Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull/Archive 4

Reviews

Resolved

Following the first press screening today, there are naturally both positive and negative reviews. However, until Rotten Tomatoes calculates the ratio, the only truly objective fact that can be mentioned in the article is the applause, which is in the release section. I know we're excited, but it'd be better to wait until the rating arrives to write out a reception section without possibly having to completely overhaul in future. Alientraveller (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've readded the reception section for a few reasons. 1) This cites reliable sources, The Times and AFP, never the AICN review directly. Whatever its accuracy, the fact it exists was enough to be repeated in major newspapers worldwide, and is notable enough for a mention through secondary sources. 2) Any new reviews/Rotten Tomatoes ratio should obviously be added, but that doesn't at all negate the need to have info on the pre-release expectations. 3) "Mixed reviews" is a statement right out of the AFP article and echoed by other overview news articles, so it is certainly verifiable and relevant. I don't think a complete overhaul will be needed, considering all new info will not change the pre-expectations at Cannes nor the initial reaction of the press after the first press screening. Joshdboz (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny, as soon as I spoke RT started up their tomatometer! Ah well. Alientraveller (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How about adding Roger Ebert's review or at least the high rating? http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/REVIEWS/969461084/1023 *SPOILERS* Sikunit (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not if we get more complaints about the Ebert Wikipedia fetish :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot Cleanup

The plot section needs a major cleanup concerning the way it is written as it is appaling. I just managed to divide the section into paragraphs with a few links in it for some claroty as it was just a bloc of text. Katana Geldar 09:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In this do we really need to have minor squabbles and amusing scenes amongst others? Could this not just stick to the general plot? Simply south (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for starting similar topics. And yes, clean it up if you've seen it. Alas, no one took the wisdom of the note I put in the section to readers regarding WP:MOSFILMS's and plot length. Alientraveller (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to read it just yet, because I'm seeing the movie in about 4 hours, but once I do, I can do some serious gettin yelled at worthy slashing. "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, This question is regarding the plot section where you mention the mayas. If the movie is set to take place in south america then it would be incorrect to mention the maya. If anything it should say Incas. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.247.14 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually watching the movie right now, and it does in fact say mayan. I'm honestly too lazy to check everything, but yeah, Mayan.--Dmcman (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be the Mayans as the actually disappeared, the Incas were killed off by the Spaniards. Looks a lot better, this article does. Katana Geldar 10:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

Hi, I had a plot copyedit apparently arbitrarily reverted by ColdFusion650 (talk • contribs) a while back, and I'm a bit too tied up to deal with it properly, if at all, but in the meantime, has anybody noticed that nowhere in this synopsis, or in the Cast section, does it state what Jones' Jones's occupation is at Marshall? He surely isn't the janitor. This only occurred to me because omitting that detail would seem to impute (I think that's the right verb) prior knowledge to the reader, and: (insert copyrighted Ira Gershwin song title here). And that's a(n) NPOV issue, if memory serves. Also, regarding the query just below (for the moment) about Brahms' Academic Festival Overture, what the Williams score is likely quoting is the tune Gaudeamus Igitur, which I didn't notice at the cinema yesterday because I was too busy watching the action to listen. Schweiwikist (talk to the page) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Academic Festival Overture

Is the 'Academic Festival Overture' quotation during the motorcycle chase scene in the college worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.166.5 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hangar 51"

Anyone else besides me think it is safe to make "Hangar 51" in the plot section of the article link to "Area 51" in Wikipedia? Wtlegis (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I linked nuclear test town to Nevada Test Site for context, and because that's what the film was obviously referring to. Always helpful to explain esoteric info (conspiracy theories, alien abductions, and such). Kinkyturnip (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the film tonight and if I remember correctly, wasn't Hanger 51 in Arizona? I do agree, how ever, that it was a thinly veiled reference to Area 51. JPINFV (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That, along with the references to Roswell, NM, and certain details about it, suggest "Area 51", for sure. And that's as far as it goes. Beyond that, it's pushing the OR envelope. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm willing to spend $10 to go back and watch it, but I thought that there was a location identifier either on a sign in the movie or as a subtitle at the opening. If I still worked at a theater, I'd try to go check it out, but I don't anymore. JPINFV (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I might go watch it again, and I'll see if anything stands out. Of course, we could just wait until this Christmas when it comes out on DVD. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Willful suspension of disbelief: what's wrong with the plot summary

Isn't it jarring to plunk the reader in the Nevada desert and state Russian agents are driving a convoy onto a U.S. military site? Not exactly an everyday occurrence. An earlier edit mentioned the agents — who are better descibed as KGB instead of Communists — infiltrating the military convoy, thus giving this preposterous plot device context and making it a tad easier to swallow.

Think big picture, people. Gotta say, tho', everyone did a great job whittling down that 5,000 word essay to a three-paragraph plot summary. Good work, Wikis. Kinkyturnip (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Russians taking over an Army convoy is a "preposterous plot device"? But a flying saucer rising up out of the Peruvian jungle isn't? Let alone all those people surviving three spills over dangerous-looking waterfalls. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mutt

Why is there no mention in this article of Mutt being Indy's son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.13.105 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article? ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ark from Indy 1

It's probably minor and/or unimportant, but there should be some mention of the Ark (from the first movie) making a re-apearance. I.E. When indy drives the truck through a wall of crates, a partially hit one reveals the top half of the Ark, namely the bird with wings exposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyOmega (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bird seriously? Someone does not know their Bible. Think about what Biblical creatures also have wings and are probably more likely to appear on the resting place of God. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

well what it is is unimportant on the discussion page no flaming or fighting here and if you dont have an intelligent response do not post one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.108.195 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

ColdFusion650's responses are intelligent. Can you blame him for being Wiki-weary at comments like "why doesn't plot summary mention that Mutt is Indy's son?" (it does), or confusing the Ark of the Covenant with Noah's Ark and mistaking angel's wings for bird wings? I think ColdFusion650, like most Wikis, cares about truth and knowledge. What better place to squelch misinformation than the talk page — before it finds its way into the entry. Kinkyturnip (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Before this discussion becomes any more unnecessary, no I don't think it should be mentioned in the article that the Ark is briefly seen in the film. It's a wonderful little piece of nostalgia, just like the similar piece of Raiders nostalgia involving the Ark in The Last Crusade, and should be left for those who haven't seen the film yet to discover... unless they read this talk page. Damn. --Bentonia School (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-weary, did you come up with that? :) ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say I did. Pretty lame, huh? Kinkyturnip (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth having a section on references to the other films (and Star Wars - I noticed a couple) in the entry. Though would probably be inaccurate until the dvd came out for people to study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.241 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A trivia section similar to the one you're proposing was deleted from an earlier version of the entry. It had inane comments such as, "Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones character says, "I've got a bad feeling about this," the same line Ford spoke in the Star Wars films." Please, for the love of God, don't construct another trivia section. This entry is getting lots of hits and edits, and a trivia section will be promptly deleted by vigilant Wikis. Kinkyturnip (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

References to other films isn't trivia, isn't it? I know the last time we saw that warehouse was at the end of Raiders, and that's significant Katana Geldar 03:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia/Notes

Why doesn't there seem to be an agreement whether or not to include some kind of trivia/notes section. I believe it good to draw attention to the references between the other films and pointing out interesting tidbits in the film. Since it is good to keep the plot summary simple, integrating them into the plot summary is not the best, but mayb putting it in a subsection bellow the plot is a good place to include it, or in a new or different section all together. Any discussion on the matter? Ssilipino (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is: Kinkyturnip (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - discouraged, not forbidden. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the Ark of the Covenant essential to the plot of film?

People keep obsessively inserting this into the plot summary, yet the Ark has nothing to do with the plot of this film. It was an essential plot element of another Indiana Jones movie, and that's where it belongs, not here. Cripes! It's about as relevant as the wind blowing Indy's hat off his head — which people also keep inserting. Part of being a good writer is having editorial judgment and being able to demonstrate restraint about what info to include in a plot summary, which should be no more than 700 words, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Kinkyturnip (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot section is not for what happens in the movie. It's for what the movie is about. If you don't understand the difference, please log off until you do. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a reminder that the ark was stored in a warehouse, and there it is again, and the Russians, had they known about it, could have taken it and they wouldn't have had to bother with the crystal skull. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes thats it.... it is because all the Indiana Jones fans forgot it was stored in a warehouse and they needed to remind people thats where it was.... No it was shown because they wanted to include something nostalgic because the movie wasn't as interesting as the old ones on its own merits. Not that it was an awful movie, but I don't see how anyone can say it is as good as the originals. By your logic if they randomly cut to a scene showing the grail burried under some rubble it should get mention in the plot section because it reminds people where the grail is even though it has nothing to do with the actual plotlines in the movie?--E tac (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

None of them have lived up to the original, and there's no harm in mentioning the back-references. Not in the plot section, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought this section was about inserting it into the plot section of the article.--E tac (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I should say not necessarily into the plot section. But it's harmless. It's just a question of how much detail you want in the plot section. The argument I saw somewhere that somehow it would be "giving something away" is irrelevant, as it's one big spoiler, including the very ending. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie Mistakes

The section "Movie Mistakes" should really be removed. For no other reason, it is just copy and pasted word from word from the article that is used as its "reference". But, aside from that, the article used itself is just a rant from a single individual, not a source of especially relevent information. The section either needs to be removed completely, or re-written so it is no longer just a copy/paste job from a random website review.Rorshacma (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Rorshacma (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me just clear something up for you. First of all, the information in this section is all true. If you check the site listed as a source and watch the movie, you will see that. Second of all, it should be included because these are mistakes that anyone could have fixed by simply looking them up. But since these mistakes are now in the movie, some people will think them to be indeed factual, which could affect them even more negatively if they happen to be in school learning about subjects related to these mistakes. Third, i did as best I could to rewrite the improtant information in the article, and if you think you can rewrite it better, then go ahead, but still leave in all the information. And fourth, I am a Peruvian myself, and do you know how it feels lik to be a Hispanic who is stereotyped as a person who is from a country that is made up of all Native Americans dressing in traditional native clothing and listens to mariachi and ranchera music (which is actually mexican music), when there are more hispanic countries than just Mexico? All I was trying to do was make these mistakes known, because since a lot of people will be watching this film, I dont want these mistakes to add more to the misconception of hispanic people. Overall, I still thought this movie was good, though it would have been better if it hadn't been for all these mistakes. -JJVrocks (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were offended by the movie, but that really doesn't make any difference as far as the inclusion of the section in this article. The fact still remains that the section is just a copy-paste of another source, which I am fairly certain is not supposed to be used in a wiki article. In addition, the article itself, which is quoted word for word, is itself mistaken. For example, it makes a big deal about how the Nazca Lines are not used for burial, and are more ancient than conquistdors, etc, however, the movie never said they were. The burial site was NEAR the Nazca Lines, and thus used as a guide to locate them. The movie NEVER said anything about the Nazca Lines specifically being created for the sake of 16th Century Europeans, as the article seems to being implying. In addition, it takes issue over the conquistadors being burried in the style of the Nazca culture, when the movie specifically states that they WERE most likely found and burried by the Nazca, thus not making that a mistake at all. In all honestly, while the article does make a few valid points, such as the improper music playing, a large part of it is over-exhaggerated or just plain wrong. Thus, as I said above, in order to meet Wiki's standards, that whole section either needs to be removed, or completely rewritten to A. Not be a copy/paste, and B. Not include the things that the article itself was wrong about.Rorshacma (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to JJ) Seriously, calm down or you'll give yourself a stroke. You don't see me going crazy over Dogma because I'm Catholic. Let's not go the "Ya'll know what it feels like to be a _____." At least your ethnic background doesn't go around putting screen doors on submarines (I'm part Polish). You're complaining about minor concerns in a movie dealing with interdimensional beings with selectively magnetic quartz skeletons (um, yea, we can drag gunpowder from across the hanger, but has no problem being loaded onto a metal truck? Inverse square law much?). So there's some artistic license and suspension of disbelief, which is standard practice in a movie. That doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I highly doubt most of the viewing public can differentiate, little less cares, about the differences between music styles. They hear ranchera or mariachi and think "South." JPINFV (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not whittle down Movie mistakes section to 2-3 sentences and move it under Controversy section immediately below? Kinkyturnip (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Continue fighting amongst yourselves. But please be quiet. Some of us are working. Thanks. Kinkyturnip (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There should only be a 'Controversy' section if there is some media covered controversy, not just a few people on Wikipedia. (For the record, I'm Hispanic, and wasn't offended by the movie.) ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 07:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read the "movie mistakes" section as it was before trimming. [1] Someone needs to be reminded that this is a fictional work. Calling these items "mistakes" is original research, in that it assumes the authors didn't know better. Maybe they did, and deliberately mixed their metaphors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Box office

