Nuked Fridges

emtiem

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Tis true, and I find it funny as hell that you idiots imagine you can.

The first variable that you CANNOT account for is the value of the bomb's yield.


Until you can provide this, (as I say) YOU CANT, (as you say) BACK [it] UP.

I don't have to back it up and say it definitely could have happened as we saw it: I'm just saying there's reasonable doubt there as to whether it's possible. You've utterly failed to grasp what's going on here. Read the first post again; kongisking said "have fun and just imagine, for a brief moment, how this could possibly work?". To understand that sentence is neither brain surgery nor rocket science, Rocket Surgeon.

If we're accepting the Mythbusters life raft thing as proof that the Temple raft escape can work, despite them changing every single variable in order to make it more possible, then why the hell would I have to say what yield the bomb is? Why are you so singularly incapable of reading in my and other posts that it 'depends on the size of the bomb'? It may be possible if the bomb was a fairly low yield. Read my post above where I give examples of objects and even men surviving blasts. You can only PROVE it's impossible by giving me examples of people in lead-lined fridges being killed at the same distance and from the same yield bomb as in the film- until you can provide this, (as I say) YOU CANT, BACK UP your witless little comments bashing everyone who's having a fun time talking about this.


Rocket Surgeon said:
You are right about one thing: it IS easy to make snide comments, even though I didn't.

Oh don't be so pathetic as to lie.
'Snide' means to be maliciously derogatory and to show haughty disdain. Obviously you find 'us folks unbelievable' in a nice way. Sorry, I mean some of us 'idiots'. What a charmer.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Though it seems you're taking this very personally, your poor interpretation of a purposefully ambiguous post is great insight into the way you "see" things.

Pray tell how you mean everybody to take you calling us 'idiots', then? Is there some definition of the word 'idiot' that's in some way complementary in modern society that I've not come across before? I can't believe you don't even have the backbone to stand behind your own snide little comments. I've already used the word, but it is truly pathetic.

I've seen your ridiculous outbursts on this board before and I do have to wonder how you even function as a member of society. Don't bother replying with more puerile insults: I'm not interested in an argument and as soon as this is posted I'll be looking for an 'ignore' function on this board so I don't have to endure any more of your moronic and inflammatory posts. I'll happily continue talking to anyone else about this subject, though, as I was having fun talking about it in a sensible manner, and I thank kongisking for coming up with a fun idea for thread.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Wilhelm said:
We have to remember that Mickey Rooney survived the atomic bomb without a fridge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWGsryWhxIA

This scene from "The Atomic Kid" (1954) was the genesis for the whole Doomtown sequence. They combined it with the fridge idea from the early draft of Back To The Future.

"How did he survive?"


Ha! That's brilliant! :) Thanks for sharing- amazing how similar it is to the Indy version when he's running around before the blast!
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
After KOTCS and watching that "Atomic Kid" clip, I think we've missed the big picture here. You don't need quick wits or a fridge to survive a nuclear blast.


You just need some form of hat atop your head. :hat:
 

kongisking

Active member
Since people seem to be so dissatisfied with the scene, this is how I would change it if I could:

While Indy was escaping the warehouse in that hijacked truck, the Russians would have spotted the Ark and stopped to load that up too, as just another treasure to study back home in Russia. It is the very same truck, then, carrying the Ark that is the one sent to Doom Town to search for Indy.

When the countdown begins, and the Reds panic, they squeal out of there, recklessly swerving around in the process. This causes the crate with the Ark to fall out of the back and into the street. Meanwhile, Indy tries to find some kind of shelter, and is about to give up all hope when he spots…the Ark!

With ten seconds to go, Indy desperately drags off the lid, jumps in, puts the lid back on, and then BOOM! The bomb goes off, the town is destroyed…and the Ark is completely undamaged, having not moved an inch from where it sat. Once the wind/debris/radiation die down, Indy clambers out completely unharmed!

And thus the incredible irony that the very same artifact that deep-fried a bunch of Aryans this time decided to save the life of the man who had risked his well-being to protect it all those years ago. The Ark was, therefore, rather returning the favor! How’s that for a cool cliffhanger and a simultaneous nod to Raiders, eh? And to boot, the Ark magically granted Indy immunity to the radioactive fallout, explaining that little problem!

