View Full Version : Last Crusade = Raiders of the lost Ark
JP Jones
08-07-2009, 06:01 PM
I feel like I'm the only one who really doesn't like LC so I'm here to explain.
I just watched it for the second time in my life and I noticed how hard it tries to mimick Raiders. 1st the villian is a fellow archeologist who decides to work with nazis. Donovan is boring though. 2nd Indy is trying to get a religous artifact before the nazis do. There was so many possibities for an indiana jones adventure and all they did was make a bad version of raiders.:down:
Rocket Surgeon
08-07-2009, 06:05 PM
I feel like I'm the only one who really doesn't like LC so I'm here to explain.
I just watched it for the second time in my life and I noticed how hard it tries to mimick Raiders. 1st the villian is a fellow archeologist who decides to work with nazis. Donovan is boring though. 2nd Indy is trying to get a religous artifact before the nazis do. There was so many possibities for an indiana jones adventure and all they did was make a bad version of raiders.:down:
Crystal Skull does a fairly good Raiders impression too!
Lonsome_Drifter
08-07-2009, 06:11 PM
I feel like I'm the only one who really doesn't like LC so I'm here to explain.
I just watched it for the second time in my life and I noticed how hard it tries to mimick Raiders. 1st the villian is a fellow archeologist who decides to work with nazis. Donovan is boring though. 2nd Indy is trying to get a religous artifact before the nazis do. There was so many possibities for an indiana jones adventure and all they did was make a bad version of raiders.:down:
Just had to point this out. Donovan was not an archeologist. He just collected rare pieces.
JP Jones
08-07-2009, 06:32 PM
Just had to point this out. Donovan was not an archeologist. He just collected rare pieces.
But do you agree that he is an unsucsessful carbon copy of belloq?
Crack that whip
08-07-2009, 11:04 PM
I don't agree that he's any kind of a carbon copy of Belloq (unsuccessful or not), though I do agree he's the least compelling of the major villains (not because I think Julian Glover is a bad actor or anything, or the character poorly written; I just think most of the other villains, including all the other "main" ones, are so much stronger). But still, he works for me, particularly in conjunction with Elsa.
For a brief while Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was probably the one I liked least out of the original three (even though it was the one I saw the most times in theaters), back when there were just three, but I've found that as I've grown older I've grown to really appreciate it a lot more.
That said, no, you're not alone here in your assessment; I do know ResidentAlien, for one, really doesn't care much for it at all (though he likes the fourth one even less). Each of the four movies has its detractors here (even the ultra-classic Raiders of the Lost Ark was the subject of a thread or two here not too long ago, for people who like it the least out of the series). Different strokes, and all that...
Rocket Surgeon
08-08-2009, 10:50 AM
But do you agree that he is an unsucsessful carbon copy of belloq?
Spalko is much closer to a Belloq clone...
JP Jones
08-08-2009, 10:54 AM
Spalko is much closer to a Belloq clone...Huh!? how so. She's a russian communist and she has nothing to do with archeology. Mostly mind-controll
Rocket Surgeon
08-08-2009, 12:16 PM
Huh!? how so. She's a russian communist and she has nothing to do with archeology. Mostly mind-controll
You forgot to mention they have different naughty bits.
My comment wasn't to elicit how she's NOT like Belloq.
Well, just for starters, and the most obvious, she bounces between trying to have him killed and recognizing him as a peer.
She's blinded by her ambition...literally in the end.
...that's enough for now.
Fine, one more...she uses mind control he uses his Frenchie charm, (and a bottle). Both find varying success.
I just watched it for the second time in my lifeThis is almost as weird as the person who joined The Raven and hadn't even seen "Raiders"!:eek: Anyway, yes, "Crusade" mimics "Raiders". You're only realizing this now...20 years later?:confused:
Chewbacca Jones
08-09-2009, 01:09 PM
Stoo, realize that mr. kotcs has only seen the movie TWICE!
I agree, and have had this discussion with major fans of LC. I even risked the ire of my fiance to express my opinion that, had LC not been an Indy movie, it would have been panned for being a total Raiders rip-off. I think it is a Raiders rip-off. But in the annals of rip-off history, I feel it is the best rip-off ever.
In otherwords, I agree that LC tries very hard to be a thinly disguised clone of Raiders, but I still love it. KOTCS, on the other hand, tries and falls flat on it's face (in my humble... ok, not that humble... opinion).
I also concede that Donavan is a lesser villain, but I think he's more obligatory in terms of a role that had to be, while Elsa is the real Belloq stand-in. I think of her as "what if Belloq had been a woman - charming, sexy, bad but not evil, and somehow likable... and being a pretty woman makes her just that much more appealing to Indy.
Spalko... all I can say is; Wasted Opportunity. She could have been the ultimate Belloq/Toht/Mola Ram hybrid. Instead, she was kind of like Darth Vader in Night at the Museum 2. Funny in a comedy, but in an Indy film... :down: (Note, I do not blame Miss Kate).
Stoo, realize that mr. kotcs has only seen the movie TWICE!Hey, Chewie. As bizarre as that is, it shouldn't really matter in the end. Back in '89, ALL my friends & I thought the same thing after seeing it only ONCE! Re-hash! (albeit, a good one).:D
For this reason, I firmly believe that some people who saw the films in random order on TV/video have a different take on the series than those of us who experienced the original trilogy at the theatre in the order of release.
In many ways, the Cup of Christ is a fairly routine McGuffin after the Ark. As is battling the Nazis again.
However, the journey with Indy and his father, and how they incorporate the McGuffin into the story, and how they incorporate the personal story into it.........these all make it unique. And to me, what makes it the best Indy movie.
Donovan and Elsa are unique as villains because we think they are "good" guys until halfway through the movie. Particularly Elsa was a fantastic villain. Nothing like any of the other villains since Indy had some personal feelings for her.
Rocket Surgeon
08-09-2009, 08:29 PM
In many ways, the Cup of Christ is a fairly routine McGuffin...
How is the Holy Grail routine?
How is the Holy Grail routine?
After the Ark.......they're both two of the biggest religous/Christian artifacts. Fairly retread.
Rocket Surgeon
08-09-2009, 08:55 PM
After the Ark.......they're both two of the biggest religous/Christian artifacts. Fairly retread.
Hmmm...what's your definition of routine?
You're calling the Ark a Christian artifact?
...a religious artifact to be sure, but retread?
You're really pretty vauge. Care to elaborate?
No, I don't. I alrady laid it out. You disagree with me, then fine.
Rocket Surgeon
08-09-2009, 09:18 PM
No, I don't. I alrady laid it out. You disagree with me, then fine.
It's not that I don't agree with you as much as I'm curious where you're coming from...and if you have something worthwhile to say.
But I guess I know now.
Chewbacca Jones
08-09-2009, 10:44 PM
Cole's point seems rather strait forward to me. Both stem from the same theology, they are essentially the Big Dogs of Judeo-Christian artifacts, and even in 1989, the Holy Grail was kind of old-hat. It's kind of like playing word association; most people hear "black" and think "white". Most of the remainder think "gray."
As for the Ark being a Christian Artifact, it is. It also happens to be a Jewish artifact. In point of fact, all noteworthy Christian artifacts are also Jewish up until the birth of Christ. And for all I know, the Ark is an element of other religions and cultures.
So, now you have many words to rephrase a few.
By the way, Stoo;
I was too young to be conscious of LC's obvious rehash of Raiders. I saw them all in their first theater run, but I couldn't quantify the inexplicable comfort of LC. I just knew it made me happier than ToD! :D
Rocket Surgeon
08-09-2009, 11:00 PM
As for the Ark being a Christian Artifact, it is.
I can't disagree enough...
It seems Rocket Surgeon would rather be a dick to me then discuss the issue at hand.
Corporal Kruger
08-10-2009, 01:20 AM
When you look at most Indy adventures they all copy Raiders to some extent. If there wasn't a formula set down by Raiders there would be no Indiana Jones at all. Most people expect each movie/comic/book to follow a similar narrative in order for it to be intrinsically 'Indiana Jones'. Sure Donovan isn’t the most interesting villain of the series but he is reinforced by Vogel and Elsa, the same as how Belloq had Dietrich and Toht, the way Spalko has Dovchenko and Mac. I think the reason why Temple has many detractors is because it doesn’t follow the ‘Indiana Jones’ formula. Last Crusade is very similar to Raiders but in my opinion that’s the reason why it’s so good.
JP Jones
08-10-2009, 07:06 AM
This is what I think happened during the making of LC
Steven Spielberg: Got any good ideas for Indy 3?
George Lucas: not really, but hey raiders was good let's do something like that
Steven: Yeah it could have a haunted castle
George: No I'd rather have it be more like Raiders. Indy could be in a hundred disguises, and it would take place in the desert.
Steven: well what will be the McGuffin?
George: hmmmmmm, what's an important religous artifact, let's do the holy grail.
Steven: and of corse NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I know they always start with the McGuffin)
Rocket Surgeon
08-10-2009, 08:50 AM
It seems Rocket Surgeon would rather be a dick to me then discuss the issue at hand.
Hmmm...
Lets see:
Hmmm...what's your definition of routine?
You're calling the Ark a Christian artifact?
...a religious artifact to be sure, but retread?
You're really pretty vauge. Care to elaborate?
No, I don't...
Yeah...I'm not interested in discussion.
Chewbacca Jones
08-10-2009, 04:52 PM
I can't disagree enough...
Now who's being vague?
Rocket Surgeon
08-10-2009, 04:57 PM
Now who's being vague?
When in Rome...
...and really, what's the likelyhood of a productive conversation with someone who writes:
And for all I know, the Ark is an element of other religions and cultures.
Every internet board has its a-hole. Didn't take me long to find him here....
