Originally posted by apalehorse I think if they are going to follow the true adventurer serial they should leave us wondering if in fact he is alive or dead. (A little like Shane) Don't know how this would translate into the film noir from the 50's, but sure would create a good marketing spin to drum up sales.
It would also be a nice thematic element if he finally gets the artifact from Eden, but somehow doesn't get to enjoy it; ie tree of life
Nice idea. I've never particularly cared for the Garden of Eden plot, but it's beginning to grow on me, largely due to this thread. The Shane-type ending is rather intriguing. I've considered Indy dying, but I've never thought much about the ambigious life/death ending, but I think it would work.
Of course, my vision for Indy IV (Indy noir, as bob once called it...rather accurate description, I think) is never completely true to the trilogy, but that's all right...Indy IV is seperate from the trilogy, really.
I confess to never having been a big fan of the "Garden of Eden" plot either...
The primary obstacle to me was the remembrance of the sword of fire that guards the entrance to Eden. However, I had misread the passage...I believed that it would strike down anybody who happened upon the entrance.
When I started doing research, it became clear that that's not necessarily the case.
The idea is growing on me as well, but there are still a few issues that would need to be worked out.
First of all, searching for the Garden of Eden doesn't exactly fall into the traditional notion of archaeology (unless it needs to be excavated for some reason.) Of course, Temple of Doom didn't really involve traditional aracheaology either. This would could fall either way.
While it's true that there doesn't necessarily have to be an opponent, (other than the spectre of the Grim Reaper chasing Indy?), I believe that there must be somebody else also seeking the Garden, and that they will probably be unfriendly to Indy. If so...who?
Finally, I still feel it's important to emphasize that the ending has to end on a positive note, or it will tarnish the series. Despite what may be dramatically exciting for us as fans, the movies also have to appeal to a mainstream audience. There will be redemption for Indy (as there are in each of his movies), but don't expect an ambiguous death. The last thing you want to do is alienate your audience in the final chapter of your series.
A thought...could Indy be seeking the Tree of Life to try and preserve the life of his ailing father?
And if so, does this mean that we're going with the theory that the "Everlasting Life" granted by the Holy Grail was lost when the "Great Seal" clause of the contract was invoked?
Originally posted by lornconner I
A thought...could Indy be seeking the Tree of Life to try and preserve the life of his ailing father?
And if so, does this mean that we're going with the theory that the "Everlasting Life" granted by the Holy Grail was lost when the "Great Seal" clause of the contract was invoked?
You've gotten me to like the Garden of Eden idea, but I don't think Indy should seek it to prolong his father's life. That would be too much like Last Crusade ("Only the tree can save him now, Indy... it's time to ask yourself what you really believe!")
Now, if it hadn't been done in LC, I would be willing to go along with it. The "great truth" Indy would realize, after traversing the world for the Garden, is that it's okay for his father to die, that it's the natural order of things, and he (Indy) shouldn't be the one to tamper with the way the world works because, though he may save his father, he may ultimately cause more harm than good.
As for LC, the everlasting life was lost when they crossed the seal... that's for sure. All the grail did was heal Henry. I can't remember the exact dialogue, but it was made quite clear in Last Crusade that the price of immortality was that the grail must never cross the seal.
Oh, and I agree that the ending needs to be a happy one. The Indy movies should leave us feeling exhilerated, as though we just got off a really great ride at an amusement park. I want to come out of the theater laughing and with a bit of an adrenaline rush, as I did with all the other Indy films. I don't want to feel the slightest bit depressed. An Indy movie that isn't pure, unadulterated fun isn't worthy of the name "Indiana Jones."
Also, according to Harrison Ford on AFI's list of Heros and Villains, the fun in an Indy movie is watching him survive the most impossible situations. I don't think Harrison would agree to letting Indy NOT survive.
I'm glad to see that you agree that Indy searching for the Tree of Life to preserve his Fathers life is NOT a good idea, Randy.
The problem I'm having, though, is finding a justifiable reason for Indy to actually search for the Garden.
