Saturday, July 05, 2008

Why The Character Arcs in "Raiders" Makes the First Film Superior to the Other Films in the Series

***WARNING: Mild spoilers of "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" ahead.

I have never understood what happened to the Indiana Jones movies after "Raiders". Like a lot of film makers, Spielberg and Lucas seemed to lose sight of what made their original creation so great and instead of building on what they'd done in the first film they completely undermined their creation with the successive films.

I know many people will disagree with me on this but I'll try and write up all my thoughts anyway and hopefully it'll make for a good read if nothing else (and probably a good debate in the comments section).

One of the things I like best about "Raiders" is the journey that Indy's character takes. Part of what makes the movie work so well for me is that he seems to undergo a fairly significant personal transformation during the telling of the story.

After he talks to the government agents about what the Ark is, and why Hitler might want it, Brody comes by his house to tell him he's free to go and try to retrieve the Ark. Brody has a great scene where he hints that maybe the Ark has powers that mere men aren't meant to tamper with, but Indy completely rejects this and tells Brody that he doesn't believe in such nonsense. So this is a clear statement that Indy doesn't believe in the power of the Ark and to him, it's just an object to be pursued.

By the end of the movie, his experiences have changed him so much that he believes in the power of the Ark. He tells Marion to "close her eyes" because he has come to understand something deeper than what he understood at the beginning of the movie: he now knows that there are things in life which hold a greater power than just their material or archaeological value.

But you can see the problem this can cause within the movie's structure: he doesn't believe at the outset that there is any power to the Ark. Therefore, he can't begin his journey with the motivation of "keeping the Ark's power out of the hands of the Nazis", because he simple doesn't believe there's any power to be had from it.

So the film begins with a sequence that, among other things, shows his determination to get that golden idol from the temple at any cost. It shows his fierce competition with Belloq to get whatever archaeological find he can grab at any cost, without ever considering that it might have any powers that can't be seen. To him, finding treasures is only about what they are worth in material terms.

After all, we saw in the opening of the movie that he doesn't care at all that the Hovitos tribe doesn't want anyone in their area. We see that they are still around - not some long-extinct tribe - and they are protecting their territory, and that they don't welcome outsiders. Somebody built some elaborate traps to keep people out of the temple and to protect the idol, and yet there is no hesitation on Indy's part, or any thought that maybe stealing the idol is a bad idea. There's no morality problem to him that the idol might mean something to these people and removing it might be detrimental to them or harmful to their way of life. To him, it has no "value" other than what it will fetch on an open market or add to his reputation after he collects it.

And we see in his willingness to risk life and limb to get the idol and through his interaction with Belloq how driven he is to posses the idol, how competitive he is to grab the greatest archaeological finds he can before anyone else does.

Which is all a great setup, because it provides a motivation for him to go after the Ark - his competitive nature and his burning desire to find the greatest historical treasures the world has to offer. Because it wouldn't work if he was going to keep the awesome "power" of the Ark out of the hands of the Nazis - because he doesn't believe in that kind of power, period.

Once again, you can see how meticulously plotted this movie is and how many things are setup within the story without the audience realizing that it's being fed exposition. The opening sequence feels like it's just an exciting piece to hook you into watching the movie. But it's not just that - it sets up a lot of things in a very effortless way, so we don't realize we're being shown things that will be important later.

So that's one of his "arcs", or journeys that he takes through the story: he comes to learn that there is a power to these things he collects, that they are not just objects, but that these things deserve our respect and reverence and that they have a power greater than we can imagine.

The other arc is also a very interesting one, and I really love the subtle way it's laid into the movie. When Indy is first introduced, he's seen (famously) in shadow and then walks into the light, revealing his face. It plays well, and I think it's well-known because it's such an interesting and weighty introduction and gives him a great mystique.

The first time you see his head, from behind - reacting to the sound of the porter pulling a gun on him.



The first time we see his face - as he steps out of the shadows.





But if you look at it within the context of the rest of the movie you can see that it's much, much more than that. The idea of "shadows" and light are very important within the film.

When he appears in The Raven (Marion's bar) he is re-introduced by his shadow, which appears behind her. Again, he is equated with shadows.