Rocket Surgeon
08-10-2009, 07:04 PM
Every internet board has its a-hole. Didn't take me long to find him here.......and the gloves come off!
of all things to inspire!
and it took you all of 48 posts!
I can't be the only one you've "rooted out"!
You might want to lay off the keyboard till Aunt Flow leaves town...
Dayne
08-10-2009, 11:55 PM
I can't disagree enough...
The Ark of the Covenant is a Christian "artifact" (if it exists). It has a rather big role in the Bible, doesn't it? There's nothing to disagree with here; it's a fact.
Rocket Surgeon
08-11-2009, 12:01 AM
The Ark of the Covenant is a Christian "artifact" (if it exists). It has a rather big role in the Bible, doesn't it? There's nothing to disagree with here; it's a fact.
The Ark was made and lost over a thousand years before there were any Christians.
I understand and appreciate the "by extention" argument but it co-opting something isn't ownership.
Dayne
08-11-2009, 12:46 AM
Who said it had to be born out of Christian culture to be a Christian artifact? If it has relevence to Christians then to many people it is a Christian symbol. It also happens to be a symbol to the Jewish and Muslim religions. All contemporary religions are rip-offs of older ones. It's how ideas progress; by rethinking and calibrating older ideas to suit newer generations.
There's no need to argue this point any further surgeon, the Ark of the Covenant, even though there is no evidence to it's existence, has importance to many Christians. Though not exclusive, it is undeniably an artifact attaining to Christianity.
Dayne
08-11-2009, 12:54 AM
I understand and appreciate the "by extention" argument but it co-opting something isn't ownership.
Point is, in a society dominated by Christianity, most people think of the Ark as a Christian artifact, therefore being somewhat redundant of Raider's macguffin. When there's an entire planet full of other artifacts attaining to other cultures, it seems more like a re-tread to me.
Rocket Surgeon
08-11-2009, 01:01 AM
Who said it had to be born out of Christian culture to be a Christian artifact? If it has relevence to Christians then to many people it is a Christian symbol. It also happens to be a symbol to the Jewish and Muslim religions. All contemporary religions are rip-offs of older ones. It's how ideas progress; by rethinking and calibrating older ideas to suit newer generations.
Never said it doesn't have relevance, and as I wrote: I understand and appreciate the "by extension" argument but co-opting something isn't ownership.
"The Ark was made and lost over a thousand years before there were any Christians."
There's no need to argue this point any further surgeon, the Ark of the Covenant, even though there is no evidence to its existence, has importance to many Christians. Though not exclusive, it is undeniably an artifact attaining to Christianity.
Really? There's no need to argue this point further? Ja wohl mein furher!
It's an artifact born of Judaism. While Christianity recognizes itself as an extension of Judaism, you might find some Rabbis who choose to differ with you on this point.
No need to argue this point anymore!
Point is, in a society dominated by Christianity, most people think of the Ark as a Christian artifact, therefore being somewhat redundant of Raider's macguffin. When there's an entire planet full of other artifacts attaining to other cultures, it seems more like a re-tread to me.
First off, (now this is going to be an exaggeration so don't let it shake you) that the majority of Iranians think the Holocaust never happened doesn't make it true. (This is merely employed to illustrate the absurdity of co-opting history)
You'll forgive me if I don't take YOUR word on such a sweeping generalization such as:"most people think of the Ark as a Christian artifact"...which makes its use as the basis of your premise faulty.
Seems is a fitting word, but doesn't change the fact that for over a thousand years the Ark "existed"... MORE THAN A HUNDRED CENTURIES, before there was even an inkling of Christianity.
That is the point.
Dayne
08-11-2009, 01:45 AM
Ja wohl mein furher!
Yes witty. I think RA may be starting to rub off on you.
It's an artifact born of Judaism. While Christianity recognizes itself as an extention of Judaism, you might find some Rabbis who choose to differ with you on this point.
But I would agree with any Rabbi who said different; "rewrite" is a much better word than "extension". If I am Christian, then it is Christian to me. Therefore it is also a Christian artifact.
That is the point.
But not the point I was trying to make. All of this religious hocus pocus is all purely hypothetical nonsense, just as much as this ridiculous argument. No one knows if the Ark with all it's godly powers is real or not, but chances are, it's not. But by claiming that it's not a Christian artifact, you are discrediting an entire religion. The Ark of the Covenant is not patented. Just because an idea or myth was born out of a religion, doesn't mean it will not be adopted by others. By your logic, Jesus Christ wouldn't even count as a Christian symbol.
Going back to what I first wrote, I specifically said "religous/Christian."
Never made the argument that the Ark is exclusive to the Christian religion, but it is apart of the Christian religion.
So arguing down that road seems unnescessary.
Both artifacts (the Ark and the Cup of Christ) derive their powers from God. If the connection between the artifacts aren't that close to you, then fine. To me it's as clear as if they made the 4th movie about Noah's Ark or something.
I like the fact that there was something different. Indy is an archeologist and not a religous crusader and archeology is not limited to religous artifacts. The nature of something like Indiana Jones allows it to be taken in different, intriguing directions.
JP Jones
08-11-2009, 06:56 AM
Going back to what I first wrote, I specifically said "religous/Christian."
Never made the argument that the Ark is exclusive to the Christian religion, but it is apart of the Christian religion.
So arguing down that road seems unnescessary.
Both artifacts (the Ark and the Cup of Christ) derive their powers from God. If the connection between the artifacts aren't that close to you, then fine. To me it's as clear as if they made the 4th movie about Noah's Ark or something.
I like the fact that there was something different. Indy is an archeologist and not a religous crusader and archeology is not limited to religous artifacts. The nature of something like Indiana Jones allows it to be taken in different, intriguing directions.That's one of the reasons I like kotcs so much because they took a chance be taking the series to a new and unique direction, instead of going the easy way out by making something we already saw.
There were 3 very unique McGuffins;1, the ark ,a BIBLICAL artifact that the nazis were after, 2, Sankara Stones that if they are real have a far less religous purpose than the ark ,and 3 the Crystal Skull. Now some people are going to say that this is just like the ark. Well it's not. It's an Inter-dimensional Beings skull, now I have never head that mentioned in the bible. Now Last Crusade's Holy Grail fits the description of the ark perfectly.
What a wasted opportunity for a good McGuffin and a stellar movie.
Rocket Surgeon
08-11-2009, 10:14 AM
Yes witty. I think RA may be starting to rub off on you. You may be right! (although I don't think I'm as abrasive)
But I would agree with any Rabbi who said different; "rewrite" is a much better word than "extension". Depends on the application, to your point maybe but the word was the perfect fit to my point.
If I am Christian, then it is Christian to me. Therefore it is also a Christian artifact.So, you have your own set of rules...no surprise, therefore Space Ghost proves there ARE Ghosts in Space.
But not the point I was trying to make. All of this religious hocus pocus is all purely hypothetical nonsense, just as much as this ridiculous argument. No one knows if the Ark with all it's godly powers is real or not, but chances are, it's not. Chances are...but no one knows, hypothetical, nonsense, ridiculous, hocus pocus. I'm talking about an item of incredible historical signifigance and you're talking about the boogie man.
But by claiming that it's not a Christian artifact, you are discrediting an entire religion. Huh? getting a but melodramatic huh? After your, "All of this religious hocus pocus is all purely hypothetical nonsense" you're going to tell me that pointing out The Ark was lost thousands of years before there even was the idea of a Christian is discounting an entire religion?!?
The Ark of the Covenant is not patented. Just because an idea or myth was born out of a religion, doesn't mean it will not be adopted by others....and co-opting it does NOT denote ownership. it denotes ADOPTION.
By your logic, Jesus Christ wouldn't even count as a Christian symbol.Wow...you'll have to explain that one.
Rocket Surgeon
08-11-2009, 10:32 AM
Going back to what I first wrote, I specifically said "religous/Christian."Never made the argument that the Ark is exclusive to the Christian religion, but it is apart of the Christian religion.
What a goldmine THESE sentences are! I figure it's a typo, (and a beaut!) since the definition of apart is:
•not taken into account or excluded from consideration.
With that in mind and considering you started with what you "specifically" said/wrote, I would agree whole heartedly. The Ark IS apart FROM the Christian religion. Especially in the light of it's origins and history. Was it mentioned in the New Testiment?
So arguing down that road seems unnescessary.Because you don't want to? If you're obsessing on the exacting of the written word I never said it wasn't considered a Christian artifact. However I am making the distinction between ownership and adoption. They really are two distinct ideas.To be totally secular about it, the most significant point made so far is that the item in question was documented and lost TWO thousand years before some cult made an existential claim to it's legacy.
Both artifacts (the Ark and the Cup of Christ) derive their powers from God. I always thought the Ark had no powers it was only a hallowed recepticle and that God had the power. Oh, and what power does the Grail have?
If the connection between the artifacts aren't that close to you, then fine. To me it's as clear as if they made the 4th movie about Noah's Ark or something. Well that's nothing if not consistantly random!
I like the fact that there was something different. Indy is an archeologist and not a religous crusader and archeology is not limited to religous artifacts. The nature of something like Indiana Jones allows it to be taken in different, intriguing directions.
Agreed, if only it were something earthly.
What a garbage post. You add nothing of interest to the topic.
Chewbacca Jones
08-11-2009, 11:33 AM
...and really, what's the likelyhood of a productive conversation with someone who writes:....
It's called being open minded. You should try it sometime. I like to admit that I don't know everything, and that I can be wrong. Cole could be a little less aggressive (and maybe me too), but let's face it; you are the one being nasty and making sure nothing productive transpires.
Mostly, you just seem to be looking for ways to disgree and be difficult.
As for Jesus not being an element of Christianity - by your arguement; Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. Christianity didn't actually come together until after his death. Therefor, he was co-opted.