A few people mentioned earlier that he could be trying to stop a protege from going after it, but I don't really buy this theory. Granted, Indy is getting older...but I don't see him chasing after one of his students. The focus (in my mind anyway) should be squarely on Indy.
I'm still not sure what I think of the Garden of Eden idea...with this thread, it's growing on me, but I'm still unsure.
At the very least, I want to thank apalehorse for starting it. It's been a fascinating thread!
Well, how about Indy searching for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, instead of the Tree of Life? I could see him wanting to eat from that tree. You see, as a scholar, he figures that no more harm can come from eating from the tree, and so...well, depending on Indy's mental condition after all those years of failure, there can be various reasons for his wanting to find the tree. But it could work, I think.
The issue, however, with that is that Eve already ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus the Fall of Man from God's grace. To eat from that tree again would be worthless, the whole reason behind the Garden of Eden being blocked off by God was to prevent Adam (Mankind) from eating from the Tree of Life which would have (in theory) allowed man to live forever and separated from God.
Think of this, before Adam and Eve fell they presumably had been alive for hundreds if not thousands of years (I know that is not logical but it is according to the Old Testament/Torah), they then ate from the TotKoGaE and were then forced to be in essence mortal.
I'm sure many of you are familiar with this news item from last January, but since it's relevant to this thread, I'll post it here for the newcomers:
PSI2 Magazine features this info about Indiana Jones 4: "The plot is most heavily rumoured around Atlantis, but Steven Spielberg has confirmed otherwise and commented that it will be something biblical and something to do with Adam and Eve. Harrison Ford, Sean Connery and John Rhys Davies have all been asked to return for a tenuous winter 2003 shooting start."
Of course, this was written in 2002, and I'm sure plenty has changed since then, but on the other hand, a few days before this, there was another article in Empire magazine stating:
Steven Spielberg stated: "We've finished our meetings . . . It's a completely mapped-out story, as mapped-out as what George, Larry Kasdan and I first mapped out with Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Frank (Darabont the screen writer) has gone from lip service to pages. He's now doing what most writers hate to do . . . which is write. It's a very exciting movie . .
So, if the story was completely mapped out, and then a few days later Spielberg comments that it will involve Adam and Eve, I really think The Garden of Eden thing may happen. Still, they could be purposely trying to mislead us.... who knows?
The real problem with Eden for me above all else just looking at it from the point of view from a movie:
1. Would God really just let people back into Eden?; i mean wasnt mankind sorta locked out. Eden isnt really part of the real world and to put indy in such a fantastical environment would detract from the grittiness of the trilogy.
2. Indy in Eden would introduce the supernatural overload present in the novels; in the indy trilogy the use of supernatural has not been huge and used in a very B Movie way (apart from LC) but Eden would have to be a huge fantasy environment all to itself...
3. Eden really has nothing to do with archaeology, Raiders had Egypt, ToD had India and LC had the Crusades Eden could have none of this. The search for Eden is a job for a theologian or an explorer and not an archaeologist
4. Eden had none of the cultural baggage that we assosiate with the Grail, the Ark etc no one has seriously ever claimed to have found Eden there is no legend of Eden outside of the Bible it is not a LOST item as Ark or Grail were.
5. I think that Indy going to Eden would introduce a religious element not present in the other movies where it is always tounge in cheek
6. Eden would probably kill of the Indy series as where do you go after Eden which is probably the ultimate (although not the best) subject for any movie of this type
7. There is no unambigious artifact assosiated with Eden, yes true there is a tree but what does Indy do when he finds it; cut off a branch and take it home to grow? How will a tree destroy the baddie? Flaming Angelic swords? that is just silly!
Great points, Bob, and I agree with most of them, particularly the "what does this have to do with Archeology?" question. That was my argument against Eden when the idea first popped up. On the other hand, after reading through this thread, it seems there's quite a bit they could do with the idea.