And interestingly, after he leaves, the Nazi contingent arrives and there is a very similar scene to Indy's, where their shadows are thrown onto the wall in the same way as his was. This can only be seen as a connection between the Nazis and Indy. The implication is that he is hardly better than they are - he is as morally ambiguous at this point as they are.





The real key to this idea is said very plainly by Belloq after Marion's apparent death in the marketplace. Belloq has a whole speech to Indy where he says (basically) "we are no different, you and I, we are just a shadowy reflection of each other". Significantly, this is the only thing Belloq says which seems to get under Indy's skin and prompts Indy to reply "now you're getting nasty", which tells you that deep down he probably thinks that this is true.

When Belloq is first introduced, outside the temple where Indy has taken the idol, the reason Belloq is able to take the idol away from Indy is because Belloq has learned to speak the native tongue and influence the natives into helping him - arguably a more noble approach than just walking into the temple and ripping it off. I think that's a great idea that Belloq took the approach to learn the native tongue and insinuate himself with the tribe to accomplish his goal whereas Indy just took the most obvious, blunt approach. It says a lot about their different personalities, and also, you can't necessarily say one approach is more "moral" than the other.

I take all of the moments that equate Indy with shadows and compare him to Belloq and the Nazis to mean that he is morally ambiguous, that he is not committed to fighting on the "right" side as he is to accomplishing his goals in any way possible. From the outset of the film, his character seems to be teetering on a precipice and could go either way. Will he decide to live a life of righteousness, of fighting for what's right, or will he become merely a soldier of fortune, doing whatever it takes to get whatever he wants in life?

Now, as a counterpoint to the "shadow" idea of Indy, Marion seems to be constantly equated with light. There are a lot of scenes that are staged in an unusual way and seem to be arranged to link her with light sources.






So the obvious conclusion is that she is the "light" that will illuminate his shadowy side and put him on the right path in life. Certainly it feels this way at the end of the film. There is a sense at the end that he is better off with Marion than he would be if he continued along the same path as before. And in his concern for the Ark and the fate of it within the government's possession that makes it seem like he has a newfound respect and concern that wasn't there at the beginning of the film.

I like both of these arcs very much and they're very unusual. Most character arcs in movies are very standard and tend to hit you over the head - not so with either of these ideas, and the movie is richer and deeper for them.

Unfortunately it is just these things that the subsequent movies failed to consider and they are much weaker for it. Not only that but the sequels seemed to deliberately undermine these ideas.

For example, "Temple of Doom" is a prequel to "Raiders" - it all took place before "Raiders" did, supposedly. And yet in "Temple" Indy witnesses a man pull another man's beating heart out of his chest and also he uses a magical incantation at the end of the movie to make the magic rocks burst into flames, thus defeating the villain. Now if all of this is supposed to happen before "Raiders", how are we supposed to believe that he went through these experiences - witnessing acts of unexplainable mystical power and even using the other-worldly power of the stones - and yet remain skeptical that there are mystical forces at work in our world?

Also, in "The Last Crusade", we see him as a Boy Scout at the beginning of the movie. He is played as completely moralistic: he is full of indignation when he discovers men digging around for the lost Cross of Coronado and he immediately sets out to steal it with the goal of getting it to a Museum. There is no hint at all of any kind of lack of morality. Right after this scene we see him as an adult, and his morality remains exactly the same - he is still pursuing the Cross of Coronado, still full of righteous umbrage and still saying the same thing: "that belongs in a museum".

Now I'm not suggesting that he should have been introduced as a rotten, larcenous Boy Scout with a complete lack of morals. But the film casts him as a completely moral and blandly simplistic version of what he was in the first movie, playing him like Superman, a completely honest and forthright person who's always in the right. That's inherently uninteresting and also untrue to what made the character so fascinating and compelling in the first place. The film makers forgot what was great about their creation and seem to think that as long as he has a hat and a whip he will be a great character. Great characters are made great and watchable by the choices they make that define who they are, not because of their costumes.

It's interesting that in a lot of interviews, Lucas, Spielberg and even Harrison Ford seem completely sold on the idea that the third and fourth movies made the right choice by introducing Indy's family members and making the films "emotional" through the family connections that are explored. I completely disagree.