Rocket Surgeon
08-11-2009, 11:44 AM
What a garbage post. You add nothing of interest to the topic.Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole... let me start by saying your last post was brilliant! It brought things into perspective. Far from being a garbage post itself it brought that interest to the discussion you so rightly pine for!
You're really Cool Cole! You come in and put forth cogent arguments and with your friendly demeanor and soft spoken ways you dodge the difficult questions and act like a douche!
Here's some interesting content/questions you've ignored so far:
...making the distinction between ownership and adoption.
...what power does the Grail have?
...was [the Ark] mentioned in the New Testiment?
...and that's just scratching the surface of interesting topics you're sweeping under the rug in order to add the very witty and substantial commentary:
"What a garbage post. You add nothing of interest to the topic."
Don't like arguing against common sense and honest questions? I don't blame you I wouldn't like it either.
Dismissed.:rolleyes:
Rocket Surgeon
08-11-2009, 12:00 PM
It's called being open minded. You should try it sometime.
Now would be a good time for you to show it! opps, sorry for interrupting:
I like to admit that I don't know everything, and that I can be wrong. Cole could be a little less aggressive (and maybe me too),
Hey that worked out well, and didn't seem contrived at all. But really, that's why I ask questions...to try to understand your point of view. I don't think I can read tone into text flawlessly so I do ask questions. It's yours to take them as YOU will.
but let's face it; you are the one being nasty and making sure nothing productive transpires.
Really? Nasty? This is hardly nasty. I'm asking questions. Forwarding the dialogue, that some of your responses don't make sense or are poorly expressed, in my opinion, doesn't make my challenging you nasty. I merely step up to the line in the sand and dont (usually) tend to cross lines unprovoked. Maybe you're just don't understand me and you're rushing to judgement. If you propose something I read that comes off as outrageous to me I will challenge you to support your claims. Don't expect me to accept what you say as though you were Jesus himself!
Mostly, you just seem to be looking for ways to disgree and be difficult. Mostly I'm looking for you to explain yourself SATISFACTORALLY! Yes to MY satisfaction. You've engaged in this debate just as vehemently, it's a two way street sweetheart. You're 11 posts in and you think you understand my motives?
As for Jesus not being an element of Christianity - by your arguement; Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. Christianity didn't actually come together until after his death. Therefor, he was co-opted.
Please show me where I've said that once. These are YOUR words, and your faulty logic. I have not yet addressed this assinine application of logic! (Now THATs being rude...but still not nasty!). Try to respond to the content of my posts and not your twisted,whacked out perception of them. (that might be nasty.)
Rocket's one of those people who gets his kicks out of internet fights. Let him be.
Rocket Surgeon
08-11-2009, 12:10 PM
Rocket's one of those people who gets his kicks out of internet fights. Let him be.
Post 53, thank you confucious.
Still ignoring interesting questions?
...making the distinction between ownership and adoption.
...what power does the Grail have?
...was [the Ark] mentioned in the New Testiment?
Discusions, debates, fights...it's a two way street, and your posts can be condecending too, no?
mattzilla2010
08-11-2009, 03:22 PM
Well Rocket Surgeon, perhaps I can take a stab at answering your questions, since I'm not part of this wild raging argument thing that seems to be going on... :)
1) ownership vs. adoption: I agree with you 100% that the Ark originated from and "belongs to" the Jewish faith, and that the Ark as a religious symbol was much later adopted by Christianity. But where my opinion differs is that I believe the Ark "belongs to" Christianity just as much. Yes, the Ark was actually around long before Christians were, and was the property of the ancient Hebrews, so in that sense the Ark itself (the physical object) is/was owned by the Jews. But purely as a religious symbol, I don't see how any one religion can "own" it exclusively. I mean, the Ark isn't copyrighted is it? If two religions want to use the same symbol, then it can belong to both of them equally.
So I don't see it as Jews owning the Ark with Christians just borrowing it.
And, I apologize if that wasn't quite what you were asking. I'll admit I didn't read all your previous posts very carefully :o
2) Well, judging by the end of Last Crusade, I would say that the Grail extends the life of whoever drinks from it and also heals wounds/illnesses.
3) The only instance I know of is this: "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm." - Revelation 11:19
But it's possible there could be more.
And as a last note to everyone here - just be friends! Discussion is good, but arguments and insults aren't very productive. All you need is love... :hat:
Chewbacca Jones
08-11-2009, 04:08 PM
Don't expect me to accept what you say as though you were Jesus himself!
Don't expect anyone to accept your word in that way, either.
You're 11 posts in and you think you understand my motives?
Just like you, I can only go on what your write here. I have trouble finding substance in most of what you wrote. Challenge, yes. But reasons for it? No. You want me to explain myself to your satisfaction, but you seem to avoid explaining yourself in the process.
I do note that a short while ago you laid out a few ideas, but any challenge to those is met with words that, tone aside, are not very civil.
Please show me where I've said that once. These are YOUR words, and your faulty logic. I have not yet addressed this assinine application of logic! (Now THATs being rude...but still not nasty!). Try to respond to the content of my posts and not your twisted,whacked out perception of them. (that might be nasty.)
Yes, that's nasty and uncalled for. If you look at what I was saying IN CONTEXT with your views on why the Ark is not a Christian artifact (rather than me quoting every last word you've said about it so far), I am applying the idea of the Ark pre-dating the faith to the historical fact that Jesus predated Christianity as a religion.
To answer your hard questions myself;
1 - Ownership vs. adoption is a dangerous area to be in when talking Christianity. The faith has drawn so much from other religions and cultures that it has become difficult at times to figure out what really started with the Christians and what didn't. However, regardless of whether you consider something owned or adopted by a religion, it's still an element of it. The Old Testament, while originated by the Jews, was adopted into the Christian faith. Wether or not you consider the stories of the Bible to be literal truth or not, the Old Testament itself is part of the history of Christianity, much the way my ancestors of old are part of my own history, even though they died long before I was born. And if any of my family members were adopted, or even just called family, they are still part of my family's history.
2 - The movie claims immortality (or at least healing) to be a power of the Grail, as do many stories within and outside of Christian teachings.
3 - The Ark in the New Testament; Well, I think Mattzilla covered that one. But I argue that the Old Testament is no more valid than the New. So it shouldn't matter. Jesus' teaching were based on what came before, and Christianity is based on Jesus' teachings. Thus both Jesus and the Ark are, among other things, part of Christian history and faith.
Now, instead of raging against me or those who are with me on this, and instead of expecting me to continue explaining and making points, why don't you CIVILLY either concede my points or counter them with your own. And I don't mean reject. I mean counter. Because the last one who can make a legitimate point wins a debate, not the last one to point and say "you're wrong." (and let me take away the temptation to say that you never used the words "you're wrong." I was simplifying for demonstrative effect.)
Chewbacca Jones
08-11-2009, 04:15 PM
Rocket's one of those people who gets his kicks out of internet fights. Let him be.
I choose not to leave him be. I don't know Rocket, but I've known many others who have something legitimate to say but have trouble doing it without causing some mud to fly.
I'm hoping to turn this around to something productive and interesting. If he has some good points to make, I want to know what they are.
Dayne
08-12-2009, 12:40 AM
As for Jesus not being an element of Christianity - by your arguement; Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. Christianity didn't actually come together until after his death. Therefor, he was co-opted.
Exactly.
(Everything mattzilla2010 just said)
Exactly. These are the points I was trying to make, though presented in a much more elegant fashion. I applaud both your writing abilities. :up:
Ahhhh discussions... gotta love em. :D
Rocket Surgeon
08-12-2009, 09:22 PM
Well Rocket Surgeon, perhaps I can take a stab at answering your questions, since I'm not part of this wild raging argument thing that seems to be going on... :)
1) ownership vs. adoption: I agree with you 100% that the Ark originated from and "belongs to" the Jewish faith, and that the Ark as a religious symbol was much later adopted by Christianity. But where my opinion differs is that I believe the Ark "belongs to" Christianity just as much. Yes, the Ark was actually around long before Christians were, and was the property of the ancient Hebrews, so in that sense the Ark itself (the physical object) is/was owned by the Jews. But purely as a religious symbol, I don't see how any one religion can "own" it exclusively. I mean, the Ark isn't copyrighted is it? If two religions want to use the same symbol, then it can belong to both of them equally.
So I don't see it as Jews owning the Ark with Christians just borrowing it.
And, I apologize if that wasn't quite what you were asking. I'll admit I didn't read all your previous posts very carefully :o
No problem, don't apologize...you're post was exceedingly polite!
The Ark itself is a Jewish artifact which has been adopted or co-oped by Catholic Tradition, a SYMBOL of the NEW LAW. St Thomas Aquinas and his followers, drew parallels between this Jewish relic and the Christ, the Holy Eucharist even a manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the "Ark of the Covenant".
A symbol that was adopted and redefined. However the relic itself is Jewish.
2) Well, judging by the end of Last Crusade, I would say that the Grail extends the life of whoever drinks from it and also heals wounds/illnesses. Have we been talking about the point of view of the films? If so the Ark as presented by the film is decidedly NOT Christian in context. The beards imbued the Grail with mystical powers. There is no tradition of The Holy Grail where it posseses any power save fiction including the film, poems and literature hundreds of years hence...(I am speaking of the relic not the plot device).
3) The only instance I know of is this: "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm." - Revelation 11:19 My earlier point may shed light on the turn of the phrase "Ark of the Covenant" which has also been called Ark of the Testimony, Ark of the Testament, the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, the Ark of God, AND the Ark of the Lord.
And as a last note to everyone here - just be friends! Discussion is good, but arguments and insults aren't very productive. All you need is love... :hat:
With all things old and new there is a learning curve. We should all re-examine our motives.