I also have trouble with the idea of Eden being an actual place. I'm not sure how this could be handled. If Eden exists, hundreds of years of scientific evidence would be proven wrong. I don't want to offend anyone, and I know a lot of people probably disagree with what I'm about to say, but to me, the Bible consists of allegories meant to illustrate points... it does not contain historical fact (yes, we know some of the people from the bible existed, we just don't know if their roles in history are the same as they're depicted in the Bible.) A large portion of the scientific world believes in Darwinism, but if Eden is real, then Darwinism is out (unless Adam & Eve were some kind of aquatic organisms rather than people.)
But, on the other hand, the grail was used in Last Crusade. Now, in order to believe that the grail contains any sort of power, we'd have to believe that Jesus was indeed more than your average carpenter, and that too is something that a large portion of the world does not believe (in fact, Spielberg himself is Jewish and presumably he does not believe Jesus had any sort of magical powers.) So apparently Lucas and Spielberg are not concerned with treading that ground.
I don't have a problem with the flaming sword though. If we can accept spirits flying out the ark, a living guardian of the grail, and the effects of the grail on Donovan, we can accept a flaming sword, I think. You just need suspension of disbelief if you intend to enjoy an Indy film (of course, it would have to be handled with some subtlety, too.)
Now, Spielberg DID say the movie will involve Adam and Eve, but he did NOT say "the garden of eden." This is worth considering, because maybe Indy isn't seeking the Garden itself. Another article also stated that an "E.T. element" will be introduced. So perhaps Indy finds some very ancient, otherworldly artifact that brings up the question of where we all came from. Examining such an artifact would be very much in line with an archeaologist's work, and for someone who's already seen the power of the Ark and The Grail, he would have to begin questioning the possibility of Eden. Maybe the question of whether or not Eden exists would never be fully answered in the film, but rather left to our imagination. I'll admit, I don't know how this could be handled in a satisfying manner, but that's probably why I don't have Frank Darabont's (or Lucas') job.
As I said earlier in the thread, I've had my misgivings about the Garden of Eden idea as well. However, I'd like to address bobs points one by one. I think with a little bit of clarification, you can see how the idea *could* work.
1. Would God really just let man back into the Garden?
A. Nope. Mankind was indeed cast out after eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This gave man a conscience, and thus the responsibility to use it. However, after re-reading the passage from Genesis that I mentioned earlier in the thread, I learned that the WAY to the Tree was kept by the flaming sword. The capitalization of "WAY" is intentional. Prior to my research, I had interpreted this passage to mean that any mortal who approached the Garden would be struck down by a "sword of fire". I envisioned completely incineration.
After researching the passage, though, I learned that the actual guardian of the Garden is not the sword, but the Cherubims (or spirit guardians). The Cherubim only allow those to pass who come by the WAY of the Sword of Fire.
Researching the Sword of Fire, I found that most biblical scholars interpret the Sword of Fire as the Word of God.
To get more in depth, Man was cast out of the Garden because he had obtained the knowledge of Good and Evil, but by eating from that tree man had already broken their first covenant with God (NOT to eat from the tree). Had man eaten from the Tree of Life, he would've been immortal, and forever sealed in his fallen condition.
Man was cast out of the Garden to prevent his eating from the Tree of Life, but will be allowed entrance if he comes by way of the Sword (or Word of God.)
One of the principle reasosn that the Sword of Fire is interpreted as the "Word of God" is that God was also referred to as a pillar of fire or a burning bush. Fire represents God many times in the Bible, and his sword and weapons are knowledge...Hence the Sword of Fire becomes the Word of God. Those who come by the Garden armed with the knowledge and belief of the word of God, and the conscious knowledge to use it in service to God are able to pass by the Cherubim. Those who try to advance by circumventing the "Word of God" I would imagine would meet a terrible end.
Getting into Revelations, on the day of Judgement the test will be administered...those who come by the way of the sword will eat of the Tree of Life and ascend to Heaven as immortals to live forever with God.
