The Last Crusade

[Koray Savas 2,251]

No. Immortal means you can't die of old age. To add another level of nerdom to this argument, I will add this example: Elves in LotR can be killed in battle, yet they are immortal.

As far as I'm concerned, it covers both. How would one then describe someone who can't be killed? Invincible? Technically that means one that can't be defeated or overcome. Nothing specifically about death.

[indy4 155]

Yeah, Hitler was very lame... but hilarious! It's a cameo. It would have been awful if Hitler had actually been integral to the story, like if he had a conversation with Donovan or something.

Could you please explain how in the world this would be lame? I do not follow your reasoning at all on this matter.

That point was totally lost one me. If you're going to feature

They just pop out of the walls and start chasing everyone. They certainly don't look like zombies or anything, just fools with face paint. My feeling is that if a city is to be guarded by the living dead, it should be something pretty macabre. Actually, I loved that shot from the graveyard of a zombie leaping at Indy (and Indy whacking it with a shovel, classic stuff), which was featured in the trailer. But when the movie came out we saw that they were just... children? I don't see the appeal.

They were adults, and they looked pretty frightening to me (both versions).

EDIT:

No. Immortal means you can't die of old age. To add another level of nerdom to this argument, I will add this example: Elves in LotR can be killed in battle, yet they are immortal.

As far as I'm concerned, it covers both. How would one then describe someone who can't be killed? Invincible? Technically that means one that can't be defeated or overcome. Nothing specifically about death.

Well then according to you, LotR is a severely flawed story.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Though I feel guilty for adding "fuel to the fire", I must say that I side with indy4 on the debate of immortality. I was once severely reprimanded by my fourth grade teacher for the incorrect use of "immortality' in an "essay" (the closest a fourth grader could get to, anyways) of mine.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Well then according to you, LotR is a severely flawed story.

I suppose it is.

[Henry B 50]

I know it was "because" of the skull, but... I don't get it. What exactly does the skull do?

The aliens are their leaders, their masters, their Gods for Pete's sake. Why would they try to kill or stop their God?

I'm not arguing that... but why do they cave to anyone who carries the skull? What if Oxley had just dropped the skull; would they suddenly have turned on him?

Yes. You seem to think that that would be ridiculous by asking this question, but it is any more ridiculous than if, say, Elsa dropped the Grail and it rolled past the seal--then the earthquake thing would commence.

Yes, that would have been stupid too, which is why it didn't happen. We're not meant to consider the possibility that the Grail could accidentally cross the seal. The seal clearly represents the sacrifice the owner of the Grail must make: to forsake life in order to achieve eternal life. Similarly, if Indy had gotten an irritation in his eye and blinked while the Ark was opened, he technically would have been killed, but there's no reason to bring up such a remote possibility. The relics were never about technical matters.

Yeah, Hitler was very lame... but hilarious! It's a cameo. It would have been awful if Hitler had actually been integral to the story, like if he had a conversation with Donovan or something.

Could you please explain how in the world this would be lame? I do not follow your reasoning at all on this matter.

Indiana Jones isn't an historical drama. It just doesn't work with real people.

That point was totally lost one me. If you're going to feature

They were adults, and they looked pretty frightening to me (both versions).

Agree to disagree, I guess.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

"Alarm!" is such a great cue. I feel sorry for you people who had to wait nineteen years to hear it in its glorious state.

[Luke Skywalker 1,810]

Henry, REALLY, the skull is not a magnet.

It does something to minds, or we wouldnt have the indy-skull tent scene. It affected Oxley's mind, so in this same way, it does not repel the ants like a magnet.

And come on, the natives of akator are no different than any natives in the world. Superstitious and very respectful and fearful of their gods. When they see the skull the get scared. (they had been 500 years without leaders)

If these had been ancient egiptians, and indy had showed the ruling staff of a pharaoh they would have acted in the same way.

Its very plain and simple you dont have to over analise things in order to understand all.

In this case, stretching things, just think that the native indians thought that the conquistadores were some kind of four legged gods, because they thought the man and horse was the same beign. In this hase Oxley or Indy put the skull well over their heads and the natives could have thought think that the aliens had returned...

