Nuked Fridges

Stoo said:

Aw, Kong! It's just my opinion. So, in your eyes, I've lost my coolness because I don't like the clown movie? (sniff)

Click to expand...

I was only kidding, pal. But I will definitely be wary of your opinion from now on...anyone who didn't think TDK was stupendous deserves a sentence of forced viewing of Transformers 2 for three days non-stop.

Personally, another way I would have done the scene we are so hotly debating, would be if Indy leaps into the fridge, and the bomb goes off, and the fridge goes flying hundreds of miles...and lands in a river. The fridge would drop to the bottom, and Indy would break the door open, swim to the surface, and climb up the hill for the awesome shot I've dubbed "A dynamite stick in an atomic age." Thus, the water would break the fall, and would also cool off the fridge, so Indy didn't melt to death from the extreme heat. But the only problem with this idea, is that from the distance Indy is seen landing away from the mushroom cloud, would a river have been evaporated from the blast?

Either this, or my previous idea to have Indy actually climb in the Ark of the Covenant...which I still think would have been really cool and really funny at the same time.

kongisking said:

have Indy actually climb in the Ark of the Covenant...which I still think would have been really cool and really funny at the same time.

Click to expand...

My knee-jerk reaction to this was that it was a horrible idea. Then after about 5 seconds, the full mental image and fallout from that scene sunk in. That would have been cool. In the aftermath, there could have been a shot of soldiers picking up the pieces and unceremoniously tossing them into a truck full of trash. The simple idea of Indy closing the book on his "relationship" with the ark would of course mean that this would have been the last of the films, but the finality of it would have added a much needed somber note to the movie. Or the ark landing in a river could save it (physics be damned). The only problem is if he climbed into the thing, it would be hotly debated as to why he was unharmed by that mere act alone! Of course, the ark-fridge would have wiped out the whole doom-town sequence......which would have been fine by me. Some of it was ok, but I remember seeing a still from doomtown where Indy's in the front yard looking around with a "what am I doing here" look on his face. I thought to myself, no way. That's either an insane misdirection in the marketing, or this movie is going to blow.

Also, props for "A stick of dynamite in an atomic age." It's an awesome analogy!

There was just no way Indy was going to feasibly escape the blast area of a nuclear explosion. The fridge idea was a desperate resort to make the plot work. Indiana's luck quotient (LQ) must be very high or else he's close to using up his nine lives.

Mickiana said:

There was just no way Indy was going to feasibly escape the blast area of a nuclear explosion. The fridge idea was a desperate resort to make the plot work. Indiana's luck quotient (LQ) must be very high or else he's close to using up his nine lives.

Click to expand...

In that 1950s book on Atom bomb testing, there were many objects that barely moved during the blasts. Indy was really lucky to have caught the fridge ride. It only stands up to critical examination in his world, knowing he can somehow call upon exponentially increasing LQ to counter each variable.

Without that it's just an homage to The Atomic Kid and the unused Back to the Future script. Since we feel the need to put Indy's life into a real context, the idea that it was intentionally absurd or surreal isn't enough on its own. That it was George or Steven's idea of a kitcsh chuckle is a joke too far on fans of Indy the character.

Therefore, rational in-world explanations have to be made. I'm willing to do that for this scene. The whole Doomtown scene works on a dramatic level all the way up to just before the landing. It's the landing that shocks me out of numbed acceptance, because it's so physically brutal. It would have only needed a film-maker's sleight of hand to avoid that.

EDIT: This came to mind...

“Hi there energy eaters! I’m Smiling Joe Fission your atomic tour guide to the strange and exciting world of nuclear power!” – Smiling Joe Fission

There is an absolutely awesome science video from 1953 (produced by General Electric!) about atomic power at boingboing. [http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/20/1953-cartoon-about-a.html#Scene_1] It features Dr. Atom (at left) in a number of different roles and watching it I couldn’t help but think of Smiling Joe Fission. Videos (or, more likely, film strips) like these used to be a dime a dozen in elementary schools and watching the original from 1953 was really neat in an over the top atomic propaganda sort of way.