Now THIS would have been balls-breakingly awesome!
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
I'm back. So, Montana, you are saying there's absolutely no believability in the first part of Raiders? Indiana avoiding traps, swinging across a pit, dodging arrows, leaping across same pit just making it, scrambling under a descending wall, outrunning a boulder and outrunning natives with spears, blow darts and bow and arrow? Just couldn't ever be done? Thoroughly impossible? The laws of physics implied therein must belong to a totally unrelated universe? Is inconceivable? Beyond imagination? OF COURSE YOU DO NOT! The whole point of those scenes is that it comes across as possible. He's not doing anything that a human possibly couldn't do. Now, likelihood is a different issue and I don't want to enter into that as it is irrelevant here. How do we as the viewers get almost motivated off our chairs due to the suspense? That's what Raiders did. And of course I know there's no other way to escape the atomic blast in the Nuked Fridge scene, but it is undeniably a diversion from the tone that exemplified Indiana Jones originally, which is to stay within the parameters of believability. Now don't get me wrong, I didn't mind the scene, there was a moment of suspense as Indy is looking for an escape in that last ten seconds and the orange stuck in the door brought that to a climax. The ensuing scene is actually a parallel to the implication of Indy riding a submarine's periscope all the way to the Nazi island - you couldn't actually see him coping. I think in the book he lashes himself to the periscope with his whip and endures the elements, which still is more believable than surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge. My whole point is how the movie makers are going towards more cartoonish scenes, which is a pity, because the tone of Raiders is far more enjoyable and satisfactory.
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
kongisking said:
Since people seem to be so dissatisfied with the scene, this is how I would change it if I could:

While Indy was escaping the warehouse in that hijacked truck, the Russians would have spotted the Ark and stopped to load that up too, as just another treasure to study back home in Russia. It is the very same truck, then, carrying the Ark that is the one sent to Doom Town to search for Indy.

When the countdown begins, and the Reds panic, they squeal out of there, recklessly swerving around in the process. This causes the crate with the Ark to fall out of the back and into the street. Meanwhile, Indy tries to find some kind of shelter, and is about to give up all hope when he spots?the Ark!

With ten seconds to go, Indy desperately drags off the lid, jumps in, puts the lid back on, and then BOOM! The bomb goes off, the town is destroyed?and the Ark is completely undamaged, having not moved an inch from where it sat. Once the wind/debris/radiation die down, Indy clambers out completely unharmed!

And thus the incredible irony that the very same artifact that deep-fried a bunch of Aryans this time decided to save the life of the man who had risked his well-being to protect it all those years ago. The Ark was, therefore, rather returning the favor! How?s that for a cool cliffhanger and a simultaneous nod to Raiders, eh? And to boot, the Ark magically granted Indy immunity to the radioactive fallout, explaining that little problem!

Now THIS would have been balls-breakingly awesome!

I like you and all kong but no way, man. That's just super corny ridunkculous.

And for the record, I like the nuke the fridge scene.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Mickiana said:
So, Montana, you are saying there's absolutely no believability in the first part of Raiders? Indiana avoiding traps, swinging across a pit, dodging arrows, leaping across same pit just making it, scrambling under a descending wall, outrunning a boulder and outrunning natives with spears, blow darts and bow and arrow? Just couldn't ever be done? Thoroughly impossible? The laws of physics implied therein must belong to a totally unrelated universe? Is inconceivable? Beyond imagination? OF COURSE YOU DO NOT!


I never wrote any of that. My words were: "But there is very little believability in Indiana Jones if you apply real-world logic and physics to the events portrayed."

To be believable you have to accept a supernatural level of luck.

Mickiana said:
The whole point of those scenes is that it comes across as possible. He's not doing anything that a human possibly couldn't do. Now, likelihood is a different issue and I don't want to enter into that as it is irrelevant here.

They're all possible if you accept that Indy will always roll a six on a die when required.

Mickiana said:
How do we as the viewers get almost motivated off our chairs due to the suspense? That's what Raiders did. And of course I know there's no other way to escape the atomic blast in the Nuked Fridge scene, but it is undeniably a diversion from the tone that exemplified Indiana Jones originally, which is to stay within the parameters of believability.

If you believe a single man can have that much luck in succession.

Mickiana said:
Now don't get me wrong, I didn't mind the scene, there was a moment of suspense as Indy is looking for an escape in that last ten seconds and the orange stuck in the door brought that to a climax. The ensuing scene is actually a parallel to the implication of Indy riding a submarine's periscope all the way to the Nazi island - you couldn't actually see him coping. I think in the book he lashes himself to the periscope with his whip and endures the elements, which still is more believable than surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge. My whole point is how the movie makers are going towards more cartoonish scenes, which is a pity, because the tone of Raiders is far more enjoyable and satisfactory.

