4 years ago

Temple of Doom takes place in 1935.

https://www.brianrxm.com/comimg/cnsmovie_indianajones_temple_02.jpg

Raiders takes place in 1936.

https://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/0/8/0/666080_v2.jpg

[–] millsey72 (10666) 4 years ago

Don't you think thats an error by the film makers though, that they got the years mixed up? Because if thats the case, then why in Raiders, did Indy clearly state he doesn't believe in all that hocus pocus about the ark or something to that effect

[–] janelsenor (2048) 4 years ago

No. Documentaries reveal it was an intentional choice. Lucas said they made the film a prequel as he did not want the Nazis to be the villains once more.

[–] millsey72 (10666) 4 years ago

Ok. But do you remember the scene in Temple of Doom when Indy faces the samari sword flashing guy and Indy casually reaches for his gun and his gun is not there? In the previous movie, do you recall him just casually shooting that Egyptian guy with the sword? That was another reason why it seemed this film was a sequel. I just figured they screwed up the years in the opening scene. Back then, errors like that were not noticed unlike today. Were you old enough to watch Temple of Doom in its original run and did you know it was a prequel, after seeing the year posted in the beginning?

[–] janelsenor (2048) 4 years ago

I saw Temple of Doom in theatres. I didn't get it was a prequel until I re-watched later on VHS.

I recall those parts and thought it was odd too. But, at the end of the day, it's even more odd how skeptical Indy is in Raiders if you take the TV show into account.

[–] millsey72 (10666) 4 years ago

I did some research on this and Temple of Doom is a prequel. The reason I saw was they didn't want to explain a missing Marion from the Raiders film. So they made it a prequel instead, even though most everyone didn't realize the year posted on screen in TOD was a year earlier than Raiders. Lucas and Spielberg envisioned these movies like the James Bond movies where he had a different love interest in every film. You know how smart and informed my college professor is and he told me that Spielberg was asked to direct a Bond film in the late 70s, while he was directing Jaws. After Jaws became such a huge hit, the Bond people could not afford Spielberg. So Spielberg and Lucas decided to create their own character and franchise with Indy. Facts

[–] Karl Aksel (1490) 4 years ago

If thats the case, then why in Raiders did Indy tell that guy that he doesn't believe in all that hocus pocus, etc about the ark. I am paraphrasing a bit. I don't remember his exact words. If Temple took place before, then why would Indy say this

That's precisely the question that the OP attempts to answer.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Millsey is the silliest troll on movie chat

[–] Zinger (2408) 4 years ago

https://moviechat.org/tt0087469/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Temple-of-Doom/5ea473aa3db67d2b054ce615/Was-This-The-First-Prequel

[–] motorcycledriveb (303) 4 years ago

It wasn't a question though - I explained the answer to the question in my post. People ask this question, so I wanted to explain my interpretation.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Nobody but other confused people -- and you -- ask this question.

[–] motorcycledriveb (303) 4 years ago

Okay.

[–] Martoto (5104) 4 years ago

People can be drugged and suggestible to whatever anyone tells them. It's not magic.