Click to expand...

http://deadhomersociety.wordpress.com/tag/homers-odyssey/

Mickiana said:

he's close to using up his nine lives.

Click to expand...

An idea I also managed to work into my opening 3rd act for a KOTCS prequel.

MAC (cont.)
Which piece of it should I stand next to?
INDY
Oh.
MAC
Hope you didn’t leave anything too important in there, like the rest of your nine lives.

Click to expand...

The above quote is after MY fridge-ish feat. Which is not impossible to the point of absurdity like this. Because I reeled it in. AND I acknowledged how ridiculous it was right in the dialogue. And I'm just some random guy. I'm not really a writer in any regular sense. Spielberg is easily smarter than me, and is one of, if not THE most recognizable directors of our time. How on earth did it get taken that far? My only guess is that they rushed the script and didn't bother taking any time to polish it.............

Indy's brother said:

Spielberg is easily smarter than me, and is one of, if not THE most recognizable directors of our time. How on earth did it get taken that far? My only guess is that they rushed the script and didn't bother taking any time to polish it.............

Click to expand...

I think it was more a case of self-indulgence on the part of Spielberg and Lucas. They got carried away until they just couldn't stop themselves. I can imagine them talking excitedly like a couple of schoolboys, coming up with crazier and crazier ideas!

Montana Smith said:

I think it was more a case of self-indulgence on the part of Spielberg and Lucas. They got carried away until they just couldn't stop themselves. I can imagine them talking excitedly like a couple of schoolboys, coming up with crazier and crazier ideas!

Click to expand...

I don't believe there is anything wrong with either the idea of having Indy survive a nuclear blast nor the way the 'live action' part of the scene was executed. It's a great conceit (even if pinched from another script/movie). The problem, for me anyhow, is how the 'stunt/gag' has to rely on the CGI for the payoff. I'm sure that when they (Lucas/Spielberg) were discussing the scene it probably seemed perfect. However, as soon as you hand a large element of it off to ILM (or whoever)... then the risk is that by the time you realise it doesn't work (or doesn't work as well as it should), it's too late to re-think it. That's the risk of using special effects as opposed to practical effect work/stunt guys.

I personally believe that they should have simply stayed with the idea of Indy pushing the fridge into the cellar and surviving the blast that way. That would have been more believable than a fridge ride IMHO.

Darth Vile said:

I don't believe there is anything wrong with either the idea of having Indy survive a nuclear blast nor the way the 'live action' part of the scene was executed. It's a great conceit (even if pinched from another script/movie). The problem, for me anyhow, is how the 'stunt/gag' has to rely on the CGI for the payoff. I'm sure that when they (Lucas/Spielberg) were discussing the scene it probably seemed perfect. However, as soon as you hand a large element of it off to ILM (or whoever)... then the risk is that by the time you realise it doesn't work (or doesn't work as well as it should), it's too late to re-think it. That's the risk of using special effects as opposed to practical effect work/stunt guys.

I personally believe that they should have simply stayed with the idea of Indy pushing the fridge into the cellar and surviving the blast that way. That would have been more believable than a fridge ride IMHO.

Click to expand...

Getting Indy clear of the worst of the radiation was likely their main concern.

The problem is that Lucas and Spielberg were probably giggling themselves silly with the idea of getting the fridge airborne, and then lost sight of the fact that it would somehow have to land. Landing in a desert is tough, which is where they needed to adopt some form of conceit to disguise that fact.

I don't know why the audience had such a hard time with this scene... I didn't think about science nor physics when I saw the film, similar to when Mola Ram rips out a heart with his bare hand AND the victim continues living. All these films have these moments in them and some don't look real. Also, they wouldn't work the way it's shown in the movie, like did the victim have a rib cage ?