Cheers.:hat:
Rocket Surgeon
08-12-2009, 09:32 PM
I am applying the idea of the Ark pre-dating the faith to the historical fact that Jesus predated Christianity as a religion.
Historical fact?
The church was formed when Jesus said:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Check out Matthew 16:18-19
Just like you, I can only go on what your write here. I have trouble finding substance in most of what you wrote. Challenge, yes. But reasons for it? No. You want me to explain myself to your satisfaction, but you seem to avoid explaining yourself in the process.
I see the number of posts and understand I can't know you so naturally I challenge...to find out if you're full of sh!t or not, (my method is obviously not flawless,but entertaining...to me at least).
Now, instead of raging against me or those who are with me on this, and instead of expecting me to continue explaining and making points, why don't you CIVILLY either concede my points or counter them with your own. And I don't mean reject. I mean counter. Because the last one who can make a legitimate point wins a debate, not the last one to point and say "you're wrong." (and let me take away the temptation to say that you never used the words "you're wrong." I was simplifying for demonstrative effect.)
Cheers...you've stuck around and made your assertions, but I think we differ on some basics which I've "countered" above. I'll start with that and lets see if we can find common ground.
...and yeah, I never said you were wrong, I did challenge with questions though.
Chewbacca Jones
08-12-2009, 11:11 PM
Historical fact?
The church was formed when Jesus said:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Check out Matthew 16:18-19
NOW we're getting somewhere!
OK, I admit that I don't know my Bible very well, so I can't throw quotes. Still, I assert that, in terms of what is written within, Biblical passages can not be relied on to trace history so finely. Between translations and all the tinkering the Church has done over the centuries, we can't be sure of the intent of that statement.
Even setting aside those problems, the words "my church" (if translated correctly) could easily be the same as those spoken by any minister, priest, etc. when referring to the building or community that he tends. But looking at what happened around and following the time of Jesus' death, it is really after that something specifically Christian forms as a religion.
On the other hand, one could argue that Christianity (though not in name) was born when Jesus' followers started to see him as being... shall we say "a cut above" your average rabbi, much the way the Baptist faith is viewed.
However, this still ties the Christian and Jewish faith so closely together that it's difficult to separate in historical manner. At least as I see it.
Now, looking at your responses to Mattzilla;
My main issue is that I believe the manner in which the Ark became an element of Christianity is not relevant in determining if it is a Christian relic. But I fully agree that it was first and foremost a relic of the Jewish faith. Thus, I would (and apparently many others would) consider it both. On that, I think all we can do is agree to disagree.
What I remain curious about is this; What makes you say that the Ark in the movie is decidedly not Christian in context? I thought they were deliberately noncommittal on that point. What's your basis?
Little Indy
08-12-2009, 11:26 PM
Been lurking along this post thought I'd chime in here. Col. Deitrich asks Belloq if it was necessary to perform the Jewish ritual of opening the Ark. Previously when Indy is commisioned to obtain the Ark he talks about the Hebrews carrying the Ark before them in battle. A few hints to link it to Judeism (sp).
Rocket Surgeon
08-13-2009, 12:17 AM
My main issue is that I believe the manner in which the Ark became an element of Christianity is not relevant in determining if it is a Christian relic.
I have other questions and responses but first...please clarify THAT one.
Rocket Surgeon
08-13-2009, 12:20 AM
Been lurking along this post thought I'd chime in here. Col. Deitrich asks Belloq if it was necessary to perform the Jewish ritual of opening the Ark. Previously when Indy is commisioned to obtain the Ark he talks about the Hebrews carrying the Ark before them in battle. A few hints to link it to Judeism (sp).
Thank you...
What I remain curious about is this; What makes you say that the Ark in the movie is decidedly not Christian in context? I thought they were deliberately noncommittal on that point. What's your basis?
please put forward ANY example in Raiders that references Christianity.
Off the top of my head the only non-judaic reference is Sallah's it's not of this earth.
mattzilla2010
08-13-2009, 12:38 AM
A symbol that was adopted and redefined. However the relic itself is Jewish.
Yes, I quite agree.
Have we been talking about the point of view of the films? If so the Ark as presented by the film is decidedly NOT Christian in context. The beards imbued the Grail with mystical powers. There is no tradition of The Holy Grail where it posseses any power save fiction including the film, poems and literature hundreds of years hence...(I am speaking of the relic not the plot device).
Ah, whoops. I thought it seemed a bit strange that you were asking about the Grail's power, since it's clearly shown in the film. :p
Yeah, as far as I know the actual relic (if it exists) isn't supposed to have any kind of holy powers or anything.
So if we link this back to the Indiana Jones.......what is the counter-argument being made? That the Ark is strictly a Jewish artifact, therefore making it a completely different type of artifact than the Cup of Christ which is a Christian artifact?
I don't agree with that at all.......both artifacts derive their powers from God and I don't think it's "just" the Jewish people who believe in the Ark.
That's all I'm sayin'.
Rocket Surgeon
08-13-2009, 10:24 AM
So if we link this back to the Indiana Jones.......what is the counter-argument being made? That the Ark is strictly a Jewish artifact, therefore making it a completely different type of artifact than the Cup of Christ which is a Christian artifact?I don't agree with that at all.......both artifacts derive their powers from God and I don't think it's "just" the Jewish people who believe in the Ark.That's all I'm sayin'.Is there a counter argument? Or have I just challenged you to support your opinions.
I feel I have to do this:In many ways, the Cup of Christ is a fairly routine McGuffin after the Ark. How is the Holy Grail routine?After the Ark.......they're both two of the biggest religous/Christian artifacts. Fairly retread.
Hmmm...what's your definition of routine?You're calling the Ark a Christian artifact? ...a religious artifact to be sure, but retread? You're really pretty vauge. Care to elaborate?
No, I don't. I alrady laid it out. You disagree with me, then fine.It's not that I don't agree with you as much as I'm curious where you're coming from...and if you have something worthwhile to say.But I guess I know now.It seems Rocket Surgeon would rather be a dick to me then discuss the issue at hand.Looking it over seems you're being a dick to me and I was being MORE than CIVIL. (To refute the walking carpet going through withdrawl). So if we link this back to the Indiana Jones.......what is the counter-argument being made? That the Ark is strictly a Jewish artifact, therefore making it a completely different type of artifact than the Cup of Christ which is a Christian artifact? No, this has been about you calling it a retread, and why. I don't agree with that at all.......both artifacts derive their powers from God and I don't think it's "just" the Jewish people who believe in the Ark. Yeah, but the films made no allusions to the Ark and Christianity and The Grail and Judaism. They kept them segregated.(Not to get too nitpicky but the relics themselves have no power...God didn't "make them magical" It's always been Gods power and it's because the "bad guys" were so presumptuous of "its" power they succumbed to "The Wrath of God" not "The Wrath of The Ark". That's all I'm sayin'.
Now, yes...then, no.
...and try not to be such a dick.
JP Jones
08-13-2009, 10:48 AM
I think about 99% of people who watched the 2 movies could care less whether the ark is jewish or the grail is christian. The point is they're used for the same purpose, to show the power of God. The argument I have is that we've seen something like the grail before. I gives you the idea that they just wanted to copy raiders instead of making a fresh unique movie like the other 3. So really there is no reason to decide what religon each artifact is.
Looking it over seems you're being a dick to me and I was being MORE than CIVIL. (To refute the walking carpet going through withdrawl). No, this has been about you calling it a retread, and why. Yeah, but the films made no allusions to the Ark and Christianity and The Grail and Judaism. They kept them segregated.(Not to get too nitpicky but the relics themselves have no power...God didn't "make them magical" It's always been Gods power and it's because the "bad guys" were so presumptuous of "its" power they succumbed to "The Wrath of God" not "The Wrath of The Ark".
Now, yes...then, no.
...and try not to be such a dick.
I don't understand what you're trying to say...........the Ark and the Cup of Christ segregated? Of course, I never said they were the same. I"m saying they are similar.
I said why I thought it was fairly retread and you were more interested in talking about how I didn't back up what I say, rather than putting forth your own thoughts.
Rocket Surgeon
08-13-2009, 11:09 AM
I don't understand what you're trying to say...
Oh boy...:rolleyes:
I think about 99% of people who watched the 2 movies could care less whether the ark is jewish or the grail is christian. The point is they're used for the same purpose, to show the power of God. The argument I have is that we've seen something like the grail before. I gives you the idea that they just wanted to copy raiders instead of making a fresh unique movie like the other 3. So really there is no reason to decide what religon each artifact is.
I would still say that bringing in Indy's dad and how he's incorporated into the story still makes it fresh.
One of the interviews that George Lucas did, where he was talking about how hard it is to come up with these McGuffins for the films - he himself even said something along the lines that what made 'Last Crusade' great was bringing in the father.
Oh boy...:rolleyes:
Taking a little piece out of a person's post and trying to insult them with it.......is this what you're resorting to?
Pretty clear you're here for an argument rather than a constructive conversation.
Chewbacca Jones
08-13-2009, 11:16 AM
Rocket, curb the 'dick' and other inflammatory remarks. They don't need to be there, and that's what got everyone upset to start with, and why Cole and I felt you were the one being a dick. If you can't have a conversation without poking at people like that, you've either got problems or your forgetting that words need to be more carefully chosen when tone can't be heard.
Regarding film evidence of the Ark as being strictly Jewish; The fact that the Hebrews carried is a matter of historical placement. Since Jesus was not yet born, no Christian could have been involved at that point. The Hebrew ritual follows from that. However, they also ascribe to the Ark qualities that the Christians believed it had - a matter of faith, to say the least. For me, the big one is this; Why would Hitler believe in the power of a Jewish relic? Wouldn't it make more sense that he saw it as Christian because it's in the Bible? Belloq is the one who insists on a Hebrew ritual. I'm sure that Hitler as character would have simply opened it, maybe with a quick Christian prayer as he did so. I think that, at least subconsciously, "the beards" felt that blind fanaticism for Christian teachings was unwise, and often obscured the truth about things like the origins of the Ark. But rather than hoisting the Jewish flag, they left that issue to be decided by the viewer, if they cared to do so.