I see that in the page it says that it "has fallen to number 3 in the box office"... but how? I see (on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/) that it is indeed at number 3, but condisering the weekly chart from Friday to Thursday... and since the movie opened on Thursday I think that hardly counts as "fallen", it just entered that particular chart on its last day. Or I'm missing something? Laz (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If anything is unsourced, remove it. Alientraveller (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how this movies is #3 for opening weekend? The reference 106 does not make sence to me. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/ has it at number 10 and http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/ has it at 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.166.114 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia/OR/Your favorite detail just got removed

I figured that with everybody being mad about their favorite original research/trivia being removed from the article, I would create a catch all discussion that will cover most of it.

Leroy from Wasau: Why did you remove what I just added? I spent a lot of time on that. You said it was uncited, but my trivial element/movie mistake is right there in the movie.
ColdFusion650: Prove it.
Leroy: Oh come on, it's obvious.
ColdFusion650: Then you shouldn't have a problem proving it.
Leroy: Fine I just added a citation.
ColdFusion650: That's IMDB, Scooter. It don't exactly count. You probably just logged on and added it there.
Leroy: You know what, this is why Wikipedia is going down the drain. I'm leaving.
Leroy: Why are being so mean to me? It's just your opinion that it's uncited.
ColdFusion650: I thought you said were leaving?

If you are just going to post something like this, please don't. We've all heard it before. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to post something like you just did, don't. This isn't a forum. --Pixelface (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuing on that rationale, the whole plot section is uncited and is therefore original research. 81.107.101.18 (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The entire movie is implicitly cited. See any article about any film.

And just to show how good I can predict people's actions, I got this on my talk page a few hours ago.

why i bring up the hat thing: i tihnk it is an obvious forshadowing to lucas' plans to bring lebouf in as ford's replacement why do you keep removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.166.178 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (cross posted from User talk:ColdFusion650)

Spooky isn't it? ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially since Lucas denies there is any sort of sequel in the works. And people seem to forget the "Young Indiana Jones" series and other stuff outside these 4 main films. Maybe another TV series would be in the works. Also, lost amidst the obvious back-references (the Ark, Area 51, the cartoonish stereotyping) is the drag-race scene at the beginning - straight out of American Graffiti, along with the inside joke that it was done to an Elvis song (there were no Elvis songs at all in AG due to rights or royalties or something). I'm sure there is endless trivia that will be well-covered in IMDB. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

It seems that this article is being vandalized all the time. I think we should "semi-protect" it.Monzonda c",) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

        I concur. I just stumbled upon "stevo,,,,,

my email dollymoose@yahoo.co.uk come try and sue me over indy 4 if you dare.....

ooooooooooooossssssaaaaaaaaaa". Seems like someone's pirating Indy or something of the sort and challenging Steven Spielberg. That's as far as I can figure, but honestly this makes no sense to me. I'm going to set the article straight, but we really do need protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.185.196 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, there needs to be semi-protection. There seems to be someone coming in here at least once a day and editing the article to put in something along the lines of "typical capitalist bullshit, having gringos come in and steal things from...". The statement is also riddled with grammatical errors.

Cut?

"Spielberg has yet to decide if he will cut Nelson's scene." So did he or didn't he? The movie's out now. Wrad (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I have no idea what the guy looks like, and if he's an extra, even people who know what he looks like may not be able to pick him out unless they know where to look. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will figure it out soon. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the guy tried to sabotage the film, it is reasonable to assume that (1) his scenes are long gone; (2) Spielberg won't bother to give him any further publicity by announcing it; and (3) he'll never work in Hollywood again, unless it's as a busboy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Universal Praise"

This is clearly not true and contradicted by the RT and metacritic information included in the reviews section. It seems like someone has made that sentence about universal praise hidden on the edit page though (obsessive fan or something?). Anyway does anyone know how to change it? DanyaRomulus (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil Flynn deletion

why is it ever time i add Neil Flynns character to the character list it gets deleted. his character has a name, and has a good amount of lines and shares a scene with the main character im not sure why it keeps getting deleted i think it should be included.--Jwein (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't list every single person in the cast. It would be pages and pages (look at the credits of the movie). This is the main cast, and he ain't it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of character "Mac"

Please take a look at the following excerpt from the beginning of this article. I did not see anything that said that Mac was an archaeologist, only that he was with the British MI-6, and that he was friends w/ Jones during WWII.

...and fellow archaeologist Mac (Ray Winstone).

Maybe a better description is "...and ex-British spy Mac (Ray Winstone)" or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KConWiki (talk • contribs) 0:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed "archaeologist" to "adventurer". Mike R (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and punctuation 101

The correct possessive form of Jones is Jones' — you don't need to add an S after the apostrophe; in fact, doing so is wrong because it's grammatically incorrect. It's a common mistake, like inserting an apostrophe into 1500s when talking about the 16th century, but it's wrong. So pay attention, class, teacher is getting cranky.Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jones' is plural possessive. Jones is not plural in the article. Just because it ends in S does not make it plural. Single possessive of Jones is Jones's. Many people use Jones' instead because they think that Jones's sounds weird. It's like people thinking analogize isn't a word because it sounds really weird. You can read the relevant Wikipedia article on this controversy. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I found there (note that Jones is used as an example, and that Jones' is mentioned first):

If a singular noun ends with an /s/ or a /z/ sound (spelled with -s, -se, -z, -ce, for example), practice varies as to whether to add 's or the apostrophe alone. (For discussion on this and the following points, see below.) In general, a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best: the boss's shoes, Mrs Jones' hat (or Mrs Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both spoken and written forms differ between writers.

Thanks for clearing that up. Kinkyturnip (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The part I focused on (yes, it's the part that supports me, human nature) says this:

Traditionally it was more common to require and many respected sources still do require that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Examples include the Modern Language Association, The Elements of Style, and The Economist.

It just seems that Jones's is always accepted, and Jones' is somewhat controversial, or as controversial as a single letter can get. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to the earlier, more specific usage rule cited, it sounds like the punctuation depends on how a person pronounces Jones. Unfortunately, most Americans don't enunciate clearly and mangle the English language, so I'm fixin' to let the majority rule — the same majority that drops its Gs from words ending in ing and watches movies at the mall megaplex. Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not fixin' to. It's pronounced like "fiddin da". I'm fiddin da do this and fiddin da do that. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As in "fiddy cent?" (the S at the end of cents is silent). Stop making me laugh and sneeze coffee all over the computer keyboard! Kinkyturnip (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ants

(...)and several Soviet soldiers are killed by bullet ants.

I don't think those were bullet ants, but Army Ants. Can someone confirm that? Where the information about bullet ants come from? 80.101.122.48 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is such a thing as bullet ants. But it seems clear that these are intended to be Army ants, although the notion of them dragging a human down a hole in the ground is a bit fanciful. I hope. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The specific ants are Dorylus, or driver ants. As soon as they come out, Indy yells "siafu!", which is one of the alternate names for them (specifically, it's their local name). Granted, they take significant liberties with them, but he does use that name for them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the monkeys? What species were they? (Is there a monkeyologist in the house?) --Dawud

Okay, why are we talking about what species they are? What about the part where the ants formed a tower to try and eat Irina Spalko? Do ants actually do that? Rubixmike14 —Preceding comment was added at 21:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

CGI ants do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, while there are several computer-generated ant species that build towers in their digital worlds, away from the prying eyes of their animators, this is the first time it's been caught on film. I applaud Spielberg and company for interjecting this bit of computer-generated animal behavior observation into their film. This is all the more important now, as their digital habitats are being threatened by computer-generated global warming; we must document these computer-generated animals so that our children know what the digital world was like before they were born. Please, think of the computer-generated children. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction

I disagree that this film should be called a "science fiction adventure film" in the lede as it currently is. Even if you classify any of the elements of the movie as science fiction—which is itself a strech—that a movie contains elements of any particular genre is not enough to categorize the film as a whole into that genre. Please share your thoughts. Mike R (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

True, I mean what would we call the other films? A horror adventure film (Doom)? A Christian adventure film (Crusade)? Alientraveller (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We could call it a period science fiction anti-Soviet 50s nostalgia adventure film. ColdFusion650 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however could something be mentioned in the article about how the movie goes in more of a sci-fi direction than previous films in the series?--E tac (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the development section. Alientraveller (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What "science" is present is more along the lines of 1970's-era speculation over ancient astronauts) (Erich von Daeniken), Russian psi research, and "unsolved mysteries" like the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull. UFO's go back to the 1940's, if not earlier, but the emphasis on Roswell / Area 51 / alien autopsy is a 1990's trope of anti-alien paranoia. Here aliens are presented as interdimensional (not merely extraterrestrial) and benevolent, which fits with the 1970's proto-New Age depiction. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.164.58 (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant information

I think the following information is repeated (more elaborated) at the end of the article (box office section), so it should be removed:

«Reviews were generally positive, although it drew criticism from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for using the Russians as the villains, though Spielberg responded he did not intend to be offensive.» 84.90.24.156 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's called summarizing the whole article. Alientraveller (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok... so why it was removed? 84.90.24.156 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

and the Saucer Men from Mars

George Lucas' original concept and title was Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars, which was firmly rejected by Ford and Spielberg (this is confirmed from reliable sources). Personally, I believe this is a better title, it gives it that comicbook adventure B-Movie feel, almost Tarantino-esque and definitely pomo!--but who cares what I think?? This is what Lucas' thought, the visionary behind both the Star Wars and the whole Indiana Jones series! But it seems like a lot of people want to revamp history simply because they personally think that the title is hinky or hokey. (Do you think you know better than George Lucas?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.243.235 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did not get that at all. Alientraveller (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"From reliable [but unnamed] sources." Sounds like Plan 9 from Outer Space which, as we all know from its intro, was "based on sworn testimony." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The source was named and provided. I'm marking this article as prejudice since it seems no one wants to provide the original title of the film as proposed by Lucas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.91.92 (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way to go about things. Most people here don't even know what you're trying to say here! Try starting by explaining that, at least. Wrad (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop adding the POV tag back. You have what you want in the article. You added it and no one has reverted it, so I don't see what the problem is. Wrad (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The source you provided mentions no dispute over the title, only the dispute over the "idea" for the movie. It only includes the title for completeness sake. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the new "making of" book confirm the "Saucer Men From Mars" title? The Wookieepedian (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It mentions it as a potential title - but not one that was ever officially used. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? I thought this was settled. This was the original title to the original script which Ford and Spielberg rejected, but Lucas wanted! It's the title of the original disputed script. Google it, you'll get tens of thousands of hits! It was the original rejected idea. I'm pretty firm on that. I think it's a better title, it explains and provides validity to the cartoonish-value of the movie, and it's the original title that god-and-genius Lucas wanted--and I'll fight this to the point of stupidity! If you want to go to the point of an Editing War, I can provide 14 references (and 4 highly respected sources) that support my position and I'm sure I can find more. Can we come to some compromise, I just want Lucas' original title mentioned in the lead? You can say that everyone in the world rejected it except for Genius George, as far as I'm concerned!

