What does that mean? I mean really? From what I could gather that guy, Panama Hat hired an archeologist to track down a
-
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 07:35 PM)
Well the guys in the beginning were in fact grave robbers so they weren't completely innocent, the guy in the white he didn't do anything wrong except maybe wanting to throw Indy overboard (who by the way was trying to rob him). What also bothers me about that scene is Indy is stranded in a hurricane off the coast of Portugal yet a life preserver just happens to float over to him and he somehow made it back to shore with no explanation.
It's a serious plot hole.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
ghostly_host — 9 years ago(July 18, 2016 03:37 PM)
Given the insane amount of luck the guy has in Raiders and Temple, it's not unexpected that he wouldn't be lucky enough to have a life preserver float by him. It's not a plot hole any more than Indy/Willie/Short Round surviving falling out of a plane then over a cliff in an inflatable boat.
-
EmpireKing — 9 years ago(July 18, 2016 05:32 PM)
It's a serious plot hole
What about Willie being barefoot after getting out of the mine and then magically wearing sandals on the bridge? Or the thuggees disappearing long enough for Short Round to burn Indy? Or Indy somehow hiding in the submarine?
Are these serious plot holes too? -
SpiltPersonality — 9 years ago(October 05, 2016 11:52 PM)
Actually, the submarine bit makes perfect sense.
I don't understand the German, and admit that part of the dialogue 'periscope' is mentioned, and it appears that they are preparing to dive to periscope depth, BUT;
1- we never actually see it dive; AND,
2- Submarines of this era did not dive EXCEPT when attacking and/or avoiding detection by the enemy. Submarines of this era actually travelled faster on the surface, and could only be submerged for VERY limited time. So, the vessel would actually travel surfaced the entire time UNLESS there was a real reason to submerge. -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 01:38 AM)
Actually, the submarine bit makes perfect sense.
I don't understand the German, and admit that part of the dialogue 'periscope' is mentioned, and it appears that they are preparing to dive to periscope depth, BUT;
1- we never actually see it dive; AND,
2- Submarines of this era did not dive EXCEPT when attacking and/or avoiding detection by the enemy. Submarines of this era actually travelled faster on the surface, and could only be submerged for VERY limited time. So, the vessel would actually travel surfaced the entire time UNLESS there was a real reason to submerge.
The captain said "tauchen", which means "dive" - and the command is repeated. Also, we see him looking through the periscope, which would be pointless if they were surfaced.
Furthermore, uboats of that era made at least one trim-dive per day, to ensure the water in the ballast tanks was of the same density as the water in their current location (it does vary somewhat). They would also travel sumberged significant amounts of time for the sake of training (not a single day without some form of training in peacetime - and also in wartime).
On top of that, if they were surfaced, they would have crew stationed topside. Where would Indy hide? -
ionian — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 09:01 AM)
I was young when Raiders came out and I saw it in the theater. Then shortly after there was a comic book edition, which I bought. (That's how you relived the film in the days before DVD! It took forever for it to come out on VHS).
Anyway, the comic book had a scene drawn in (that I later found out that was in the script but not shot) where when the submarine dives, it dives to periscope depth and travels that way and Indy lashes his whip around the periscope and gets "dragged" by the submarine.
I was probably around 10 at the time so I wracked my brain because at the time I was too young to understand that comic books and novelizations, in particular, often have scenes that are in the script but never end up in the original film.
The same thing happened to me reading the comic book for "Return of the Jedi" where Luke and Han and Leia get caught in a huge sandstorm after they escape Jabba's palace and go back to the Falcon. It was years before I found out that scene was in the script, and shot, but ended up on the cutting room floor. But as a youngster I couldn't understand how these strange scenes ended up in the comic book.
For every man who has ever lived, in this universe, there shines a star.
-Arthur C. Clarke -
Kruleworld — 9 years ago(August 05, 2016 04:10 PM)
by The_Ultimate_Hippo
Well the guys in the beginning were in fact grave robbers
what's the difference between a grave-robber and an archaeologist? whether they collect information and artefacts for museums or their own personal collections, there's no real difference in what they do.
"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok" -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(August 05, 2016 05:18 PM)
Honestly if you want to debate the difference between a grave robber and an archaeologist I don't give a sh!t, knock yourself out. I am more concerned with why we are supposed to root for Indy when he murders and entire boat of people and how he someone survives being stranded off the coast of Portugal in what looks like a tropical storm. He would have drowned but I guess we are just supposed to assume that he swam.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(August 13, 2016 04:49 PM)
He killed Nazis and Thuggee priests, you know people involved in the genocide/slavery of innocent people. Burning people alive over a simple matter of grave robbing doesn't really seem like an appropriate punishment. While I'm on that,how the hell did Indy survive being stranded off the coast of Europe in a tropical storm despite that very convenient life preserver floating to him?
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 01:00 AM)
I am more concerned with why we are supposed to root for Indy when he murders and entire boat of people
That never happened. What we see is the boat blowing up as a result of an accident, which would have happened whether Indy was there or not. -
Karl Aksel — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 01:41 AM)
Well the guys in the beginning were in fact grave robbers so they weren't completely innocent, the guy in the white he didn't do anything wrong except maybe wanting to throw Indy overboard (who by the way was trying to rob him). What also bothers me about that scene is Indy is stranded in a hurricane off the coast of Portugal yet a life preserver just happens to float over to him and he somehow made it back to shore with no explanation.
It's a serious plot hole.
It's not a "serious" plot hole by any means. In fact, it is not a plot hole at all, but a goof. But at any rate, we see another ship approaching as Indy is lying there.
How Indy was supposed to have survived the explosion of the ship, however (or why the ship would explode like that in the first place), that's another matter. -
ghostly_host — 9 years ago(July 18, 2016 07:50 PM)
He isn't greedy, though. He needs the money to fund his adventures. I don't like his whole "fortune and glory" spiel in Temple. He did give the stone back to the villagers without asking for anything in return, though.
-
Benjatron_Gear_Solid — 9 years ago(July 18, 2016 08:22 PM)
Now that is true. I'm just saying that in the last crusade, Panama Hat, paid good money to have that cross found and didn't deserve to be blown up along with his men because Indy decided he didn't deserve to have the cross. Maybe if we saw this guy was in fact in some shady business I would understand. But that cross could've belonged to his family for all we know.
-
ghostly_host — 9 years ago(July 19, 2016 03:50 PM)
I just kind of took it as implied that Panama Hat was a shady, greedy bastard because why else would a hero like Jones be so adamant about getting it back and why else would Lucas/Spielberg have Panama Hat and his men killed in a huge explosion. If I'm not mistaken, the ship blew up accidentally and not because Indy directly wanted it to blow up, no? About the cross "belonging to his family," one could make a lot of different ideas like that like say he was hired by the Spanish government to retrieve the cross or by a Spanish historical society, but the easiest assumption to make is that because Indy is the hero, the antagonist must be evil or bad in some way.
-
TheButlerDidItYes — 9 years ago(July 19, 2016 05:37 PM)
Whether the Man in White was a good guy or bad guy neither Indy or any museum had more of a right to own the cross than he, the Man in White, did. The Man in White paid some men to find the cross for him. They found it. They gave it to him. He paid them.