First off, I disagree that family connections are the instant formula for "emotion". The family relationships in the third and fourth movie are played more for laughs than for anything - there's almost nothing there that could even be considered emotional or anything even remotely like a real actual human father-and-son relationship. And I don't really look to my "Indiana Jones" movies to be emotional, any more than I look to dessert to fulfill my nutritional needs or look to broccoli to satisfy my sweet tooth. It's a complete fallacy to think that all movies need to be "emotional" to mean something to an audience. Some of the greatest movies ever made were never meant to be "emotional" and they don't need to be.

The weirdest part of all this is that Lucas and Spielberg freely admit that they invented Indy to be their own version of James Bond - that's even why they cast his father as Sean Connery. So why didn't they stop to think about whether they, as fans of James Bond, ever found themselves wanting to find out about James Bond's family?

Does anyone want to see a movie that tells us what Bond was like as a kid? How he got his start on the road to being a spy in his adolescent years? Do you want to meet Bond's dad and see them hang out together, working through their issues? Do you want Bond's illegitimate son to show up at some point and see them work through their issues? Because I sure don't. And I don't want to see Jones do this either. So it's inexplicable to me that this was the way Lucas and Spielberg went; I don't find it interesting or satisfying and it doesn't even follow the model they were purportedly following in the first place. And every time he interacts with his Father or his son on a familial level he just seems to be complaining or chiding them...not much fun to watch, and not the cool, carefree Indy I met in the first film.

Strangely enough, I actually thought it kind of worked to have Indy hanging out with "Short Round" in the second film. There's something about a loner, a guy who outwardly seems tough and completely self-reliant hanging out with some orphaned kid he got hooked up with. It tells you a lot about the guy: he has a lot bigger soft spot than he lets on and when you see some one relate to a kid on a kid level it's fun. When a Father does that it seems kind of irresponsible but when it's an adult who isn't the kid's dad it becomes fun to watch and telling about that character. It allows the character to show a different side than he is able to in his relationships with other men and women (and it worked just as brilliantly in "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" as well as countless other films).

If nothing else, maybe the other three movies can't ever live up to the first one simply because you can't really top God in terms of spectacle. After witnessing the power of the Almighty, everything else seems a little bit like a letdown.

26 comments:

sunny kharbanda said...

Thanks for these Indy posts.. they sure are a good read, and I'm really enjoying your visual analysis of these movies.

I think sequels in Hollywood rarely contain strong character arcs. Once a film is successful in plotting an "origin" arc for the character, the sequels typically stay flat.

On the other hand, a PREQUEL with a flat character arc... tsk, tsk.

The only exceptions I can think of are movies adapted from books where the original writer cared to develop the characters through the series. I'd love to be proven wrong on this count!

Scott Sackett said...

I agree with everything you said (I especially liked your last sentence), but I also think one of the problems is when they were making the first movie, they had a blank slate. i know they were making an old serial style movie, but they were making the Ultimate Serial.

After that, they had to make an Indiana jones movie.

To use your Bond analogy, how many Bond movies have been great action movies, but just not good Bond movies.

Like Bond, we expect certain things from an Indy movie. The first movie was perfect and they haven't been able to replicate that since.

J_Fox said...

NIce analysis. I'd never thought about the "Temple of Doom"/supernatural aspect before.

Of course, one big difference between the movies is that Lawrence Kasdan wrote "Raiders" and other scribes penned the others. Granted, when you have to get final approval from Lucas - who wouldn't know subtlety and good dialogue if it leapt up and yanked his beard - I'm not sure I can blame the screenwriters.

But I'm a writer, so I will.

While it would have been difficult to create as compelling a character arc in the later films as the naturalist/supernatural one in "Raiders," it would not have been impossible. People always have something else to learn in life. I still have no idea what Indy learned in "Doom."

Anonymous said...

Great analysis; you paint a very clear picture of why it's difficult to create compelling sequels at all. I have to wonder if Lucas and Spielberg were even thinking about these types of questions with Indy 4. It certainly doesn't seem like it.

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone want to see a movie that tells us what Bond was like as a kid? How he got his start on the road to being a spy in his adolescent years? Do you want to meet Bond's dad and see them hang out together, working through their issues? "

In defense of Indy, because I've seen him as a kid and work out issues with his dad, I feel like he's a richer character then Bond. I know more about Indy after only 4 movies as opposed to Bond and the dozens of films he's been in.

