The Haters thread

[Cole]

A moment that asks us to assume that Marion washed ashore in that position, holding the wheel, whereas everyone else had to struggle to shore? Yeah, I'm insulted by it.

It seems you are easily insulted.

Sure, he wasn't going to blow up the Ark with her right there, because the assumption is that Belloq and the Germans weren't going to let him blow it up, and would happily turn Marion over to him. The bigger point is that he was willing in that moment to give up the Ark, willing to abandon it to the Nazis in return for Marion. That's a character moment, and I don't get why you're happy to say Crystal Skull has development and yet rob Raiders of its most important character elements.

It was a bluff to get Marion back, but I don't know if he would have willingly abandoned his quest to obtain the Ark from the Nazis even if he got her back; hence I never saw it as a situation where he was forced to choose one or the other.

I'm not trying to rob 'Raiders' of anything, it's one of my favorites and it's better than 'Crystal Skull.' I've just never seen it as some pivotal decision Indy has to make: Marion or the Ark. I think 'Last Crusade' was much more ambitious in terms of "character development."

Well, he's not, for the most part, the hero who goes up against the Nazis, but the Nazis/Germans thing isn't my particular hobbyhorse. And he only goes up against the bad guys, at first, because they're after the same thing he is. We don't get "Nazis, I hate these guys" until Last Crusade, after all.

Oh well, feels like we're splitting hairs....if he wasn't going against the Nazis, he would've joined the Nazis like Belloq. He would've had a better chance of getting the Ark if that's all he cared about.

 

[Montana Smith]

Oh well, feels like we're splitting hairs....if he wasn't going against the Nazis, he would've joined the Nazis like Belloq. He would've had a better chance of getting the Ark if that's all he cared about.

Characters such as Belloq and Elsa associated themselves with Hitler for a single purpose: to help them get closer to the artifact.

Indy, on the other hand, associates himself primarily with a museum which will justifiy his actions. And to help him get to the artifact he associates himself with a pair of killers in Peru.

Indy has his own code. He'll do things in the way that he's comfortable with. He can only go so far, because joining the 'Nazis' is something his screen ancestors would never have done. Instead, as I said before, he's a hero hailing from the days of imperialism, when it was still okay for a dominant nation to to take what they wanted from what they regarded as an inferior one.

As for the Ark, the US Government made the right choice. They took it out of commission and hid it where it was less likely to be found and used in anger.

Indy's persistance with putting it in a museum is not only reckless, but also indicative of wanting to show off his prize. The US Government denied Indy his "glory". That's why he was fuming at the end of the film. He couldn't boast about his success, which is what counted for both himself and Belloq.

 

[Attila the Professor]

It seems you are easily insulted.

It doesn't bother you that they expected you to both laugh at and accept as credible Marion sitting on the shore as though she were still driving, in the same shot where we see everyone else stumbling out of the water?

It was a bluff to get Marion back, but I don't know if he would have willingly abandoned his quest to obtain the Ark from the Nazis even if he got her back; hence I never saw it as a situation where he was forced to choose one or the other.

Whether he actually would have or not isn't the point, and you're probably right that he wouldn't bring himself to do so; that it seems that he fully intended to make such a trade is what matters. Again, the film treats that scene with a gravity consonant with the idea that Indy was going to make the trade, and what Belloq says makes Indy realize that he could never actually blow up the Ark.

I'm not trying to rob 'Raiders' of anything, it's one of my favorites and it's better than 'Crystal Skull.' I've just never seen it as some pivotal decision Indy has to make: Marion or the Ark. I think 'Last Crusade' was much more ambitious in terms of "character development."

It's a decision he makes not once, but twice. Just because he isn't hanging over a cliff when he makes the decisions doesn't mean he's not making them.

Oh well, feels like we're splitting hairs....if he wasn't going against the Nazis, he would've joined the Nazis like Belloq. He would've had a better chance of getting the Ark if that's all he cared about.

Montana answers this well above me, although I disagree with his contention that Indy still only cares about his reputation at the end.

