I need some things explaining to me about KotCS.

Dark Horse

New member
First one. When in the Chauchilla cemetery, Indy takes the conquistador's knife - was Indy going to steal it then had second thoughts? Was Mutt saying it was ok for Indy to take it? Or did Mutt mean it was ok for Indy to keep borrowing his switch? Confusing (to me, anyway :D )

The other - when in the truck after the family sqaubble - Indy gets the knife and we hear the rip sound. Mutt says "shlt" and has the look on his face like something really serious has happened. Did Indy just rip his pants? Or something more? I thought that part was dumb. I feel I totally missed something. What happened? :confused:
 

TheLastCrusader

Active member
Jep, those two jokes could've easily been funny, but it seems to me as if they really screwed them up intentionally -- that's how bad they are :(
 

Indy's brother

New member
Dark Horse said:
First one. When in the Chauchilla cemetery, Indy takes the conquistador's knife - was Indy going to steal it then had second thoughts? Was Mutt saying it was ok for Indy to take it? Or did Mutt mean it was ok for Indy to keep borrowing his switch? Confusing (to me, anyway :D )

The other - when in the truck after the family sqaubble - Indy gets the knife and we hear the rip sound. Mutt says "shlt" and has the look on his face like something really serious has happened. Did Indy just rip his pants? Or something more? I thought that part was dumb. I feel I totally missed something. What happened? :confused:

1). Conquistador's knife:

Mutt: "Grave robbers will be shot on sight."
Indy: "Good thing we're not grave robbers" (Indy throws Mutt a shovel)

After being mistaken for grave robbers (?...they were grave robbing) and attacked, Indy attempts to rob the grave by swiping the knife. Mutt reminds him of it, probably because he was still shook up by the cemetery warriors and didn't want to press their luck. Then Indy says he doesn't want to keep borrowing his switchblade as an awkward (read: Lame, out-of character moment) excuse for stealing.

2) switchblade rip incident. Swing and a miss with that joke. I felt the wind come off of that one from my seat in the theater!! Worst one in the series. You are not alone with the head scratching. It is unexplained, my guess is that there was a moment that ended up on the cutting room floor that would have given that bit a little more sense. I'm chalking it up as a major gaff. It had to have made some sort of sense at some point in the shoot.
 

Wilhelm

Member
Maybe they had to cut something from the gag after a test screening. But I don't know if they did a test screening for this movie, if the did it nobody spoilered the movie in the internet after the test.
 

James

Well-known member
1. Indy is a graverobber and was going to keep the knife. Mutt called him on it, and Indy was just trying to save face.

During the diner scene, Indy bristles when referred to this way ("Like you're some type of...like a graverobber or something?"), and makes a point to say he is a tenured professor of archaeology. The latter is how Indy wants to be viewed- particularly at this later stage of life- but his actions in the burial chamber reveal his true nature. The brief scene is a nice character moment that evokes the fortune hunter we saw in TOD.


2. Indy accidentally rips something with the knife (most likely his pants), which reinforces Mutt's doubts about him.

This is an old gag that's been used in a lot of films over the years. It's also a scene that has been debated endlessly on this board, and which kind've underscores why so many younger viewers had a problem with the film. In short, the gag just doesn't lend itself to the kind of scrutiny we've become used to.

There's no payoff for the joke, because the ripping sound is the joke. But we live in an age where people like for everything to have a nice, neat explanation. Kids want to see the pants ripped or have some line of dialogue that explains why the gag was included. Mutt's reaction only adds to the confusion, since he basically overreacts (per his impetuous nature). Indy makes a mistake and Mutt is essentially saying, "We're screwed, because this old guy doesn't know what he's doing."
 

Dark Horse

New member
OK, point one I get.
But explaining point 2 like that just goes to show what an epic fail that "joke" was. I always thought that if a joke like that needs explaining, then it isn't funny. When you don't even realise it's a joke in the first place, then the fail is omnipotent.
 