Redinight421 said:

I don't know why the audience had such a hard time with this scene... I didn't think about science nor physics when I saw the film, similar to when Mola Ram rips out a heart with his bare hand AND the victim continues living. All these films have these moments in them and some don't look real. Also, they wouldn't work the way it's shown in the movie, like did the victim have a rib cage ?

Click to expand...

For me it's tv damage. I remember seeing a scene from a 70's show like The Incredible Hulk or something where they were pulling out guts as a cleansing religious ritual, and then it was proved to be an illusion later.

Beyond that, it's still more believable to rip out a man's heart while he's alive, (nevermind the FX), and let him live for a minute than for Indy to survive the fridge. There was spiritual magic and hallucinogenic drugs involved in TOD. The fridge was raw physics. By your logic, the nuke could have gone through Indy's chest, he survives, and I am still supposed to suspend my disbelief because it's an Indiana Jones movie.

Montana Smith said:

In the wave of controversy that followed Temple of Doom, the author Alan Dean Foster, wrote in Starlog that he objected to the film's abandonment of logic and physics: "What the audience will not accept is someone stepping out of an airplane with only an inflated rubber life raft to cushion his fall of several thousand feet...As the young audience at the showing I attended murmured sotto voce, 'Aw, come on!'"

Click to expand...

I pay attention to physics, especially the poorly done wire work, (whip swings) in Temple and Skull. It's distracting.

In one quick step, the "Raiders" films have gone the way the James Bond opuses went at certain points, away from nifty stories in favor of one big effect after another.

Click to expand...

Rocket Surgeon said:

I pay attention to physics, especially the poorly done wire work, (whip swings) in Temple and Skull. It's distracting.

Click to expand...

A certain amount of comic book license needs to be admitted, when looking at physics within all the Indy movies. Though KOTCS called on the audience to maintain the illusion too frequently.

Supernatural elements are fine, because they need no physical explanation. A scene such as the airborne raft escape is possible if you accept that everything goes right at every stage: that the die of chance rolls a 6 every time, and the raft doesn't fail structurally. It's the conceit that allows the audience to accept it: landing on an absorbing snowy slope...

The fridge follows a similar pattern, until that final moment of coming back to earth.

Alan Dean Foster was likely still ticked off by Lucas over that novelization issue.

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWfoster.html

We don't want Indiana to be able to survive something unfeasibly. This is the point of a cliff hanger type movie. It must seem real. Whether it can be real or not under the proper laws of physics is not the point. So, my proposals are in the grey area, because (pre)judging an audience's reactions is part of the fine art of movie making. The makers have to be able to make this fine judgement and stay within certain boundaries of acceptability. It seems surviving the fridge went beyond those boundaries. For me, the mine cart landing perfectly in ToD was also another example of going too far. I do not single out CS alone. Striving to 'keep it real' should be kept way up there on their priority list. And don't go talking about the opening of the Ark and all the ghosts to counter my argument. We know its not real, can never be real, but it was a good special effect show, was a good part of the plot and is essential to the overall achievement of the movie. Believable action is what we want.

Mickiana said:

We don't want Indiana to be able to survive something unfeasibly. This is the point of a cliff hanger type movie. It must seem real. Whether it can be real or not under the proper laws of physics is not the point. So, my proposals are in the grey area, because (pre)judging an audience's reactions is part of the fine art of movie making. The makers have to be able to make this fine judgement and stay within certain boundaries of acceptability. It seems surviving the fridge went beyond those boundaries. For me, the mine cart landing perfectly in ToD was also another example of going too far. I do not single out CS alone. Striving to 'keep it real' should be kept way up there on their priority list.

Click to expand...

In Raiders the rule was laid down that Indy was a character who would intentionally go too far, get himself in a seemingly impossible pickle, and then fashion a method of self-extraction.

At the simplest level, he sets off on horseback after an armed German convoy with nothing more than the need to do something active. He throws himself into seemingly impossible danger and potential pain, because he can't help himself. Somehow he knows he'll force his own luck, because that's the nature of his type of character.