I don't understand your position that Indy being opposed to the Nazis in Raiders insofar as they want the same thing he does means he'd readily ally with him to get what he wants. It's not an either/or thing.

 

[Cole]

It doesn't bother you that they expected you to both laugh at and accept as credible Marion sitting on the shore as though she were still driving, in the same shot where we see everyone else stumbling out of the water?

She could've sat up in that position, who knows, it's just lighthearted humor. Doesn't really concern me that much.

Whether he actually would have or not isn't the point, and you're probably right that he wouldn't bring himself to do so; that it seems that he fully intended to make such a trade is what matters. Again, the film treats that scene with a gravity consonant with the idea that Indy was going to make the trade, and what Belloq says makes Indy realize that he could never actually blow up the Ark.

...what trade? What's he giving up? Not blowing the Ark up? I don't think he ever intended to blow it up. I think Indy makes an impetuous decision to make the bluff and when Belloq explains why Indy won't blow it up, Indy knows he's right and the bluff has been called.

And so if he didn't actually intend to blow up the Ark, it's not a choice of choosing Marion over the Ark.

It's a decision he makes not once, but twice. Just because he isn't hanging over a cliff when he makes the decisions doesn't mean he's not making them.

When? The tent? He only leaves her there because the Nazis will know Indy escaped if Marion is missing and they'll be on a manhunt for him. He fully intends to come back for Marion. That's not a decision of choosing the Ark over Marion. It's an attempt to accomplish both.

I don't understand your position that Indy being opposed to the Nazis in Raiders insofar as they want the same thing he does means he'd readily ally with him to get what he wants. It's not an either/or thing.

He has ideologies beyond just getting the artifact is the point. He doesn't align with the Nazis because he doesn't want them to have it. That's what separates himself with Belloq. Belloq stops at nothing to get the Ark.

The issue in question here is Indy's motivation for obtaining the Ark (and whether he is a "rogue"/anti-hero).....his enthusiasm for the quest doesn't necesarrily mean he's being selfish, it just means he's excited about the possibility of discovering the lost Ark. To me, it merely shows Indy's (and Marcus's) lifelong passion and enthusiasm for archeology and the Ark. That's what archeology is: finding lost treasures.

 

[Attila the Professor]

She could've sat up in that position, who knows, it's just lighthearted humor. Doesn't really concern me that much.

It doesn't make any sense. It's dumb schtick. It's hard to laugh at something without any plausibility whatsoever, unless it's in a surrealist or absurdist frame, and this isn't.

...what trade? What's he giving up? Not blowing the Ark up? I don't think he ever intended to blow it up. I think Indy makes an impetuous decision to make the bluff and when Belloq explains why Indy won't blow it up, Indy knows he's right and the bluff has been called.

And so if he didn't actually intend to blow up the Ark, it's not a choice of choosing Marion over the Ark.

False. If they'd just given Marion to him, he very well could have just left the Ark with the Nazis. That's the choice: getting safely away with Marion, or trying to get the Ark and continuing to risk her life.

When? The tent? He only leaves her there because the Nazis will know Indy escaped if Marion is missing and they'll be on a manhunt for him. He fully intends to come back for Marion. That's not a decision of choosing the Ark over Marion. It's an attempt to accomplish both.

Yes, it is such an attempt, but as at the end, he could have chosen to get Marion out of there and foregone the Ark. It's not as though he thought it would have meant the Nazis winning the war or something. It's about the treasure. And he left Marion there to an uncertain fate.

Let me ask you: don't you think the film is more interesting or more fulfilling with this interpretation of Indy's choices? You don't think there's any sort of give for that?

He has ideologies beyond just getting the artifact is the point. He doesn't align with the Nazis because he doesn't want them to have it. That's what separates himself with Belloq. Belloq stops at nothing to get the Ark.

He doesn't want them to have it in large part because he wants to have it. Sure, the Nazis won't be good stewards of the artifact, but I also don't think we're meant to see it as being about good and evil. There's only one Toht in the film, and there was supposed to be the sympathetic German soldier who can't bring himself to kill Sallah. Even with his omission, we don't get the sort of evil talk that we do in Last Crusade. That's not quite the story being told.