There are lots of cartoonish scenes throughout the series. If the science of a nuclear explosion and the evidence from previous explosions say that a fridge can survive, why can't luck come into play as it always does for Indy?
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
I know where you are coming from and I'm not trying to quibble, but I think you are just missing my point by a fraction. Applying real world physics to Indiana Jones would seriously lower the odds of his surviving just the first parts of his movie adventures let alone the rest, but I'm not wanting to apply real world physics, just movie viewing acceptability. To me, Indiana Jones' fictitious adventures exist between the possible and the impossible. Each of his antics will go closer to one or the other. It's not black or white, although most times he goes close to the extremes, which he has to because of the nature of escapist entertainment. Indiana Jones is a lucky man no doubt, but he stays tethered to reality as part of being appealing to the ordinary Joe. From this, my view is that Raiders keeps him tethered more and KotCS much less so, the former being my preference and the latter much less so.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Mickiana said:
I'm back. So, Montana, you are saying there's absolutely no believability in the first part of Raiders? Indiana avoiding traps, swinging across a pit, dodging arrows, leaping across same pit just making it, scrambling under a descending wall, outrunning a boulder and outrunning natives with spears, blow darts and bow and arrow? Just couldn't ever be done? Thoroughly impossible? The laws of physics implied therein must belong to a totally unrelated universe? Is inconceivable? Beyond imagination? OF COURSE YOU DO NOT! The whole point of those scenes is that it comes across as possible. He's not doing anything that a human possibly couldn't do. Now, likelihood is a different issue and I don't want to enter into that as it is irrelevant here. How do we as the viewers get almost motivated off our chairs due to the suspense? That's what Raiders did. And of course I know there's no other way to escape the atomic blast in the Nuked Fridge scene, but it is undeniably a diversion from the tone that exemplified Indiana Jones originally, which is to stay within the parameters of believability. Now don't get me wrong, I didn't mind the scene, there was a moment of suspense as Indy is looking for an escape in that last ten seconds and the orange stuck in the door brought that to a climax. The ensuing scene is actually a parallel to the implication of Indy riding a submarine's periscope all the way to the Nazi island - you couldn't actually see him coping. I think in the book he lashes himself to the periscope with his whip and endures the elements, which still is more believable than surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge. My whole point is how the movie makers are going towards more cartoonish scenes, which is a pity, because the tone of Raiders is far more enjoyable and satisfactory.


There aren't actually ancient temples which have darts, light sensors, bottomless pits, massive rolling boulders and priceless idols sitting on pressure pads in the real world, you know. It started out as being pretty cartoonish. And, as with James Bond, when they saw that people liked the tone of that movie they decided they could push it a bit more in the next. Whether that be with situation (Idol's Temple) or physics (Marion surviving a fall of a couple of storeys) I liked it.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Mickiana said:
You guys are refusing to see my point. No probs.

I see your point, and I fully understand where you are coming from... but what’s being confused here I think is the differing opinions on the criteria for “plausibility” and that of the tonality of a movie. For example, I find the premise of Raiders just as implausible (if not more so) as KOTCS (as I personally believe the existence of extraterrestrial life is far more probable/logical than that of ‘God’)... However, I do think there was a step change after Raiders to make the set pieces in the subsequent movies more spectacular… and by definition those set pieces become more intricate, elaborate and contrived (and dare I say it... predictable).

So if you were to ask me what I’d find more believable? The possibility of surviving a nuclear explosion or the power of a religious relic I’m confident doesn’t exist? I’d have to say the former. If you were to ask which scenes are less over elaborate/less complex (and possibly better conceived), I’d say Raiders every time. But more “plausibility” doesn’t automatically equate to better.

Ultimately (for me) it’s what engages at a conceptual/imaginative level, and what entertains at a viewing level… be that the truck chase, the rope bridge, the tank chase, Ants! Or ‘Doom Town’. They are all good IMHO. :)
 

nitzsche

New member
I don't think Indy and Elsa could have survived the escape from the Venice catacombs. The "way out" was never even shown on screen and it was a lazy cheat of an escape.

At least the nuked fridge was clever and was grounded in 1950s "pull a mattress over your body" type advice.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Mickiana said:
You guys are refusing to see my point. No probs.

I understand your point, Mickiana, and I respect your right to view the films the way you do. We all see things differently, some more than others, and as I've written before, a film is art, it's a product of imagination. If we all liked and agreed with the imagination of every film maker that would be worrying, as it would imply we were either all clones, or had been brain-washed prior to viewing the film. In a case like this all views are valid.

