The Haters thread

Montana Smith · Nov 17, 2011

Udvarnoky said:
But in the context of a discussion that ponders the exploitation of an artifact's "stature and notoriety," changing the name is as good as making it up.

They didn't change the name. They were referred to as "sivalinga" in the film.

The Ark and the Grail may be more 'notorious' to Christians, Jews and Moslems, but TOD set the standard that not every Indy movie would have an artifact of the stature of the Ark.

I've written before that Lucas could mythologize Thor's toothbrush, but it would still be an Indy movie. The artifact isn't important. It's just an object to quest for and fight over. What is important are the character relationships and situations that arise from the quest. That's where KOTCS failed to a large extent.

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Montana Smith said:
The artifact isn't important.

I couldn't disagree more. The popularity of the two films owes much to the familiarity of the relics in question.

You could make a film about less familiar or invented relics, but then you'd have Temple and Skull...which were the worst. In order.

They may have been a way to handle the stories better, (Temple and Skull), but I believe the Ark and the Grail bring much sway to the proceedings.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

Montana Smith said:
They didn't change the name. They were referred to as "sivalinga" in the film.

Fair enough.

Montana Smith said:
The artifact isn't important.

Yes.

Montana Smith · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
I couldn't disagree more. The popularity of the two films owes much to the familiarity of the relics in question.

You could make a film about less familiar or invented relics, but then you'd have Temple and Skull...which were the worst. In order.

They may have been a way to handle the stories better, (Temple and Skull), but I believe the Ark and the Grail bring much sway to the proceedings.

I couldn't disagree more... more.

TOD is a great film. The Ark and the Grail were essentially meaningless to me, just as the Sankara Stones were doubly meaningless. Yet the films were no less exciting to watch. After all, they're just fairy tales, based on fairy tales. KOTCS is no different - it's just based on a more modern fairy tale.

The Lord of the Rings was no lesser a tale because the Ring never existed.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

It's also easy to overlook the fact that the Ark of the Convenant became universally known largely because of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Obviously, it was anything but obscure in certain circles, but I was raised Catholic and prior to seeing the movie as a kid I'm pretty sure the only biblical ark I was aware of was the one Moses captained.

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Montana Smith said:
I couldn't disagree more... more.

Oh yeah?

Montana Smith said:
TOD is a great film.

Its a good Indiana Jones film.

Montana Smith said:
The Ark and the Grail were essentially meaningless to me, just as the Sankara Stones were doubly meaningless. Yet the films were no less exciting to watch.

I'd say you'd have to find some meaning (at some time) if they were to be "no less exciting to watch." I don't see how you could say they were just as exciting to you as they would be to a believer...

I've a feeling we've covered this ground before.

Montana Smith said:
After all, they're just fairy tales, based on fairy tales. KOTCS is no different - it's just based on a more modern fairy tale.

I appreciate your stance, but "fairy tale" has a specific meaning to me which doesn't quite apply.

Montana Smith said:
The Lord of the Rings was no lesser a tale because the Ring never existed.

Rings is hardly a fair comparison. They exist on wholly different plains intersecting most superficially.

Udvarnoky said:
It's also easy to overlook the fact that the Ark of the Convenant became universally known largely because of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Obviously, it was anything but obscure in certain circles, but I was raised Catholic and prior to seeing the movie as a kid I'm pretty sure the only biblical ark I was aware of was the one Moses captained.

I'll agree in as much as it brought it back into the public conscious...and more prominently.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
I'll agree in as much as it brought it back into the public conscious...and more prominently.

What is your evidence that it was ever part of the public consciousness?

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Udvarnoky said:
What is your evidence that it was ever part of the public consciousness?

Proof? Modern society continues to be shaped by the morality set down in the bible. America was transformed by those seeking religious freedom and throughout our short history the bible was used fundimentally as a teaching tool.

Leviticus 25:10... "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof" is inscribed on the Liberty Bell and on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Abraham Lincoln said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand" (Matthew 12:25).

Matthew 5:14..."Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid" was adapted by John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630, JFK and Ronald Reagan.

The Bible, it's stories and code are inexorably linked with the United States.

I hope that's enough for this side of the Atlantic. There's even more in Europe.

An example of the Ark itself Thomas Jefferson wrote "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched."

Montana Smith · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Oh yeah?

Oh, yeah!

Rocket Surgeon said:
I'd say you'd have to find some meaning (at some time) if they were to be "no less exciting to watch." I don't see how you could say they were just as exciting to you as they would be to a believer...

I would say that the films are no less exciting to watch as an unbeliever as they would be for a believer. There's action, adventure and danger. The quest for each artifact is given importance by those involved in their hunt. It means something to the characters, and oddly enough the only one the creators chose to explain and fully expose was the alien one...

Rocket Surgeon said:
I've a feeling we've covered this ground before.