Clarifying "My main issue is that I believe the manner in which the Ark became an element of Christianity is not relevant in determining if it is a Christian relic.";
What I mean is that the issue at hand is wether or not the Ark can be considered Christian in some way, not wether they assimilated it from another faith like the Christmas Tree. Christian religion is not limited to the New Testament. Christians consider the Old as part of their faith, and historically, the faith was built on it as a foundation. This ties the Ark to Christianity, even though it did not start there.
Just for a moment, consider Genesis. The Christian version posits that Adam and Eve are the first two people created in the Garden of Eden. Jewish teaching, however, are less simple. Adam had a first wife who was not made of his flesh, but of the earth just as he was. Adam asked for a companion that he had more in common with (more or less), and in comes Eve. So, while Adam's first wife is only an element of Judaism, Adam and Eve are both Jewish and Christian concepts.
jamiestarr
08-13-2009, 11:18 AM
I would still say that bringing in Indy's dad and how he's incorporated into the story still makes it fresh.
One of the interviews that George Lucas did, where he was talking about how hard it is to come up with these McGuffins for the films - he himself even said something along the lines that what made 'Last Crusade' great was bringing in the father.
I agree. A lot of this thread seems to be arguing semantics/religious differences between the Holy Grail and the Lost Ark. Those are just nitpicky/bickering points.
Really, it IS Indy's dad that makes Last Crusade different (and NOT A RETREAD) of Raiders.
Rocket Surgeon
08-13-2009, 11:18 AM
Taking a little piece out of a person's post and trying to insult them with it.......is this what you're resorting to?
Pretty clear you're here for an argument rather than a constructive conversation.
To be precise it's your introductory statement...the basis of what's to come.
Resorting, good lord man/boy! Maybe you'd like to re-read the part where I'm asking you to explain yourself!
It's pretty clear...I think you should issue a referendum on that phrase until some future time. Maybe the time when you can distinguish between constructive conversation and whatever it is you're doing!
God knows you don't need to explain your self to have a constructive conversation...vauge references and snotty rejoinders should suffice, right?
Rocket, curb the 'dick' and other inflammatory remarks. Let's give credit where it's due...I'm just using the clever words Cole saw fit to throw out there.
...and I'll exercise my right to say what I please Chewy.
Once again, I'm poking back Chewy, Cole wants to play, I can play his game, very well...LET's PLAY!
Why would Hitler believe in the power of a Jewish relic? Wouldn't it make more sense that he saw it as Christian because it's in the Bible? Hitler's obsessed with the occult, a fanatic. I'll leave discerning Hitlers logic to you, but I'll leave you with this: just posessing it denotes power over it, not using/believing in it. He didn't HAVE to believe it "worked" only that others did.
I know you said you don't know your Bible...but Old/New Testament? No it wouldn't make ANY sense to see it as Christian because it's in the Bible.
What I mean is that the issue at hand is wether or not the Ark can be considered Christian in some way, not wether they assimilated it from another faith like the Christmas Tree.
I think I illustrated the Christian tradition of the Ark already...and it's not the relic from the movie.
Chewbacca Jones
08-13-2009, 11:28 AM
I think about 99% of people who watched the 2 movies could care less whether the ark is jewish or the grail is christian. The point is they're used for the same purpose, to show the power of God. The argument I have is that we've seen something like the grail before. I gives you the idea that they just wanted to copy raiders instead of making a fresh unique movie like the other 3. So really there is no reason to decide what religon each artifact is.
To a certain extent you're right. But if one does separate the Ark and Grail along religious lines, the argument can then be opened as to which God's powers are on display, and how retread or non-retread ToD then becomes. Because of divine powers are all that it takes to make an Indy McGuffin a retread, then the original concept of Indy is to BE a retread over and over again.
On the other hand, if you one can consider the Ark and Grail to come from the same religious traditions, it sets the Sankara Stone apart from them in a very clear way. The stones may not do anything as grand as the Ark or the Grail in the movies, but the power of Shiva does seem to manifest through the stones. Shiva is a god, though. So the question is, are we talking the power of three different Gods? Or two? Or even one?
I agree. A lot of this thread seems to be arguing semantics/religious differences between the Holy Grail and the Lost Ark. Those are just nitpicky/bickering points.
Really, it IS Indy's dad that makes Last Crusade different (and NOT A RETREAD) of Raiders.
Well-said!
To a certain extent you're right. But if one does separate the Ark and Grail along religious lines, the argument can then be opened as to which God's powers are on display, and how retread or non-retread ToD then becomes. Because of divine powers are all that it takes to make an Indy McGuffin a retread, then the original concept of Indy is to BE a retread over and over again.
On the other hand, if you one can consider the Ark and Grail to come from the same religious traditions, it sets the Sankara Stone apart from them in a very clear way. The stones may not do anything as grand as the Ark or the Grail in the movies, but the power of Shiva does seem to manifest through the stones. Shiva is a god, though. So the question is, are we talking the power of three different Gods? Or two? Or even one?
Before Crystal Skull came out, the one thing I REALLY appreciated about 'Temple of Doom' is that it was different.
Yea, you can make certain comparisons about religion, really, among all 4 movies and they all have some similar running themes..........but Sankara Stones, Shiva, Thuggee Cult - it all allowed for a different type of religion, a different type of culture, a different type of atmosphere.
Chewbacca Jones
08-13-2009, 11:40 AM
Let's give credit where it's due...I'm just using the clever words Cole saw fit to throw out there.
...and I'll exercise my right to say what I please Chewy.
Once again, I'm poking back Chewy, Cole wants to play, I can play his game, very well...LET's PLAY!
Actually, you took a shot at me, too. One that I am trying to overlook as misunderstanding your tone. And I don't mean to infringe on your rights. I'm entreating you to be exercise self control for the purpose of better discourse.
just posessing it denotes power over it, not using/believing in it. He didn't HAVE to believe it "worked" only that others did.
Point taken and conceded. :hat:
No it wouldn't make ANY sense to see it as Christian because it's in the Bible.
Why is that? Could you explain further?
I think I illustrated the Christian tradition of the Ark already...
Well, you have said that the Christians adopted it. But if you can illuminate your position by answering my question just above, you might be able to split a very important hair. No wookiee pun intended.
[Lunch Break!]
JP Jones
08-13-2009, 11:40 AM
I agree. A lot of this thread seems to be arguing semantics/religious differences between the Holy Grail and the Lost Ark. Those are just nitpicky/bickering points.
Really, it IS Indy's dad that makes Last Crusade different (and NOT A RETREAD) of Raiders.Yes he makes it different but he doesn't really change the plot it just raiders with an extra special bonus. If there were no nazis running through the desert which is excactly what raiders does I would have loved it. There's no breakthrough in the storytelling. Raiders was 1st to deal with nazis and religous artifacts, Temple was 1st to deal with ancient cults, and Skull was first to deal with "Aliens". Just because you involve someone's dad it doesn't breakthrough as new and different.
Yes he makes it different but he doesn't really change the plot it just raiders with an extra special bonus. If there were no nazis running through the desert which is excactly what raiders does I would have loved it. There's no breakthrough in the storytelling. Raiders was 1st to deal with nazis and religous artifacts, Temple was 1st to deal with ancient cults, and Skull was first to deal with "Aliens". Just because you involve someone's dad it doesn't breakthrough as new and different.
In my humble opinion, you're probably oversimplifying matters in 'Last Crusade.'
Opening up the movie with Indy as an adolescent was something different - and another stroke of brilliance IMO.
Obviously the movie deals with some similar elements from Raiders......but it's still a new adventure.
JP Jones
08-13-2009, 11:56 AM
In my humble opinion, you're probably oversimplifying matters in 'Last Crusade.'
Opening up the movie with Indy as an adolescent was something different - and another stroke of brilliance IMO.
Obviously the movie deals with some similar elements from Raiders......but it's still a new adventure.
I know it's not a shot for shot remake of raiders. It is a new adventure and I enjoyed it, but do you agree that it's a hit and miss for something really good?
Rocket Surgeon
08-13-2009, 12:04 PM
Actually, you took a shot at me, too. One that I am trying to overlook as misunderstanding your tone.Cheers...actually I remember simply disagreeing with you, and then you cracked the irony whip.
And I don't mean to infringe on your rights. I'm entreating you to be exercise self control for the purpose of better discourse.I appreciate that, but know that I'm pretty much not going to ignore the line in the sand...it all depends.
Why is that? Could you explain further? The New Testament is exactly that...NEW. There are so many changes, from the commandments to the nature of God that the content of the OLD, while the foundation for the NEW has transformed the teachings and the symbols. The thing that some posters lament as nitpicking, I enjoy discussing to further my understanding. You never know where a particular insight may lead you. Sometimes to an entirely different, (not better or corrected mind you) point of view or understanding. that's why I asked the questions. maybe it will inspire another question, one I hadn't considered. But as far knowing what Hitler might have done with it...who knows. After all he did consult/hire a NON German to assist in it's recovery. To guess at Hiter's logic is insanity...the perfect race was tall, blond haired and blue eyed? Not short, black haired...ectWell, you have said that the Christians adopted it. But if you can illuminate your position by answering my question just above, you might be able to split a very important hair. No wookiee pun intended.[Lunch Break!]
I kinda liked this one:
...the walking carpet going through withdrawl...
Chewbacca Jones
08-13-2009, 01:46 PM
OK, one more quickie, then I have to pay some attention to the rest of my pathetic life.
