Most Unbelievable Indy Scene of all-Time!

What is the most unbelievable Indy scene in the entire trilogy?

  • ROTLA: Indy finds an entrance on a water-sealed German submarine

    Votes: 12 9.8%
  • ROTLA: Indy and Sallah are able to lift a half-ton stone tomb covering the Ark of the Covenant

    Votes: 8 6.5%
  • TOD: Indy, Willie and Short Round safely parachute out of plane in a life raft

    Votes: 37 30.1%
  • TOD: The mining cart makes a massive air jump over uncompleted track and lands perfectly aligned

    Votes: 45 36.6%
  • LC: Indy breaks the 8-inch thick marble floor of the Venice library with a rope-holding post

    Votes: 8 6.5%
  • LC: Indy opens eyes while submerged in the Venice oil catacombs and is able to find an escape route

    Votes: 13 10.6%

  • Total voters
    123

Lao Che Pun

New member
The last five posts are actually pretty funny.


But seriously guys....the only reason I created this thread was to find someone else who agrees with me on the insane notion that a pole post could break marble flooring.

And I have only two others in agreement?!


Honestly, according to the laws of physics...all of the other five options are possible (albeit highly improbable) other than the marble flooring scenario. The most Indy could have done was scratch the floor...but never cake out an entire hole.
 

The Drifter

New member
I have laid marble tile down at a bed and breakfast that I used to work at. While soild, it can be broke.
Now if the floor of the library was soild underneath the marble; Indy never would have broke it.
But, the floor was hollow underneath, and I believe that he could have broke it like he did.

This is just my humble opinion.
 
Lonsome_Drifter said:
I have laid marble tile down at a bed and breakfast that I used to work at. While soild, it can be broke.
Now if the floor of the library was soild underneath the marble; Indy never would have broke it.
But, the floor was hollow underneath, and I believe that he could have broke it like he did.

This is just my humble opinion.

Agreed. It was hollow. X marks the spot.
 

Lao Che Pun

New member
Lonsome_Drifter said:
I have laid marble tile down at a bed and breakfast that I used to work at. While soild, it can be broke.
Now if the floor of the library was soild underneath the marble; Indy never would have broke it.
But, the floor was hollow underneath, and I believe that he could have broke it like he did.

This is just my humble opinion.

Point made. But wouldn't the thickness of the flooring (regardless of the hollow underside) make the floor almost impossible to destroy without the use of a sledge or jackhammer? It just doesn't seem plausible that a pole post could do such a thing. I mean thin marble tiling for a contemporary house is one thing, but this was thick beyond belief.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
Ignoring what FACTS? We have no concrete evidence it did.
Remember the "Fun With Dick & Jane" books?

Listen, Dick, listen! Listen to the loud, horn sound. This is the sound the submarine makes when it is going to dive.

Look, Jane, look! Look at the men turning the big wheels. The wheels are opening valves.
The valves make the ballast tanks fill with water. The water helps us sink. We are diving, Jane!

See, Dick, see! See the U-boat men look in the periscope.

Pray, Jane! Pray that Indy finds a way to hang on!

This completely and categorically destroys the Occam's Razor/simpler explanation theory.
If you want to pretend that the sub never went under water, then have fun (with Dick & Jane).:p
Agent Spalko said:
Obviously it errs in more ways than one if Indy is dressed in full gear, jacket and all. His gear was in Katanga's cabin. Somehow I don't think if the scene was actually filmed he was wearing them so again, another example of creative artistic license there.
I think you're a little mixed up. In the comic Indy doesn't leave anything behind on the Bantu Wind.
In regards to to the movie and "if the scene was actually filmed", check out the deleted scenes section on TheRaider.net.:whip:
 

The Drifter

New member
The floor of the library was tile and not a solid slab of marble, am I correct? (I think it was)
Indy broke off a corner piece of one of the tiles, then slide it aside.

The morter (or marble cement as I call it) can be weak at times. With nothing underneath the tile to support the tile itself, it can easily be broken.

Yes, the marble in the movie was thicker than the tiles I used, but it could be broken I believe. But, he might would have to beat on it a few more times than he did.

The tiles I used were 2 1/2 inches thick, and I broke one by dropping it from a height of about three inches.
 
Stoo, for whatever reason, you definitely have that periscope stuck up your butt about this. Get over it will ya?

We've since moved on.

I'm not talking about the friggin' comic book. That has no validity. He's wearing his gear for Pete's sake. Sure, it was written and filmed and subsequently deleted. Why? Because it didn't work and was superfluous. As even IMDB has stated that it was entirely plausible that the sub never submerged.

Think about it.

Occam's Razor still wins. :p
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
As even IMDB has stated that it was entirely plausible that the sub never submerged.
Then why would they be spinning the ballast wheels? You keep ignoring this valid fact.
Whoever wrote whatever on IMDB obviously didn't "think about it". The submarine dives.
 