Like a Saturday morning cartoon, we're bound to fight, and fight again, and again... :gun:

Rocket Surgeon said:
I appreciate your stance, but "fairy tale" has a specific meaning to me which doesn't quite apply.

At the very least Indiana Jones deals with the unsubstantiated. His big four adventures revolve around objects given mythical importance, and not simple historical objects that will sit in a museum and never do anything spectacular. That's the real hook.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Rings is hardly a fair comparison. They exist on wholly different plains intersecting most superficially.

Indy must have gone after plenty of artifacts in the expanded universe that have no direct comparison in the real world. The skill is in creating the situations that they promote. For me KOTCS of all the films failed most in that regard. The failure wasn't the skull itself, but the story and characters it became central to.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
The Bible, it's stories and code are inexorably linked with the United States.

Swell. But back to what we were actually talking about...

The Ark of the Convenant isn't much more than a glorified footnote in the Old Testament, if memory serves. Being well versed in the Old Testament pretty much disqualifies you as Joe Public right off the bat, and yeah, I say that knowing that the majority of the U.S. identify themselves as Christian. There's a big difference between calling the Bible your scripture and being able to compete in a trivia-off on the Book of Exodus. That's really all I'm getting at - "public consciousness" of the ark is a hard sell given a universe where Raiders never existed.

Attila the Professor · Nov 17, 2011

Udvarnoky said:
Swell. But back to what we were actually talking about...

The Ark of the Convenant isn't much more than a glorified footnote in the Old Testament, if memory serves. Being well versed in the Old Testament pretty much disqualifies you as Joe Public right off the bat, and yeah, I say that knowing that the majority of the U.S. identify themselves as Christian. There's a big difference between calling the Bible your scripture and being able to compete in a trivia-off on the Book of Exodus. That's really all I'm getting at - "public consciousness" of the ark is a hard sell given a universe where Raiders never existed.

I mostly agree with you on this (I'll return to our earlier discussion later), but I think it bears saying that a universe where Raiders doesn't exist can still be a universe where Cecil B. DeMille did exist.

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Montana Smith said:
Oh, yeah!

Yeah!

Montana Smith said:
I would say that the films are no less exciting to watch as an unbeliever as they would be for a believer. There's action, adventure and danger.

Puh-lease! A believe has an added dimension that you can't possibly comprehend, (for better and/or worse!)

Montana Smith said:
The quest for each artifact is given importance by those involved in their hunt.

Sorry, but it didn't work in Skull

Montana Smith said:
It means something to the characters, and oddly enough the only one the creators chose to explain and fully expose was the alien one...

You're actually going to argue that there was a method to all that madness?!

Montana Smith said:
Like a Saturday morning cartoon, we're bound to fight, and fight again, and again...

Then I'm Itchy and you're Scratchy!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HRCYtOSKLP8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Montana Smith said:
At the very least Indiana Jones deals with the unsubstantiated. His big four adventures revolve around objects given mythical importance, and not simple historical objects that will sit in a museum and never do anything spectacular. That's the real hook.

...as such, Thor's Toothbrush, however curious I might be, wouldn't cut it!

Montana Smith said:
Indy must have gone after plenty of artifacts in the expanded universe...

Despite my recent acquisitions (!!!!) I could care less about the EU, not much less though.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

Attila the Professor said:
I mostly agree with you on this (I'll return to our earlier discussion later), but I think it bears saying that a universe where Raiders doesn't exist can still be a universe where Cecil B. DeMille did exist.

A worthy point. It's been over a decade since I've seen The Ten Commandments, and I've no memory of how big a role the ark played in it. Here's a summary of my position: if something is in the public consciousness, it shouldn't be this difficult to prove it!

Also, I won't edit my flub because it's already been quoted, but it was Noah, of course, and not Moses who built the seafaring ark. Why did no one bless me out? Any of you guys ever go to Sunday school?

Montana Smith · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Puh-lease! A believe has an added dimension that you can't possibly comprehend, (for better and/or worse!)

But doesn't that belief break down when something like the Ark spouts ghosts? There's no precedent in the Bible for it doing that. Point being, the artifacts are fictionalized objects (whether the objects are real or not) existing in a fictional universe. Ignorance is bliss. Without preconceptions you're free to enjoy the ride. And it took a while to forget the historical preconceptions and accept that, either intentionally or unintentionally, the movies are full of anachronisms.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Sorry, but it didn't work in Skull

Because nothing much else works in Skull either!

Rocket Surgeon said:
You're actually going to argue that there was a method to all that madness?!

There was, inasmuch as the Skull was safe and non-controversial. It wasn't dealing with an object pertaining to a recognized religion, so there was much more freedom to show the beings behind it. With the others the cause was left as a mystery so that viewers across the world could interpret the films according to their beliefs.