The thing that some posters lament as nitpicking, I enjoy discussing to further my understanding. You never know where a particular insight may lead you.
Indeed.
The New Testament is exactly that...NEW. There are so many changes, from the commandments to the nature of God that the content of the OLD, while the foundation for the NEW has transformed the teachings and the symbols.
No dispute there. But the Old Testament is full of it's own revisions and inconsistencies. Christian teaching include both Testaments, complete with every head-scratcher that they each have to offer.
So, I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with your point of view. Your argument doesn't change that for me. But from the perspective that the New Testament is a radical departure or revision from the Old, regardless of what Church may say/teach - I see why you would separate the two.
But, let me ask you this; From your POV, are the references (or at least the one pointed out earlier) to the Ark in the New Testament not referring to the actual Ark that appears in the Old Testament? I mean, even if the NT ascribes things to it that the OT does not, aren't they still talking about the same box? Or do you think the NT is being figurative in using the term "ark?"
Also, since you clearly know your Bible rather well; Where do the powers described by Indy and Marcus come from (lightening, leveling mountains, invincible armies, etc.). Are they referring to something in the OT, the NT, or just stuff that George and Steven made up?
To guess at Hiter's logic is insanity...the perfect race was tall, blond haired and blue eyed? Not short, black haired...ect.
Well, yeah. He was a bit odd, as one of my old co-workers would say. :p
Rocket Surgeon
08-13-2009, 02:02 PM
But, let me ask you this; From your POV, are the references (or at least the one pointed out earlier) to the Ark in the New Testament not referring to the actual Ark that appears in the Old Testament? I mean, even if the NT ascribes things to it that the OT does not, aren't they still talking about the same box? Or do you think the NT is being figurative in using the term "ark?"
The Ark itself is a Jewish artifact which has been adopted or co-oped by Catholic Tradition, a SYMBOL of the NEW LAW. St Thomas Aquinas and his followers, drew parallels between this Jewish relic and the Christ, the Holy Eucharist even a manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the "Ark of the Covenant".
A symbol that was adopted and redefined. However the relic itself is Jewish.
Where do the powers described by Indy and Marcus come from (lightening, leveling mountains, invincible armies, etc.). Are they referring to something in the OT, the NT, or just stuff that George and Steven made up?
Well there are sources other than the Bible but the Bible mentions the Ark as parting waters similar to the Stakk of Kings, and instrumental in knocking down the walls of the city of Jericho.
Whenever, during the desert life, the camp was to set forward, Aaron and his sons went into the tabernacle of the covenant and the Holy of Holies, took down the veil that hung before the door, wrapped up the Ark of the Testimony in it, covered it in dugong skins, then with a violet cloth, and put in the bars (Numbers 4:5, 6). When the people pitched their tents to sojourn for some time in a place, everything was set again in its customary order. During the journeys the Ark went before the people; and when it was lifted up they said: "Arise, O Lord, and let Thy enemies be scattered, and let them that hate Thee flee from before Thy face!" And when it was set down, they said: "Return, O Lord, to the multitude of the host of Israel!" Numbers 10:33-36). Thus did the Ark preside over all the journeys and stations of Israel during all their wandering life in the wilderness.
The sacred chest was the visible sign of God's presence and protection. This appeared in the most striking manner in different circumstances. When the spies who had been sent to view the Promised Land returned and gave their report, murmurs arose in the camp, which neither threatenings nor even the death of the authors of the sedition could quell. Against the will of God, many of the Israelites went up to the mountain to meet the Amalecites and Chanaanites: "but the ark of the testament of the Lord and Moses departed not from the camp". And the enemies came down, smote, and slew the presumptuous Hebrews whom God did not help. The next two manifestations of Yahweh's power through the Ark occurred under Josue's leadership. When the people were about to cross the Jordan, the priests that carried the ark of the covenant went on before them; and as soon as they came into the Jordan, and their feet were dipped in part of the water, the waters that came down from above stood in one place, and swelling up like a mountain, were seen afar off . . . but those that were beneath ran down into the sea of the wilderness, until they wholly failed. And the people marched over against Jericho; and the priests that carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, stood girded upon the dry ground, in the midst of the Jordan, and all the people passed over through the channel that was dried up. (Joshua 3:14-17)
A few days later, Israel was besieging Jericho. At God's command, the Ark was carried in procession around the city for seven days, until the walls crumbled at the sound of the trumpets and the shouts of the people, thus giving the assailing army a free opening into the place (Joshua 6:6-21). Later again, after the taking and burning of Hai, we see the Ark occupy a most prominent place in the solemn assize of the nation held between Mount Garizim and Mount Hebal (Joshua 8:33).
Now Jericho was close shut up and fenced, for fear of the children of Israel, and no man durst go out or come in. 2 And the Lord said to Joshua: Behold I have given into thy hands Jericho, and the king thereof, and all the valiant men. 3 Go round about the city all ye fighting men once a day: so shall ye do for six days. 4 And on the seventh day the priests shall take the seven trumpets, which are used in the jubilee, and shall go before the ark of the covenant: and you shall go about the city seven times, and the priests shall sound the trumpets. 5 And when the voice of the trumpet shall give a longer and broken tune, and shall sound in your ears, all the people shall shout together with a very great shout, and the walls of the city shall fall to the ground, and they shall enter in every one at the place against which they shall stand.
A bit of artistic license, you know, the power of God if you believe in that sort of thing...
Chewbacca Jones
08-13-2009, 08:41 PM
So, the Power of God is literally coming from the faith of his followers. That's interesting.
The Ark itself is a Jewish artifact which has been adopted or co-oped by Catholic Tradition, a SYMBOL of the NEW LAW. St Thomas Aquinas and his followers, drew parallels between this Jewish relic and the Christ, the Holy Eucharist even a manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the "Ark of the Covenant".
A symbol that was adopted and redefined. However the relic itself is Jewish.
That doesn't exactly answer my question. Or maybe it does but I'm not seeing it. Could you rephrase that? Like, really cut down to just the physical object itself, regardless of role or interpretation. Are we talking the same actual object, in your opinion, or just an abstract symbol based on the actual one.
James
08-13-2009, 10:35 PM
There's no breakthrough in the storytelling. Raiders was 1st to deal with nazis and religous artifacts, Temple was 1st to deal with ancient cults, and Skull was first to deal with "Aliens". Just because you involve someone's dad it doesn't breakthrough as new and different.
Even though it doesn't break new ground in terms of genre, there's still a degree of character study that had been missing at that point. (I believe Lucas mentions something similar on the SE dvd.) This helps to set it apart, and provide it with its own identity.
However, I do think that over time, LC may be considered less imaginative than the other films. Many fans today still view TOD and KOTCS as artistic experiments that didn't quite work out, and Indy as a character that's supposed to be fighting Nazis.
Yet future audiences will have a completely different perspective. To them, those sequels WILL be what the franchise was all about: A series of films that explored various styles and genres- not just the stuff that worked in 1981. (And if they make an Indy 5 that also goes in a unique direction, it will really hammer the stylistic point home.)
Rocket Surgeon
08-13-2009, 10:44 PM
So, the Power of God is literally coming from the faith of his followers. That's interesting.I think the power of God is coming from God...but there is some fine print as to how to get God to manifest his power, and faith is of course one of those things.That doesn't exactly answer my question. Or maybe it does but I'm not seeing it. Could you rephrase that? Like, really cut down to just the physical object itself, regardless of role or interpretation. Are we talking the same actual object, in your opinion, or just an abstract symbol based on the actual one.The way I read it, the Old Testament Ark is a physical box that carries sacred relics besides being a relic itself.
In the New Testiment The Ark of the Covenant is a title bestowed on certain ideas, sacraments and people.
I think that's as cut and dry as it gets.
Which really strikes to the heart of the origin of the movie's McGuffin, (to me). Obviously people will believe what they want to. But that doesn't make it true or factual...hence my questions.
MaverickKing
08-14-2009, 12:19 AM
My own little opinion: of the four Indiana Jones films, Last Crusade is my least favourite. Yes, I prefer Kingdom over this.
Let's be frank here. In Raiders, we have Belloq and Toht, some great villains (and the Nazis provide menace too). In Temple, Mola Ram and the Thuggee were just delightful. In Kingdom, while not quite up to scratch, Irina Spalko looked the part and was memorable. But in Crusade... we have a businessman. An American businessman, with a tawdry accent. Yawn.
Then there's the action sequences. They're barely even paced, if at all. The boat chase in Venice was one of the worst action scenes in the entire quadrilogy. Aside from the ace tank fight at the end, and the Young Indy chase at the start... not very thrilling.
And the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword. What the hell do they aside from show up, provide an action scene, tell Indy where to go next, get shot, and die? We don't care for them, yet we're supposed to. Which isn't a good sign.
The truly original thing here is the chemistry with Sean Connery, which is welcome and refreshing, easily worth the price of admission. It's what makes the movie enjoyable to watch, but if I'm looking for something other than proof Connery's a master, then I'm left in the cold.
And River Phoenix is a good Indy, too.
Not to say it's a bad film. It's not, it is good. Just not up to scratch, sadly.
Chewbacca Jones
08-14-2009, 11:41 AM
I think the power of God is coming from God...but there is some fine print as to how to get God to manifest his power, and faith is of course one of those things.
That's pretty much what I meant. Sorry. Maybe "manifesting through the followers" would be a better way to say it?
The way I read it, the Old Testament Ark is a physical box that carries sacred relics besides being a relic itself.
In the New Testiment The Ark of the Covenant is a title bestowed on certain ideas, sacraments and people.
That's what I suspected you were saying, but wanted to be absolutely sure.