"I'll fight this to the point of stupidity!" And what are you going to do now? The original title is already mentioned in the article, but no... you want it in the LEAD. It's not important enough for that, so just get over it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If true, it's worth at most one sentence in the production summary. Not important for the lead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, the Saucer Men script has its own section with a big box around it. Is that not prominent enough? Would like to have it blinking with sparkles or something? ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, make me a compromise, say it was a lousy title, Spielberg hated it, Ford hated it, whateve! (Personally I think it's awesome and postmodern) But I'm open to comprise and I have fact (and George Lucas, better than fact) on my side... I'm a good guy and I don't want to have to go to Wikipedia Arbitration, it's a pain in the butt, you know what I mean, I'm sure you've done it before.... so what can we agree on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.91.92 (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

.....and DUDE! you can't just delete people's POV like that, it's like totally against wiki-etiquette! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.91.92 (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone understands what you want. You come on the talk page spouting your opinion on the film and say, "Let's compromise." You want the Saucer Men title in the article. It is. You want it in the lead. Everyone else agrees that its not notable. It does however have its own section with a box around it. What do you want? Are you confused or are not a native English speaker or what? Cause its not coming across. I would also say that you have trampled WP:3RR to death. I think we're up to WP:15RR by now. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

...Dude, first of all it deserves to be in the lead---Lucas HIMSELF thought it notable, I don't care what you think is notable. And then even after that it's been deleted from everywhere else in the article,--so what's up with that? (dude,---is this 1984 or what?--are you altering history??). It IS the better title. Lucas thought so anyway. And that should be the first draft of history (which is what wikipedia IS) and if you want go to Arbitration over something so stupid, that's fine with me. Truth and Fact (and references) are on my side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.91.92 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a production detail, nothing more. I've seen a number of reviews of this thing. They don't even mention it. It's not important. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to understand. You like the old title. You don't care what anyone else thinks. That's what you say. From your actions, I figure that you want this prominently featured because you like it. I would suggest that you take this to arbitration only if you lay off when they shoot you down. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, look. You are not abiding by the consensus on the talk page. It's apparent that you are going to do what you are going to do until you are blocked, or the page is semi-protected to block anonymous edits. If you insist on keeping this up, someone will need to contact an admin. You are ridiculous. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User 69.138.91.92 has been reported at the administrator's noticeboard. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Cold Fusion, the IP is on ice for 48 hours. If this starts up again, you might take him to the 3RR page. He was long past it today, I'm sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very very bad. I do not understand why there is so much argumentation over such silliness. It is very simple to solve these many issues. I have simply redirected your user issues in regards to Lucas' original script.

It will be up to you young people to expand this section. Good luck on your pursuits and many compromises. {Dr. Woodsworth, Optics Department, University of Arizona (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)}

John Hurt

Youcallhimdoctorjones (talk · contribs) has been adding a New York Post article which misquotes the The Times regarding Hurt calling the film "cops and robbers". Clearly the NY Post has taken this quote out of context and given it negative connotations, when clearly this is not the case. I'd really like an explanation before this turns into an edit war over why he/she insists on adding this when it's clearly wrong. Alientraveller (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote appears to be out of context, and as a standalone quote, does not necessarily have a bad spin on it. It would be more useful to see him say it, and see how he's saying it. "Cops and robbers", from where I come from, is considered a fun kids game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But is it notable too that he acknowledges these films are indeed fun action-adventures not aimed at winning Oscars? Alientraveller (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And if he says that, is that a criticism? This film was a lot more entertaining than last year's so-called "Best Picture", with a plot that was in some ways as idiotic as this one is alleged to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Alientraveller (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And to elaborate, the term "idiot plot" is something I recall from years ago on "Siskel & Ebert", where the audience goes, "Why are they doing that?" and the only plausible explanation is, "To advance the plot." That happened several times in No Country for Old Men, and it occurred to me that Hollywood must be running out of ideas. You expect that kind of thing in an action/adventure flick like this one, but not in a "best picture". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you remove it again? It's a shame this new editor is probably going to be blocked. Alientraveller (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Times story is available here. Any reference to Hurt's statements should be sourced to that rather than the NY Post. It is clear upon comparison that the Post article sensationalizes quite a bit, though the Times does describe Hurt as giving a "disdainful shrug." Mike R (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The way it's phrased there makes it sound like he thinks it's nothing special. The Post article makes it sound like he hates it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Harrison Ford also downplayed the film. I'll look for his quote next week when I'm in better position to find it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And it's clear from the article that Hurt is just being funny too. Along with the complete mis-read by the writer that Hurt was a villain in the piece. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

More on "Hangar 51"

The previous link was to a page called "Government Warehouse", in which the play on Area 51 was discussed, as I recall [apparently not - sorry]. It's perfectly obvious, because of the overt discussion of the Roswell incident, that "Hangar 51" is a reference to, or play on, "Area 51". To say it actually is "Area 51" might be pushing it, because none of us knows what's actually in "Area 51" (not me, anyway, as I am not a government agent - really, I'm not). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a page specifically talking about the warehouse from Raiders (with a big picture) would be more appropriate. I also think everyone already knows that I'm a stickler for citing things. If it's not cited, to me it might as well be the same as untrue. So, to say that Warehouse 51 and Area 51 are the same, would be pushing the connection. And remember, Area 51 wasn't founded until 1955 (a mere two years before Crystal Skull, and much later than Raiders). ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the average moviegoer doesn't know that. Keep in mind this is a fictional work. They couldn't very well mention "Area 51" or they would raise exactly the question you raise. So they make up this fictitious "Hanger 51" and talk about Roswell, which is linked in the public consciousness with Area 51 whether it's factually correct or not. "Hangar 51" is not "Area 51", it's just a play on it. And I've seen plenty of internet commentary about that, just not in the "reliable" sources, because it's too small of a plot point for them to bring up. But if you're going to mention "Hangar 51" in this article, it's only right to explain to the reader what inspires that fictitious location. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They allude to Roswell with some event occurring in 1947 (the same year as Roswell). They actually don't spell anything out in the movie. It's all insinuated. I still think that this article should link to Government Warehouse which is dedicated to fictional locations. Perhaps the Government Warehouse article could link "Hangar 51" to "Area 51". That makes it clear that they are not the same, but inspired. Linking in this article would lean too far toward calling them the same. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can add the Area 51 bit to Government Warehouse, and that should cover it. It doesn't need to be hammered home in this article. The facts are kind of stretched in this film anyway. They have nuclear testing going on out in the open in the American desert in 1957, which I'm not at all sure is factual - and the houses full of dummies that he finds make sense, but the radio playing does not, unless it's just another of Lucas' inside jokes about American Graffiti, as with the "drag race" at the beginning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can check Government Warehouse and see if it works. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Right on. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger. An important thing to keep in mind about the Indiana Jones films is that they are basically high-production-values equivalents of the old B-movies, which were heavily laden with stereotypes of all kinds that the public would recognize, never mind whether they are "true" or not. First, there's no evidence whatsoever that anything unusual happened in Roswell in 1947. But there is a story about it out there, so this film refers to that story and everyone understands what it means. Similarly, the cartoonish Russians (like the cartoonish Nazis in Raiders) are an image everyone understands, even if it has no basis in reality (either then or now). It's like Boris and Natasha. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

reviews...

Okay you don't like the New York Post.... How about the London Times? And how about John Hurts himself? I'm just the messenger, don't blame me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youcallhimdoctorjones (talk • contribs)

Why didn't you ever respond? I've told a bazillion times and it's already been discussed on another topic. Alientraveller (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If my math is correct, you've reverted 11 times in the last 7 hours. That's against the three revert rule. So, stop. When multiple editors remove your stuff, you should probably say to yourself, "Hm, maybe they have something." If you keep this up, in a few hours, you'll have a few days off from Wikipedia. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to leave it alone for awhile. However, I'd like to see the entire context of those quotes. The Post says Hurt "disdained" it, but the quotes themselves don't necessarily read that way. The Post might not understand the British sense of humor. And what about Harrison Ford himself downplaying this film well before it came out? In fact, I recall during the making of the original Raiders that Ford said in a documentary, while on location, that this was "just another worthless experience". He was just being funny and putting things in perspective. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Did any critics mentioned the fact that Mayans are from Mexico and not from Peru?66.201.165.52 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. ColdFusion650 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. Meanwhile, did any critics mention that this is a fictional story? Lucas doesn't necessarily let facts stand in the way. I recall Han Solo saying something about traveling from one place to another in so many "parsecs". A parsec is a measure of distance, not time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but, Pancho Villa speaking qechua? That takes the cake for being the biggest disrespect to history and science in movies EVER. 66.201.167.33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Prove he didn't, on the side, just between him and his cousin, and of course Indy. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that maybe a criticism section could be added. Here's a "citation" just in case it's needed: http://news.sg.msn.com/entertainment/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1422809 66.201.167.33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a criticism section, but movie mistakes don't belong. Every movie has dozens of mistakes, and it's still not notable. This same thing comes out of every movie that features a specific culture. They always get it slightly wrong for dramatic reasons, and people from that culture get mad. In Contact they showed Pensacola beach as something akin to Miami, when its actually closer to the beaches in Alabama. But I'm not on that film's talk page pushing for an entire section on it. And don't get me started on Pensacola: Wings of Gold. It's a training base, not a special forces command. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You really love Lucas. But Chichen Itza in Peru? That's being just plain ignorant. They could have chosen a peruvian piramid instead of putting a Mexican one in Peru. 66.249.193.190 (talk)

This is a fictional story. What people call "mistakes" could well be purposeful. "Mistakes" are when Dorothy's hair goes from short to long to short from take to take. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"You really love Lucas." You'd be wrong about that. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

I've tried and tried to create a new link regarding the original script title, Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars. It was fun, but it's gotten to the point of being beyond ridiculous. This was George Lucas' original script title, and there is no reason why at this point in history we shouldn't have a wikipedia entry. Why don't you want any historical reference to this original script title??? I have flagged this article as prejudiced. I'm beginning to think it is merely an advertisement for the new film..... Dr. Woodsworth, Optics Department, University of Arizona (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The first several people to redirect your articles were administrators. And they made it clear that they were doing it because the content belongs here. I just kept doing what they were doing. The fact that you think repeated creating articles that administrators have removed is fun, really says something about whether you should be here anyway. I think that the discussion on this page about it not being important enough (without everyone except you agreeing) to be mentioned EVERYWHERE (something you have been trying to do) is clear enough. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine no reason for a historical detail like this to have its own article. ~~ N (t/c) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooooooh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you don't believe in your heart of hearts that there shouldn't exist an article about George Lucas' original script!!! I didn't understand! I created this article about ten times, and you redirected the article every time, but now I understand! I guess you probably redirected articles about "Evolution" to "Intelligent Design", and the about the "Big Bang" to "Genesis"??? I'm soo soooo happy that you control the information flow on the internet!! Thank God someone is looking out for us! ......don't think that this is over! Dr. Woodsworth, Optics Department, University of Arizona (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. ~~ N (t/c) 18:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Me be civil????? I created an article ten times about George Lucas' original script (a good script in my opinion), but every time it was deleted. You, deleting my articles in two minutes, is not civil! I have politely tried to compromise, but it's apparent that people are merely using Wikipedia as billboard for the new Indy flick! And I have NOT been trying to place this information EVERYWHERE, just ANYWHERE! EVERYTIME I place it ANYWHERE on Wkipedia, it's deleted. I just was trying to place it ONE place, and you deleted EVERY place. EVERYTIME I put it ANYWHERE, it was deleted EVERYWHERE.Dr. Woodsworth, Optics Department, University of Arizona (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that could have been handled better, but did it occur to you at any point that if they kept being replaced with redirects (not deleted - the history is still there), you might want to pause and discuss? I notice that you still offer no reason for this information to have its own article. ~~ N (t/c) 19:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Even after being warned, you still reverted the removal of the Redirect notice at the top of the page. That's another revert after being warned that you violated the 3RR. Of course, if I removed it, I would also be violating the 3RR after being warned. Somebody else is going to have to do it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in a separate article. Everything of interest about that original script is covered in this article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of View POV tag

....Okay, well you've broken me down.