[indy4 155]

I'm not arguing that... but why do they cave to anyone who carries the skull? What if Oxley had just dropped the skull; would they suddenly have turned on him?

Yes. You seem to think that that would be ridiculous by asking this question, but it is any more ridiculous than if, say, Elsa dropped the Grail and it rolled past the seal--then the earthquake thing would commence.

Yes, that would have been stupid too, which is why it didn't happen. We're not meant to consider the possibility that the Grail could accidentally cross the seal. The seal clearly represents the sacrifice the owner of the Grail must make: to forsake life in order to achieve eternal life. Similarly, if Indy had gotten an irritation in his eye and blinked while the Ark was opened, he technically would have been killed, but there's no reason to bring up such a remote possibility. The relics were never about technical matters.

Then why are you bringing it up with the Skull?! Why would we ever think that Ox would drop the Skull more than we would think about Indy's eye irritation with the Ark or Elsa dropping the Grail?

Indiana Jones isn't an historical drama. It just doesn't work with real people.

But how? I still don't see your point.

Henry, I agree with Nick that you have supplied the most reasonable anti KotCS arguments on this MB (some of which I have agreed with), so take no offence from this. But some of them (like the one above) seem rather forced, like you're trying as hard as possible to put KotCS in as bad a light as possible. I'm sure anybody could come up with the same amount of petty claims about Raiders, ToD, LC, or any other film for that matter if they wanted to put those films in a bad light. I mean seriously--you're deeming a story "lame" because it involved a historical figure?

[Henry B 50]

I'm not arguing that... but why do they cave to anyone who carries the skull? What if Oxley had just dropped the skull; would they suddenly have turned on him?

Yes. You seem to think that that would be ridiculous by asking this question, but it is any more ridiculous than if, say, Elsa dropped the Grail and it rolled past the seal--then the earthquake thing would commence.

Yes, that would have been stupid too, which is why it didn't happen. We're not meant to consider the possibility that the Grail could accidentally cross the seal. The seal clearly represents the sacrifice the owner of the Grail must make: to forsake life in order to achieve eternal life. Similarly, if Indy had gotten an irritation in his eye and blinked while the Ark was opened, he technically would have been killed, but there's no reason to bring up such a remote possibility. The relics were never about technical matters.

Then why are you bringing it up with the Skull?! Why would we ever think that Ox would drop the Skull more than we would think about Indy's eye irritation with the Ark or Elsa dropping the Grail?

Well, because this is how the skull works when used against the ants and the natives. It simply seems to repel anything affected by it within a radius of ten feet.

Indiana Jones isn't an historical drama. It just doesn't work with real people.

But how? I still don't see your point.

Mm... not really sure how to explain this, but I think it would be ridiculous if Indy interacted with historical characters in a serious manner or if they were integral to the story... as was the case on the TV series.

Henry, I agree with Nick that you have supplied the most reasonable anti KotCS arguments on this MB (some of which I have agreed with), so take no offence from this. But some of them (like the one above) seem rather forced, like you're trying as hard as possible to put KotCS in as bad a light as possible. I'm sure anybody could come up with the same amount of petty claims about Raiders, ToD, LC, or any other film for that matter if they wanted to put those films in a bad light. I mean seriously--you're deeming a story "lame" because it involved a historical figure?

Just deeming one bit of the story "lame." I mean, I could go on and on. Undeveloped romance, Mac's inexplicable intentions, Indy's random promotion at the end, Spalko's undeveloped psychic powers, the unnecessary and repetitive foreshadowing of aliens, over the top fifties moments, self parody and of course nuking the fridge... maybe the lousy direction, editing, lighting, fake looking special effects, subpar music? The point is that the movie just didn't work for me. I really wanted to like it going into it, but it left me cold. I genuinely dislike it as much as I like the original three.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

All this talk about Indy 4,

Just makes me hate it even more.

[Maxxie 1]

All this talk about Indy 4,

Just makes me hate it even more.

Nice rhyme. But I actually like the film.