Rocket Surgeon said:
...as such, Thor's Toothbrush, however curious I might be, wouldn't cut it!

Not even if it meant Indy had to use both his guns and both his fists while sustaining several bullet wounds just to acquire it?

Or you could have a septegenarian actor going after the Spear of Longinus without drawing his gun or meeting anybody interesting.

The key has to be in the story surrounding the artifact.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

Thor's Toothbrush would absolutely work with the right screenplay and sufficient enthusiam for the material on Spielberg's part. It's all about execution. Saying otherwise is just as closedminded as the folk who dismiss Indy4 based purely on the alien factor.

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Udvarnoky said:
Here's a summary of my position: if something is in the public consciousness, it shouldn't be this difficult to prove it!

You're mixing tenses. I proposed that Raiders brought it back to the public conscious in 81. Where were you in 1981?

It's not difficult, I think I did a reasonable job, Attila's cover fire notwithstanding...

Udvarnoky said:
Thor's Toothbrush would absolutely work with the right screenplay and sufficient enthusiam for the material on Spielberg's part. It's all about execution. Saying otherwise is just as closedminded as the folk who dismiss Indy4 based purely on the alien factor.

Now you're being silly, which I enjoy, but doesn't make it true.

Spielberg dismissed Indy 4 based on the Alien factor or almost two decades...

Montana Smith · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Now you're being silly, which I enjoy, but doesn't make it true.

Consider an object found on a man frozen for thousands of years in ice. It might be something insignificant, but it might also be something unexpected. It's the hook for a mystery and a quest of proportions larger than the object itself. It's the journey the story takes that will keep a viewer watching. As such more could have been made of the alien skull. The greatest artifact in the world is no use to Indy if it doesn't involve him going to exotic locations and building relationships with people that you invest in and want to see develop.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Where were you in 1981?

Nowhere I could give latitude/longitude for, but traditionally the burden of proof falls on the fellow making the claim. Jefferson's quote is the single relevant one you provided, and while I'm actually intrigued by the reference, you'd probably agree that the American people knew their scripture in 1816 a mite better than they did in 1981. However, since I cannot prove a negative and made the fatal mistake of using the word "ever," I cede you the ground. Clearly, it was part of the public consciousness once upon a time.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Now you're being silly, which I enjoy, but doesn't make it true.

Not being silly at all. And I never fobbed off enjoyability as truthfulness, so no need to clarify that.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Spielberg dismissed Indy 4 based on the Alien factor or almost two decades...

Spielberg ratified David Koepp's script. He's no more invulnerable to questionable decision-making than us humble Raveners.

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Montana Smith said:
But doesn't that belief break down when something like the Ark spouts ghosts?

Angels?

Montana Smith said:
There's no precedent in the Bible for it doing that.

The Wrath of God?

Montana Smith said:
Point being, the artifacts are fictionalized objects (whether the objects are real or not) existing in a fictional universe. Ignorance is bliss. Without preconceptions you're free to enjoy the ride. And it took a while to forget the historical preconceptions and accept that, either intentionally or unintentionally, the movies are full of anachronisms.

We come to it at last. They're not fictionalized to a believer, hence providing a level of excitement a non believer could NOT have. Now, did the Germans develop a flying wing? How many were designed? How many were produced? Tested? Can the existence of a similar design in Raiders be disproven? I don't know. I'll bet more people who saw the movie knew about the ark then those who knew the bazooka was a few years early...

Montana Smith said:
There was, inasmuch as the Skull was safe and non-controversial. It wasn't dealing with an object pertaining to a recognized religion, so there was much more freedom to show the beings behind it. With the others the cause was left as a mystery so that viewers across the world could interpret the films according to their beliefs.

Unlimited Freedom was the be all end all of the problems with Skull. Spielberg and Ford didn't want the Skull or the Aliens, ultimately they wanted the money more, so we got it. Stitching something coherent together was to big a hurdle for any of them. But they had that important freedom!

Montana Smith said:
Not even if it meant Indy had to use both his guns and both his fists while sustaining several bullet wounds just to acquire it?

Nope. They exhausted the well of good will with Skull. They would NEVER make money on it.

Montana Smith said:
Or you could have a septegenarian actor going after the Spear of Longinus without drawing his gun or meeting anybody interesting.

Or you could have something completely different...

Montana Smith said:
The key has to be in the story surrounding the artifact.

There is more than one lock to the success of any Indy film.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
I'll bet more people who saw the movie knew about the ark then those who knew the bazooka was a few years early...

Rocket Surgeon said:
Nope. They exhausted the well of good will with Skull. They would NEVER make money on it.

Possibly true; definitely irrelevant.

The Haters thread

Active member

Guest

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Guest

Active member

Well-known member

Moderator

Guest

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Guest

Active member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member