However, based on science, if an idea is remotely possible, given a sequence of events, it is also plausible. In the real world there would be so many factors to consider in nuking the fridge, so many things that could go wrong, that it is unlikely that a human would survive such an event. However, based upon the presmise that Indy has unnatural luck, and a gift for survival, something that in the real world would be only remotely plausible, becomes far more possible.

If I didn't think Indy could survive the fridge incident, then it would make the rest of the film pointless to me. If KOTCS becomes pointless, then I am left wondering which parts of the story (that is, the four films) I accept or ignore. Because I am lead by Lucas' four-film vision, which, to me, provides a rounded story (with inter-dimensional beings explaining earlier inexplicable events - light trap, Ark, Grail etc), I have to look beyond the absurd and accept that Indy did it - as he did many other outrageous things.

Whilst it's reassuring to find agreement on a subject, I understand that it's not always going to be possible. :hat:
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
You see, Indy is a guy we can relate to, because he's still human. In the first three he gets shot (a small flesh wound), bashed to within an inch of his life and even falls under the spell of black magic. He seems susceptible. Rolling out of the fridge without any apparent damage takes him beyond being susceptible. It's too unrealistic. That's what I've been meaning to say all along: Indy's adventures are all a bit unreal, but the fridge scene is too unrealistic. It's a matter of degree. The criticisms I have of KotCS I also apply to some scenes in, say, ToD where the mine cart shoots through the air to land perfectly on the tracks again. That would have to be impossible. ToD was cartoonish because of this type of impossible feat. But the criticism is a very personal one. I didn't like the differing standards between Raiders and its successors. But I am howling at the moon and cursing the stars here: I've always wanted another Raiders, without it being Raiders of course. Having watched Secret of the Incas I realised Lucas borrowed from it for the making of Raiders. I don't mind that at all. He was inspired by it and then he did the best thing - he bettered it. As Harold Bloom says, plagiarism is only a legal issue. For the artist it's necessary and he must try to usurp previous success and Lucas did that with Raiders. The sequels don't match Raiders' superior quality. They are more aligned with achieving contractual obligation. Harsh I know, but that's how I see it.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Mickiana said:
You see, Indy is a guy we can relate to, because he's still human. In the first three he gets shot (a small flesh wound), bashed to within an inch of his life and even falls under the spell of black magic. He seems susceptible. Rolling out of the fridge without any apparent damage takes him beyond being susceptible. It's too unrealistic. That's what I've been meaning to say all along: Indy's adventures are all a bit unreal, but the fridge scene is too unrealistic. It's a matter of degree. The criticisms I have of KotCS I also apply to some scenes in, say, ToD where the mine cart shoots through the air to land perfectly on the tracks again. That would have to be impossible. ToD was cartoonish because of this type of impossible feat. But the criticism is a very personal one. I didn't like the differing standards between Raiders and its successors. But I am howling at the moon and cursing the stars here: I've always wanted another Raiders, without it being Raiders of course. Having watched Secret of the Incas I realised Lucas borrowed from it for the making of Raiders. I don't mind that at all. He was inspired by it and then he did the best thing - he bettered it. As Harold Bloom says, plagiarism is only a legal issue. For the artist it's necessary and he must try to usurp previous success and Lucas did that with Raiders. The sequels don't match Raiders' superior quality. They are more aligned with achieving contractual obligation. Harsh I know, but that's how I see it.

I know what you're getting at, Mickiana. Raiders set the standard for the films that followed, because it was the first time we see Indy. Audiences in 1981 wouldn't be sure that they would see the character return (film-makers don't always make good on their intentions!)

On the face of it Raiders is a classic adventure story, with a supernatural twist. It went down the cliffhanger route, as it was inspired by the 1930s and 1940s serials. The cliffhanger was famous for creating situations that were seemingly impossible to escape from. The more times you do it it's inevitable that the situations will get more and more extreme.

I wrote earlier that the series was a virtual live-action cartoon. In a cartoon absurd things happen that the viewer accepts as they know they're watching a cartoon, rather than reality. All the Indy films are larger than life. My first realization of this, at a young age, was watching Indy being dragged behind the truck. You might call it my personal 'fridge moment'. It's a thought that has always remained with me: why wasn't Indy badly wounded, or at least get his clothes ripped?

To survive the truck dragging sequence, the stuntman had to have protective padding, and a trench was dug under the path of the truck so the stuntman would fit safely beneath it. Indy couldn't have done this manoeuvre in real-life. Realizing this didn't spoil my enjoyment of the film, but it made me think about how it was that Indy could get away with it. My answer was to see that things operate differently in the world Indy occupies - and the biggest factor in all his escapes was luck.