(At least, this seems to be the popular interpreation of the relevant passages)
As to Indy being in a fantastical environment, I don't know that that is the case at all. Why does the Garden have to be a Paradise on Earth? Remember that the way to the Garden was sealed, but by way of the Sword of Fire. I would guess that unless you pass by way of the Sword, the Garden wouldn't even be visible..and may even appear to be a desolate wasteland. After all, why would somebody traverse into a desolate wasteland when nobody believes anything exists there? What better way to remain hidden than to not be seen? Only those who stumble onto the entrance and confronted by the Cherubim, who pass by way of the Sword could see the actual Garden - and it need not be fantastical...only tropical and verdant, with a very large tree.
2. Supernatural Overload - Fantasy Environment.
A. - I would suggest that you take a look at the original movies again. The Ark of the Covenant had some pretty pissed off spirits at the end of Raiders, and in Temple of Doom I'm pretty sure that Indy was serious when he stated that Mola Ram betrayed Shiva. The power of the Grail can't be denied when you watch it heal Henry Jones wounds. Are these things not supernatural?
Sure, they're done in a "B" movie way, but that doesn't mean that the Garden couldn't be done likewise. I imagine that the Cherubim are some pretty intense "B" movie spirit guardians, eager to carry the souls of the unbelievers to the underworld. Again, I don't see why the Garden itself needs to be an overdone Paradise. In my view, the Garden would be lush, verdant, and tropical...beautiful, but simple, without the complications of the world. Also a very beautiful couple of trees and a devious serpent.
3. Eden has nothing to do with Archaeology
A. I don't know that this is true either. Eden is largely considered a mythical place...however, so it Atlantis, but you will find believers in the sunken continent on this Earth as well. Just because most people don't believe Eden exists doesn't mean that it doesn't, or couldn't.
In fact, I can see a fairly easy way to pique Professor Jones interest. Earlier in this thread I mentioned an ancient Babylonian Tablet whose inscription made reference to a Garden located 12 miles South of Ur, where a Tree that reached into the Heavens was planted by the Gods, and no man entered. The plaque actually DOES exist...and I'm sure would be considered an interesting artifact. Suppose that Indy is the one who discovered the plaque...could an attempt by made on his life by someone who wanted to protect the secret location of the Garden? And would this not pique Jones interest? Perhaps there are rumors of a very ancient man living nearby...the method hardly matters, but there are many ways to introduce archeaology and bring Jones into the search. The finding of the plauqe itself would constitute archeaology, but archeaology is more than just digging out artifacts...it also takes into the account the civilizations that produced the artifacts in question, and what their worldview is. Anthropology is very much involved in archaeology, and where better to mix the two then the birthplace of civilization itself?
4. Eden has none of the cultural baggage of the Ark, stones, or Grail.
A. You mention that nobody has claimed to find the Garden of Eden, as various people have claimed to find the Ark or the Grail. I take it that you mean that nobody "recently" has claimed to have found Eden. This is due in large part to the view that you seem to hold as well...that Eden is simply an allegorical myth. However, the plaque that I mentioned earlier would seem to indicate that at SOME point, SOMEBODY truly believed in Eden and the location of the Tree of Life. As I mentioned before, just because the majority doesn't believe in the existence of something, doesn't mean that others don't.
5. Introduction of Eden would introduce a religious element not present in the other movies.
A. See answer #1 above...the religious element has been present in every single Indy movie. Whether you choose to see it as serious or "B" movie doesn't really matter. There's no reason the Garden couldn' tbe presented in a "B" movie manner either.
6. The introduction of the Garden of Eden would probably kill the Indy series, as where do you go after that?
A. Actually, I think the Indy series is probably killing itself after this movie anyway. This movie is intended to be the "Last Hurrah" of Indiana Jones, so why not go out with a bang? Also, you state that the Garden would be the Ultimate, but not "the best." I'm curious as to what WOULD be the best, in your opinion? Trying to compile a list of artifacts to search for has been difficult...there are plenty of known legends, such as the Legend of Excalubur, but these generally are well KNOWN to be myths. Historical artifacts are tougher, but I'd love to hear any ideas you have.
7. There is no unambiguous artifact associated with the Garden of Eden. What would you do, cut off a branch and plant it? How will a tree destroy the baddie? Flaming Angelic Swords?