The issue in question here is Indy's motivation for obtaining the Ark (and whether he is a "rogue"/anti-hero).....his enthusiasm for the quest doesn't necesarrily mean he's being selfish, it just means he's excited about the possibility of discovering the lost Ark. To me, it merely shows Indy's (and Marcus's) lifelong passion and enthusiasm for archeology and the Ark. That's what archeology is: finding lost treasures.

It's only finding lost treasures if we go by KotCS's definition of treasure...

 

[Cole]

It doesn't make any sense. It's dumb schtick. It's hard to laugh at something without any plausibility whatsoever, unless it's in a surrealist or absurdist frame, and this isn't.

I don't think it was meant to have you laughing aloud and bent over holding your stomach. You're thinking about it too much.

False. If they'd just given Marion to him, he very well could have just left the Ark with the Nazis. That's the choice: getting safely away with Marion, or trying to get the Ark and continuing to risk her life.

Or he may have gotten Marion and then still attempted to get the Ark.....the point is that this "dilemma" is not clearly set-up - at least in my eyes. We already know how much Indy cares about Marion at this point, so it's nothing earth-shattering he tries to save her.

Yes, it is such an attempt, but as at the end, he could have chosen to get Marion out of there and foregone the Ark. It's not as though he thought it would have meant the Nazis winning the war or something. It's about the treasure. And he left Marion there to an uncertain fate.

Eh, sounds like you're trying to spin it in your favor IMO.....the theme of having this "dilemma" of choosing the Ark over Marion is non-existent in this scene. He tells Marion he will come back for her; it's not making a choice.

Let me ask you: don't you think the film is more interesting or more fulfilling with this interpretation of Indy's choices? You don't think there's any sort of give for that?

Going by your interpretation, I guess since Indy ultimately chooses the Ark over Marion at the end (since he doesn't blow the Ark up), I'm left a little more purplexed.

He doesn't want them to have it in large part because he wants to have it. Sure, the Nazis won't be good stewards of the artifact, but I also don't think we're meant to see it as being about good and evil. There's only one Toht in the film, and there was supposed to be the sympathetic German soldier who can't bring himself to kill Sallah. Even with his omission, we don't get the sort of evil talk that we do in Last Crusade. That's not quite the story being told.

It's the Nazis, of course it's about good vs. evil.

 

[Montana Smith]

He has ideologies beyond just getting the artifact is the point. He doesn't align with the Nazis because he doesn't want them to have it. That's what separates himself with Belloq. Belloq stops at nothing to get the Ark.

Belloq and Elsa were alike. They didn't want Hitler to have the artifiact. Aligning themselves with his supposed obsession was the best way they saw of curing their own. Indy is only brought in later, after the hunt has begun.

Raiders, much more so than TLC, was about the challenge of claiming the prize. In TLC Indy wasn't initially a willing participant, because he was more concerned about rescuing his father.

He doesn't want them to have it in large part because he wants to have it. Sure, the Nazis won't be good stewards of the artifact, but I also don't think we're meant to see it as being about good and evil. There's only one Toht in the film, and there was supposed to be the sympathetic German soldier who can't bring himself to kill Sallah. Even with his omission, we don't get the sort of evil talk that we do in Last Crusade. That's not quite the story being told.

It's the Nazis, of course it's about good vs. evil.

As Attila pointed out, they weren't necessarily Nazis. That's just the label that legitimizes any opposing action. The intended execution of Sallah should have remained in the film to highlight the fact that Dietrich's men aren't black-suited clowns in the Vogel mould. There is only one Toht in Raiders. He was there, it would seem, as an enforcer, because the men chosen for the mission weren't SS.

 

[Stoo]

I think it was clear Marion was clutching the wheel during the fall (and clutched it so hard it came off the steering column). Another case of fans being insulted by a moment of lighthearted humor I guess.

It's not clear and, as Attila said, doesn't make any sense. Marion isn't holding the steering wheel when they all fall out of the amphib. Furthermore, I'm not "insulted" by the moment, I just find it silly and not funny in any way.