I've tried and tried to create alternative articles regarding original drafts of the script, but have been blocked at every because apparently people think that any information about George Lucas' original script entitled Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars might harm ticket sales.

I think, at least until the film is out of the box office, and possible out of DVD sales, that this article should be considered prejudiced (POV). It will still provide the same information but it will not act as an advertisement for the film.

This should considerable reduce editing wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTWoodsworth (talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You have no reliable sources for all these original drafts you keep going on about - they have not been published. They are not notable enough on their own, since a) they were never made, and b) they were part of the development process for this released film, and as such, merit no more than a reference or two in this article - which is what they have. The only one pushing a POV here is you, and you've done it in a non-constructive way that's going to get you blocked. This has nothing to do with ticket sales or advertising - it has to do with reliable sources and proper procedures, something which you would do well to learn. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag is a misuse of that tag. The original title and script are already mentioned in the article. There is no need for a separate article, nor is there a need to make a major deal over the original script. The Wizard of Oz doesn't have a separate article for each of its draft scripts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of the original title? Do you realize that for a long time there has been a separate section with a big bold box around it devoted solely to the Saucer Men script? Accusations of universal oppression by those who have financial interest in the film (I don't, and my long edit history clearly shows that it would take too much effort to insert an agent _years_ ahead of time just to keep this information out of the article) is a clear sign that we will probably never reach an agreement on this. You probably won't be happy until we rename the entire project "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars"-apedia. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If he does it again, turn him in for a well-beyond-3-revert violation. There is no justification for the POV tag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done, see the bottom of WP:AN/3RR. ~~ N (t/c) 20:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This dispute goes far beyond the title of the draft as you can see by the history of edits.nThere are many disagreements of the plot and reviews. I suggest adding the POV tag until the move is out of the theaters. After this fiasco, I personally, I think this should be standard procedure for Wikipedia, but I think in this case it is clearly necessary. I further believe that deleting a POV tag is a violation of the three edit rule, NOT the addition of one.It is not a misuse of the tag at this point since positive reviews may affect the monetary gain of peoples involved in the film--the removal of this tag can only be to the financial benefit of peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTWoodsworth (talk • contribs)

You're right. I am trying to help them make more money. If it goes over $400 million worldwide, I get a toaster. The preceding is not exactly true. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

JTWoodsworth, I personally could care less about this film, and I don't have any motivation (financial or otherwise) to see that it succeed or fail. However, it is clear that you have violated WP:3RR. Stop adding the POV template. There is no reason for it to be added. csaribay (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have declined to fully protect this article due to edit warring, but I have blocked User:JTWoodsworth for period of 12 hours to prevent more such egregious violations of the 3 revert rule. I strongly urge all parties to discuss the matter without making reverts. Nothing cannot be changed on a wiki, and discussion needs to reach a consensus. Thank you, VanTucky 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is, arguably, a content dispute. There is no neutrality or POV issue. The use of the tag is bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not passing judgement on the dispute at hand. I'm saying it doesn't matter what the dispute is, 3RR violation is not an acceptable solution. Period. VanTucky 20:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an obvious sockpuppet now being used to prevent us from removing it further. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice

ive been watching the edits over the past few days & it seems like a lot of back and forth has been going on.

i kind of agree that the pov tag should stay on until maybe this move is out of the theaters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulieKO (talk • contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is an obvious sockpuppet of the blocked user JTW. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that User:JTWoodsworth was just blocked, and that account is the only one who edited your talk page, and that account added a header message which sounds like something the account owner would put up, and considering that you have only edited articles that that account has also edited, I believe that you are a sockpuppet. If others agree, someone should report this account. (apparently Baseball Bugs just barely posted before me) ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dr. Woodsworth. TaiChiChuan (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

--thanks T!--we're both students of Doc W & I totally think that WikiP shouldn't get involved in movies that are still out in the movies or should maybe like disclaim them. Anyway, we're going to help Doc W fight this! (He's a cool guy!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulieKO (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How many accounts do you have? ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the editing patterns of User:JulieKO and User:TaiChiChuan strangely suspicious. As suggested above by JulieKO, both accounts, if not sock-puppets are meat-puppets. For these two contributors: if you have been recruited by JTWoodsworth to carry out these actions, stop. It's not acceptable per our policies, you're not to use Wikipedia to make a point. csaribay (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts have been tagged as sock puppets. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha. We wish we were Dr. Woodsworth. I am his grad student at AZ. He told us to take off class when the movie came out cause he loved Indy so much and we discussed it in class. We ran into him at Meinel Hall today and when he said he was blocked Jules and I laughed and said we'd help him. Jules is right, he is a cool guy! TaiChiChuan (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

that's sooooo totally wrong! we're friends of Dr. W... you suck fusion boy!!! T's gonna kick ur ass! JulieKO (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not enough time between when he was blocked and when JulieOK came on for you to meet him coincidentally. And don't you know, there is no Jehad T. Woodsworth at the University of Arizona. The fact that you affirm that there is, proves that all three of these accounts are by the same person. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2008 )

It's JulieKO, fusion boy. I wouldn't say OK to you--but I would KO you! I hope ur wrong about Doc W cuz he's got to sign off on my dissertation! even if ur dork we both agree that Doc is right and the article is totally prejudice, why dont u lay off until the movies out of the movies?? JulieKO (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there is a need to dispute the neutrality of this article, why don't you fully outline your criteria below? This means full references supporting your position that this content is tainted. If not, stop adding the tag.csaribay (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

criteria... we were suppose to be talking about Seth Marder's bond alternating theory of nonlinear optics, but thank god we talked about about Dr. Jones!! look if you wanna get postmodern the move makes sense its stupid at first but totally cerebral and dr w talked about if for the whole 45 minutes. the saucer men from mars. theres gonna be another cite about the orignal script bc T and I will write it if you destroy Doc W so give it up. Why can't there be a cite about the original script? JulieKO (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: There already is. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jules Jules Jules! We love you Jules! She's a hottie too! We talked about the origins of this particular film and it seems if you perceive it from a pomo perspective it makes some sense, that's the best we could conclude during the class period. If that is indeed the case, Lucas' original title makes the most intrinsic sense and we stand behind Dr. Woodsworth. I don't understand it all myself, he talked alot about Derrida and Foucault, but I don't quite get it (don't tell him that). TaiChiChuan (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, you cannot read that the information is already there and you've simply been wasting time for these past few days. Alientraveller (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's how he gets his jollies, man. He already said on this here page that it was fun to create multiple pages and then have people redirect them here. He also thinks its fun to maintain three different accounts and pretend that they're different people, as if anyone else believes that. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The next step would be to turn them in for sockpuppetry... and for being unable to read English, as the information is already in the article, last I knew. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Their user pages already have the sockpuppet template. What else is needed? ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Long answer for anyone who cares: See the following passage from the article below.

Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars script by Jeb Stuart, dated February 20 1995:

The second draft's prologue is set in Borneo in 1949, with Indiana proposing to Dr. Elaine McGregor after defeating pirates. She abandons him at the altar, because the government requests her aid in decoding an alien cylinder (covered in Egyptian, Mayan and Sanskrit symbols) in New Mexico. Indiana pursues her, and battles Russians agents and aliens for the cylinder.

The script featured army ants, a rocket sled fight, Indiana surviving an atomic explosion by sealing himself in a fridge, and a climactic battle between the US military and flying saucers. Henry Jones, Sr., Short Round, Sallah, Marion and Willie cameo at Indiana and Elaine's wedding(s). Indiana is also a former Colonel of the OSS.

Clearly it's already there. If you take issue to what has been written, why don't you modify that (being sure to cite your references), instead of disputing the neutrality of the entire article? csaribay (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition:

During the late 1970s, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg made a deal with Paramount Pictures for five Indiana Jones films. Following the 1989 release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lucas let the series end as he felt he could not think of a good plot device to drive the next installment, and chose instead to produce The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which explored the character in his early years. Harrison Ford played Indiana in one episode, narrating his adventures in 1920 Chicago. When Lucas shot Ford's role in December 1992, Lucas realized the scene opened up the possibility of a film with an older Indiana set in the 1950s. The film could reflect a science fiction 1950s B-movie, with aliens as the plot device.

Ford disliked the new angle, telling Lucas "No way am I being in a Steve Spielberg movie like that." Spielberg himself, who depicted aliens in Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, resisted it. Lucas came up with a story, which Jeb Stuart turned into a script from October 1993 to May 1994. Lucas wanted Indiana to get married, which would allow Henry Jones, Sr. to return, expressing concern over whether his son is happy with what he has accomplished. After he learned that Joseph Stalin was interested in psychic warfare, he decided to have Russians as the villains and the aliens to have psychic powers. Following Stuart's next draft, Lucas hired Last Crusade writer Jeffrey Boam to write the next three versions, the last of which was completed in March 1996. Three months later, Independence Day was released, and Spielberg told Lucas he would not make another alien invasion film. Lucas decided to focus on the Star Wars prequels.

Alientraveller (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

okay fusion is kinda cute, (KINDA! don't get a big head) but the alien child must be a total gros. I don't know what info's been going on but Dr.W. said he u didn't like the original postmodern script or something and he's got 24 hours to like fight that. I don't know what he wants but like if you let him create a page for the old script i'll go out with fusion boy (one night!) when ur in Tucson, but ur taking me dancing. he wants like to create his own page on the original script title and link it to the page so you two are dorks. remember Pons and Fleisheman?---cold fusion didn't work!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JulieKO (talk • contribs) 22:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This has just become a case of vandalism and trolling now. I've requested full protection for the article. Alientraveller (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has reached what I'd call a "steady state". There are no major updates to be done, only minor updates for critical reaction and gross, which it wouldn't hurt to go a few days without editing. I support full protection. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is the very last resort in protecting a page from attacks. I have blocked JulieKO for 24 hours in consideration of her edit warring and garbled nonsense talk page messages. I have also warned TaiChiChuan, and will block if they start up again. The page is semi protected, and blocking a couple distruptive users is preferable to full protection. I have this article watchlisted and will continue to keep tabs on it. VanTucky 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much. Alientraveller (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked TaiChiChuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 24 hours for proxy edit warring via WP:MEAT, based on his above remark on this very Talk page: We ran into him at Meinel Hall today and when he said he was blocked Jules and I laughed and said we'd help him. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I had to block a sock of User:JulieKO, User:Kittenkatie, which edited my talk page. So watch out for more socks here as well. VanTucky 22:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A whole discussion, and no mention of Godwin's law. Wait... does mentioning Godwin's law actually uphold Godwin's law? ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I already graduated from AZ with my PhD, so I don't care what Doc W and Jules and T say (even if W is a good person) but what's going on? It does seem to me that while this movie is still out in theaters it is susceptible to prejudicial attack.... give me a good argument otherwise, I'm really not prejudice in this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederickgoetz (talk • contribs) 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Man, this is just a game for you isn't it? Don't you have something else to do on the weekends? Wrad (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cambrianexplosion is another sock puppet of this guy, just so you know. His edits to Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones need to be reverted. I've already reverted his other accounts 3 times in the last 24 hours, so I can't.ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and indef blocked. Note that 3RR applies only within one article, so you would've been OK. ~~ N (t/c) 23:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours on both of those articles as well. Or on second count, maybe its only two. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, didn't look far enough down the history. ~~ N (t/c) 00:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So to sum up, we have User:JTWoodsworth (blocked 12 hours), User:TaiChiChuan (blocked 24 hours), User:JulieKO (blocked 24 hours), User:Kittenkatie (blocked indefinitely), User:Cambrianexplosion (blocked indefinitely), and User:Frederickgoetz (blocked indefinitely) all being the same guy. Have I missed any? ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All these were red-links updating a semi-protected article. I wonder if he's got any more "sleeper" accounts out there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And if this nonsense starts again after JTW's block expires, this should be reported either to WP:ANI or to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I would start with the former and see what the observers advise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked from creating new accounts, and to edit a semi-protected page, they have to be more than a few days old. This isn't the first time he's done this, although it must have been with a different set of accounts. And this will probably start over again when his block expires. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you guys had a budy weekend with him - and it appears he's active again with another sockpuppet - take a look at Dipolemoment and his new page - heading to AfD now... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pancho Villa