As one who studied literature, I realize the significant power of interpretation. The New Testament, as I remember it, was particularly skilled at alluding to things rather than nailing them down irrefutably. I disagree with your interpretation, but I understand now why you would not consider the Ark a Christian artifact at all. It makes perfect sense.
All I ask is that you consider the issue from the point of view that the Ark mentioned in the NT is a reference to the actual box. IF that were so, then the powers ascribed to the Ark in the movie would fit more closely with the Christian Ark, while the history presented would be notably Jewish.
Well, that's got to be the most intense and interesting exchange I've had on an Indy forum! Cheers. :hat:
Rocket Surgeon
08-14-2009, 12:22 PM
That's pretty much what I meant. Sorry. Maybe "manifesting through the followers" would be a better way to say it? I read your restatement similar to God is present through the Good Works of his people.
What I'm getting at is a process, cause and effect. The do the right things and God picks up the phone when they call, so to say.
That's what I suspected you were saying, but wanted to be absolutely sure. As one who studied literature, I realize the significant power of interpretation. The New Testament, as I remember it, was particularly skilled at alluding to things rather than nailing them down irrefutably. I disagree with your interpretation, but I understand now why you would not consider the Ark a Christian artifact at all. It makes perfect sense.All I ask is that you consider the issue from the point of view that the Ark mentioned in the NT is a reference to the actual box. IF that were so, then the powers ascribed to the Ark in the movie would fit more closely with the Christian Ark, while the history presented would be notably Jewish.The only time they mention the Ark in the New Testament as the chest that held the 10 Commandments is in Hebrews 9 where they are making the distintion between the Jewish (faith not ethnicity)Ark and the Christian Ark. Revelation is the metaphisical example which I've previously detailed.
If you mean some other that I've missed...let me know.
Just as the story of the sacrifice of Issac was meant to illustrate the evils of the traditions of human sacrifice and providing a more "humane" alternative, the following Hebrews passage takes the next step to illustrate that burnt offering or the sacrifice of animals was no longer necessary. Christ had sacrificed himself so that sins would be forgiven. That there would be a more civil and social way to remember him and the requisite sacrifice to God. He has become the new covenant and distinguishes Christianity so. The "lost Ark" remains a relic of the old law and not of Christianity.
Hebrews 9
Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.[a] But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
The Blood of Christ
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.Well, that's got to be the most intense and interesting exchange I've had on an Indy forum! Cheers. :hat:
This has become a really good conversation, thanks for sticking it out!
Chewbacca Jones
08-14-2009, 10:39 PM
Actually, I was referring to the Revelations quote, and saying IF (emphasis on 'if') that passage were interpreted as identifying the actual Ark of Hebrew tradition - consider the idea of the Ark as a Christian artifact from that point of view. Hypothetically, accepting that difference of interpretation.
Rocket Surgeon
08-15-2009, 12:48 AM
Actually, I was referring to the Revelations quote, and saying IF (emphasis on 'if') that passage were interpreted as identifying the actual Ark of Hebrew tradition - consider the idea of the Ark as a Christian artifact from that point of view. Hypothetically, accepting that difference of interpretation.
After the laying out the ACTUAL biblical passages, your proposal seems sort of...well, actually totally contrary to the whole point.
But to humor you, (God knows why), the only reason would be to support the nonsensical ramblings of a lunatic mind!
But here you go...you want to see it desperately:
If they cast aside all the prior entries regarding the NEW COVENANT, then YES! The Ark of the Covenant would be a Christian artifact! YES! I see it now, I was wrong! It's...no, it's not, it's Jewish, (always has been always will be!).:hat:
You're just asking me to cast aside all evidence to the contrary and say it's the Hebrew's Ark. Which unto itself is simply saying it's the Hebrew's Ark...no more, no less. Just for the sake of saying it. Where's ANY proof? Where's ANY reason to do so? Where?
Answer: there is no reason to do it other than to humour someone's whim or mistaken/uninformed OPINION.
Unless you can provide ANY evidence or site some contrary proofs... I've provided exhaustive evidence to support my claims while there has been NOTHING to refute them besides a he said she said argument.
PLEASE profer SOMETHING to refute my extrapolations, (they're really not just mine, Msgr Corr was very kind to review my assertions...and his resume is impecable!)
The Ark of the Covenant: Hebrew
The Sankara Stones: Hindu
The Holy Grail: Christian
The Christal Skull: Crazy Go Nuts!
Chewbacca Jones
08-15-2009, 03:28 PM
After the laying out the ACTUAL biblical passages, your proposal seems sort of...well, actually totally contrary to the whole point.
Unless you can provide ANY evidence or site some contrary proofs...
Rocket, what you seem to fail to grasp is that disagreement and understanding can co-exist. I accept your view as a valid one. My hope was not to convince you to change your mind, but to illustrate one way in which the other side could make some sense, and chose a convenient one that was already on the table. I’m not even saying this is why I stand by my belief that the Ark is also a Christian artifact.
My evidence is your evidence;
“Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm." - Revelation 11:19
There is nothing in this passage that denotes for certain if the ‘ark’ is referred to figuratively or literally. But it plays a direct role in the events described. The Christian God opens his Christian temple in Christian heaven, revealing the Christian ‘ark,’ and impressive stuff follows. Even if only a symbol, it is readable as being a visual and even physical symbol of a Christian covenant. (and within the context of the movie, that impressive stuff comes from a Christian reference of the ark.) As for the book of Hebrews, it speaks to the original covenant being old news (in material terms, the contents of the ark) but does not specifically say that the ark itself is any lesser for it. That doesn’t make you wrong, it just leaves the door open for a more literal understanding.
I think it's worth it for you to consider this view (misguided as you might feel it is) because many Bible readers (Christian or otherwise) can be extremely literal-minded. Maybe that seems crazy to you, but that isn't the point.
As for your regression to abusive wording (which based on president will only grow worse) - I thought we had gotten past that, but I guess not. Whatever your intent with it, all it really does is irritate others and diminish you (along with all you say). You are clearly intelligent, with valuable things to say. But your taste for rude, hurtful, uncivil expression costs you respect. So, I leave you to ponder or forget my thoughts in this matter as you see fit, and turn my last cheek to your barbs. You and this subject are not worthy of any more of my time or consideration. I’ll stick to those with manners and consideration for others.
Lunatic; Out.
Rocket Surgeon
08-15-2009, 03:59 PM
As for your regression to abusive wording (which based on president will only grow worse) - I thought we had gotten past that, but I guess not. Whatever your intent with it, all it really does is irritate others and diminish you (along with all you say). You are clearly intelligent, with valuable things to say. But your taste for rude, hurtful, uncivil expression costs you respect. So, I leave you to ponder or forget my thoughts in this matter as you see fit, and turn my last cheek to your barbs. You and this subject are not worthy of any more of my time or consideration. I’ll stick to those with manners and consideration for others.Lunatic; Out.I don't expect you to get all my references, but once you get to know me better, your "interpretations" of my posts will improve.
The ravings of a lunatic mind is a quote/tip of the hat to Mel Brooks Young Frankenstein, and meant to be humorous. I only explain because I respect the conversation we've had and don't want you to labor over misconceptions.
There are many such references in my posts and sometime people get them and sometimes people dont...c'est la vie!
One day you'll look back on this and it will all seem funny...(did you get that one?)
Anyway as to your "revelation" the Ark has clearly already been transformed symbolically for Christians and the special effects you reference don't claim to emerge from "the ark".
And I was trying to bring some levity to the conversation, I don't think you're trying to change my mind. I still wait for some illustration in which the other side could make some sense.
Why do you stand by your belief that the Ark is also a Christian artifact?
The Christian God opens his Christian temple in Christian heaven, revealing the Christian ‘ark,’ and impressive stuff follows.Yes, and the "Christian Ark" has already been revealed in Hebrews 9Even if only a symbol, it is readable as being a visual and even physical symbol of a Christian covenant.Yes! It's Jesus!and within the context of the movie, that impressive stuff comes from a Christian reference of the ark.) I can see you making that leap, but the Christian Ark is a sign of peace and not the bringer of destruction. It doesn't say the impressive stuff comes from the arkBut your taste for rude, hurtful, uncivil expression costs you respect. So, I leave you to ponder or forget my thoughts in this matter as you see fit, and turn my last cheek to your barbs.Jesus would be proud of you boy!
Good luck to ya!
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 09:21 AM
I just watched all 4 last weekend and I thought my opinion on last crusade would change. sorry but it didn't. I do like it, but they wasted the majority of it.
DocWhiskey
08-17-2009, 10:10 AM
I just watched all 4 last weekend and I thought my opinion on last crusade would change. sorry but it didn't. I do like it, but they wasted the majority of it.
Wasted it on what?
Character development?
Great action scenes?
I love LC. And I felt the grail was not only a great macguffin, but accented the tones of the story so well.
It was about a father and son bonding for the first time in a long time. And the actual journey for the grail was well done.
I just don't understand how people think it was a wasted opportunity. What did it need more of to make it better?
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 10:17 AM
Wasted it on what?
Character development?
Great action scenes?
I love LC. And I felt the grail was not only a great macguffin, but accented the tones of the story so well.
It was about a father and son bonding for the first time in a long time. And the actual journey for the grail was well done.
I just don't understand how people think it was a wasted opportunity. What did it need more of to make it better?
It was a wasted oppertunity for a unique adventure. Going somewhere new or having a new story. They took the easy way out by giving nazis the villian role and a McGuffin with the power of God. It is a good movie just not as good as the rest, by far.
jamiestarr
08-17-2009, 10:24 AM
Yes he makes it different but he doesn't really change the plot it just raiders with an extra special bonus. If there were no nazis running through the desert which is excactly what raiders does I would have loved it. There's no breakthrough in the storytelling. Raiders was 1st to deal with nazis and religous artifacts, Temple was 1st to deal with ancient cults, and Skull was first to deal with "Aliens". Just because you involve someone's dad it doesn't breakthrough as new and different.