That's the footage shown during the map montage. It was filmed with the intention of cutting together with the shots of Indy clinging to the scope. They didn't use them. Why? Think about it. Even if they had shown us Indy hanging on, would anybody have really bought it? Not likely. So they dropped it. Why don't you ask Spielberg his reason for deleting them. He still had to complete the scene in the editing room showing the sub going to the island. He used the interior shots showing the sub Captain plotting a course on the map while the crew prepare to dive. They are speaking in German so American audiences have no idea what they are saying.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to prove, irrefutably that the sub dived or are you just being argumentative? The scenes were cut. Whether Indy clings tenaciously to the periscope or the boat never submerges, the completed film leaves open to audience speculation and interpretation. You can believe whatever you like. I'm going with the simplest and most logical explanation that it didn't submerge. I just don't buy the periscope theory. It's too far-fetched. If Spielberg left it in the finished film it would probably be the most unbelievable scene in the film and that's probably why it was lifted and a more logical explanation can be concluded as a result of a wise editorial decision on his part.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
They didn't use them. Why? Think about it. Even if they had shown us Indy hanging on, would anybody have really bought it? Not likely. So they dropped it. Why don't you ask Spielberg his reason for deleting them.
Ha! This whole thead is about unbelievable scenes! Who cares why the scene was cut! It's irrelevant.
(Yet you keep bringing it up as your main point...):D
Agent Spalko said:
He still had to complete the scene in the editing room showing the sub going to the island. He used the interior shots showing the sub Captain plotting a course on the map while the crew prepare to dive. They are speaking in German so American audiences have no idea what they are saying.
What about the other audiences? You write "while the crew prepare to dive". Does this mean you're finally accepting the truth?
Agent Spalko said:
I don't know what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to prove, irrefutably that the sub dived
Absolutely! Film evidence and sound effects prove it and denying the fact is ignorant.
Agent Spalko said:
The scenes were cut. Whether Indy clings tenaciously to the periscope or the boat never submerges, the completed film leaves open to audience speculation and interpretation. You can believe whatever you like. I'm going with the simplest and most logical explanation that it didn't submerge. I just don't buy the periscope theory. It's too far-fetched. If Spielberg left it in the finished film it would probably be the most unbelievable scene in the film and that's probably why it was lifted and a more logical explanation can be concluded as a result of a wise editorial decision on his part.
To the uneducated, I could see how the diving scene could go over their heads but for mechanical engineers, sailors, WW2 buffs, etc. it's OBVIOUS.
If you can't handle the fact that the sub dives because you don't like it and find the idea unbelievable, then you might as well turn a blind eye to the
raft falling from the plane & the mine car jumping the tracks and pretend they don't happen either.

Are you from the south of Italy/Sicily by any chance? (Y'know testa dure/hard head/stubborn like a mule?);)
 
Stoo, you are the one who keeps bringing this up, not I. I don't know what your problem is or what part of what I'm saying you aren't understanding. We clearly diverge on this. You are arguing from a literal perspective, I from an editorial one. Obviously there was a reason for these shots to be excised from the completed film. You have to understand that sometimes what works on paper doesn't work in the edit room and Spielberg had to make editorial decisions that supported the narrative of the film and had to make it work using material that was already shot. Chalk it up to continuity. I'm not arguing that the map montage with it's background shots suggest that the crew was preparing to dive. All I am saying is that there was obviously a good reason why showing the shots of Indy on the periscope were removed. They didn't work. Spielberg still needed to use the interior shots of the sub for the map montage and couldn't go back so he used them. An astute observer like yourself will notice that they are preparing to dive. We never see the sub actually dive. The shots with Indy are removed. We only see the sub drifting above water.

There are two possible conclusions:

1. The sub was above water and Indy was safe on deck
2. The sub dived and Indy miraculously held on for dear life.

The editorial narrative of the film suggests that either of which are possibilities. It makes no definitive narrative conclusion either way. There is no TRUTH as you are insisting. You can choose to believe what you will. Logically, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. It would seem absurd for Indy to cling to the scope with his whip trudging water over a great distance.

Perhaps you should start a poll for a show of hands which you think is the more likely outcome since this is obviously bothering you.

Do as you will.
 

Deckard

New member
I didn't read all the way back, I get the gist of the arguement, I think I have to agree, while the deleted scene exists, or was filmed, it didn't make final cut so technically its not a definative answer. The same way we don't aknowledge the Pat Roach appearance in Last Crusade for it didn't make the final film. Plus we can see scenes of the arab swordsman fight that were filmed yet never made it.

I think you could very realisticly argue the sub never went under, although what I believe to be the "dive alarm" going off would contradict that better then anything including the use of periscope which could still just be to give the captain a look around surfaced or submerged.

My question is how the hell does Indy sneak off the sub and into the German Base undetected?
 