She could've sat up in that position, who knows, it's just lighthearted humor. Doesn't really concern me that much.

If you're suggesting that she just "sat up in that position", then Marion would have landed straight onto the ground. Yes, it's lighthearted humour - of the stupid kind. It also follows in line after a string of other dumb moments (the tree, Marion's goofy "Yes, dear." quip, the 3 waterfalls and then the steering wheel gag) which each one more groan-inducing than the previous.

I think the waterfall scenes are as much about humor than dramatic suspense.

I'll ask again: Where is the humour during the waterfall scene?

 

[Cole]

It's not clear and, as Attila said, doesn't make any sense. Marion isn't holding the steering wheel when they all fall out of the amphib. Furthermore, I'm not "insulted" by the moment, I just find it silly and not funny in any way.
If you're suggesting that she just "sat up in that position", then Marion would have landed straight onto the ground. Yes, it's lighthearted humour - of the stupid kind. It also follows in line after a string of other dumb moments (the tree, Marion's goofy "Yes, dear." quip, the 3 waterfalls and then the steering wheel gag) which each one more groan-inducing than the previous.

Are we really doing this? She's traumatized. She falls in the water, when she gets up she's clutching the wheel like she's still in the car. What's there to get?

Like I said, I don't think it was meant to have you laughing aloud and bent over holding your stomach.....if you want to be cynical about it, go ahead.

I'll ask again: Where is the humour during the waterfall scene?

Ford's reactions - the way in which he says "Oh nuts. He means one.....two!" *frantically pointing* And the way in which he clutches his hat before the big fall.

 

[Montana Smith]

Are we really doing this? She's traumatized. She falls in the water, when she gets up she's clutching the wheel like she's still in the car. What's there to get?

George should never have mailed the script to the Marx Brothers.

.....if you want to be cynical about it, go ahead.

Hmmm, tempted you to tetchiness, we have.

Universal, opinion is not.

 

[Stoo]

Are we really doing this?

Hey, it's more on-topic than debating about Indy's threat to blow up the Ark in "Raiders".

I think it was clear Marion was clutching the wheel during the fall (and clutched it so hard it came off the steering column).
----
She's traumatized. She falls in the water, when she gets up she's clutching the wheel like she's still in the car. What's there to get?

Your explanations are as poor as the scene itself. "What's there to get?":
-The steering wheel is still attached to the amphib after everyone has fallen out. (Do I need to post a screengrab?)
-Marion is sitting firmly on the shore while the rest of the gang is still crawling out of the water.

Like I said, I don't think it was meant to have you laughing aloud and bent over holding your stomach.....if you want to be cynical about it, go ahead.

The degree of humour isn't the point. I think it's a dumb moment and this is "The Haters thread". While I don't hate Indy 4 overall, I certainly dislike the steering wheel 'joke' and Attila agrees with me. If you want to be defensive about it, go ahead.

Ford's reactions - the way in which he says "Oh nuts. He means one.....two!" *frantically pointing* And the way in which he clutches his hat before the big fall.

You say, "the waterfall scenes are as much about humor as dramatic suspense" but mention only 2 things that *you* found funny. (No one was chuckling each time I saw it in the theatre.) Yeah, that waterfall scene sure is a barrel of laughs. It should have been done Benny-Hill-style with sped-up footage and "Yakety Sax" for the soundtrack!

That's what archeology is: finding lost treasures.

No, it's not. Archaeology is the study of human history.

 

[Cole]

Your explanations are as poor as the scene itself. "What's there to get?":
-The steering wheel is still attached to the amphib after everyone has fallen out. (Do I need to post a screengrab?)
-Marion is sitting firmly on the shore while the rest of the gang is still crawling out of the water.
The degree of humour isn't the point. I think it's a dumb moment and this is "The Haters thread". While I don't hate Indy 4 overall, I certainly dislike the steering wheel 'joke' and Attila agrees with me. If you want to be defensive about it, go ahead.

If the steering wheel is still on the amphib after the final fall, it's a continuity mistake. I haven't examined the scene with a fine-tooth comb to know.