James

Well-known member
I think it just represents a generation gap. I've yet to meet any older viewers that were confused by what the joke was supposed to be. At the same time, I don't think I know any younger fans that really understood it.

As I said, it's just an old gag that isn't really used that much anymore. Spielberg discussed this type of thing in advance interviews, where he described the humor in all the Indy films as slapstick from a bygone era.
 

Dark Horse

New member
Well, I'm 34. I've watched a fair few Charlie Chaplin/ Laurel and Hardy/ Harold Lloyd films. My favourite comedy series ever is the Young ones (which is pretty much all slapstick).

I don't think this "joke" can be explained. You can't just put a rip noise anywhere in a film and call it a joke. There was no build up and as you say - no pay off. It was a serious moment in the film. In short, there just wasn't anything at all to even comprise a joke. The rip noise could have been Indy's pants, the truck's canvas roof, the rope, or one of the sacks in the back of the truck.

Now if Indy turned around and we saw a rip, then it might have caused a smile, but as it stands it's all fail. Going into detail and disecting it like this just makes it even worse. Like I said in the first post - I'm not confused. I just think another part of the "joke" was omitted. It's like they wanted Indy to look like a goof ripping his pants, but then decided he'd look too much like a goof to actually show us the rip, so they just left the joke mid scene and moved onto something else. Fail fail fail.
 

James

Well-known member
When I refer to a generation gap, I'm not really talking about fans that grew up with the films. This series covers a lot of ground- from kids all the way up to people in their 70's and 80's.

Dark Horse said:
I don't think this "joke" can be explained.

I don't think it needs to be. We're explaining it here because the question was raised by the topic, but the film allows it to stand on its own. It is what it is. There's no deleted scene floating around and it's unlikely that Spielberg overanalyzed the gag himself. It's hardly the first time he's had Indy look like a goof in the series.

The exact same joke appeared a few years ago in an episode of Friends. It was someone's surprise party and everyone got set to hide. The lights were then turned off. There was a ripping sound, immediately followed by Elliott Gould's character saying, "Oh, crap." There was no follow up to this. The audience was never shown the ripped pants and there was no further mention of it in the episode. The ripping was the joke.

I'm not suggesting that its use in KOTCS was flawless. Personally, I could take it or leave it- although I do like Mutt's reaction to the scene. As you pointed out, he acts as though something very serious has just happened.

But he does this throughout the entire film (ie. "Am I gonna die?!"; "He dropped the skull!"; etc.)- it's just part of his character. So even if the joke is open for debate, the truck scene still works as an interaction between Indy and Mutt. Despite everything Mutt's seen Indy do, he still doesn't have a great deal of confidence in him.
 

Dark Horse

New member
I get what you're saying, I just think the "joke" is so out of context here, that we don't even know it's a joke. It was funny in friends because a) it's a sit com, and b) it was obvious what was happening and to who.
How can it make Indy look like a goof if we still aren't totally sure what even got ripped. Maybe if he grabbed at his pants or anything that might give indication would help, but as it stands.... nah.
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
Yeah, I don't think their was a generation gap or the gag was homage to old style comedies, I think it was simply a failed joke. If you put that gag in any Indy film, or hell, ANY film for that matter, people will be a bit confused because it was just executed poorly. When I first seen it I simply thought that Indy accidently dropped the switchblade out of the canopy truck. But then he just stood up, hands now free and cut Mutt's ropes. I don't think there's anything to "get" or any higher explanation other than to state that it was a poorly executed joke.
 

James

Well-known member
Dark Horse said:
It was funny in friends because it was obvious what was happening and to who.

How can it make Indy look like a goof if we still aren't totally sure what even got ripped.

But it's fairly obvious that Indy has made a mistake and accidentally cut through something other than the rope. What he cut through is largely irrelevant, since the action itself was the joke. Indy screwed up, Mutt expressed doubt, Indy was embarrassed.