Added a mention of Indy's Pancho Villa reference that was quickly deleted in the following terms: "00:17, 1 June 2008 ColdFusion650 (Talk | contribs) (67,229 bytes) (Undid revision 216292961 by Lee M (talk) seems a little trivial, especially for the cast section)"

I included the reference because I felt it was a significant and more than trivial tie-in to the chronology of the Young Indiana Jones series, although I admit I couldn't find anywhere that it fitted neatly. Request its reinstatement if anyone can figure out where best to put it. Lee M (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuke The Fridge

Someone should add this in!!!

If you don't know what the saying means...

"A colloquialism used to delineate the precise moment at which a cinematic franchise has crossed over from remote plausibility to self parodying absurdity, usually indicating a low point in the series from which it is unlikely to recover. A reference to one of the opening scenes of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in which the titular hero manages to avoid death by nuclear explosion by hiding inside a kitchen refrigerator. The film is widely recognised by fans as a major departure from the rest of the series both in terms of content and quality." Sikunit (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the sequels has lived up to the original, yet this is one I want to see again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

the foreshaodowing with the hat should be mentioned in the plot section

i kept adding it but coldfusion360 kept deleting it and now its semi protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.169.139 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As it should be, because there is no evidence that there is going to be another film, let alone that Indy is passing the torch (i.e. the fedora) on to his son. When I saw the movie, I interpreted it as the kid simply messing around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Indy took the hat back, so he's not ready to pass it on yet. Anyway, this is probably the last film. They were great. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk)

Not Area 51

I have an illegal cam versio of the movie, and I cant see the number 51 at any stage........... 'confused' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.109.222 (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. You can expect a visitor sometime soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's on the warehouse doors on the inside. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, kk. Thank you. Oh, and Baseball Bugs, you made me Rofl! The idea of copyright on movies being enforced is almost as ridiculous as the idea of paying for music! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.110.63 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rofl's are usually cooked on a griddle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What? No, wrong. FACT: You usually rofl tofls. Gary King (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Read my statement the way Elmer Fudd would say it, and it should make more sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah... well, uh, it doesn't make sense, it makes dollars! (Read aloud) Gary King (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I read "rofl" to rhyme with "waffle". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know... Gary King (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edits?

1-I mentioned that Marcus Brody died before the events of the movie, and you deleted it.

Why? Indy clearly mentions his death in the movie. iT's even mentioned in Brody's character page.

2-I also mentioned that the trailer contains scenes from the previous movies.

That is also true.

Why were my TRUTHFUL facts deleted?

1. This is already established by mentioning the actor's death and the fact that Broadbent is meant to replace him, as well as the mention of the pictures of the character in the film. 2. Yes, but it's excessive and repetitive information. The Wookieepedian (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it happens to be true, doesn't mean it belongs in every article. "Ronald Reagan was President from 1981 to 1989." Hey, it's TRUE, but if I added it to this article, it would be removed, for good reason. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian Communists

Must we have this section? Their claims are ludicrous. Everyone knows this is fiction and not reality and they are complaining as if this was a documentary. We might as well include any complaints by NAZIs about the first and third films if we are going to toss this in here. A.S. Williams (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The characters are Communists, but would they more accurately be described as KGB agents? This is one instance where George Lucas' ham-fisted script devices, i.e., telling the audience exactly who the villains are by having a character shout, "Russians!" (as Indiana Jones does), would have been useful. (Yes, I know who the screenplay is credited to, but it's got Lucas' sloppy style written all over it.)Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Communists complaining about the inclusion of KGB agents in the film? Where do you get the idea that Soviet Union military units would be comprised of anything other than Communists? This section should be removed as it adds nothing of note to the article about the film. The criticism is unfounded.A.S. Williams (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is this: if the plot summary states the infiltrating troops are KGB agents instead of Communists, this potentially defuses the argument by making the point moot. I can't state this more clearly. Do you copy? Think of an example from a logic course: all KGB agents are Communists, but not all Communists are KGB agents. Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can copy this? "The Communist Party of the Russian Federation... accusing the production team of demonizing the Soviet Union and of provoking a new Cold War." Key words here are Communist Party of Russia, Soviet Union. This is a group that longs for the glory days of Stalin. Their criticism is unfounded and should not be included. The point is not whether they are KGB agents or Communists or whether communism has ever technically occured in this world (it hasn't), but rather, is this relevant to the article, and it is not. The criticism is not valid because this film is a work of fiction, if it were a documentary, the criticism could be included. Is that logical enough for you? A.S. Williams (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What about just calling them Soviets? That's what they are, aren't they? Katana Geldar 03:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing communists with Nazis?.. Probably there's no point continuing the argue started after that statement. VZakharov (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In that it would be just as ridiculous for real life Nazis to complain about a work of fiction not being accurate, yes I am comparing them to real life Communists complaining about a work of fiction not being accurate. Notice that I am not saying that Nazis and Communists are the same thing, just because Nazis killed millions of people and communists killed millions more, it doesn't mean they believe the same things. Is that better for you? A.S. Williams (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, two ridiculous political parties, but opinions do not matter. WP:NPOV. If this political party takes a intentionally fun, politically incorrect film seriously, then let their idiocy be stated. Alientraveller (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Commies killed far more people in the 20th century than the Germans so it's unfair to Germans. And yes, the section is ridiculous and should be removed. Commies don't deserve to have their opinion heard. It's as ridiculous as putting Nazi concerns up.

JettaMann(talk)05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that the numbers back up that claim, but Germans themselves repudiate the Nazis nowadays, so something that attacks Nazis is anti-Nazi, not anti-German. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Everybody has a right to their opinions 1st amendment freedom of speech not that personal opinions belong here.

Not That I disagree at all, but calling them 'commies' makes you sound like a 1950s redneck and draws away from your actual point. Nar Matteru (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The term Commie is similar to using the term Nazi. Both are well deserved, though the Commies killed far more people than the Nazi's ever did. What is really puzzling to me is that the article uses quotes that almost make it sound like we need to be apologetic for using Commies as the enemy. They were the worst blight on the 20th century, killing more people than ever in history! Why are people soft-peddling them as enemies? JettaMann (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that the numbers back up that claim, but it is a somewhat different issue anyway, as the label "commie" was thrown around by U.S. conservatives in the Red-scared 1950s like "liberal" is now, and many people were harmed as a result. "Nazi" is almost like a joke nowadays, as in the Seinfeld "soup nazi". Also, there are still communist-based governments around that the U.S. might need to be diplomatic with. Nazi Germany was defeated and those cats are long gone, so they are easy pickin's for stereotyping without fear of reproach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A few comments on all this. Of course not all Communists were KGB agents, there were communist Russian politicians, grandmas, mailmen, and puppies. The KGB were an offensive branch of Soviet Russia, so it makes sense that they would be sent if Russia needed something done by force. Saying that the writers actually believe there was a vast Red Conspiracy like in the movie is like saying that they actually believe Erich von Daniken and David Icke were right, because aliens came down as gods (like in the movie!). It's Indiana Jones, how can it not be rife with cliches and exaggerations? It doesn't matter if the criticisms are unfounded, because they exist and have been reported on. Finally, the nazi comparison only works in that they are both b-movie simplifications of generic period bad guys. If an Indiana Jones movie took place in the present starring Indy's descendant, no doubt it would be Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists looking for Zulfiqar or something. 24.174.80.186 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The stuff about Russian Communists being unhappy with the film might be longer than it needs to be, but there is certainly a humourous quality to it. These are caricatures, like Rocky-and-Bullwinkle kind of stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Category deletion

Contributors to this article may be interested in this category deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_31#Category:Indiana_Jones_films. Miami33139 (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Anachronisms

Set in the late 50's, several displays showed LED displays. The first practical LED was invented in 1962 at General Electric Company. The first LEDs became commercially available in late 1960s. Nixie tubes should have been used instead. Septagram (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The first practical LED was invented in 62. So they used impractical LEDs. No porblem, no anachronism. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to know where they're seeing that. And how many times you have to see the movie to have spotted it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First time and it immediately stuck out like a sore. . . red LED rocket sled countdown. I guess being an engineer makes one a little more sensitive to things like that. Septagram (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee that that's not true in all cases, because I didn't notice. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nor did I, obviously; and not having seen it, I can't say for sure, but it could have been (or been represented as) one of those older types of digital clocks, where the parts of each digit consist of little red wires that either glow or don't glow depending on the digit, if that description makes any sense. :) In any case, since it's not necessarily obviously verifiable, it's not appropriate for the article unless a veriable source has commented on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the rocket sled countdown clock looked... overly modern, and so did an older gentleman in the seat behind me. I'd guess none of us on this discussion page were alive in the late 50's so it does not stand out to most unless you were around during that era. But, if you ever look at old NASA or military test footage, countdown clocks used a rolling counter or what Septagram called Nixie tubes... although I can't say I'm an expert being born in 1976 ;-b 99.231.11.56 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth mentioning in the article though, unless there are other items "out of their time" in the film. I read somewhere that Indy's side bag is actually a WW2 gas mask bag; so there is no way he would have had it in 1935, 1936 or 1938... but by 1957 I guess it's timely. 99.231.11.56 (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is a British WW2 gas mask bag. It's on the DVD. They chose to use that particular bag in the movies because so many were issued during the war that in 1981 (only 35 years plus or minus) since the end of the war, they could be easily replaced if damaged during the a stunt. Period films in general are always full of anachronisms. If you really want to be upset, pull out a period map and watch the travel sequences. They show countries that didn't even exist yet (or so I'm told). ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Indy films are homages to the old B-movies, which I assure you had tons of anachronisms. So to say that something is an anachronism in an Indy film might be technically true, but that doesn't mean it was a "mistake"; it might have been on purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"1138"

