Nuked Fridges

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
As I mentioned I see the films made after Raiders as pale imitations, fun, enjoyable but not made with the same sensibilities as Raiders was.

You see them as a whole, a "series".

Now, I see where you're coming from, Rocket. Raiders is more down to earth, apart from the opening of the Ark and the light trap in the Chachapoyan temple, which is set up as an unexplained event.

Yet, the four films are a series - they are the vision that Lucas sanctioned. I agree that it would be better to divorce certain films from their series, and forget they were ever made (such as Star Wars Episodes I-III which are, to use you words, "pale imitations, fun, enjoyable, but not made with the same sensibilities as" Star Wars was). For better or worse, the six Star Wars films make up a connected series. Same goes for Indy, and we have George to thank or (hate) for that.

If Raiders had been the only Indiana Jones film, would it still command the attention that it gains now? It would enter film history as another 'Secrets of the Incas', or 'High Road to China'. The other films kept it alive all these years - they still star Harrison Ford as a character we can still recognize. The story is the one Lucas sanctioned, and it spans four movies. Starts in Peru and finds it climax in Peru. The inter-dimensional beings go some way to explain the supernatural and unexplained elements in all four movies.

As such, I can't see these as four unrelated films, which then leads me to find arguments to explain the absurdities that will enable the complete storyto remain true to the character we first saw in Raiders.

If we look at Raiders from an historical perspective, we have to overlook anachronisms such as the weaponry and the flying wing, and the fact that in 1936 Nepal was closed to foreigners - and no way could a foreign bar such as The Raven have existed there, catering for mountaineers who would not have been permitted to enter the country. Germans in uniform are digging up British-controlled Egypt. So, we know we're not dealing with an historical 1936

Indy cheats death in Raiders with either superhuman skill or superhuman luck: all the darts in the temple miss him; the Hovitos cannot catch Indy, even though they're on home ground; Marion didn't break her neck (or Indy's) when she was thrown into the Well of Souls; the statue in the Well of Souls was loose enough to push over; the propellers on the flying wing came to Indy's aid at the perfect moment; Indy wasn't ripped to shreds in the truck chase...

These are all plot devices that rely upon the acceptance of luck. Sometimes it's extreme luck. The cliffhanger was a staple part of the stories shown in cinemas every week. It was a simple device to make viewers come back next week. With Indy the cliffhanger is like a running gag (as with his 'supernaturally ever-returning fedora').

On the same score I have to accept that luck factored in the fridge escape. Even at Hiroshima and Nagasaki there were walls and trees that remained standing. It wasn't a complete obliteration.
 

kongisking

Active member
What if, since Indy "earned" the Holy Grail back in Last Crusade, he is now blessed with God's protection, and that is why he survived the explosion? Think of how in Ghost Rider, how the devil kept Johnny Blaze alive even through the craziest stunts imaginable, stunts that should have killed a normal person.

Indy has angels lookin' after him!
 

Darth Vile

New member
It's really all about degrees of implausibility... and by what degree one accepts a modicum of plausibility. After all, there are numerous scenes in Raiders where Indy should have/could have died. Is it a quantitive or qualitative thing? Is one unbelievable event less plausible than numerous almost impossible events? Ultimately, if one doesn't like the scenario (or feels that it's flawed in some way), be that "Doom Town", the mine cart chase or a car being straffed by a Messerschmitt, one is going to be less convinced and/or be less forgiving of the movie.

Personally speaking, I don't think Indy ever had a sillier 15 minutes than jumping out of a Club Obi-Wan window, miraculously landing in the back seat of his car... then moments later rafting/slaloming down the Himalayas... but still, I'll concede that Indy probably stood less chance of survival in "Doom Town". ;)
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Personally speaking, I don't think Indy ever had a sillier 15 minutes than jumping out of a Club Obi-Wan window, miraculously landing in the back seat of his car... then moments later rafting/slaloming down the Himalayas... but still, I'll concede that Indy probably stood less chance of survival in "Doom Town". ;)

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!'"

It is all degrees of plausability. Abandonment of physics was apparent in Raiders to a lesser degree, but is is common to all four films, so if we are to enjoy them, then we have to accept that things aren't how we expect them to be in out world.

If we accept that the statue in the Well of Souls was already loose, then we also have to accept that the test bomb in KOTCS was a very low powered device, the fridge was designed to perfection, and luck was with Indy yet again.