I'm not saying it was well-executed or even particularly funny. It strikes me as a gag that was improvised on the spot, since I don't believe it was included in the shooting script. (If I recall, the original had Mutt fearing that Indy had failed to even catch the knife in the first place.)

However, I am a little surprised so many had trouble with it. It's what I meant by a generation gap. It doesn't mean younger fans are less informed about older comedy, only that they are more inclined (having grown up online) to over-analyze what is on the screen.
 
James said:
But it's fairly obvious that Indy has made a mistake and accidentally cut through something other than the rope. What he cut through is largely irrelevant, since the action itself was the joke. Indy screwed up, Mutt expressed doubt, Indy was embarrassed.

I'm not saying it was well-executed or even particularly funny. It strikes me as a gag that was improvised on the spot, since I don't believe it was included in the shooting script. (If I recall, the original had Mutt fearing that Indy had failed to even catch the knife in the first place.)

However, I am a little surprised so many had trouble with it. It's what I meant by a generation gap. It doesn't mean younger fans are less informed about older comedy, only that they are more inclined (having grown up online) to over-analyze what is on the screen.

How can one "over-analyze"? I really hate that term.

Film is a visual medium, open to scrutiny. The very nature of film viewing is analysis, and if you aren't analyzing, you're vegetating; you can't be conscious without analyzing, it's what we do.

The "joke" falls flat. Analyzing the joke, questioning the joke has nothing to do with a generation gap or with the internet or with modern society, whatever. It has to do with human nature.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
ResidentAlien said:
How can one "over-analyze"? I really hate that term.
It's not a bad as this one:

what an epic fail that "joke" was.
then the fail is omnipotent.
but as it stands it's all fail
Since when did the word, "fail", become a noun?:confused: Are you speaking "the Queen's English", DH, are you talking lame, geekoid, internet jargon? On that note: Yes, the rip gag failed to deliver. It was a failure and, sorry James, but the "generation gap" reasoning doesn't hold any water.
 

Wilhelm

Member
I think the gag it's just a reference to Last Crusade when Indy and Henry are in Brunwald Castle in the chair and Henry drops the lighter.

The difference is that Indy can cut the rope and Henry not, but Mutt thinks the opposite.
 
Makes you wonder about the obsessing over Harrison fitting into his wardrobe questions. Think there was a running gag of characters noticing Indy's pants were ripped?

The issue with the conquistador's knife, I tend to believe that the characters, (like real people) when they first meet explain themselves in the manner they WANT to be perceived. Indy: a tenured professor, Mutt: Fonzi.

The more time they spend with someone, the more they tend to understand the other's motives and true character.

Basically they role reversed nerd(teacher/little boy)/hero(Indiana Jones/Tarzan etc.) types throughout the film...
 
Last edited:

The Drifter

New member
I always thought that when Indy released the blade to the knife. It flipped out and stabbed him right on the cheek. The khaki-covered cheek.
 

Wilhelm

Member
It's the duality of Indy's character since Raiders. It's like Clark Kent / Superman. In KOTCS Indy is more Clark Kent than ever but he still has some aspects of his past as adventurer. That connects with the crystal skull being able to communicate only with academics and teachers like Oxley and Indy but not with conquistadors like Spalko.

That duality is also present in Last Crusade between Henry Sr. and Indy. Academic against adventurer. For example when Henry drops the lighter and can't cut the ropes. But in KOTCS Indy can cut the ropes because he's still an adventurer although he seems to be more teacher than ever. That's why he gets the hat in the wedding, it's a symbol of his adventurer side.
 

Dark Horse

New member
Stoo said:
Since when did the word, "fail", become a noun?:confused: Are you speaking "the Queen's English", DH, are you talking lame, geekoid, internet jargon?


Words evolve all the time, chappy. So yes, fail has become a noun in some instances. Try to keep up with the rest of us next time. Or are you too busy being a "lame geekoid"? :gun:
 
Top