MooCriket
Master Member
Good one, but I will take that over cgi swinging monkey's anyday:lol
Questions I have always had about the Indy Flicks
- Thread starter thegreatgalling
- Start date
Good one, but I will take that over cgi swinging monkey's anyday:lol
I believe Oscar Wilde once said, "(people) can believe the impossible, but can never believe the improbable."
We can believe that Luke made that shot successfully using the "force," but couldn't if it was presented as blind luck.
With Indy, I think its easier to accept the grail as real, along with the magical properties associated with it, then having thirteen 700 year-old crystal skulls bash into each other and inexplicably become a very alive organic being. This is partly due to the fact that an audience will accept the rules of the universe they are watching. If these rules are not established, or even worse, are established and then broken, you are left with empty logic and similar questions as posed in this thread.
We can believe that Luke made that shot successfully using the "force," but couldn't if it was presented as blind luck.
With Indy, I think its easier to accept the grail as real, along with the magical properties associated with it, then having thirteen 700 year-old crystal skulls bash into each other and inexplicably become a very alive organic being. This is partly due to the fact that an audience will accept the rules of the universe they are watching. If these rules are not established, or even worse, are established and then broken, you are left with empty logic and similar questions as posed in this thread.
Angelus Lupus
Sr Member
That's quite possibly one of the most insightful and succinct appraisals of film-making I've read!
I also believe there's a difference between the mystical and the alien in films. We don't want to know how the grail or ark work, that would destroy the mystery. But aliens? We want to know as much as we can.
I also believe there's a difference between the mystical and the alien in films. We don't want to know how the grail or ark work, that would destroy the mystery. But aliens? We want to know as much as we can.
^ I def. agree!
Reminds me of Kasdan criticizing TOD in an interview, concerning the jump out of the airplane in a life raft. He said that if there had been some in-universe magical explanation, whether it was Indy casting a spell or whatever, it would've been fine, but without that, the scene is ludicrous.
Believe it or not, that never bothered me as much as some of the other stuff.
It shooooould. :lol
It shooooould. :lol
I guess I suspended my disbelief because it has happened to people.
I remember reading a story back in grade school of a girl who survived a horrific plane crash when after her row of seats (with her in it) were ejected into the air, the wind and updraft cushioned her two mile fall. When she landed in the jungle, she only received minor cuts and bruising.
Wow..found the girls story...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/02/germany.aircrash.survivor/index.html
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Yeah, crazier things have happened...
^That def. is interesting!
Treadwell, I have to disagree with (Gregory?) on this point though. Out of all the things that we are forced to swallow, wasn't this one of the things that WAS explained by a mystical force? Don't we all deep down interpret the follwoing speech:
("...No. We pray to Shiva to help us find the stone. It was Shiva who made you fall from sky -- so you can
got to Pankot Palace. To find siva-linga -- and bring back to us.")
as meaning that God in some way brought Indy to Pankot and put him on his quest? And aren't there supernatural overtones in how Indy's hat stays on his head, and finds its way back to its knight? Much like the mystical capes, or the swords and shields of midieval writing?
A lot of the "hero" as a god stuff (or a protected messenger of god) comes from Greek writing, and many modern stories borrow these elements, especially Indy and Bond. Sort of the idea that, while unsaid, there are certain supernatural forces at work, protecting our heros and helping them to escape time and time again. In each of these films, there are almost burts of Deus ex machinas ad nauseum. "Oh, look! The Seiko with the blade is EXACTLY what I need to escape!!!"
While we dismiss them as flaws in logic, I can accept more if I tell myself that Bond was destined to survive that trap, and Indy was destined to survive the fall.
There are still those things that fall out of this explanation I am sure.