However, if Indy was to put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin, the only luck that could save him would be if the greande was a dud. If it did actually explode, and when the dust cleared we see Indy's grining, blackened face, then we know we've moved from the films being virtual live-action cartoons, to an actual live-action cartoon.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
If we accept that the statue in the Well of Souls was already loose, then we also have to accept that the test bomb in KOTCS was a very low powered device, the fridge was designed to perfection, and luck was with Indy yet again.


If you want to justify it, I suppose you could say that the Army were testing lead lined fridges (hence it being full of food they could test afterwards) and Indy was lucky enough to grab the most high end one they'd put together! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mickiana

Well-known member
I suppose KotCS doesn't have to be compared to Raiders, but we can't help but do that. I wonder why? (I don't really!) Suspense requires a good level of realism so that it seems believable re Raiders. For KotCS we had to suspend belief too much.
 

DeepSixFix

New member
Remember duck and cover?

Some of you folks are unbelievable. For years the government said you could survive an atomic bomb via "duck and cover" beneath a desk or under a blanket. This was the official government line! And you think a fictional movie is over the top by having the hero surviving in a lead-lined fridge?

Who knows, maybe the fridge scene is an homage to that line of thought, where in the 50's you "could" survive a blast through ingenuity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW4s7TETtJA
 

Col. Detritch

New member
I like DeepSixFix's theory that it was a homage to the American theories of Nuclear protection in the 1950's.:cool:

If you think the Nuke the Fridge sequence was the most unbelievable and silly sequence in the franchise watch ToD just one more time. There is no chance in hell anyone survived that plane drop in that raft unless they flipped it and held on underneath to the edges. Then drifted down on the breeze like a parachute. And there's even flaw in that! Then the second drop over the cliff into the water would break their necks. Not to mention the heart pulling which is impossible!

But despite all that i still love ToD. Why, because I accept it as a supernatural element of the Indy universe and I also enjoy watching that sort of thing!:hat:
 
Col. Detritch said:
I like DeepSixFix's theory that it was a homage to the American theories of Nuclear protection in the 1950's.:cool:

If you think the Nuke the Fridge sequence was the most unbelievable and silly sequence in the franchise watch ToD just one more time. There is no chance in hell anyone survived that plane drop in that raft unless they flipped it and held on underneath to the edges. Then drifted down on the breeze like a parachute. And there's even flaw in that! Then the second drop over the cliff into the water would break their necks. Not to mention the heart pulling which is impossible!


Mythbusters proved otherwise. Everyone always goes after that scene. ONCE AGAIN, it has been done.


The whole argument that that scene is the epitome of unbelievability in the franchise is tired and has always been bull. I really can't fathom that people would defend the nuke by citing that. It's just... absurd. Indy should be molten slag, period. He could have easily survived the fall.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
DeepSixFix said:
Some of you folks are unbelievable. For years the government said you could survive an atomic bomb via "duck and cover" beneath a desk or under a blanket. This was the official government line! And you think a fictional movie is over the top by having the hero surviving in a lead-lined fridge?

Who knows, maybe the fridge scene is an homage to that line of thought, where in the 50's you "could" survive a blast through ingenuity.

That's exactly what I wrote in another thread, in defence of the fridge scene. The 1950s was the atomic age - it even had 'atomic design' - such as wire hat stands with little red atomic beads on the end. There was film of soldiers watching a bomb test wearing only shorts, they were simply told to turn away when the flash went off, then afterwards they could turn back and watch the mushroom cloud rise.

The Simpsons did a similar homage when Burns brings the kids in to watch a cartoon showing a friendly atom explaining how safe nuclear power was.

Raymond Brigg's 'When the Wind Blows' had the main character sitting under a door leant against the wall as protection from the bomb - he was following government advice!

Fear or nuclear attack hung over the cold war period, and almost became reality during the Cuban missile crisis. However, on the other side of the coin, nuclear energy was the wonder energy of the future, and had to be sold as safe to the public.

The fridge is a comedic reference to an absurd point in history, and because Indy doesn't occupy our world, he actually gets away with it.

I don't see what the big deal is, as Lucas never set out to present Indiana Jones as a documentary or even a film based on real events. Historical reference points exist to give us a sense of familiarity. If Lucas had been bothered with accuracy in Raiders he would have realized that Nepal was off limits, Egypt unlikely, Afrika Korps not yet created, and most of his weapons were before their time. It wasn't wrong, because he made the film he intended, and one that we, as fans, now regard as classic. The three other films follow the same principles.
 