You say, "the waterfall scenes are as much about humor as dramatic suspense" but mention only 2 things that *you* found funny. (No one was chuckling each time I saw it in the theatre.) Yeah, that waterfall scene sure is a barrel of laughs. It should have been done Benny-Hill-style with sped-up footage and "Yakety Sax" for the soundtrack!

I'm sorry you don't enjoy Ford's reactions; I do.

No, it's not. Archaeology is the study of human history.

Now you're just arguing to argue. We both know digging for artifacts is apart of archeology and is integral to "the study of human history."

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Its a weird progression capped off with an even weirder series of moments.

From Marion gleefully driving off the cliff to the tree and grinning about "pulling it off" to the inexplicably psychotic moment with the steering wheel.

...as odd as Indy's focus/concern shifting from her safety to the spell of the skull.

Slap dash was always better for Indy and not the screenwriters.

 

[Montana Smith]

Its a weird progression capped off with an even weirder series of moments.

From Marion gleefully driving off the cliff to the tree and grinning about "pulling it off" to the inexplicably psychotic moment with the steering wheel.

...as odd as Indy's focus/concern shifting from her safety to the spell of the skull.

Slap dash was always better for Indy and not the screenwriters.

They wrote it like it didn't matter what they wrote. And that really sums of the experience of the movie as a whole.

Luckily it was all just a bad dream.

 

[Stoo]

I haven't examined the scene with a fine-tooth comb to know.

According to you, "it was clear Marion was clutching the wheel during the fall (and clutched it so hard it came off the steering column)". So was it clear or not? You're flip-flopping, Cole.

If the steering wheel is still on the amphib after the final fall, it's a continuity mistake.

Continuity mistake? Only because it doesn't fit with your warped idea of how Marion pulled the wheel off during the fall and then sat up in the water with it in her hands. (Wishful thinking on your part.)

The steering wheel can be seen intact during the fall so it must have broken off when the vehicle landed upside-down. Logically, Marion would have had to find it, pick it up, sit down against a rock on the shore and pretend to drive again while everyone else was still in the water. This is why the 'traumatized Marion' gag is a groan-inducing attempt at humour.

I'm sorry you don't enjoy Ford's reactions; I do.

Indy holding his hat against his chest is funny? Maybe for the easily amused who will laugh at anything...Heck, you were probably giggling during the scenes where Indy lost his job, boarded the train, etc.

Now you're just arguing to argue. We both know digging for artifacts is apart of archeology and is integral to "the study of human history."

You said, "archeology is: finding lost treasure" in a conversation about the quest for the Ark. Most artifacts aren't 'treasures' (ex. mundane pottery pieces which are a dime a dozen). Indy films are not about real archaeology.

 

[Cole]

According to you, "it was clear Marion was clutching the wheel during the fall (and clutched it so hard it came off the steering column)". So was it clear or not? You're flip-flopping, Cole.

I haven't flip-flopped, try as hard as you may.

Continuity mistake? Only because it doesn't fit with your warped idea of how Marion pulled the wheel off during the fall and then sat up in the water with it in her hands. (Wishful thinking on your part.)

I think that was the clear intention. If you disagree, so be it. But you seem more interested in engaging in a nasty argument. You're not impressing anyone on the internet, Stoo.

The steering wheel can be seen intact during the fall so it must have broken off when the vehicle landed upside-down. Logically, Marion would have had to find it, pick it up, sit down against a rock on the shore and pretend to drive again while everyone else was still in the water. This is why the 'traumatized Marion' gag is a groan-inducing attempt at humour.

Sounds like a continuity mistake. I'd have to see.

Indy holding his hat against his chest is funny? Maybe for the easily amused who will laugh at anything...Heck, you were probably giggling during the scenes where Indy lost his job, boarded the train, etc.

I think they are subtly comedic, yes. I enjoy Ford's charismatic expressions.

You said, "archeology is: finding lost treasure" in a conversation about the quest for the Ark. Most artifacts aren't 'treasures' (ex. mundane pottery pieces which are a dime a dozen). Indy films are not about real archaeology.