A. This is probably my favorite list of points that you make. I think I can answer each point to your satisfaction, and would love to hear additional comments:
The artifact taken from the Garden of Eden would be an Apple from the Tree of Life. I would imagine that these would be no ordinary Apple. They would probably survive and thrive just fine even when long-removed from the tree, and I would imagine they are larger and possibly different even in appearance to a normal apple. I picture a large round apple, flawless, with silver skin. The Apple itself would restore vitality and vigor.
As to what you would do with it, I would imagine you'd just pick the apple and eat it. I doubt if another "Tree of Life" could be grown, outside of the Garden itself. (The land outside of the Garden has been tainted by the casting out of Man. Weeds and other reminders were created by God as a reminder of the breaking of the first covenant.
As to how the baddie would be destroyed, the Tree wouldn't have any part of it, but the Cherubim would. The Cherubim seem to be guardian spirits placed to the East of the Garden to protect the entrance and prevent those who don't come by way of the Sword of Fire from entering. Remember, the sword of fire is NOT a literal sword of fire...it's a reference to a method of entrance to the Garden.
Anyway...I'm sorry I've rambled on so long, but I thought you made some good points, and I wanted to see if I could address them. What are your thoughts?
Woah Lorn!; to be honest i think that Eden could work if it were done right but however i just want to conunterbalance some of your rebuttals (i am not trying to get into a debate here though!)
1. I think that it is great that you have looked into the theology of this, but do Cherrubim really belong in an Indy film?; and interpretations now i simply think that Indy should leave theology well alone lest it be taken seriously...
2. Yes the Ark was supernatural the stones arguably not and the Grail was. Throughout the whole of Ark we had been looking to the moment when it would be opened it was a one time event really; now supernatural spirit guardians is something completely different. Eden is just not something that should be visualised as you cant win with it either it is too real world or too fantastical, putting Indy in these sort of situations may work but i dont think it is worth the risk for the final movie.
3. Yes of course Indy can be bambozzled into this adventure, but he would be a fish out of water. NO ARTIFACTS, NO INSCRIPTIONS etc we could not see an opening Venice style taster as the location of Eden was lost. It pushes credability to the limit to comprehend that Eden a huge area was simply located somewhere in Iraq (there actually is a tree in Iraq claimed by the locals to be the tree of good and evil)
4. Firstly i dont believe in Eden in any sense of the word and the Babylonian inscription doesnt prove anything from what i have read the story of Eden was composed in the exile mostly ripped off the Babylonian story except in the case of YHW he created the world outright rather than just creating men. With the Grail you had such a wonderful tradition from the Morte D'Arthur and the Ark was such a potent part of the Bible; and it existed (supposedly) in historical times.
5. You can have a one off supernatural event in the Indy films and not make it religious due to the spirit of them.
In having a garden which has supernatural begins and a diety interested in intruders to the garden it simply cannot have the same spirit.
6. Yes i agree with you on that one, but it could just be going on this one for something too big.
7. The villians should be killed by their own greed but not Cheriums as they would be CGI, the supernatural elements in Raiders and LC were short and shocking/wonderous having a constant presence of the supernatural through the last act would wreck the spirit of Indy and demean the wonder present in the one time miracles....
However i feel that you made a lot of excellent points
But i do remember reading a report from a (reliable) man who claimed to have read a draft of a script on Eden written by GL to look over it as a theological advisor.
He said that the script was 'very religious' - this was 5 years ago though.
1. I think it depends on what form the cherubim take. I picture something very similar to the ghosts that melted the nazi's at the climax of Raiders. I don't feel this would be any farhter out than the previous material.
I don't think you can really have an Indy film WITHOUT the supernatural element. This doesn't mean the movie has to be overtly theological...many different religions refer to a Garden and cradle of civilization. I think you have to get a *little* specific, but this doesn't contradict the earlier movies at all. (The grail really isn't anything more than a cup unless you accept as part of the storyline that Christ was more than just a wise carpenter dude.)
2. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint, but I think I need more information. You say that the opening of the Ark was a one time event...do you mean within the spirit of the movies (IE you can't do something similar?) or do you mean the power of the Ark only existed for the one opening? Or am I completely misunderstanding you?
