What does that mean? I mean really? From what I could gather that guy, Panama Hat hired an archeologist to track down an artifact for him and then Indy just decides he can't have it and later tracks him down and kills him for it...
Imagine if your family had a valuable item passed down from generation to generation and Indy comes along and yells that it belongs in a museum, punches you out, and takes it and sells it to Marcus!
I never understood the morality of this either. The Man in White paid some men to find the cross for him. They found it. They gave it to him. He paid them. None of them did anything wrong.
Indy was the one who came and stole it. The Man in White reclaimed his property. Then many years later Indy finds him, steals it again and the ship is blown up.
I thought Indy was supposed to be the good guy.
Indy murdered like 5 people over a cross, that is a lot worse than being a grave robber.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
I really hate hearing Indy arrogantly yell "It belongs in a museum!" when he's on the ship. The Man in White found the cross honestly. He didn't do anything wrong. He hired men to find it for him and he paid them. And Indy stole it twice and the ship and all the people on board get blown up.
I do like this movie. But the prologue has always bothered me.
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
[deleted]
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.
shareIt's a serious plot hole
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.
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.
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
by The_Ultimate_Hippo
Well the guys in the beginning were in fact grave robbers
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
He "murdered" lots of people in the first two films but I don't see you complaining about that. He survived because he's Indy; he's the hero. If he died it wouldn't be much of a movie.
shareHe 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
I am more concerned with why we are supposed to root for Indy when he murders and entire boat of people
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.
Indy wants things preserved for the PUBLIC to see and experience and for the academic community to study. He is against crooked corrupt rich gangsters hoarding treasures for themselves.
shareWell if that were true then he wouldn't accept payment for finding these artifacts.
shareHe 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.
shareNow 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.
shareI 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.
shareWhether 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.
shareWhat I always wondered was how young Indy could be so sure that was the cross of Coronado. First of all, even if there was such a cross, it would be a trinket of little archaeological value. Second, why couldn't this have been just any old golden cross, for all Indy could have known at the distance from which he spied it? And third, removing it from that location without properly registering it would render it absolutely worthless from an archaeological point of view, as the context of the find would then be ruined. Archaeology is not interested in artefacts for artefacts' sake, but for what the artefacts can tell us of the past. What is this "cross of Coronado" supposed to reveal? It's nice to look at and made of precious material, but that's it. Its preservation or display is without historical/archaeological value.
Also, according to the narrative as established by Last Crusade, he was looking for the cross while he was having his adventure in Pankot, and also while he was recovering the Ark. He dealt with the Thuggee in the span of what could not have been more than a day or two; his adventure with the Ark might have spanned a week or two, and the same with the Grail. But the cross? He had been looking for that all his life. That little side-quest was actually the most significant of all the quests we have seen him undertake. No object received more dedication from Indy than the cross of Coronado.