-barry

Largent said...

There's a new book that came out with this latest film that tracks (in pretty decent detail) the making of all four films, including some of what came out of the original story sessions. It's not really fair to downplay Lucas' involvement in the first film. It was pretty major.

One of the more interesting things was that originally the opening of the Ark wasn't given much prominence. It was to be followed by the mine car chase (that got transplanted to Temple of Doom.) When they realized the mine car chase was too expensive, it was dropped and then the opening of the Ark *had* to be a big deal.

Clay Kaytis said...

Wonderful post Mark. I didn't have time to read it all at once but I'm glad I kept coming back to chew on another piece. Great analysis!

C. Edwards said...

I think your last paragraph says it best.

I've never been a big fan of the familial stuff either, which is probably why I prefer Bond to Indy.

Dusenberry said...

Overall, I'd say I agree with Indy's shadow arc ... but there are certain clues in Raiders I saw that don't quite match up with some of your theory and Indy lore.

In the beginning of Raiders, yes Indy does admit to not believing in such "hocus pocus" BUT, he does express concern that the museum will get the Ark after he finds it. I didn't get a sense that it was so clear he just wanted the money from the museum afterward either.
He was more excited about the discovery of the Ark than anything else. It was "everything they got into archeology for in the first place". And at the critical moment when he was gonna blow up the Ark, he didn't lower it for the sake of saving Marion - it was Belloq who told Indy that he too wanted to see the Ark opened.

I do agree about his wrecklessness as an archaeologist - but I think Indy was under the illusion that he was better than Belloq because he didn't keep the things he sought for himself, for his own glory. Belloq did. So as that links up with the 3rd movie, I think it fits fairly well and I continue to be a fan of the third film.

Very interesting stuff in here, though - I think it was fairly close to the mark.

Acetate said...

Not only Kasdan as a writer but Phillip Kauffman as well. Those guys are the key difference to me.

Andrew O. Murray said...

Hey Mark,

Great post;

Just wanted to pick your brain on something. When I watch Raiders and I see the spiders crawling all over the back of Indy and Satipo, I can't stop squirming in my chair. Even after 20 years it still gives me tingles!

But in Indy IV, a CG scorpian runs out of a hole on to Mutts back, down his arm and bites him...I laugh and say what the hell was that?

Why is something that should make me cringe not doing its movie magic on me?

Any thoughts?

Gareth said...

Regarding the shadow and light idea you mention, I noticed in the new one, there was an amazingly well lit shot of Indy tied up being interrogated. The light is behind his head directly, casting a shadow onto a gauze or net in the foreground which frames Indy’s head in his own profile shadow. That’s the best thing I remember from the film!

I also agree about the family thing. I actually chuckled when it cut to the pic of his dad, and it felt like I shouldn’t be chuckling. Maybe just because it’s Sean Connery!

Floyd Norman said...

The first Indy film was made on the cheap, so the filmmakers had to be creative.

I feared this last film would let me down. Sadly, like most successful filmmakers, these guys are too rich and successful to work the old magic.

Nothing destroys creativity more effectively than money and success.

Beast said...

Mark I always felt the character arc for indy was greater in Temple of Doom.
At the begining he's negotiating with lao -the "murhachi" remains for the diamond. This showed he was in it for the money. Even when he agrees to go to Pancot Palace it's for "fortune and glory". This isn't the same indy that wants artifacts for a museum. (Raiders)
By the end of the film he returns the stone and appreciates it's power. He's changed understands the meaning it has to the villagers.

As for Last Crusade and the young Indy.
Boy scouts are full of those idealistic beliefs "belongs in a museum" as we grow older our views change. Those boy scout ideas get lost. Then at some point in our lives we can get that back. Think about the journey of life young and idealistic., then you go out in the world to seek your fortune.. As you grow older you change see the world differently. In last crusade thate aren't saying indy stayed that "belongs in a museum" way his whole life. they just skipped over the rebelious seeking his place in the world part of his life. they already showed that in the first 2 movies.

Brian Growe said...

Wow, awesome read. This gives me a lot of stuff to think about. Great job breaking it down!