[Delorean90 42]

I'm not going to go into the other complaints right now, but regarding the "living dead"...um...did everyone forget that the living dead remark was in a riddle Oxley wrote down? Hmm...

And he got in by going during the day.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

In a completely subtle way to change the subject, has anyone ever noticed those xylophones in "The Blimp Turns Around" before? It somewhat reminds me of a statement of the "Imperial March" (somewhere on the First Disk of "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back", I think) that utilized the xylophones. I like both mentioned pieces a lot.

[Red 75]

What was this thread about again?

[John Crichton 4]

The appropriateness of the natives in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Or was it click tracks?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

My favorite variation of the "Grail Theme" is the statement found in "Wrong Choice, Right Choice". Simply beautiful.

[Delorean90 42]

Yeah, I wanted that cue really badly. It was a great relief to find that it was included on disc 5.

In a completely subtle way to change the subject, has anyone ever noticed those xylophones in "The Blimp Turns Around" before? It somewhat reminds me of a statement of the "Imperial March" (somewhere on the First Disk of "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back", I think) that utilized the xylophones. I like both mentioned pieces a lot.

Interesting--that is a similar usage. The only thing is that it's xylophones in ESB, but I believe what you're hearing in "The Blimp Turns Around" are glockenspiel. I had noticed them, and I love them.

[indy4 155]

I'm not arguing that... but why do they cave to anyone who carries the skull? What if Oxley had just dropped the skull; would they suddenly have turned on him?

Yes. You seem to think that that would be ridiculous by asking this question, but it is any more ridiculous than if, say, Elsa dropped the Grail and it rolled past the seal--then the earthquake thing would commence.

Yes, that would have been stupid too, which is why it didn't happen. We're not meant to consider the possibility that the Grail could accidentally cross the seal. The seal clearly represents the sacrifice the owner of the Grail must make: to forsake life in order to achieve eternal life. Similarly, if Indy had gotten an irritation in his eye and blinked while the Ark was opened, he technically would have been killed, but there's no reason to bring up such a remote possibility. The relics were never about technical matters.

Then why are you bringing it up with the Skull?! Why would we ever think that Ox would drop the Skull more than we would think about Indy's eye irritation with the Ark or Elsa dropping the Grail?

Well, because this is how the skull works when used against the ants and the natives. It simply seems to repel anything affected by it within a radius of ten feet.

So what does this have to do with Oxley dropping the Skull?

Indiana Jones isn't an historical drama. It just doesn't work with real people.

But how? I still don't see your point.

Mm... not really sure how to explain this, but I think it would be ridiculous if Indy interacted with historical characters in a serious manner or if they were integral to the story... as was the case on the TV series.

I understand, what I want to know is why you think this.

Henry, I agree with Nick that you have supplied the most reasonable anti KotCS arguments on this MB (some of which I have agreed with), so take no offence from this. But some of them (like the one above) seem rather forced, like you're trying as hard as possible to put KotCS in as bad a light as possible. I'm sure anybody could come up with the same amount of petty claims about Raiders, ToD, LC, or any other film for that matter if they wanted to put those films in a bad light. I mean seriously--you're deeming a story "lame" because it involved a historical figure?

Just deeming one bit of the story "lame." I mean, I could go on and on. Undeveloped romance, Mac's inexplicable intentions, Indy's random promotion at the end, Spalko's undeveloped psychic powers, the unnecessary and repetitive foreshadowing of aliens, over the top fifties moments, self parody and of course nuking the fridge... maybe the lousy direction, editing, lighting, fake looking special effects, subpar music? The point is that the movie just didn't work for me. I really wanted to like it going into it, but it left me cold. I genuinely dislike it as much as I like the original three.

I understand that you disliked it ferverently, I even agree with many of your arguments. But you must admit that at times you are forcing rather petty arguments.

[Henry B 50]

So what does this have to do with Oxley dropping the Skull?

Nothing... I think we've beaten this particular dead horse enough.

I understand, what I want to know is why you think this.

When I'm watching a movie that's essentially a fantasy I like to keep reality at arm's length. It's kind of corny when they intermingle. Really, though, it's not like Orellana's corpse ruined the movie; that was just a small nitpick I had.