Treadwell, I have to disagree with (Gregory?) on this point though. Out of all the things that we are forced to swallow, wasn't this one of the things that WAS explained by a mystical force? Don't we all deep down interpret the follwoing speech:
("...No. We pray to Shiva to help us find the stone. It was Shiva who made you fall from sky -- so you can
got to Pankot Palace. To find siva-linga -- and bring back to us.")
as meaning that God in some way brought Indy to Pankot and put him on his quest? And aren't there supernatural overtones in how Indy's hat stays on his head, and finds its way back to its knight? Much like the mystical capes, or the swords and shields of midieval writing?
A lot of the "hero" as a god stuff (or a protected messenger of god) comes from Greek writing, and many modern stories borrow these elements, especially Indy and Bond. Sort of the idea that, while unsaid, there are certain supernatural forces at work, protecting our heros and helping them to escape time and time again. In each of these films, there are almost burts of Deus ex machinas ad nauseum. "Oh, look! The Seiko with the blade is EXACTLY what I need to escape!!!"
While we dismiss them as flaws in logic, I can accept more if I tell myself that Bond was destined to survive that trap, and Indy was destined to survive the fall.
There are still those things that fall out of this explanation I am sure.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
Actually, it was precisely the over-gadgetization (and the increasing absurdity of the gadgets -- hoenstly, an invisible frickin' car?!) that turned me off to the Bond movies for a while. Casino Royale was the first film since probably From Russia with Love that Bond was like the Bond from the novels -- tough and resourceful, without an arsenal of gadgets.
More of my neurons decided to fire and I remembered that it wasn't Kasdan, but David Gerrold who said that. (I thought it was a STARLOG interview, but it was Gerrold's review for STARLOG.) I shall burn for eternity for confusing a brilliant writer with one who...isn't.
I think the gag was actually one of the things Kasdan wrote for Raiders but was put aside early on (along with the mine chase and using a gong as a shield). I think in the interview I'm (badly) remembering he said they were supposed to jump out as the plane grazed the top of a mountain, not plummet 100 feet.
I think the gag was actually one of the things Kasdan wrote for Raiders but was put aside early on (along with the mine chase and using a gong as a shield). I think in the interview I'm (badly) remembering he said they were supposed to jump out as the plane grazed the top of a mountain, not plummet 100 feet.
Very interesting!
I remember similar controversy after Goldenye hit theaters when Bond "catches up" to the falling plane.
I love EVERY Bond film like family, so its tough to agree completely that the series needed a lot of change (but I agree that if there IS a line, an invisible car crosses it).
I am not troubled with the whole supernatural protection of heros, and I think its something most people are used to in American films.
I remember similar controversy after Goldenye hit theaters when Bond "catches up" to the falling plane.
I love EVERY Bond film like family, so its tough to agree completely that the series needed a lot of change (but I agree that if there IS a line, an invisible car crosses it).
I am not troubled with the whole supernatural protection of heros, and I think its something most people are used to in American films.
Short Round beating up huge monsters of grown men.
Please. They would crushed him like a grape or splatted him on a wall like a rotten tomato.
Please. They would crushed him like a grape or splatted him on a wall like a rotten tomato.
Did he clone himself? I am not understanding your question.
But if you are referring to Marion, things were different back then. People got married when they were in their early teens. Heck, even Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin, and that was just back in the 50's and there was nothing illegal about it.
My wifes father married her mother when she was 15 and he was 49...yes creepy by todays culture, but it was okay back then (in the 50's).
Also, "I was just a child" could still be 18, depends on perspective. My mom says the same thing about when she got married and had me 2 years later, at 21. She was only 30 somthing when I heard her first say it.
Last edited:
^ Well it was actually a good point and fit the thread!
Last edited:
Yeah, I always took it to mean she was 18 or 19 at the time, maybe 17. I DON'T think they were implying she was 13 and he was 23. From her comment "I was just a child" and his "You knew what you were doing" leads me to believe that Indy was her first lover, not a pedophile.
I agree. I always thought she was late teens, probably 17 or 18 and he was early to mid 20's.
Similar threads