Deckard said:
I didn't read all the way back, I get the gist of the arguement, I think I have to agree, while the deleted scene exists, or was filmed, it didn't make final cut so technically its not a definative answer. The same way we don't aknowledge the Pat Roach appearance in Last Crusade for it didn't make the final film. Plus we can see scenes of the arab swordsman fight that were filmed yet never made it.

I think you could very realisticly argue the sub never went under, although what I believe to be the "dive alarm" going off would contradict that better then anything including the use of periscope which could still just be to give the captain a look around surfaced or submerged.

My question is how the hell does Indy sneak off the sub and into the German Base undetected?

Good question. Likely as the boat was approaching the dock he dropped in the water and swam underneath until he came upon a ladder and snuck his way up unnoticed since he was wet in the following shot.
 
Deckard said:
I think you could very realisticly argue the sub never went under, although what I believe to be the "dive alarm" going off would contradict that better then anything including the use of periscope which could still just be to give the captain a look around surfaced or submerged.

I always interpreted the "dive alarm" to be a "all hands to battlestations" alarm or something as the crew was preparing to depart from the Bantu Wind with the Ark and proceed to the island base.
 

Agent Z

Active member
Agent Spalko said:
Ahh! My eyes!


IndySub01.jpg



IndySub02.jpg
 
Last edited:

Lao Che Pun

New member
Lonsome_Drifter said:
What is Occam's Razor?

From my understanding....everyone keeps spelling it wrong. It's Ockham's Razor and it essentially means, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Deckard said:
I think I have to agree, while the deleted scene exists, or was filmed, it didn't make final cut so technically its not a definative answer.
In this case, there are remaining bits of the cut scene so it's a little different from the other examples you've provided.
Deckard said:
I think you could very realisticly argue the sub never went under, although what I believe to be the "dive alarm" going off would contradict that better then anything including the periscope
There you have it. They don't sound the diving alarm for fun and since it's coupled with the shot
of the ballast wheels being spun, how can anyone say they "never went under"? It's ridiculous.
Please see below...
Agent Spalko said:
Stoo, you are the one who keeps bringing this up, not I.

You are arguing from a literal perspective, I from an editorial one.
I meant bringing up the reason why you believe the periscope scene was cut (which has no bearing on whether the sub dives or not).
What I'm doing is taking the information availabe in the film and, logically, filling in the blanks. You, however, are creating a naive idea,
to suit yourself, through ignorance. If we're talkin' Indy minutiae, then you should refer to what's in the movie instead of your mind.;)
We play with what we have...
Agent Spalko said:
I always interpreted the "dive alarm" to be a "all hands to battlestations" alarm or something as the crew was preparing to depart from the Bantu Wind with the Ark and proceed to the island base.
Uh...now you want to change the meaning of the diving klaxon??? This is nuts.:confused:
How did you "interpret" the turning of the ballast wheels? Exercise? Making sausages?

You're obviously an intelligent person so, please consider this:
-This is a CLANDESTINE mission in a governmental tug-of-war with extemely, high stakes.
-The sub sneaks up and SURFACES right beside the Bantu Wind, catching it by surprise (as evidenced in the film).
-The U-boat is HEADING TO A SECRET BASE! The captain would submerge for sometime to AVOID BEING FOLLOWED.
(This is not a leisure trawl down the river Spree. If they had went on their merry way without diving it would be very easy
for Katanga to plot their bearing. That's the beauty of the submarine and to not use its advantage would be stupidity.)
-The DIVING ALARM sounds = they are DIVING
-The BALLAST WHEELS ARE BEING TURNED = the SUB IS TAKING ON WATER = they are DIVING!
-What Indy does up on the conning tower is the mystery (but I have a good theory on that!;) )
-When the Wurrfler is OUT OF RANGE, IT SURFACES so Indy is NOT PERSICOPING IT FOR THE ENTIRE TRIP!

If Spielberg & Co. wanted to eliminate any notion that the U-boat went under water, then the alarm sound effect and
wheel shot would have been cut, too. It lasts only a few seconds and I don't think Spielberg & Mike Kahn are that oblivious.

We don't need to see the sub go under to know that it does. Just as we don't need to see Indy in bed to know he sleeps at night.
The whole "not in hostile waters" angle is not a very well thought out one. Occam's/Ockham's Razor just doesn't fly in this case.

Agent Spalko said:
Perhaps you should start a poll for a show of hands which you think is the more likely outcome since this is obviously bothering you.
Considering some people here thought Indy was immortal after drinking from the Grail, I'm not sure a poll on the issue would matter.
Plus, I'm not so much bothered as I am befuddled. It's puzzling as to why you (or anyone) would continue to misinterpret a scene
after having the tell-tale clues revealed!:confused:

You don't want to acknowledge it because the idea is unbelievable. This is an Indiana Jones movie!
 
Top