I'm pretty sure that 1138 was the address of the house IJ breaks into at that nuclear test site. May be worth a mention in the article as an easter egg... also because all of the IJ films have allusions to previous works by George Lucas. That said, thank god the alien at the end of IJ4 was not Howard the Duck though! 99.231.11.56 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be added to 1138 then. Alientraveller (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of Lucas' films have some reference to his original film, THX 1138. Just one of his little inside jokes. He had R2-D2 and C-3PO on the walls as hieroglyphs in Raiders. He had E.T. in the Galactic Senate in one of the Star Wars prequels. On and on it goes. There could be an article on that subject alone (and there probably is, somewhere). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IMDB claims that THX-1138 corresponds to Lucas' phone number in San Francisco. How they would know that is hard to say. Possibly contradicting that is the claim that the main characters' prefixes, TXH and LUH, are supposed to represent "SEX" and "LOVE", apparently as spoken by someone with a cleft palate [my comment, not theirs]. One of the drag racers' license plates in American Graffiti was labeled "TXH 138" (rather than 1138), which Lucas made sure to zoom in on in case someone missed it. IMDB says that in Star Wars (the original) the cell number was 1138, and that sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, and how could I forget Eliot playing with Star Wars toys in one short scene in E.T Lucas' sound-system in theaters is, or was called, THX, which is none too subtle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's IMDB, so it's probably not true. Everyone who gets their uncited trivia removed from Wikipedia, goes over to IMDB and posts it no problem. No citation requirement that IMDB. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And then they try to use IMDB for the citation, right? My guess would be that those are random letters and numbers, and one reason Lucas keeps referring back to them is to subliminally wave it in the face of the critics who didn't like THX 1138, as if to say, "I'm a billionaire, and you're not!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I didn't like TXH 1138 very well, either. It's like 1984 without the laughs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on a 1963 Film

This may be of some interest: That this film is based on "1963 Charlton Heston movie Secret of the Incas,". See http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156582&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156408&contentPK=20820282&folderPk=87028&pNodeId=156139 86.154.219.63 (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire concept is based on films like that. There's no more connection to that film than there is to The African Queen, Treasure of Sierra Madre, Doc Savage, etc. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the page. Obviously that guy is off his rocker, or never bothered to pay attention. They clearly mention on the DVD that Secret of the Incas was one of the inspirations. It's not notable in this particular film, and I believe it's already mentioned on the Raiders, franchise, or character page. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

At the time Raiders was made, if I recall correctly, George Lucas pointed out the scene where Indy comes galloping up to the Nazi convoy on a horse, and boards the speeding truck like it was a stagecoach. That one scene, a cliche from countless westerns, was the germ of the series. As you say, there are many inspirations for this series. There is no one film that anyone can go to and target it as "the" inspiration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Having just watched some of the new Three Stooges chronological DVD release, I could make a good case that Indiana Jones owes some of its elements to We Want Our Mummy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The references go back much farther than 1963, to Henry Rider Haggard and King Solomon's Mines (1885), the first in a genre of Lost World fiction of the Victorian era. Haggard's work has been a big inspiration for most subsequent stories of lost civilizations in tropical rainforests (whether or not this is mentioned explicitly be Spielberg, Lucas, or others). Hoopes (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted References to Mayanism and Ancient Astronauts

I don't understand why a reference and link to Mayanism is considered to be "personal analysis" and its contribution is labeled as "small vandalism". If you read the entry on Mayanism, I think you'll see that it's directly pertinent to the plot of this film, which depends heavily on references to Mayas, Nazca lines, and ancient astronaut theory. (Just as "Judaism" would be pertinent to understanding the Ark of the Covenant in the first film.) This is not analysis or opinion, but FACT.

My comment was specifically intended to help readers to understand the plot in greater depth, not through its analysis, but through links to other pertinent material in Wikipedia.

I haven't attempted to revert the deletion, but I would like to know why this is considered "analysis". Is there somewhere else in the entry where it belongs besides "Plot"?

Hoopes (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, when you use quotes, it usually means you are quoting someone, which in this case you are not. You actually just came up with "small vandalism" on your own, as that phrase does not appear in any edit summary or note on your talk page. The personal analysis part (which Alientraveller just barely beat me to the revert on) was reverted because it was uncited. It said, "The plot draws heavily..." That needs to be cited. Otherwise, it's considered original research. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the direct quote wasn't "small vandalism" but "pp-semi-vandalism|small=yes" (in the revert code). I should have said "semi-vandalism". Just for future reference, would it be out-of-line to say about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ that "the plot draws heavily" on Christian beliefs without a specific citation? I guess so... Hoopes (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That blurb means the page is semi-protected against vandalism, meaning that only established users can edit. The "small=yes" means a little bitty lock will show on-screen instead of a large message. The Raiders film actually has a part of the script that explains what the Ark of the Covenant is. The Passion of Christ is about Jesus. Is there anyplace in the Crystal Skull script that talks about which specific group bound their skulls? If so, it's fair game. More problematic is the part about the "entheogen" stuff, which is wholly speculative. All we know from the film is that she was looking into the eyes of the alien and that she vaporized. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That was there before you came here. That has nothing to do with you. That template puts the lock on the page indicating that unregistered and newly registered users are blocked from editing the page due to previous vandalism. EDIT: Seems someone stole my Yoda-like explanation glory. But does Baseball Bugs have a link to the semi-protection log? Does he? No one out explains the master. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A lucky guess it was. Got it from Indiana Jones and the Template of Doom I did. But a pupil I am. The Master you be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Entheogens and Psychedelic Art Imagery

Okay, I got zapped for offering another "opinion" or "analysis", specifically the FACT that the visual imagery of the psychic mental breakdown of Spalko is directly inspired by the visual imagery of the psychedelic art connected with entheogen use. All you have to do is look at the work of artists such as Alex Grey or Robert Venosa to see that this is where the imagery of Spalko's explosion due to information overload came from.

I assure you that heads in the audience identified the inspiration of Terence McKenna and his own frequent references to Mayas, flying saucers, and the like! What kind of documentation is required to show that something like this is fact and not opinion? Hoopes (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An actual source pointing out the link is all that is required. It's not a new rule by any means. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Hoopes (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mutt and hat

Someone keeps trying to add the bit of business about the kid picking up the fedora and trying to put it on before Indy takes it back from him. The only reason for bringing this up is to infer some kind of "passing of the torch" (or the fedora) to his kid. However, in light of all the principals saying that there is no next-film in the plans, that inference has no basis. Besides which, it could just be the kid trying to get away with something. And with no citable inference, the plot point is too minute to belong in the article. Now, if an announcement comes out that there will be another film and that Mutt will become the new adventurer, then it could be added back. But not until then. And don't hold your breath waiting for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a minute plot point. It may not mean that that series is being passed on to new characters, but it was clearly designed to rile the audience into thinking so, and then snatching the idea away. I have been around exiting audiences several times and it is always mentioned in their conversations. On Wikipedia it is not our job to assign meaning to the events in the plot but events that rile the audience should not be easily dismissed as "minute" either. We can describe the scene without assigning meaning. Miami33139 (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the notability policy would require that we determine if it is important or not. If it means nothing, it's not notable, and therefore should not be included. Therefore, to determine it's notability, we must assign some sort of meaning. Oh, and what you hear from audiences doesn't count. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers would be reliable sources to cite the speculation to. "In its last scene, Crystal Skull halfheartedly suggests that Mutt may inherit the franchise". Miami33139 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a notable reviewer, but in any case that statement is hardly a ringing assertion, and hence is of dubious usefulness in the article. And as noted before, the creators deny there will be another film, so the only official word we have is that there is no more "franchise" to inherit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That was just an example citation. I found several reviews that mentioned it. The prevelance of discussion of this scene on fan forums is also reason to include mention of it, with or without commentary to meaning. Miami33139 (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fan forums are gossip and groundless speculation, which is why they're inadmissable as sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Iguazu Falls

Iguazu Falls

Although the general shape of the waterfall certainly suggests Iguazu, there is nothing in the film that identifies it as such, and there are sufficient contradictions in the layout to demonstrate that it is not Iguazu. One is the fact that they shot over the edge of a high canyon to land in the river upstream from the falls. There is no such canyon upstream from Iguazu - the upper river has a shallow shoreline, as with Niagara, Victoria, and other such large waterfalls. Then there's the three-tiered aspect of the falls shown in the film - three distinctive tiers with large (and somehow survivable) plunge-pools below each. Iguazu is only two-tiered, and falling from the first to the second tier would land you on mostly rocks, which would be a fatal fall. The waterfall in the film, I am sure, was mostly computer-generated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Masonic symbol

Don't know how usefull it is, but anyone noticed the square and compass in the paintings of the aliens? It's just before the scene in wich indy comments the "aliens" giving out the knowledge of agriculture and all. I don't have the film here now, but I can try to find the excat time of the scene. It is only a trivia but I would like to know if anyone else noticed it already. Samucabueno (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the back of a $ 1 bill for some more symbols. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Masonry and hidden symbols are a very recurring fashionable subject nowadays. Washington DC, the dollar bill, Dan Brown. The film "Lost Treasure", with Nicolas Cage, (in my opinion a poor imitation of Indy) that even touches in the subject of the "ELDORADO". But finding it in an Indiana Jones movie was somewhat a surprise. Is there any such direct reference to freemasonry in the other Indy movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.50.155 (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicolas Cage was never in a movie called "Lost Treasure". ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he's talking about National Treasure (film), which I have not seen, but which (according to the article) has some Masonic symbols. The "secrecy" of the Masonic symbols seems to be about as "secret" as Area 51. If Area 51 is such a secret, how come everyone knows about it? Unless... unless... Area 51 is just a distraction from the real secret area. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The real base is so secret it doesn't even have a name. It's just called "there". Have you ever heard someone say "I'll see you there"? Spy! ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of "there". It's where "they" hang out. This reminds me of the old joke, "My job is so secret that I don't know what I'm doing." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The film with Nicolas Cage is National Tresure indeed. I'm from Brazil and here he got the name "Lenda do tesouro perdido", Legend of the lost treasure. The "secrecy" of the Masonic symbols is not the important thing. Of course it is not so secret since we are talking about it. But I think its very funny that exists such a culture of putting hidden symbols in films, it is an enjoyable feature. Like when we watch movies that make fun of other movies, and we say only the "initiates" will understand some jokes, meaning by initiates a group of fans or something. For some time now I've collecting references to masonry in films. Roman Polansky's "Fearless Vampire Killers" made some, and I never heard any comments on it. But the count vampire is a mason. When I was a kid I was a fan of Indiana Jones, but I watched the film as an adventure film only. I wanted to be an archeologist like him, live adventures, and so on. But now I'm a little bit grown up and I cannot see Indiana Jones only as an adventurous archeologist, but also as a symbol. Like now the movies are "saying something", "meaning something". Now Indiana Jones is a symbol of american democratic free society, specially of the jews in it. Now I see the plots of the films with a message, a political message. And Indiana Jones falls into a whole, a big picture of a culture of the hidden treasure, the promissed land, the secret behind, the aliens, the so-called conspiracy theories. And when Spielberg (or whoever) puts a masonic symbol more or less hidden in the film, well, it's just so funny!

Well, I don't see how it can improve the article itself, but if anyone would make a trivia section on the film (wich I think wikipedia discourages) don't forget to mention this. 201.54.210.19 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"...specially of the jews in it"? What's that supposed to mean? FYI, as far as I know, Freemasons tend to be of Christian upbringing, in general. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the religion upbringing of masons is a very complex subject, but I did not wanted to connect masonry with the jews, and I don't want to say that Indiana jones is a masonic movie or something. I connect the character Indiana Jones with the american jews. I think the reasons for this are obvious.