Beast said...

Mark,
Can you explain or talk a little about the story arc most films take.
It seems like alot of films follow a formula that I can sense but don’t quite understand.
Theres a buildup, then There’s always a point 3/4s into a film when everything is going great with the characters then something bad happens or it falls apart then they work to get a back to a high point at the end. Hope this isnt to vague

Dancing Man said...

It's ridiculous that I've seen "Raiders" dozens of times and never picked up consciously on the light/dark symbolism, and just how much of an opportunist he's being in getting the idol at the start of the film - I remembered Belloq's line about "shadowy reflection" but didn't realize how on-the-mark he really was! This is what's so great about this blog - I could read/write about this stuff forever...

mark kennedy said...

sunny - thanks for the comment! I can't think of any exceptions either...

scott - yes, good point, a legacy can be a damning thing.

j fox - yes, Kasdan is great, I think, and I don't know why he didn;t pen the others as well. the whole thing he was "learning" in "Doom" is the whole "Fortune and Glory" thing...but it's really thin, and makes no sense....that's another post!

anon - yeah, you have to wonder what they think of how the sequels stack up to the original...

barry - good point. That's very true, but in all honesty, with the way they took him the more I learn about him, the less I like him.

largent - that's a great book. I'm slowly working through it. A lot of what is in "Doom" was stuff that didn't make it into the first film, right?

clay - thanks for posting! Love the recent podcasts! Sorry you couldn't get through the whole thing....come back and finish it sometime.

c. edwards - thanks!

dusenberry - yes, I know - he wanted the Museum to get the Ark - but he never asked the question "should the Ark be found?" or "Should the Ark be in a Museum?". He never saw it as anything other than an object to be found...until later. When I saw he was mercenary at the beginning, I mean that he sees all these relics as just objects with no power or value other than their archaeological value. And when he lowers the bazooka and doesn't destroy the Ark, it's because he has changed...I think by that point he senses that the Ark has more to it than he thought...but also, he always has a respect for the objects as treasures and doesn't necessarily have the desire, ever, to see them destroyed.

acetate - maybe you're right, that the right writers are the key.

andrew - I dunno, good question. My guess is that it's set up really well in the first movie. There's a great anticipation created by seeing the tarantulas on Indy, then the beat of wondering "how many will be on Satipo's back?" that really builds, and then you get the satisfying answer: a lot. As you say, the Scorpion just runs out, and there's no anticipation so it's not as "milked" as the gag in the first film.

gareth - interesting...I remember that now that you mention it. Also, he's introduced by his shadow after the Russians throw him to the ground. I know, the pic of Sean Connery made me laugh too. It didn't look like a real photo, it looked like an official production photo from the Indy 3 set.

floyd - too true, well said.

beast - as for me, I could never follow that "fortune and glory" thing because I didn;t understand where it came from or where he decided it wasn't the right path to pursue, etc...it just felt tacked on, to me. That aside, my point was that experiencing the magic of the stones undercuts the character in Raiders who doesn't believe in magic at all, period. Also, I get what you say about just "skipping over" his rebellious side, but all I'm saying is that makes for a dull character within the third movie. His "arc" in the third movie is to repair his relationship with his Dad, and I just didn;t find that satisfying enough or true to the character they'd already established.

brian - thanks!

beast - I'll try...I guess I would say that traditionally there is a point at the 2/3rds-3/4ths of the story (otherwise known as the End of Act Two) where all is lost - it appears that the villain will succeed and the hero will fail. This is exactly what you are pointing out. Then after that the hero is sparked back into action, the climax happens and the hero wins (or fails) in the end. There's a lot of good resources that explain the basics of it on the web...just do a search for "three act structure". Hope this helps!

mark kennedy said...

dancing man - hey, thanks for the comment. But don't take my word for it - go back and see if you think it's really there - or whether I'm crazy to see it!

Khylov said...

Was a good read indeed.

Next step is trying to find solutions to how they could've kept Indy consistent throughout the films while still giving him that development/arc, and still picking up character-wise from where the last one left off.

(I hadn't thought about how Temple predated Raiders; now that you mention it, it does bring up some problems.)

With the second film, they could've just had that been after Raiders - would've avoided the issue of Indy being more morally developed before Raiders.