Really you are simply boiling down the plots to their macguffins...and calling them the same.
Using your line of thinking, I could boil the movies down to other elements that make them and say that Crusade is the 1st to feature a train, an aerial dogfight, rats, and knights. See? Totally different from Raiders.
The fact is ALL 4 of the Indy films deal with religious artifacts..."depends who your God is".
The Indy films are not really ABOUT the macguffin, they are about the people and the stuff they get into/out of. This is what makes each film different.
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 10:33 AM
Really you are simply boiling down the plots to their macguffins...and calling them the same.
Using your line of thinking, I could boil the movies down to other elements that make them and say that Crusade is the 1st to feature a train, an aerial dogfight, rats, and knights. See? Totally different from Raiders.
The fact is ALL 4 of the Indy films deal with religious artifacts..."depends who your God is".
The Indy films are not really ABOUT the macguffin, they are about the people and the stuff they get into/out of. This is what makes each film different.It's not about the McGuffin it's about how they get it. In Raiders nazis were after the ark and they had to go through the desert to get it. Last Crusade just wanted to copy the sucsess of Raiders so they made an extremely similar movie.
Lonsome_Drifter
08-17-2009, 12:03 PM
It's not about the McGuffin it's about how they get it. In Raiders nazis were after the ark and they had to go through the desert to get it. Last Crusade just wanted to copy the sucsess of Raiders so they made an extremely similar movie.
I guess that KotCS is the same as Temple of Doom because both have jungle sets, and the Crystal Skulls are clearly a ripoff from the Shankara Stones (The Stones did have CRYSTALS inside of them).
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 12:31 PM
I guess that KotCS is the same as Temple of Doom because both have jungle sets, and the Crystal Skulls are clearly a ripoff from the Shankara Stones (The Stones did have CRYSTALS inside of them).
After ToD was pretty much classified as the worse of the 2, GL and SS wanted to go back to the roots of the series. I say that was a bad idea, because they really overdid it. They tried so hard to get the audience to like it. They were like"We have nazis, we have a guy like belloq, we have disguises, we don't have any of the crap from ToD, now will you like it?" A few tweaks on the monkey king script and that could've been amazing
Lonsome_Drifter
08-17-2009, 12:39 PM
After ToD was pretty much classified as the worse of the 2, GL and SS wanted to go back to the roots of the series. I say that was a bad idea, because they really overdid it. They tried so hard to get the audience to like it. They were like"We have nazis, we have a guy like belloq, we have disguises, we don't have any of the crap from ToD, now will you like it?" A few tweaks on the monkey king script and that could've been amazing
ToD is not classified as the worse of anything by me, and some others. Because you do not like it; don't start acting like it's a fact.
I also think that you're grasping for straws here. You are <b>looking</b> for things that are similar. Hell, I can find things that are similar between Ghostbusters and The Shining if I looked and tried hard enough.
I think that your argument has no weight.
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 12:51 PM
ToD is not classified as the worse of anything by me, and some others. Because you do not like it; don't start acting like it's a fact.You misread what I was saying. I loved ToD,but the critics didn't, they all kind of agreed that Raiders was better.
I also think that you're grasping for straws here. You are <b>looking</b> for things that are similar. Hell, I can find things that are similar between Ghostbusters and The Shining if I looked and tried hard enough.
I think that your argument has no weight.[/QUOTE]
I'm not looking for similarities I'm pointing out the things that bother me. There are a lot more similarities, I just don't care about them.
Lonsome_Drifter
08-17-2009, 02:48 PM
You misread what I was saying. I loved ToD,but the critics didn't, they all kind of agreed that Raiders was better.
I'm not looking for similarities I'm pointing out the things that bother me. There are a lot more similarities, I just don't care about them.
After thinking about the subject at hand. I think that I understand what point you're trying to get across.
After Temple of Doom was panned by the critiques, Steven wanted to make a new adventure in the same vein as Raiders. This he succeeded at in my opinion. But, I think your point is that he made it too similar.
But, think on this:
Temple of Doom was too different for some fans and critiques, they cried foul that it was not like Raiders. So, Steve made Crusade for his "apology". And, then people cry that it's just more of the same.
It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. So, which would you have had him done? Made another movie in the same vein as Raiders or make one completely different? He was sorta screwed either way.
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 03:58 PM
After thinking about the subject at hand. I think that I understand what point you're trying to get across.
After Temple of Doom was panned by the critiques, Steven wanted to make a new adventure in the same vein as Raiders. This he succeeded at in my opinion. But, I think your point is that he made it too similar.
But, think on this:
Temple of Doom was too different for some fans and critiques, they cried foul that it was not like Raiders. So, Steve made Crusade for his "apology". And, then people cry that it's just more of the same.
It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. So, which would you have had him done? Made another movie in the same vein as Raiders or make one completely different? He was sorta screwed either way.There was no need at all to apologize for temple of doom. If fans didn't like it though, the smart thing would be to make a movie that "feels" like Raiders but doesn't mimmick it. If they made Last Crusade with the same principles as they did, but with a story that set it apart from all the others it really could've been enjoyable. I would still want to see Henry Sr. and Sallah, just not the way they were used in LC.
Lonsome_Drifter
08-17-2009, 04:05 PM
There was no need at all to apologize for temple of doom. If fans didn't like it though, the smart thing would be to make a movie that "feels" like Raiders but doesn't mimmick it. If they made Last Crusade with the same principles as they did, but with a story that set it apart from all the others it really could've been enjoyable. I would still want to see Henry Sr. and Sallah, just not the way they were used in LC.
But, the main story was different.
It was a story about a son and father bonding together for really the first time. It was a personal quest for them. "illumination" if you will.
This can be seen in many parts of the movie from the talk on the zeppelin, Henry Sr. thinking Indy dead, and to the scene in which Henry Sr. callings him Indiana to make him reach out his other hand.
The Nazis, desert environment, action, chase-sequences all play second fiddle to the main story at hand. A bonding of father and son.
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 05:12 PM
But, the main story was different.
It was a story about a son and father bonding together for really the first time. It was a personal quest for them. "illumination" if you will.
This can be seen in many parts of the movie from the talk on the zeppelin, Henry Sr. thinking Indy dead, and to the scene in which Henry Sr. callings him Indiana to make him reach out his other hand.
The Nazis, desert environment, action, chase-sequences all play second fiddle to the main story at hand. A bonding of father and son.The father and son bonding is also in kotcs, but it's just a moral. You can't say you have an idea for a movie and say "it's about a father and son bonding" and come up with this. The main story is the nazis looking for the grail but the real IMPORTANT story is the bonding.
Lonsome_Drifter
08-17-2009, 07:26 PM
The father and son bonding is also in kotcs, but it's just a moral. You can't say you have an idea for a movie and say "it's about a father and son bonding" and come up with this. The main story is the nazis looking for the grail but the real IMPORTANT story is the bonding.
*sigh*
Yes, the father and son story was in KotCS, but which came first? That or Crusade?
And, Crusade is a great example of the bonding of father and son. And, I have to disagree with you that the main story was about the Nazis looking for the Holy Grail.
Hell, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just stating what I see it as. But, you are acting like it is a carbon-coby of Raiders Which in my opinion, it's not.
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 07:45 PM
*sigh*
Yes, the father and son story was in KotCS, but which came first? That or Crusade?
And, Crusade is a great example of the bonding of father and son. And, I have to disagree with you that the main story was about the Nazis looking for the Holy Grail.
Hell, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just stating what I see it as. But, you are acting like it is a carbon-coby of Raiders Which in my opinion, it's not.
Here is my final word. Following ToD SS and GL wanted to make a movie more like Raiders. I think they could've made one that felt like Raiders,but didn't copy the outline of the villian, McGuffin, And action scenes. Yes there is quite a difference when you factor in Indy's dad, but there had to be something that sets it apart. No matter how you look at it LC was meant to copy Raiders to some extent. That's what bothers me. It was a GOODmovie, but if you just imagine LC with no nazis, a non-religous artifact, or different scenery what would you think of it then? I betting I would love it and it might've had a chance to be my favorite. Oh well I can't change the past. ( Does ANYONEagree with me!?)
Lonsome_Drifter
08-17-2009, 07:57 PM
Here is my final word. Following ToD SS and GL wanted to make a movie more like Raiders. I think they could've made one that felt like Raiders,but didn't copy the outline of the villian, McGuffin, And action scenes. Yes there is quite a difference when you factor in Indy's dad, but there had to be something that sets it apart. No matter how you look at it LC was meant to copy Raiders to some extent. That's what bothers me. It was a GOODmovie, but if you just imagine LC with no nazis, a non-religous artifact, or different scenery what would you think of it then? I betting I would love it and it might've had a chance to be my favorite. Oh well I can't change the past. ( Does ANYONEagree with me!?)
After reading that brick wall of text, I only have this to say.
If you don't like it; don't watch it.
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 08:00 PM
After reading that brick wall of text, I only have this to say.
If you don't like it; don't watch it.But I do like it. Did you not see the "It's a GOOD movie"quote I'm just waiting for someone to agree with me now. I don't really have anything to say to you.
Lonsome_Drifter
08-17-2009, 08:02 PM
But I do like it. Did you not see the "It's a GOOD movie"quote I'm just waiting for someone to agree with me now. I don't really have anything to say to you.
You refuse to debate with me because I disagree with your opinion? Please, do yourself a favor and grow a pair.
JP Jones
08-17-2009, 08:10 PM
You refuse to debate with me because I disagree with your opinion? Please, do yourself a favor and grow a pair.I'm done debating becaus I don't have anything else to say. If you give an opinion, and I have my side that I want to tell I will.
vBulletin v3.5.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.