I consider ancient artifacts like the Ark to be a treasure.

 

[Attila the Professor]

I haven't flip-flopped, try as hard as you may.

You're allowed to flip-flop. There's no shame in conceding a point, and being open to persuasion.

I think that was the clear intention. If you disagree, so be it. But you seem more interested in engaging in a nasty argument. You're not impressing anyone on the internet, Stoo.

I don't see what's nasty about it. And I don't see what's so wrong about asking for jokes to make some modicum of sense.

Sounds like a continuity mistake. I'd have to see.

Lack of continuity is the last of its problems. Namely, it's still absurd (and <I>not</I> in a good way for us to expect her to have pulled the wheel off of the duck, stumbled to shore with it, and behaved as though she were still driving far in advance of everyone else making it to shore. Also, it's not funny, at least in part because of the nonsensical nature of the setup.

I think they are subtly comedic, yes. I enjoy Ford's charismatic expressions.

I enjoy what he does there too, but I wouldn't say that the "one...two...three!" bit is meant to be funny, per se. I think it's the scene's only grasp towards tension.

I consider ancient artifacts like the Ark to be a treasure.

That doesn't make archaeology equivalent to "finding lost treasure."

 

[Montana Smith]

You're not impressing anyone on the internet, Stoo.

That's not entirely true.

I consider ancient artifacts like the Ark to be a treasure.

Archaeological finds are rarely as extravangent as a mythological box of tricks. To an archaeologist the mundane is the bread and butter method of dating and interpreting a site.

The closest Time Team gets to Indiana Jones is that missing Wurzel (he's really an honorary Moonraker), Phil Harding:

 

[Cole]

You're allowed to flip-flop. There's no shame in conceding a point, and being open to persuasion.



I don't see what's nasty about it. And I don't see what's so wrong about asking for jokes to make some modicum of sense.

Of course you wouldn't, I'm getting ganged up on. But that's fine, I have my own opinions.

Lack of continuity is the last of its problems. Namely, it's still absurd (and <I>not</I> in a good way for us to expect her to have pulled the wheel off of the duck, stumbled to shore with it, and behaved as though she were still driving far in advance of everyone else making it to shore. Also, it's not funny, at least in part because of the nonsensical nature of the setup.

...if someone is clutching the wheel for dear life, the impact of the crash will exert superhuman force on the wheel so I don't think it's that unbelievable. She's traumatized. We're just going in circles...

I enjoy what he does there too, but I wouldn't say that the "one...two...three!" bit is meant to be funny, per se. I think it's the scene's only grasp towards tension.

I would almost consider it akin to Indy's "water....water!" gag in 'Temple of Doom'....in that Ford's charismatic expressions are subtly comedic in a tense situation.

That doesn't make archaeology equivalent to "finding lost treasure."

It's still apart of arcehology.....you guys are splitting hairs just for arguments' sake over something that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Attila the Professor]

Of course you wouldn't, I'm getting ganged up on. But that's fine, I have my own opinions.

I don't think you're getting ganged up on; I just think you're being disagreed with. It's just hard to find what's defensible in some of what you're defending.

...if someone is clutching the wheel for dear life, the impact of the crash will exert superhuman force on the wheel so I don't think it's that unbelievable. She's traumatized. We're just going in circles...

And <I>trauma</I> is funny? It's possible to like the film even if it has some stupid gags, you know.

I would almost consider it akin to Indy's "water....water!" gag in 'Temple of Doom'....in that Ford's charismatic expressions are subtly comedic in a tense situation.

The hat bit isn't bad. I just don't see why it needs to be comedic to be defended. As I said, Harrison's "One...two...three!" bit isn't bad at all, even if in service to something unremarkable.

It's still apart of arcehology.....you guys are splitting hairs just for arguments' sake over something that has nothing to do with the discussion.

You made your "lost treasure" definition part of the argument; I think it's fair to discuss what sort of treasure they're focusing on, and why. I don't see why you're so intent on stamping out any sort of nuanced interpretation of things.