I understand that you disliked it ferverently, I even agree with many of your arguments. But you must admit that at times you are forcing rather petty arguments.

No more petty than your defenses. Remind me again why Spalko is such a great villain. Because of her broken psychic powers?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Yeah, I wanted that cue really badly. It was a great relief to find that it was included on disc 5.

In a completely subtle way to change the subject, has anyone ever noticed those xylophones in "The Blimp Turns Around" before? It somewhat reminds me of a statement of the "Imperial March" (somewhere on the First Disk of "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back", I think) that utilized the xylophones. I like both mentioned pieces a lot.

Interesting--that is a similar usage. The only thing is that it's xylophones in ESB, but I believe what you're hearing in "The Blimp Turns Around" are glockenspiel. I had noticed them, and I love them.

Really, now? I must admit, I am rather inadept at hearing intruments in a recording if I have never heard them performed in front of me. Apparently, a glockenspiel is one of those intruments.

Anyways, I still cannot hear those "click tracks" that everyone is complaining about. Perhaps I should update my sound system into the twenty-first century.... I never heard the problems with "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi", either.

[indy4 155]

So what does this have to do with Oxley dropping the Skull?

Nothing... I think we've beaten this particular dead horse enough.

But I still don't understand how the fact that if Oxley dropped the Skull the natives would kill him is a weak point in the film.

I understand, what I want to know is why you think this.

When I'm watching a movie that's essentially a fantasy I like to keep reality at arm's length. It's kind of corny when they intermingle. Really, though, it's not like Orellana's corpse ruined the movie; that was just a small nitpick I had.

Well all the artifacts in the four films have a basis in reality, so you must be against the inclusion of the Ark, the Sankara Stones, the Grail, and the Skull (though some how I would be willing to bet that you are against the inclusion of the latter).

I understand that you disliked it ferverently, I even agree with many of your arguments. But you must admit that at times you are forcing rather petty arguments.

No more petty than your defenses. Remind me again why Spalko is such a great villain. Because of her broken psychic powers?

I'm not denying that the film has its flaws (though none of which involve Spalko).

[Nick Parker 3,040]

If I may bring a few grammatical points or so: the term "latter" is applied when speaking of two items; not three, not six, not one, not five, not four, but two.

For example:

JOHN (in no relation to our very own): So. What it will be: the chicken, or the ham?

TONY: I will have the latter.

JOHN: Okay, that will be ham.

CORRECT!!!!

JOHN: So, what it will be: the chicken. the turkey, the ham, or the lobster?

TONY: I will have the latter.

JOHN: ....

INCORRECT!!!

Anyways.... I am currently listening to "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". I really like "No Ticket".

[indy4 155]

Actually, I did not know that. Thank you.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Every day is filled with knowledge.

[Henry B 50]

But I still don't understand how the fact that if Oxley dropped the Skull the natives would kill him is a weak point in the film.

Well, let's see if I can explain this... It's the fact that the skull's powers seem to apply physically, not psychologically. The natives only back off when they get within ten feet of the skull. It's like if Indy stood far enough back while watching the opening of the Ark, it wouldn't kill him.

Well all the artifacts in the four films have a basis in reality, so you must be against the inclusion of the Ark, the Sankara Stones, the Grail, and the Skull (though some how I would be willing to bet that you are against the inclusion of the latter).

All artifacts which have never been recovered. There's enough mystery surrounding them that hearing Indy talking about them doesn't feel like a middle school history class. And yeah, I didn't like the skulls. Just a bunch of fakes fashioned by European artisans in the nineteenth century.

[Luke Skywalker 1,810]

But I still don't understand how the fact that if Oxley dropped the Skull the natives would kill him is a weak point in the film.

Well, let's see if I can explain this... It's the fact that the skull's powers seem to apply physically, not psychologically. The natives only back off when they get within ten feet of the skull. It's like if Indy stood far enough back while watching the opening of the Ark, it wouldn't kill him.

The skull is not a magnet.

If it was, nobody could touch it. Why would it repel native human beings and not russians or americans?

