Indy's Fist said:
Do you really want me to point out every error in every Indy movie? I could make a list as long or longer for each movie.
No, you can't. Just think of ONE single plot-hole that clamorous in the first three films. "Raiders", "Temple" or "Crusade", c'mon, just think of one. You won't find it. I'm sure.
Darth Vile said:
If the retracting staircase defies belief, what about all the other booby traps that defy logic e.g. spring loaded spikes that work on light/refraction (Raiders). At least one could excuse the feasibility of Akator by stating "built by aliens"... but how the hell did the Hovitos (or their ancestors) manage to build a temple that has better security than The Bank of England???
No, no, no. Just no, man. You are citing a little (and VERY fascinating if you ask me) incongruence as if it was an actual letdown for the plot credibility. BUT IT IS NOT. There are similar details in all of the first three films, and in almost all adventure films in general for what I know, but that IS part of the charm. After all, it is still highly speculated that ancient civilizations may have obtained levels of technology that are so much superior, so enormously different from our consolidated knowledge to be almost impossible for us to understand.
Obviousely, it's clear that a booby trap so advanced as to sense light variations IS a little too much. But that DOES NOT constitute a
plot hole. That DOES NOT cause a film to sink down. And in any case there is a
big difference between chosing some logical/factual plot-holes to DRIVE the story of a film, and using some little and forgivable incongruences just to create some atmosphere.
As often happens, you are comparing things that simply doesn't stand in the same category just for the sake of defending the un-defendable. And you perfectly know it, also, since you are not stupid at all.
To conclude. Has it occured to you that the problem does not lie in fact that the staircase defies belief, but moreso in the fact that the staircase itself should have been already activated, and so no more functional, at the moment of Indy's arrival??
_________________________________________________________________
Well, now the rest of my post will be a brief comment on the articles posted by Wilhelm (great read, by the way).
First thing is, Kasdan may not have liked the scenes of the film because he had written them, and he exactly knew all the details of the dialogues. So, to him, the film could have lost a lot of his intensity. To us, instead, "Raiders" is just a film that perfectly delivers all of the key information to the plot following.
Kasdan says that the first scene between Indy and Marion has been heavily cut and so it doesn't work. And he says the same for the scene in the tent with Belloq. I say, those two scenes both works GREAT. But it's not just me. Everybody thinks so, because they freaking
actually works great. The dialogues in their simplicity perfectly manage to sum up the state of a long term relation between Indy and Marion, and the intrusion of Belloq. Maybe the original version was even better, as Kasdan claimed, but this doesn't mean that those scenes do not work.
Other scene is the dig. Well, I say, just try to figure out... they are in an enormous digging site, with hundreds, maybe thousands of people working all over the area. Do you really think that a dozen of arab diggers lead by Indy (in arab disguise) would have been so easily recognisable in that context?? Do you really think that every single nazi soldier on that immense digging site should have known exactly who and where was working there, and why?? Do you really think that in the same situation it would have been so easy to spot Indy and his companions?? For un-suspicious nazi sentinels, finding Indy and his men would have been almost impossible. A matter of pure coincindence. It's pretty much the same as recognizing one specific person in the middle of a crowd of people, all dressed the same, while you don't even know that the person you are looking for is actually there. IMPOSSIBLE. I've always interpreted that scene this way, it's a very natural way of thinking, nothing far-fetched, yet it logically works fine. Kasdan being hypercritical about that is most probably due to the fact that he simply imagined a completely different scene.
And then...
I think you all agree with me when I say that the scene with the rubber raft is FAR mor
plausible that an atomic bomb not instantly vaporizing Indy, the fridge, and everything else in the sight. Same goes for the railway jump against the highly acrobatic equilibrisms of Mutt Williams, during the swordfight with Spalko.
How does the airport agent know Indiana has 2 companions coming with him?
Wu Han was supposed to escape with Indy instead of Willie. They were obviousely prepared for that.
Why is Mola Ram sacrificing people?
Uhm... maybe because he is said to be the evil spiritual leader of a blood thirsty Kali cult?? Ever thought of that??
It's an idiot plot, where characters do things solely for the benefit of the film, not because it bears any relationship to the story.
The only idiot thing I can see is called Alan Dean Foster. With all due respect.
Characters must have motivation.
There are at least two, and both of them are sufficiently noble and credible. First, Indiana Jones has been politely asked to help the people of the village. And he is a good guy, so he might have simply decided to try. Second, and more important, Indiana Jones is an adventurer and a professor. He has a respectable culture. He
does not believe in occult, so it's plausible to think that he is lead by his pure curiosity, and he thinks he may actually investigate the Pankot Palace to see what's the matter. TWO motivations, not just one. Both valid enough. Both implicit, yet evident.
Well, conclusions. You must admit there is a concrete difference between DESPERATELY TRY to find some faults in a well done film, and BEING LITERALLY blown by many evident flaws in a mediocre one.
First case is "Raiders", "Temple" and "Crusade". Second one is "Kingdom". Now, if you
really disagree (not just for the sake of it), please start to argument your motivations. And let them be convincing.
Indy's Fist said:
I knew little about KOTCS before I went and enjoyed it tremendesly. I wonder how many others would enjoy movies more if they didn't know anything before seeing them? In the old days we had no choice, however with the 'Net it seems the script of any film is made avialible months before a film's release. It's alot like opening a present before Christmas. Knowing what it is kills the joy of getting it at all!
I was almost completely spoiler free by the time "Kingdom" was released. And still it was the biggest disappointment ever. Being open minded is not that big of a deal...
_________________________________________________________________
Oh, mine, some of the posts in these last pages just made me go ???????
_________________________________________________________________
Ah, I was almost forgetting about this:
sandiegojones said:
Okay, these have been answered several times over the past year.
1) After WWI gunpowder was coated with graphite to prevent unwanted explosions. Graphite is magnetic. At the time this could have been possible. Gunpowder is a little different nowadays.
2) The letter Mutt brought to Indy from Oxley gave the location of the grave. Indy just didn't realize it until he saw Oxley's cell and all of the engravings. Once they got to the cemetery Indy figures the rest out himself. The cemetery itself was not a secret, just the chamber where Orellana was entombed.
3) The temple was likely not shut when Orellana first got to Akator. He arrived and was likely welcomed by the Ugha and the aliens. Orellana and his men were brought inside the temple and likely tried to steal the treasure. They killed an alien and took the skull and on their way out, the staircase collapsed and some of Orellana's men fell to their deaths and the temple was shut. There are some depictions of the conquistadors arriving and killing and alien on the wall of the Ugha temple that you can see before they pop out of the walls (you can also see them on the special features disc on the DVD).
4) See number 3.
Thanks for the clarifications, mate!!
But I have to say that I still find points 3 and 4 to be a little too forced and unconvincing.