On the occasions when bad things just happen to him, as with the 'plane in TOD, he'll do a crazy thing, because there's no other choice. His type will survive, and it'll rub off on those accompanying him.

The mine cart jump was one of those lucky incidents that he unconsciously brings about.

He's almost as supernatural as his ever-returning fedora.

By the time we get to KOTCS the creators are running out of ways to test this type of character. So they throw everything at him (everything but the kitchen sink, but including the refrigerator), so that the bounds of in-world feasibility are tested to breaking point. He no longer has to survive a single giant waterfall, but three, plus the initial cliff-drop via the tree.

Doomtown set up a perfect cliffhanger. It was a great test of character, that quick-thinking survival instinct. This must be the greatest danger that he could face. Yet bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion was the problem.

Mickiana said:

And don't go talking about the opening of the Ark and all the ghosts to counter my argument. We know its not real, can never be real, but it was a good special effect show, was a good part of the plot and is essential to the overall achievement of the movie. Believable action is what we want.

Click to expand...

The supernatural aspects are fine. They need little explanation, and no reference to physics.

I largely agree with you, Montana. My above post was not directed at anyone in particular at all. Rereading it, the tone sounds contentious following on from your prior post, but it was written to everyone.

Mickiana said:

I largely agree with you, Montana. My above post was not directed at anyone in particular at all. Rereading it, the tone sounds contentious following on from your prior post, but it was written to everyone.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't read anything contentious in your post. We're often in agreement on these matters anyway, even though we might approach the subject from different angles.

Remaining an Indy fan, and still including KOTCS in the canon, has become somewhat of a juggling act!

It's really all about how something is realised on screen. The more you move into the realms of blue screen and miniatures, the more it drags you out of reality. The set pieces of the truck and tank chase (from Raiders and TLC) are pretty far fetched (as certainly as far fetched as the jungle chase from KOTCS). However (as you all know), the truck and tank chase are largely achieved by using in camera/practical effects (plus stunt guys). This ultimately helps keep a sense of reality (even in unrealistic situations). The down side to this very practical method is you can't extend this principal to airplane dog fights, mine cart chases etc. So your set pieces then become quite set bound and limited in scope (there are only so many vehicular chases you can stage). I think we'd all agree that no matter what the conceit, the filmaker should attempt to "keep it real" until impossible to do so.

It's no surprise then that movies such as Indiana Jones and James Bond, feel compelled to push the envelope for each successive movie i.e. to top the last one. Which usually results in the movie being less "realistic". This approach of 'going bigger' of course doesn't always make for a better set piece. For example, the Jungle chase would have been infinitely better without the required blue/green screen to achieve sword fights etc. In the end, they should always try and be imaginative with the set pieces (escaping Doom Town is as good an idea as anything in the other movies). However, as I'm sure we'd all agree, they should limit the amount of effects required to achieve the result.

Sharkey said:

Let's see, The Dark Knight is mediocre, Iron Man is trash, generic, heartless, uninteresting...

...but the prequels and Skull are what? Amazing?

Click to expand...

I'll back that.

I'm watching a movie from 2009 that has a fair amount of stuntwork, but is crap filmmaking. Shaky cam, slow motion, freezeframe, tinted film, all the cheap modern action cliches. Skull might have had too much CG, but FAR worse would have been if it was 100 percent "real" but with the modern cinematography that saturates the market today. Oh, and the score on this thing obliterates any sense of adventure. The film is Prince of Persia, and I am so glad there is some relief from this kind of action fare in unique, well crafted movies like KOTCS. I'll take KOTCS minor execution problems over the major execution problems in everything else, including pedestalled films like Dark Knight and Iron Man.

jeshopk said:

I'll back that.

Click to expand...

Bringing up the rear eh? Fitting since you're replying to a month old post.

Besides it being "pedestalled" what "major" execution problems did The Dark Knight have?