In this case i dont think the natives are mind controlled by the skull either.

They are scared by its sight as i said before.

[indy4 155]

Well, let's see if I can explain this... It's the fact that the skull's powers seem to apply physically, not psychologically. The natives only back off when they get within ten feet of the skull. It's like if Indy stood far enough back while watching the opening of the Ark, it wouldn't kill him.

The Skull's powers weren't being applied correctly in that scene. The natives did not feel any sort of magnetic push pushing them away from it, they were simply afraid of it. The true danger comes from staring into its eyes long enough, which the natives were smart enough to not do.

And I still don't see how Ox dropping the Skull illustrate your point.

Well all the artifacts in the four films have a basis in reality, so you must be against the inclusion of the Ark, the Sankara Stones, the Grail, and the Skull (though some how I would be willing to bet that you are against the inclusion of the latter).

All artifacts which have never been recovered. There's enough mystery surrounding them that hearing Indy talking about them doesn't feel like a middle school history class. And yeah, I didn't like the skulls. Just a bunch of fakes fashioned by European artisans in the nineteenth century.

Orellana's body, to the best of my knowledge, has never been uncovered. There is still much mystery concerning him.

[Goldsmithfan 6]

The problem isn't realism. It's suspension of disbelief.

The way the situation in Temple of Doom is presented puts the audience in a much better place to accept what's going on (danger of imminent plane crash, quick in-the-moment acting of Dr. Jones, seeing our actors get roughed up at least a little bit - despite the sometimes obvious bluescreen/rear projection).

In Kingdom of the Crystall Skull, it's much different (impossible event #who-the-hell-keeps-track, no imminent danger other than the falls themselves, characters reactions make it seem like they're on a mere theme park ride).

Realism?

Indy, Willie, and Shorty look tired after the raft thing. Tired, not bruised or battered.

Indy looks honestly beat up after the fridge.

Indy4, are you incapable of understanding, I know you like the movie, but your undying belief in it is stoopid.

Have you ever seen pictures where a plane crashes, the plane doesnt burn and is relatively intact and yet everyone dies, its because the Human Bodie does not survive well through blunt force trama.

The fridge scene is beyond suspension of disbelief, it should have disintergrated and Indy too, then since it didn't the initial heat should have killed Indy because the seals would have melted but it didn't. Then flying through the air and cwash landing should have killed him. Lead at that close to the blast wouldn't have protected him from the radiation. At some point suspension of disbelief has snaped in 99% of people.

The raft sequence doesn't have the same snapping points because as far fetched as it is, it is still within the extreme realms of possibility.

Why are we trying to compare the so-called "realism" of the Indy films? They're all over-the-top popcorn adventures which serve as little more than escapist romps. If you like it, fine. If not, that's cool too. I watch all of the Indy films expecting only to be entertained. That's what they're there for. But trying to defend how "realistic" one is or is not is just plain ludicrous. It's as ludicrous as the time Indy...!

I'm not going there. It's dumb. They're just movies. It's not like we're talking about Schindler's List or Zwartboek.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

yes because then we can argue about the crying scene at the end of Schindler's List which was just as unrealistic as the refrigerator scene.

[Maestro 147]

Mmm...I love the crying scene.

[Henry B 50]

Why are we trying to compare the so-called "realism" of the Indy films? They're all over-the-top popcorn adventures which serve as little more than escapist romps. If you like it, fine. If not, that's cool too. I watch all of the Indy films expecting only to be entertained. That's what they're there for. But trying to defend how "realistic" one is or is not is just plain ludicrous. It's as ludicrous as the time Indy...!

By this logic you could put anything in an Indy film and justify it. Flying? Laser eyesight? Time travel? Yes, Indy is unrealistic, but only to a point. There are still boundaries to respect. I think surviving a nuclear blast and blunt trauma at hundreds of miles per hour and being immune to radiation poisoning crosses that boundary.

[Red 75]

yes because then we can argue about the crying scene at the end of Schindler's List which was just as unrealistic as the refrigerator scene.

It is?