As for showing Eden, I do think keeping it understated is best. I wouldn't do it with CGI...all that needs to be is a verdant tropical setting, with an enormous (unusual) tree, with strange looking apples coming from it. You say that you can't win if you show it, but I think if done cleverly, it can be bought. Particularly if it's invisible until you reach the Gateway. I think making the location of the Garden appear to be a wasteland until crossing the threshold is the best way to achieve this.
3. I need some clarification on this point too. You say that there would be no artifacts or inscriptions, but I don't think this is true. Various lost civilizations make numerous references to the location of the Lost Garden, and the artifact itself would be an apple. Also, you say there wouldn't be an opening Venice style taster, but I'm not sure what you're referring to?
You also say that it pushes credulity to the limit to believe that the location of the Garden was simply some place in Iraq. My question is, Why? If you view the Garden as having been historical rather than mythical (a conceit you have to indulge for the premise of the movie anyway), then it had to exist SOMEWHERE, right? Various historical clues would point the location of the Garden at a junction of the Tigris, Euphrates, and a couple of other rivers. Shuttle satellite imaging located two (now dry) riverbeds that once intersected with the Tigris and Euphrates, so...?
4. I understand that you don't believe in Eden. I didn't say that *I* necessarily did either. That's really not the point. The point of the movies isn't to be a swaying point to any religion...it's not to make you believe. They're made just to entertain...to twist your mind into a fun area where you could believe that the story taking place on screen *could* happen. The inscription argument I made was never to PROVE that the Garden existed, or that it exists in Iraq. It's there to showcase that there are archeological relics that could be recovered that could lead to a larger expedition in SEARCH of the Garden.
5. You state that you can have a one-off supernatural event in an Indy movie and NOT have it religious due to the nature of the films. I'll meet you halfway...one of the great things about the Indy movies is that I always imagine Indy having these adventures, and afterwards shaking his head and thinking "Things couldn't have really happened the way I remembered them." It lets him believe that the world around him is not exactly what it seems to be, but he's never 100% that what he *thinks* he's encountered is real either. That's why I agree with you that you can't delve TOO deeply into the theology, or get too preachy. But you can't divorce the supernatural element from the theology entirely, or there would be no explanation for what happens at the climax. At that point, the supernatural event in the script would occur for the convenience of the plot, and not for the story itself.
6. I don't think the Garden has to be huge, or played as "The Greatest Find Ever." I think whatever the eventual object does end up being, it should be just a "Further Adventure" of Indiana Jones...albeit in a different period and with a little more wisdom under his belt.
7. I agree that the villains need to be destroyed by their own greed. Whoever they end up being, they will be seeking the tree for the wrong reasons. They won't be eliminated immediately upon entrance to the garden. The Cherubim, I'm certain, will have a test which the villains will fail.
I agree that their destruction should be short and wondrous. One of the great things about the deaths of the villains in the Indy movies is you're always left going "Whoa." That should be the case here.
I dont' think the presence of the supernatural has to be constant in the last act. Like I said, I think the Garden, once visited, should appear to be nothing more than a lush tropical garden with a very impressive couple of trees. On a side note, I *DO* think a snake should make a quick cameo...but on this one occasion, Indy could kick it aside and not pay it much mind. I think it'd get a laugh out of the audience after a particularly tense moment.
The Snake that tricked Eve would make a very interesting addition to the movie, given that Indy does have a fear of them...hmmmm...
lornconner, wow! I haven't seen a thread this wonderful in several months! Keep up the discussion, who knows at this rate maybe we can figure out what the movie is going to be about...or even give them some ideas.
I guess my whole idea on this stemmed from the concept of what would happen if we had the ability to live forever? Since we have the power to be like God (the true temptation from the serpant) the only thing that is missing is eternal-ity (whatta word) of it. DNA was discoverd in the fiftes. Is it possible that the tree of life isn't really a tree and that Eden is a metaphor for that which all religions try find, perfect enlightenment in an utopian dream. That is, can man truely find the one thing that would eliminate evil, and if not, should we be trying to live forever?