Third film... eh, for brevity's sake, just skipping from young to older Indy (with the "It belongs in a museum" spiel) does the job. Doing any exposition inbetween to show how he became jaded takes time, and I can see why that was skipped.

But!... what would be a better way to still give Indy his characteristic mercenary persona after they've cut to him on the boat with his "It belongs.." line?

If not with his dialog, it'd have to be how he fights with the villains to get the cross back - blunt, low handed, but also clever when needed. They might've had this during the boat fight scene - they had hints of it during the train sequence - but truth be told, I don't really remember what he does to get the cross back on the boat. Not like the temple sequence, in any case...

Anyhow, the two cents have rolled on long enough here. Cheers.

David said...

Hi, Mark.

I agree with your comments on the character arcs and your post is very interesting, but I would like to say something else.

Reading the Raiders script(the one I have, I don't know if appears in the "final script) it doesn't say anything about shadows on the wall when Indy appears... So I suppose it could be a Spielberg decision. John Ford used to do that kind of things in his movies too. Yesterday I watched again The Horse Soldiers and the shadow of John Wayne character appears over Constance Towers in one scene. I know there a lot of examples in many movies, but Ford used to do it and we know Spielberg likes Ford movies (who doesn't)..
Anyway... Raiders used to be my favourite film when I was a kid (not anymore, but I still adore the film)...and although I enjoy the rest of the sequels, it's not the same. That's why I agree with some of your comments (although I think Short Round it doesn't work...Indiana Jones isn't Batman)
By the way, I liked very much the story John Byrne did when Marvel published a serie of Indiana. Those two comic books were very good (and later I found out Byrne said it were a real pain making it because he had to discuss everything) That's life.

That's all. Sorry for my English (I'm from Spain)..

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, Temple of Doom, if anything, seems to stand as an alternate for Raiders. It has a similar character arc, even if it doesn't fit right with Raiders. At the beginning of the movie Indy is very "shadowy" - he appears as a mercenary who would kill an innocent women with a fork for a treasure... similar to the determination seen in the first movie. Then it all backfires, as Indy overlooked a few things, ends up drinking poisen and losing what he wanted in the first place. Similar to how Belloq just takes the idol from him in Raiders.
Later on, Indy reveals that the Sankara Stones are just 'fortune and glory' to him. He only goes to Pangkock palace to get this treasure, not the children.
Then you enter the whole "Temple of Doom" part. They go to the palace, end up discovering the entrance to the secret cult chambers, and discover where the stones and children are.
Sometime during thsi, Indy gets caught and is forced to drink the (I forgot the name, but it puts him into the black sleep of Kali, the goddess of death). This represents, basically, Indy's death. But he is awakened and reborn through Shortround, or, corny as it sounds, love.
After that, Indy is changed. Instead of just getting the stones, he has "all of them" leave. He risks his life for others. And at the end of the movie, his belief in the stones is what saves him.
So, yeah, Temple of Doom is better then most people think.

Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,場地,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,結婚,場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,漢高資訊,漢高資訊,比利時,比利時聯合商學院,宜蘭民宿,台東民宿,澎湖民宿,墾丁民宿,花蓮民宿,SEO,找工作,汽車旅館,阿里山,日月潭,阿里山民宿,東森購物,momo購物台,pc home購物,購物,手機,手機王,數位像機,衛星導行,GPS,小筆電,機油漢高資訊,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,住宿,整形,造型,室內設計,室內設計,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,美容,室內設計,在職進修,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,住宿,住宿,整形,整形,室內設計,室內設計,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,漢高資訊,找工作,找工作,找工作,找工作,找工作,蔡依林,林志玲

dte said...

sale guild wars 2 gold experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards, guild wars 2 gold sell ability may get you to the top, but it takes character to keep you there, sell guild wars 2 gold.

dte said...

It takes strength to build for the future Diablo 3 Power Leveling, it takes strength to be polite to someone when that person has been rude to you Diablo 3 PowerLeveling, it takes strength to build for the future Diablo iii PowerLeveling.

dsferew said...

The yard of the delicate cheap fifa 14 coins fragrance of jasmine floating light, watching white fifa 14 coins flower after another that was full of endless cheap fifa 14 coins reverie.