The comunist thing, it makes sense in this symbolical interpretation of Indiana Jones, and Spielberg is clear when he mention that "the comunists were the enemy at the time", when he is responding to critics. Enemy of whom? Of America, so he shows that Indiana Jones in a way represents America, and American culture. Something that, when I was a kid I would not think about (specially a Brazilian kid). But it makes sense. The masonic "easter egg", though, had somewhat surprised me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samucabueno (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Samucabueno (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, enemy of the American state, and of all religions in America, as the Soviet Union was officially atheistic (hence the oft-heard expression "godless communists"). Indiana Jones has no connection to American Jews. I don't know where you're getting that from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Ok, there`s no direct indication that Indy is an american jew or suposed to represent it. It is a theory that came all from my head, but, well, the fact that the creators and producers of the films are american jews, the fact that the Nazis are the enemies... But you`re right, maybe Indy represents america as a whole. The arc of alliance is in the first movie, but the grail is in the third... just would like to point out that I have nothing, a priori, pro or con any of this, jews, america, comunism, god, atheists, masons... I just think those hidden possible meanings are fascinating, and I really think there is a political "message" behind most hollywood movies and Indy is just the case. But I`m sorry, I think I`m using this as a forum and I`m not improving much the article so I`ll leave the subject here. Thanks for the atention! Samucabueno (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, these points are worth discussing, as opposed to someone (not you) trying to slam them into the article unilaterally. George Lucas was the originator of this series, and he's as WASP as they come. "Jones" is an English or at least British Isles name with no connection to Judaism that I know of. The Nazis are a good generic enemy, and that has nothing to do with Jews, in fact the murderous aspects of the Holocaust weren't even known about in America until after the war. The Nazis were looked upon with great suspicion by Americans, even in the early 1930s, when memories of World War I were still fresh, which is why we wouldn't sell helium to them, for fear they would revive the Zeppelin as a weapon of war, and of course that's why the Hindenburg exploded, being filled with hydrogen instead. Indiana Jones is a "rugged individualist", and as such is a perfect American icon, with no religious connection at all, although I could make a case for Protestant Christianity if I were to try. The Holy Grail is of interest to Christendom, not to Judaism. The Ark of the Covenant is of interest to both Judaism and Christianity. The McGuffin in the Temple of Doom was some generic eastern stereotype, I forget what now, but I think it had nothing to do with any western religion. And the current film has no religiosity to it at all, other than UFOlogy. Another point: "Indiana" was Henry Jones, Jr.'s nickname, and the third film revealed that he was nicknamed for his pet dog. There's another American icon, also as WASP as they come, who was nicknamed after his pet dog: Marion "Duke" Morrison, better known by his stage name of John "Duke" Wayne. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since I had to look it up, WASP stands for White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. It's pretty much synonymous with "plain old white". ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I thought that was common knowledge. :) The point being to counterpoint the "Jewish" stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I got the point. It is indeed more like a WASP symbol than western jewish. I think the point is made confuse by the fact that there is "jewish", as an etnicy, and "jewish" as a religion or culture. Lucas and Spielbeg may have jewish origin, in their blood so to speack, but they are much more representative of American culture, they are WASPs as you put it. Samucabueno (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing Jewish at all about Indiana Jones. As for the series creators, Spielberg is Jewish, while Lucas is in no way Jewish. His ancestors are Christians from the British Isles, and he himself was raised Christian. He also adheres to Buddhism, according to his article. The only part of WASP that fits Spielberg is the W. Lucas is fully WASP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, just out of curiosity, has anyone (besides me and my dad) seen the symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samucabueno (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I only saw the film once. If I go again, I'll look for it. Barring that, I expect the DVD to be in the stores by Christmas. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm Scream

I resently added a peice about the Wilhelm Scream to the page. It was removed. I would like to know the reason why please.Tacoman10 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not important. Alientraveller (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold back. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies

That piece had no place here. This is a fictional story. Someone's thinking it's a documentary. The original Raiders was loaded with "historical inaccuracies"... just like the B-movies that inspired these films! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that it's fiction, but I think it did have somewhat of a place there, at least as some sort of "fun/curious facts" section. I mean, come on, a movie of that kind, which can spend millions on production, should at least spend a couple dozen bucks on hisyory books or maps or something. I mean, personally i found it kind of lazy and somewhat funy, cause it'd be like seting a movie in japan in 1950 to set an example, and show a boat arriving to the island and have the map say: hong kong; or have the music there be country style music; or have a charachter say he learned japanese from Churchill (it may have happened, i don't know weather he might or not have taught japanese, but i think it's unlikely) and things like that. Of course, you'd say: "it's a fiction movie, it's not a documentary so it's ok". And it might be, but the movie would be better if it had cared for those detailes. So, as a "fun/curious facts" section, i think the "historical inaccuracies" was at least intresting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.157.32 (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No small part of the problem is that the label "Historical inaccuracies" carries with it the unwarranted assumption that they should have been "accurate". For all we know, they may have done these "inaccuracies" on purpose simply to make a more interesting story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pancho Villa (a Mexican hero) teaching quechua (Andean language) is ridiculous. Production should've done some damn research on Peru.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that was a contributive comment to improving the discussion, and perhaps I should have removed it. Please remember WP:TALK. Alientraveller (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Though set in the late 50's, several countdown displays used LED displays. The first practical LED was invented in 1962 at General Electric Company. The first LEDs displays became commercially available in late 1960s. Nixie tubes should have been used instead. Septagram (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that confirms they used LEDs in the film? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

amphibious vehicle

what kind of amphibious vehicle is used in the chase and waterfall scenes?

I know that it isn't a DUKW (too many wheels) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.54.248 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Use en dashes for page ranges, like "p.231-247" per WP:DASH. And add spaces after "p." for similar references.
• Otherwise, things generally look good. I read this article immediately after watching the film (on opening day) and the article was pretty good back then, too.

Gary King (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Alientraveller (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore passed. Gary King (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing

While I understand that some contributors to the Indiana Jones topics have put in yeoman's work on these pages, many of the pages appear to be seriously in danger of being "owned" by two editors. If the bulk of one's contributions consists of simply reverting other's work, rather than contributing to an evolving article, I think that's a problem. It's effective, in it's own way: newer editors, exhausted from having their work reverted, do tend to leave. Yet having a series of pages almost wholly under the editorial control of but a handful of writers, however industrious and dedicated they might be, seems, to me, to severely limit the scope of WP's project. Also, I don't know that differences in writing style need be labeled as "strange" (to my mind, a pejorative term). They are simply that: style differences. --Vaudedoc (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So what does "rarely unqualified" mean? Alientraveller (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is owning the article. It's just that bad edits get reverted. Nothing personal. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! To follow Webster's way on this--I apologize for not having an OED handy--the phrase means that most of the reviews were "modified or restricted by reservations." That is, most of the "positive" reviews of the film listed on RT and MC nonetheless acknowledged the film had sometimes significant flaws, but the reviewers still recommended the film to their readers. In contrast, "unqualified praise" would be more likely to be found in a critical "rave:" nothing but good things to say about the film (e.g., The Godfather, All About Eve, and even, yes, Raiders of the Lost Ark, which appears to have inspired quite a few raves).

My point in including much of the text cut by Alientraveller and re-cut by ColdFusion was that (I felt) it fleshed out and provided a better understanding of the film's critical reception. I counter-positioned Berardinelli's and Ebert's reviews, for example, because they represented two common critical strains for the film's reviewers: the first felt that Lucas, et al should have left well enough alone, that a subsequent trip in some way helped devalue the series for the viewer (the Weekend at Bernie's 2 or Godfather III phenomenon--and yes, I can't believe I just used those two film in the same reference); the second felt that the question shouldn't be "Was it a good movie?" but "Did it feel enough like a good Indiana Jones picture that I had fun being back in that world?" (the Ebert position). In removing some of that text, we lose the paragraph's essential equation: Reviewer A said X, a common position in many other reviews (text cut). But Reviewer B, who won the Pulitzer (text cut), gave it the same grade he gave a previous film that most other critics thought was better than this film (text cut) because he set his chief criterion differently.

What we lose there, I think, is substantial: 1) that in referencing one reviewers opinion we gain an understanding of a certain critical mass of other opinions (e.g., the fractured timeline is one of the more remarkable facets of Pulp Fiction); 2) the critic who disagreed was highly decorated (this is fairly minor point, I agree); 3) this second prominent critic gave the same ranking to Film #4 (which got 76% on RT) to Film #3 (which got 89% on RT). Point #1, to my mind, is the greatest loss. We don't want to simply quote reviews. We want to quote reviews that illustrate particularly large critical strains of the film's reception (and note them as such) in order that the entry's reader will leave the article familiar with the general schools of thought about the film. This becomes especially important today when, given the huge mass of reviewers (due to the internet), someone somewhere has said anything about everything. I mean, someone has complained that Citizen Kane sucks because it's not in color. But what's helpful on the Citizen Kane page is leaving the reader with a good understanding of the large points of critical agreement about the film (unless the unusual criticism comes from a particularly prominent voice or consensus agrees that a different take, though currently in the minority, is providing a large challenge to the common understanding of the piece).

I'd like to address ColdFusion's final note, but make it clear that I'm not attacking, but instead raising a point for discussion. I would argue that whenever any very small group of people determine and enforce a particular set of positions and style for a page, this is a bad thing on WP. As well, I think if one can look at the bulk of one's recent edits and they tally around 30% revision (usually without discussion), that's not particularly productive. A better way of looking at it might be this: how often do you two revert one another's edits without discussion? And how often does one of you undo the other's reversions? Cheers. --Vaudedoc (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The likes of those who hate CK for being in color are hardly likely to become professional reviewers. And I couldn't read any of that, and likewise I found much of your article edits too difficult for the layman who would read this. Alientraveller (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the bulk of those writing reviews on the web right now are not necessarily "professional reviewers" in the traditional sense of the term. Very few of them, that is, make their living doing it; many are not remunerated at all. And I hope you at least made it through the initial part of my response to your question, "Unqualified," I would argue, is a pretty common word, certainly one that can be used on WP. As to the rest, well, it's my detailed explanation as to why I think the recent reversions actually impeded the growth--because WP is all about evolution--of the article. I hope you'll get around to reading it. --Vaudedoc (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For all the articles we edit, Alientraveller does revert me, and I revert him. Maybe it's not evident on this particular article, but there is no collusion. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone says Citizen Kane "sucks" because it's not in color, there's a pretty good reason they're not getting paid for their reviews. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me. I wasn't implying conscious collusion, nor am I ungrateful for the work the small nucleaus of editors has put into these pages. It's more that two people who generally agree with one another and are vigilant about "protecting" the page from wayward opinions, writing styles, etc. have a tendency to consistently revert anything outside their communal practices. The page does seem to have a tendency of the bulk of the less frequent contributors being reverted. Just as an experiment, I hit "random article" ten times and looked at all the history pages. Not a single article had more than two instant undo/revert on the first page of their histories. Crystal Skull has 12 (two of them mine); Temple of Doom has nine (all of them ColdFusion); Raiders, which is older and has settled a bit, nonetheless has seven; and Last Crusade has fourteen. What are the chances that these four pages just happened to require a staggeringly higher number of instant revisions than the average page on the site? On one hand, as Baseball Bugs (great name, btw) notes, popular pages get more hits, and thus more vandalism, contributions by those who know less about the entry, etc. On the other hand, a great number of the revisions on the aforementioned Indy pages aren't about that. They're instant reversions about style or word choice or characterization. The three-revert rule being what it is, any two people agreeing on most issues can revert to silence an assemblage of single voices. And because they are instant and not the result of discussion, no chance to build other consensus materializes. Yes, I agree with Baseball Bugs that each page needs some tenders. Vandalism is a problem, and newer editors benefit from learning about the aims of the current group. But if this maintenance assumes an instant and peremptory vigilance that actually discourages other people from contributing, that's a problem. The "wikipedia standards" to which Baseball Bugs alludes do not, to my mind, include using pejorative phrases to describe the well-meaning contributors of other editors. Elsewhere on the Indy pages, editors have instantly reverted interesting but sometimes ungrammatical offerings by simply saying "Poor writing." Why not take the time to correct the grammar and see where the contribution might fit into the piece? The former slams the door on the contribution and discourages/insults the contributor; the latter helps the piece grows and combines the skills of multiple editors. Finally, instant reverts discourage the growth and evolution of the entry's composition, favoring a Dragnet-like pithiness over more illustrative prose. Take a moment to look at the exceedingly well-written page for Jean Renoir's Grand Illusion (film) to see how writing, when allowed to grow and cohere through repeated shaping (not just instant pruning), can better bring out the film. Cheers. --Vaudedoc (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking only at the most recent revert, I can see why. "Referencing the series' enduring appeal" is arguably "analysis" of what Ebert is saying (his own words should speak for themselves) and words like "indeed" and "certainly" are terms reviewers use, but this article is not a movie review, and those terms are mild POV-pushing. They could maybe do a better job of explaining why they're reverting, but I think it was a reasonable reversion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. You're right. Tone counts for quite a bit on both sides.--Vaudedoc (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere I used the term "shepherding" in reference to this specific article. An article about a new film, especially a popular one, is liable to have everybody and his mother messing with it. To keep the article in shape by wikipedia standards requires extra effort. ColdFusion and AlienTraveler have been significantly active in that effort, and should be thanked for it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget The Wookieepedian. Alientraveller (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, another shepherd. I'm sure there have been others also. With any article, it's important to try to keep the "fluff" to a minimum, especially in an already-lengthy plot summary. Hence the frequent addition and reversion of that nonsense about the hat, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Fake crystal skulls