In LC, Indy didn't want to find the Grail, it made no matter to him, and Henry wanted to find Illumination. The cup itself made no difference. I wonder if Henry's statement that he found Illmination was completely accurate.
(ps. thanks to everyone participating in this thread)
We both hold equally valid Points of view Lorn....
However just to adress one point, the real problem i have with the supernatural element of the Cherumiums is that they would be sentinent that is they would have a will of their own rather than just a smiting machine (As the Ark was) and the existance of them would push Indy too close to God as these Cherums would be directly below god.
Also what i meant r.e point 3 was that the trilogy all had a various backdrops ark being egypt, ToD being ancient India.
What have you got with Eden?; men are locked out of Eden and i doubt that the supernatural forces would have been building things. I also doubt that there would be any clues as was the case with Ark or Grail Eden would exist in a cultural vacuam the film would lack the arcaeological flavour.
In my opinion i think something like Atlantis would fit a lot better into the Indy series as it has that cultural baggage associated with it, and it has all the imagery of Ancient Grecce surrounding it
I'm not sure 'cheribum' truly belong as the classical image of them. I don't want Indy to just walk up some steps and introduce himself to God. But I DO think statues representing the Cheribum 'guarding' the pass to Eden, striking down intruders with a flaming sword would be cool. Kinda like Neverending Story...
I just enjoy the 'suggestion' of the Spirit. Not a big slap in the face - hello God is here - kind of thing. Does that make sense?
I do agree with keeping the Cherubim understated. I think even having statues would be a bit too overt. SOME marker will have to exist to mark the boundary of the entrance of the garden, but I think some investigation and reasoned looking will be necessary to find it. I would imagine the cherubim would only become visible and active (the smiting machine, as bob put it) should somebody unworth try to pass by the barrier (or fail the test.)
By the way, how's THAT for a run-on sentence?
I don't think Indy should have any direct encounters with God, and I think if the Cherubim are smiting, it ought to be quick, and awe-inspiring. I see a small pile of ash in my mind.
I do think having the snake make a cameo is important, but I'd put it in for comic reasons, as a tension-reliever after the smiting occurs. Sort of a reminder to Indy that he's treading dangerous ground.
I think the serpant thing would be a great sub-plot. I am not even sure how it would be addressed. I am sorry I have missed a few of the exchanges with Bob, lorn and the others. I guess the biggest thing I am starting to see is that we are discussing the "Eden" plot from the stand point that we are seeking truth; and as we all know, archeology is the search for fact. So what facts do we have that supprt a Tree of Life theroy?
1. The tree of life, as presented in the Genesis story is that tree which would allow man to live eternally. As lorn pointed out, in our current state, that would mean imperfection.
2. DNA holds the code that could/would provide us with the ability to allow for the creation of a perfect strand, without any blemish.
3. DNA looks like a ladder, but I won't stray OT by tieing it into the Jacob's Ladder theroy of ascending into heaven.
4. Now that our wisdom (received with at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) has allowed for cloning, is it possible that we could clone God? This may also be off thread, but if we assume the DNA present on the Shroud of Turin in that of Christ, couldn't we clone him, have that embro put into the womb of a virgin and thereby create a souless Antichrist?
I realize that this strays a bit from traditional archeology, but when the Brother of the Cruciform Sword had the knowledge of the Grail, they didn't retrieve it. Who's to say that in the fifties, there isn't some American Government agency that knows that Armageddon is possible, and guards such a volatile piece of history. Even an indirect connection can be seen. This also gives weight to the McCarthy hearings, and Communism brought up in similar threads. Heck, they could even split this story in two and film it all at once...=)
I just think that archeology, theology, history, philosophy all run together, hand in hand.
uhmm from a few pages back about everlasting life, int he last crusade Indy drinks from the goblet to ensure that it is the right goblet, so therefore would that mean he would live forever from that film? perhaps also being the reason he survived the tank going over the cliff i'm just speculating but if it was everlasting life then it would be pointless since thats already being covered, but maybe not, anyone clear it up for me?