Yeah, if they wanted the film to be historical, they'd have El Dorado end up actually being a man painted in gold, like in real life conquistador history.
And the Skulls are actually European in origin.
And I have never heard of Ugha or Akator. And personally, if they are made up, the writers did a really crappy job naming them.
However, again, although the Sankara stones are fictional, Sankara was a real man, and the Hindus do have 'sacred' stones.
But see, it is similar. The Skulls have a basis in fact, but are twisted for the film's purposes; El Dorado is popularly a legend of a lost city of gold, yet is actually a man painted in gold; there was a man named Sankara and there are ''sacred stones'' yet in ToD, to suit the film's purpose, fictional stones are created and given powers and is mixed with voodoo dolls and human sacrifice, three very different things yet it fit well.
And Spalko--you want to talk about historical accuracy, what about the Nazis' launching a huge dig in Egypt in 1936 was occupied by the British (I believe). The Ark is never said in the Bible to contain evil spirits, and is never said to be able to melt people's faces off; a false grail is not mentioned in legends and is not said to make people age rapidly; there are no historical records of 900 year old knights still living as of 1938; to criticize KoTCS for mixing different myths and making up stuff is kind of hypocritical since the original films were guilty of the same ''sins''
Gotta love how Lucas made Young Indiana Jones as a thinly disguised attempt to give audiences a credible history lesson, then turns around and takes the legend of El Dorado, mixes it with the speculative origins of crystal skulls, and ties it directly into Von Daniken's scientifically unsubstantiated Ancient Astronaut theory. Is Leonard Nimoy narrating the new film? Perhaps he should call it "Indiana Jones In Search Of The Lost Kingdom of the Ancient Astronauts."
The idea of a cup which somehow grants eternal life and can cure wounds is scientifically unsubstantiated, yet it is a popular myth and as such is subjective to one's belief, just like Aliens and the ancient astronaut theory. The idea of a gold chest which can somehow create lightning and melt people's faces off is not a scientific fact but instead, again, something based on one's own beliefs and faith. Just because a myth has remained for hundreds or thousands of years doesn't make it any more plausible than aliens or crystal skulls. It's mentioned in a book which was written over 2,000 years ago, that doesn't mean it's true.
the epic Indian work Rāmāyaṇa, which was a mythological work in it's time, mentions people and creatures using flying machines, which are able to traverse the atmosphere and stars and this book dates to 500 B.C.
The Bible also makes mentions of flying vehicles, which God or His angels travel in. Take for example Elijah's tale of Wheel Within a Wheel, or of reports of the ''Chariots of Fire.''
There are other reports of such happenings: Alexander the Great, among others, were reported to have seen two flying disks come from the sky and disrupt a battle between his army and an enemy's army.
What we know now as fantasy, Greek mythology, was once a major, active, living religion which lasted for hundreds, if not a thousand, years. Yet today it is regarded as the stuff of imagination and legend, yet for those people and for that period of time, it was very real.
You might find this History Channel Documentary interesting:
Why are you passionately against the idea of it? What is so different about the idea of aliens and the idea of voodoo? And what exactly places it outside the domain of Indy? What makes voodoo or a gold chest melting people's faces off more believable than aliens?
The word of a book written thousands of years ago? I guess the idea of half-man, half bull creatures called ''minotaurs'' is plausible then too, since that story was written at least a millenia ago.
The idea of flying machines and visiters from the sky is not a new one--it goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years itself.
The legend of El Dorado, or a lost city of gold goes back centuries, and has even driven explorers and adventurers to search for it. Much like the Ark and Grail. Can't say the same for the Sankara Stones, as they're fictional objscts enbued with exaggerated powers based on Indian beliefs in sacred stones, mixed with New Orleans style Voodoo and the idea of human sacrifice, also mixed with the horror movie element of hearts being ripped out of one's chest through magic while still allowing said person to live.
Watch the History Channel documentary I gave you the link to, it's very interesting. It's titled "UFOs in the Bible"
Last edited by Raiders112390 : 05-09-2008 at 10:47 PM.
And what is so different about ''supernatural magic'' and ''science fiction''? They're both basically scientifically unsubstanciated ideas, based on faith. One man's fiction is another man's gospel.
The idea of the ''supernatural'' is just ''science fiction'', worded to sound more mysterious and aged 2,000 years. They're pretty similar in that they offer fantastic, not of this world phenomena. The ancient supernatural ideas were what people used to explain the world when science was not yet advanced.
Supernatural is, well, let's see...Something beyond that which is taken to be ''natural'', of this earth. Aliens or some kind of other-worldly or even inter-dimensional beings would tend to fit that description. ''Magic'', well, magic is also something of faith. And something which conflicts with Christianity, as most Christians believe magic to be not associated with God.
I don't know, the idea of a doll made to inflict pain, by some unexplained magic, seems kind of hokey in comparison to the idea of there being other life in what may possibly a universe of infinite and ever growing size, in which there are billions of galaxies and countless numbers of stars and planets.
Supernatural is metaphysical, intangible, unknown, mysterious.
Aliens are extraterrestrial beings that are technologically advanced.
Indy should remain in the domain of the supernatural, that which cannot be explained by science or pseudo-science. When something cannot be explained and just is that in itself is what makes it a supernatural phenomenon.
Supernatural is metaphysical, intangible, unknown, mysterious.
Aliens are extraterrestrial beings that are technologically advanced.
Indy should remain in the domain of the supernatural, that which cannot be explained by science or pseudo-science. When something cannot be explained and just is that in itself is what makes it a supernatural phenomenon.
An other-worldly force is metaphysical; defies boundaries perhaps known or set on Earth. I don't see how pseudo-science, as you call it, is any different than that of religion or mythology.
And who says these aliens will be explained? First, they're not the main maguffin. I don't believe we'll be told of their origin or purpose of the aliens, if they do feature majorly, in Indy 4, ergo, they will be mysterious. The Ark and it's powers were pretty tangible (at least, Belloq, Toht, Dietrich and the other Nazis sure felt them), the Sankara Stones were felt, held and given back and were explained in ToD and weren't very mysterious (their purpose: to combat evil, given by a god, the diamonds inside the eyes caused the stones to glow when put together, etc) and the Grail was kind of explained in LC; it supposedly caught Christ's blood, which is said to be holy, at the Crucifixion. But it's purpose was not explained.
I believe in magic, a lot of supestitious hocus-pocus. You're talking about the boogeyman.
But the boogeyman and magic are all the same! Two sides of the same coin. One is as equally mysterious and unknown as the other, my dear lady (forgive me if you are a man). Produce for me an Ark which can zap lightning at people and melt their faces off, and I will produce for you a UFO and, if I'm feeling nice, a little green fellow along with it. You'll like him, he's cute and cuddly and only 4' tall.
Lightning you say? Let's ask Elijah about the chariots of flame which took him up to the sky that he wrote about in Kings, or about the flying Wheel within a Wheel, which descended from the heavens.
resident alien
–noun
1. an alien who has legally established residence in the U.S.
2. an alien who has legally entered the U.S. as an immigrant with the intention of becoming a citizen.
Wow. Epic phail, bro. You mean... words may have multiple meanings?
My screen name has nothing to do with ETs.
Wow. Is this the same person who chastised another user in a different thread for being unable to take a joke? Let's see....