Last edited:

Mickiana

Well-known member
Those points of accuracy are all to do with history and they are not what is being disputed here. We are talking about the believability of Indiana Jones' escapades as carried out by stuntmen, props, CG, etc. The point that the fridge scene might be a reference to the 1950s propaganda is good one. It may well have been a reference, but it didn't do anything for believability in terms of Indiana Jones escaping peril. We see him get into the fridge and then roll out of it unscathed. It's quite unlike the Indiana Jones we are used to seeing running, fighting, jumping, flying, etc, etc out of trouble.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I'm finding reason for an absurd event.

Mickiana said:
Those points of accuracy are all to do with history and they are not what is being disputed here.

I see the fact that the world Indy occupies isn't our history indicative of the fact that Indy can escape situations a normal person couldn't. Lucas intended Indy's world as the world of pulp - and by its very nature it involves exaggerated action.

Mickiana said:
We are talking about the believability of Indiana Jones' escapades as carried out by stuntmen, props, CG, etc.

But there is very little believability in Indiana Jones if you apply real-world logic and physics to the events portrayed. For Indy to escape he must rely upon a level of luck beyond normal averages, and with luck many more things become possible.

Mickiana said:
The point that the fridge scene might be a reference to the 1950s propaganda is good one. It may well have been a reference, but it didn't do anything for believability in terms of Indiana Jones escaping peril. We see him get into the fridge and then roll out of it unscathed. It's quite unlike the Indiana Jones we are used to seeing running, fighting, jumping, flying, etc, etc out of trouble.

Indy's not as young as he used to be, he couldn't outrun the explosion on foot, the Russians wouldn't stop to pick him up, and there wasn't any public transport available. So he used the next best method of conveyance: a top of the range lead-lined fridge.;)

It's just a funny moment. Because we don't see Indy in the fridge when it impacts the ground we have to imagine that it protected him by the nature of its design. Just like Indy's clothes protected him from extreme friction burns when he was being dragged over the desert road behind the truck. Even that scene would have been more beleivable if his clothes had been ripped. Once Lucas has done the seemingly impossible escape once, it was inevitable that he would take it further and further.

The aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima prove that not everything is destroyed. With luck Indy's fridge remains intact, gets blasted away from ground zero before the radiation, and protects him during landing.

The most unbelievable part of his great fridge adventure isn't so much the journey away from the explosion as the landing itself. We have to accept that the fridge can absorb the impacts, whilst Indy is safe inside. Stuntmen strap themselves tightly into a vehicle and allow the vehicle to absorb the impact. Indy forces himself tightly into the fridge and allows the fridge to absorb the impact.

Of course, this is all presuming that the Indy luck holds out.
 

Col. Detritch

New member
Originally Posted by Mickiana
Those points of accuracy are all to do with history and they are not what is being disputed here. We are talking about the believability of Indiana Jones' escapades as carried out by stuntmen, props, CG, etc.

And the scene was carried out as believably as possible by CG. It wasn't gonna happen any other way, I don't think even Steve Spielberg has the power to get permission to set off a Nuclear weapon in the desert and let a stunt man ride it out in a fridge. Why, one it?s a Nuclear weapon, and two it is near impossible for a stunt man to survive. That?s right I agree. But the fact is in Indy?s Universe, though sheer luck Indy can survive these type of things!

The film makers wanted Indy to be effected by and realise the power of a nuclear weapon as an important symbol in the movie. So Indy had to 'experience on first hand. If you have a better way to have Indy escape the blast safely and plausibly and make it out to witness the awesome power of its detonation please illuminate me- I'm all ears!
 

emtiem

Well-known member
DeepSixFix said:
Some of you folks are unbelievable. For years the government said you could survive an atomic bomb via "duck and cover" beneath a desk or under a blanket. This was the official government line! And you think a fictional movie is over the top by having the hero surviving in a lead-lined fridge?

Not really as well-constructed a response as Montana's, is it? He brings facts, you just bring cynicism based on what you reckon!
Here's a guy visiting one of the test houses which is still standing:
http://www.cmdrmark.com/20031.html

Anything above ground (or not behind massive earth bunkers) and less than 2500 feet from ground zero was destroyed. We saw the Apple II test house. The film clip of the house getting hit with a blast is frequently seen on television specials. Despite the 29 kiloton blast, the house actually survived; The mannequins inside moved only "slightly". Mannequins by windows indicate that those people would not have survived the initial blast however those in more protected areas of the house suffered no burn effects. The exterior paint was burnt off in the heat blast but the 2 story, 6 room house with fireplace still stands. The tour passed a surviving portion of the railroad bridge. Surprisingly, the 12 inch steel beams supporting the outside of the bridge were as straight as the day the were made, while the three foot inner beams had a six foot bend in their middle resembling the letter C! The smaller beams survived while the larger beams presented more profile to the blast resulting in the bending. The Mosler bank safe did a good job holding up against the blast. For the items stored inside, records indicate the gold was shiny, the silver tarnished, paper money "crackled" and paper records survived albeit in very fragile condition.