[Goldsmithfan 6]

Why are we trying to compare the so-called "realism" of the Indy films? They're all over-the-top popcorn adventures which serve as little more than escapist romps. If you like it, fine. If not, that's cool too. I watch all of the Indy films expecting only to be entertained. That's what they're there for. But trying to defend how "realistic" one is or is not is just plain ludicrous. It's as ludicrous as the time Indy...!

By this logic you could put anything in an Indy film and justify it. Flying? Laser eyesight? Time travel? Yes, Indy is unrealistic, but only to a point. There are still boundaries to respect. I think surviving a nuclear blast and blunt trauma at hundreds of miles per hour and being immune to radiation poisoning crosses that boundary.

*cough* Indy's just a live action comic. *cough* I'm no longer engaging in this futile discussion. *cough*

[Delorean90 42]

Why are we trying to compare the so-called "realism" of the Indy films? They're all over-the-top popcorn adventures which serve as little more than escapist romps. If you like it, fine. If not, that's cool too. I watch all of the Indy films expecting only to be entertained. That's what they're there for. But trying to defend how "realistic" one is or is not is just plain ludicrous. It's as ludicrous as the time Indy...!

By this logic you could put anything in an Indy film and justify it. Flying? Laser eyesight? Time travel? Yes, Indy is unrealistic, but only to a point. There are still boundaries to respect. I think surviving a nuclear blast and blunt trauma at hundreds of miles per hour and being immune to radiation poisoning crosses that boundary.

When he'sh airborne, with lashersh coming from hish eyesh, then I'll share that shentiment.

The way the scene was handled was no different than what was previously done. They didn't have Indy emerging from the fridge as a god or a superhero or Captain Morgan, with supernatural choir backing. Had they handled it in an, "Oh my God, look what Indy did! Call the Planet, it's Superman!" kind of way, I could see it, but even though it may SEEM to take it further on paper, it's shot and played out in exactly the same way as any of the other ridiculous stunts. That's why I was able to accept it. It's played straight, but for laughs at the same time, if that makes any sense.

[indy4 155]

Indeed. In fact, the way it was shot payed more respect to the might of the mushroom cloud than Indy.

I will say this again: after the raft slide, Indy and company look tired. After the fridge, Indy looks honestly beat up.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Jeez. Are we finished yet? Because I have a few questions to ask:

When I was listening to "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" today, I think I noticed a few things.

Does the man in the white suit (whatever his name be) have a theme? I think he does, with the possible motiv playing when Indiana sees the hat after he escapes the "Coronado", and when he sees the man from the window many years previously. Can someone confirm this?

Also: Does the Cup of Christ have a "B Theme"? I noticed a recurring string passage in a number of statements of the "Grail Theme". May someone confirm that, as well?

Thank you.

[Ollie 1,069]

Jeez. Are we finished yet? Because I have a few questions to ask:

When I was listening to "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" today, I think I noticed a few things.

Does the man in the white suit (whatever his name be) have a theme? I think he does, with the possible motiv playing when Indiana sees the hat after he escapes the "Coronado", and when he sees the man from the window many years previously. Can someone confirm this?

Yes I would say that is a motif for the man in white.

[indy4 155]

Does the man in the white suit (whatever his name be) have a theme? I think he does, with the possible motiv playing when Indiana sees the hat after he escapes the "Coronado", and when he sees the man from the window many years previously. Can someone confirm this?

Yes, you can hear it in 1:53 of "The Boat Scene."

Also: Does the Cup of Christ have a "B Theme"? I noticed a recurring string passage in a number of statements of the "Grail Theme". May someone confirm that, as well?

You have just opened a huge can of worms. Trying to assign titles to any of the LC Grail/Connery themes is a heavily debated topic, we've never quite reached a conclusion on. Induvidual people have made up their minds, but as a whole we are still in the dark about the themes.

Thank you.

Anytime.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Thank you, Herrs Olivarez and...indy4. Now, I am going to list the themes of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", and I would like feedback as to the ambiguities of the theme placements.

Cross of Coronado- A shortly used motiv to represent the artifact. It is rather prominent in "The Boat Scene".

White Suit Theme- You get the idea. Another shortly used theme best heard in "The Boat Scene".