Once I began thinking about plausibility, I thought of the darts in the temple. These were intended to prevent a warrior from reaching the Idol, unless he figured out how to cross the room without setting them off. Indy races across the tiles on his return journey and the darts fly at him. Either this was a useless trap, or Indy was lucky not to be hit.

Other events also ask us to suspend belief, or to find alternative reasons: the Hovitos failing to catch or hit Indy; the lack of smoke in the burning Raven (most films do away with smoke when they show room fires, since smoke will kill a person before the fire itself); Marion's long fall into the Well of Souls; Indy pushing over the statue; Indy getting punched in the face by the mechanic, but not getting a broken nose.

I found the submarine ride to be one of the more plausible incidents. The U-Boat was unlikely to submerge, as it uses more fuel underwater. As long as Indy can survive the cold he can remain alive.

The mine cart chase was initially intended to be in Raiders, so the portrayal of it might have made Raiders even more cartoon-like. As it was, the scene was left for Temple of Doom.

To accept Raiders, you have to accept that Indy's world is different to ours. More is possible, which means greater scope for adventure and incident. In our world it may be remotely possible to survive in a lead-lined fridge, if it was structurally sound; if it was well-sealed; if the door could be held firmly closed; if the blast blew it away before the thermal radiation; if it could absorb the heaving landings, protecting Indy inside.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Looking at pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the film of the test explosions, and reading reports from those test, some things just seem to defy belief. Walls and trees that remain standing, whilst around them people were incinerated. The safe that remains intact with its contents.

If Raiders is plausible, then so is the fridge. Whether or not, as a viewer, you are willing to accept the plausibility is a matter of personal opinion. It's not much different to accepting the plausibility that the opened Ark displayed the power of God, or power derived from another source (I have always accepted the latter, since I don't accept the existence of God, even in Indiana Jones!)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Mickiana said:
You see, Indy is a guy we can relate to, because he's still human. In the first three he gets shot (a small flesh wound), bashed to within an inch of his life and even falls under the spell of black magic. He seems susceptible. Rolling out of the fridge without any apparent damage takes him beyond being susceptible. It's too unrealistic. That's what I've been meaning to say all along: Indy's adventures are all a bit unreal, but the fridge scene is too unrealistic. It's a matter of degree. The criticisms I have of KotCS I also apply to some scenes in, say, ToD where the mine cart shoots through the air to land perfectly on the tracks again. That would have to be impossible. ToD was cartoonish because of this type of impossible feat. But the criticism is a very personal one. I didn't like the differing standards between Raiders and its successors. But I am howling at the moon and cursing the stars here: I've always wanted another Raiders, without it being Raiders of course. Having watched Secret of the Incas I realised Lucas borrowed from it for the making of Raiders. I don't mind that at all. He was inspired by it and then he did the best thing - he bettered it. As Harold Bloom says, plagiarism is only a legal issue. For the artist it's necessary and he must try to usurp previous success and Lucas did that with Raiders. The sequels don't match Raiders' superior quality. They are more aligned with achieving contractual obligation. Harsh I know, but that's how I see it.

Completely disagree with this point. TOD established Indy as a 'superhero' (which is one of my biggest gripes). Sure he got cuts and bruises during the movie, but he could just about survive everything and anything (yes even jumping from a plane at a 1000 ft). If your argument is that only Raiders keeps the right side of plausibility, I may agree. However, if your position is that KOTCS is the only "implausible" Indy movie, I would have to question that judgement.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
That's the problem with analyzing the films too deeply, Darth. Lucas set out to make a spectacle for viewing pleasure. But, what he did was create something with far more depth and longevity.

As fans we enjoy studying them in depth, and in doing so, at places like this, we discover many other things that we never expected to. The original film which set the standard, didn't set out to be what it became - it set out as a wild, death-defying adventure, paying homage to previous credibility-shattering series. What made it last as a series is more than just action: it's the character of Indy who makes it more interesting for us to follow the adventure. Since we care about Indy the character we care more whether he survives or not. There are plenty of action movies where I couldn't care whether the 'hero' lived or died, since they are far more cardboard in character.

I think it's because fans want to believe in Indy, that they also want to believe in all the physics and logic that come into play during an Indy movie. But, there will always be that homage to the past, to those incredible escapes that monochrome heroes were faced with at the end of each episode, and miraculously escaped from at the beginning of the next. Unless you accept this format, then Indy won't work, especially KOTCS, where the format reached a new 'explosive' cliffhanger.

To place an Indiana Jones film in the real world is to deny what an Indiana Jones film represents.
 
Top