There's even an account from a guy there who got too close to one of the detonations (2000 feet he reckons) and survived. We don't know any of the specifics about the blast in the film (distance from the bomb, size of the bomb etc.) so it's impossible to say what would happen. Seeing all of the houses being destroyed would imply that they were closer than the Apple II houses, but nothing's certain and Indy's lucky :) It's implausible, but as presented, and with a little touch of movie logic, it's not absolutely impossible.


And how do you think you could see film of the houses closer to the detonation being destroyed? Yup, they were in lead-lined cases! :) And I'd guess that would be to survive the radiation from being in the blast zone for so long, unlike Indy.



Montana Smith said:
That's exactly what I wrote in another thread, in defence of the fridge scene. The 1950s was the atomic age - it even had 'atomic design' - such as wire hat stands with little red atomic beads on the end. There was film of soldiers watching a bomb test wearing only shorts, they were simply told to turn away when the flash went off, then afterwards they could turn back and watch the mushroom cloud rise.

Yes, and that did happen, and you're fine to do that. Not many times, obviously and I wouldn't want to be there, but you can.

ResidentAlien said:
Mythbusters proved otherwise. Everyone always goes after that scene. ONCE AGAIN, it has been done.


MUCH larger raft, only one unmoving person in it right in the centre, perfect lab conditions, dropped from higher altitude (presumably- theirs seemed to take much longer to come down)... etc. It didn't even inflate when they dropped it.
In theory, you can survive a drop from a plane on a life raft. In theory you can survive a nuclear blast, especially if you're in a lead-lined case and move out of the blast zone very quickly. As both of these are presented in the Indy movies they become much, much more unlikely; but they're more entertaining that way! :D

The raft is much like the fridge thing; it's very, very implausible that anyone could survive; but on the face of it not utterly, 100% impossible. The mine cart jump I find harder to swallow, frankly. Or even surviving holding onto a large rope bridge swinging into a rock face.

Were there even such a thing as self-inflating rafts in the 30s? I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
emtiem said:
It's easy to make snide comments but obviously not so easy to back them up.

Tis true, and I find it funny as hell that you idiots imagine you can.

The first variable that you CANNOT account for is the value of the bomb's yield.


Until you can provide this, (as I say) YOU CANT, (as you say) BACK [it] UP.

You are right about one thing: it IS easy to make snide comments, even though I didn't. Though it seems you're taking this very personally, your poor interpretation of a purposefully ambiguous post is great insight into the way you "see" things.

Try asking questions first, it might assist in the perception that your "scientific" endevors and "research" are not so tainted by your emotions.

It's easy to make painfully obvious comments but not so easy to actually read a thread for adequate context.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The first variable that you CANNOT account for is the value of the bomb's yield.

Until you can provide this, (as I say) YOU CANT, (as you say) BACK [it] UP.

That sort of variable goes with any of Indy's escapes. Whether or not the statue in the Well of Souls is loose enough to push over; whether or not the sand that Indy is dragged over behind the truck is nice and soft, or riddled with sharp stones. It was obviously a small yield, since Lucas wasn't intending to kill Indy off.

The point is whether something is possible or probable. It is possible for Indy to survive his wild escapades because he has supernatural luck. It is not probable that in the real world a real person would survive, although it may be possible. Evidence from Japan and from nuclear testing confirms that an atom bomb does not obliterate everything. Seemingly insubtantial objects such as walls and trees stood up to the immense forces. In fact people were charred to ash, leaving shadows on walls and concrete (thermal radiation evaporated the fluid in their bodies, but did not affect the solid object they were standing in front of).

The original question was 'Can it be done?' Well, it would take a scientist and a living subject to answer that definitively, so I don't think we're going to know the answer.

However, in the confines of an Indiana Jones movie, which assumes that our hero is stocked up on luck, and every minute detail of the event follows the script, then it is possible for Indy survive, and therefore plausible.

Science has already shown what can survive such a blast.
 
Top