Nazi March- Whatever debate there is regarding some of the motivs, I doubt this one is heavily disputed as representing the Nazis. I love this theme, by the way.

Scherzo Theme- That...hopping (?)motiv found in... well, "Scherzo for Motorcycle and Orchestra", as well as "Alarm!".

(Debated) Grail Theme- My favorite variation of this theme is found at 1:55 in "Wrong Choice, Right Choice". Also, it contains what I think could be considered a "B Theme" (starting at 2:21, according to my CD Player).

(Debated) Father/Son- Apparently, this is the most intensely debated, though I think that "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" helps a little. According to... top men, it has been argued as a theme for the Grail Knight, the actual quest for the Cup of Christ, and a theme for Henry Jones Senior (am I missing anything?). I am too tired to post my thoughts of this theme, so I will write no more.

Thank you, all, and please tell me if I missed something.

[Henry B 50]

I will say this again: after the raft slide, Indy and company look tired. After the fridge, Indy looks honestly beat up.

I'll say this again... surviving the raft slide is possible, surviving a nuclear blast is not. In fact, the way you talk about it as just another obstacle for Indy suggests that you have no idea what it is. Do you? Atomic bombs burn for miles. The explosion sequence in the film (which was actually quite spectacular) made that pretty clear. Comparing it with anything from Temple of Doom just doesn't work. Maybe if Indy and co. had fallen from thirty thousand feet in the air with no inflatable raft and just smashed straight into the ground and survived... then nuking the fridge would be comparable to ToD.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Here we go....

[indy4 155]

I will say this again: after the raft slide, Indy and company look tired. After the fridge, Indy looks honestly beat up.

I'll say this again... surviving the raft slide is possible, surviving a nuclear blast is not.

As Marc has said, it is not about realism, but rather a suspension of disbelief.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Hve you ever got the feeling that you wanted to go, but wanted to stay?

[Delorean90 42]

I will say this again: after the raft slide, Indy and company look tired. After the fridge, Indy looks honestly beat up.

I'll say this again... surviving the raft slide is possible, surviving a nuclear blast is not. In fact, the way you talk about it as just another obstacle for Indy suggests that you have no idea what it is. Do you? Atomic bombs burn for miles. The explosion sequence in the film (which was actually quite spectacular) made that pretty clear. Comparing it with anything from Temple of Doom just doesn't work. Maybe if Indy and co. had fallen from thirty thousand feet in the air with no inflatable raft and just smashed straight into the ground and survived... then nuking the fridge would be comparable to ToD.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the jump from the plane in a raft could be survived...but there's a bit of a difference between what you get on Mythbusters and what you see in the movie, where nobody even winces. They didn't even need medical attention afterwards. TOD sucks!

[publicist 4,643]

As Marc has said, it is not about realism, but rather a suspension of disbelief.

Or about being 'entertained'. And some people are entertained by everything. Which is the reason films like 'Indy VI' or 'Mummy III' are like they are...

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

As Marc has said, it is not about realism, but rather a suspension of disbelief.

Or about being 'entertained'. And some people are entertained by everything. Which is the reason films like 'Indy VI' or 'Mummy III' are like they are...

Unfortunately, I know some people who thought the movie Crossover was an exhilarating theatrical experience, and they weren't kidding. The masses generally don't have very high standards.

[fommes 154]

Says the guy who likes Roger Moore Bond films

[Ollie 1,069]

When a sequence is handled within a more realistic setting it adds more credibility to it. It also helps if it's done with life like objects or actual models compared to CGI.

With KOTCS it was one impossible scene after another.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

yes because then we can argue about the crying scene at the end of Schindler's List which was just as unrealistic as the refrigerator scene.

It is?

since it never happened yes.

[Delorean90 42]

When a sequence is handled within a more realistic setting it adds more credibility to it. It also helps if it's done with life like objects or actual models compared to CGI.

With KOTCS it was one impossible scene after another.

Yeah, like when Indy survives a nuke by hiding in Wonder Woman's Invisible Jet and getting launched into space...or when Mutt flies through an alien jungle...or...wait a minute...