I think the fact that the real world crystal skulls have recently been determined to be fake is as worthy of inclusion as the speculation about the "real" Indiana Jones is on his character page. (After all, Jones is only a "pretend" archaeologist.) It could live in a couple of different sections, but should be mentioned, especially as Lucas based key parts of the plot (e.g., energy beams shooting out of the eye sockets) on the legends associated with them. Thoughts?--Vaudedoc (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good analogy I came up with: does Crusade's article need to mention the Holy Grail was probably just a cup that rotted away or had Jesus' blood spilt out? These movies are fantasies, gritty perhaps, but they delve into myth for fun. Not once did in writing out the article did we ever consider mentioning people who think the skulls are hokum. Alientraveller (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I also take issue with the word "recent". They've always been known to be fakes, ever since the Mitchell-Hedges skull was bought by Anna Mitchell-Hedges (gotta love that one) at auction at Sotheby's in 1943. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, though the fact that the SI archaeologist is still using institutional resources, equipment, and time to examine individual skulls means it's not necessarily a closed case for every skull. As to what Alientraveller notes, I agree, in part, but am simply looking for consistency. What is the logic behind speculating as to the real world figures who might have served as a template for the character of IJ but not the real world "artifacts" that influenced this film's creation? It seems especially germane when Lucas, et al directly lifted key parts of the skulls' legend (i.e., energy coming out of the eyes, a possible extra-terrestrial origin) for the film. Why include speculation about what the franchise might have used (i.e. the real world IJ's) and exclude information that we know this film did use? Also, the "we" writing out these articles grows all the time, of course, allowing for new perspectives on all this; one hopes that as the entry grows it will address a great many interesting and helpful points that might not have previously occurred to us. --Vaudedoc (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not aliens

It is stated very clearly in the dialogue of the film that the beings are not aliens and that what is called a flying saucer in the article is something other than that. It should be changed to suit the reality of the story. --Bentonia School (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They're still not from planet Earth. Alientraveller (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. And their "craft" lifts off the ground (whether it's "flying" or warping space to move the earth away from it while it doesn't move at all is irrelevant) and is in the shape of a disk (what most people would agree fits the definition of "saucer"). While "lifting disk" may be more technically accurate, people will definitely understand "flying saucer" more. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeded again. They are alien as they are different from us (human) and not from this planet, but my problem is the "extraterastrail", as they are pan or extra dimentional —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornfrk (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial means not from Earth. It fits. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a flying saucer, as characterized in the 1950s. It looks kind of like the one from The Day the Earth Stood Still, and a tad better than the one from Plan 9 from Outer Space. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The crystal skeletons of the thirteen aliens can be explained by them having a silicon-based biochemistry -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_life#Silicon_biochemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.127.15.34 (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, because we have skeletons made of diamond. 67.106.48.22 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, duh! D. F. Schmidt (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not from earth, so they are aliens. They may be from another universe, but they are still not from earth, so they are aliens. Besides, everything about and related to them screams "Aliens". Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Placement of "Secrecy" section

Why is the "Secrecy" section sub-listed under "Impact"? It seems the material within this section better fits with various places of the "Development" and "Marketing" section, but in any case, the secrecy with which the film was developed and shot doesn't seem to logically fit within considerations of the "impact" of the film upon the stars, the industry, popular culture, etc. Thoughts? Also, I have a good pull quote about Crystal Skull being expected to create an upswing in the number of college students expressing an interest in archeology. In what section would people like that to appear? --Vaudedoc (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"'What Indy IV is actually about has been the great cultural guessing game of 2007/08. Yet, it has to be said, there is something refreshing about being ten weeks away from a giant blockbuster and knowing next to nothing about it.'" It's worthwhile to note the sheer scrutiny of the subject. Movies are generally secretive, and no one would care less until they see the trailer, but this movie, everyone was clamouring for plot points. As for Indy creating interest in today's young folk, didn't you add that to his article? Alientraveller (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, but your quote seems to point out more than anything else that this was a marketing strategy: it preserved the salable mystery of the film, and created anticipation in the ticket-buying public. So why is that chunk not listed under marketing? And why is the bit about the film's extra not listed under production/filming? Finally no, I didn't mention the possible spike in archeology majors because of Crystal Skull on the IJ character page, but instead mentioned that the general franchise has increased an interest in the field (different quote from different article). My question was in what section on this page should I mention that the release of this particular film is expected to create an increase in college students studying archeology? This is a different matter than general interest tied to the overall franchise ((manifesting itself in, say, more History Channel special on ancient Egypt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaudedoc (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Swordfighting ants?

How did Lucas miss that one? Well, I think he did that once already. It was called Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

could someone read this and decide whether or not to add it to the article? thanks.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle4386319.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkyoda141 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Developing section of the page its says "During the late 1970s, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg made a deal with Paramount Pictures for five Indiana Jones films." Now I have herd a lot of rumors saying that after Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen comes out in 2009, "Indiana Jones 5" will begin production and will be released in 2010 or 2011. The deal Lucas and Spielberg made with Paramount Pictures on making 5 films is still active. I think it was Lucas or Spielberg said that "Indiana Jones 5" will be kind of a Last Crusade type plot in which Shia LaBeouf plays Mutt Williams, the new Indy, while the old Indy (Harrison Ford) comes back in some way, during the film. --67.169.166.106 (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better link: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/08/05/exclusive-indiana-jones-5-wont-center-on-shia-labeouf-george-lucas-insists/ —Wildroot (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All can be read in the Indiana Jones franchise article. Alientraveller (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

References to Flight of the Amazon Queen

I just started playing Flight of the Amazon Queen (and am now near the end) but I noticed that there are tons of similarities between the stories. Among them is that it takes place in the Amazon, he's supposed to fetch a Crystal Skull for his enemy, the temple is in the Valley of Mist (or "of the Mists" -- can't remember), there are Germans in the story (well, of course what good story doesn't have a German in it? *grin*). Obviously this game was produced long before Indy IV came out, but maybe it had already been partly written. Anyways, I think the connection may be worth mentioning somehow. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dreams of Rio (1987)

The script shares many plot points with a public radio program that predates it: Dreams of Rio, by the ZBS foundation. Similarities go beyond the obvious (the Amazon & crystal skulls make for good adventure stories) to the legend of El Dorado, the eyes of the skull and much, much more. However, I don't know how to work this into the main article. Source: podcast at http://www.zbs.org/dircast/meatballs/15_Meatball%27s-Podcast.mp3 tharsaile (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical errors

So... no mentions in this article to the horrible errors in history, as seen in the Spanish article? 190.43.150.49 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we? There's no such thing as psychic interdimensional beings with silicone skeletons who like to experiment with building civilizations. Alientraveller (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't??? Next thing you'll be telling me is that there's no Santa Claus - and that this film is fictional, not a documentary. :( :( :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

it should be mentioned on reception, because many papers mentioned those awful historial inacuracies..201.255.70.194 (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Every film in the series has some sort of error. Raiders for example shows Indy flying directly in Kathmandu, and then finding Marion freely, obviously free to roam Nepal. At the time the film is set, Nepal was a closed nation and no foreigners were allowed to enter the kingdom. --Bentonia School (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones was raped

Should we mention the oct 8th south park episode, whose plot was mainly based around the SP characters being traumatised because Indiana Jones was raped by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.145.166 (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(Ugh), why? Alientraveller (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• (Agreed, no need) Probably not unless it turns into some big cultural thing. South Park is usually pretty outrageous, so this is nothing special. Any mention would have to be extremely well sourced. Dp76764 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It fits in with the "reception" page quite nicely. Just a very short sentence mention of it along with the other Indie Fans who were disappointed. It should be there, it's not trivia at all, it's part of the film's reception. PyroGamer (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, it's mentioned now, like how it's mentioned in the E.T. article: it's doesn't give undue weight to its puerility. Alientraveller (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be mentioned that "Indiana Jones was raped by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg". This phrase represents how the film was received by many fans (like raping their childhood). nips (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And if we were to describe in detail every Indy parody that has ever existed... We just need to note it was parodied in South Park. Likewise, if was parodied in Mad, we'd mention it and cite it in the same way. Alientraveller (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you other examples: does John Goodman's article mention his monstrous depiction in Family Guy as depriving his whole family of food? Does Britney Spears mention her headless appearance in South Park? These two shows have become such famous potshots their parodies really have become trivial. Such details are only necessary in the articles of those episodes, let alone take up as much discussion here as something like Janusz Kaminski studying Douglas Slocombe's camerawork. The current mention is quite generous. Alientraveller (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this debate has turned out to be one between Spielberg/Lucas fans and South Park fans (or Spielberg/Lucas haters). Let's be objective here. It's not a question of liking or not the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. nips (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely there's nothing wrong with a "References in popular culture" section as there are with many other articles? 23:36 4 April 2009 (GMT)

For one thing? Alientraveller (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know every instance of this film in popular culture but I'm sure there are others that people will add, even if it is over time. --86.160.223.183 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Machu Picchu?

Indy went to some Peruvian ruins where they found the grave of Francisco de Orellana. Is it possible that Lucas wanted to imply Machu Picchu through the ruins somehow? I know Machu Picchu is by no means in this movie because from the ruins the Nazca lines which is not around Machu Picchu can be seen. But is there any ruins around Nazca lines like the movie shows? If there is no such a ruins, it could probably be some sort of references to Machu Picchu?--Mato Rei (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Return of the Ark.

So did anyone else notice that the warehouse Indy and the Russians visit is "warehouse 51" from Raiders of the lost Ark? Also after Indy smashes through several crates the camera looks into a half-opened box, with the Ark inside? A homage to Indy's first movie and an awsome Easter Egg in my opinion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.71.180 (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone noticed. I've been meaning to find a place for it because it's tangential to the plot, I think it's noted in The Complete Making they used the same prop for it as the original, rather than a replica. Alientraveller (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it too, so I am going to add it to the plot.--GwydionM (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't quite catch my drift did you? Anyway, I put it in Design. Alientraveller (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite unusual to me to bring back the Ark from Raiders... -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Academy Awards

What exactly is important about it not getting nominated for an Oscar? Were any of the Silence of the Lambs sequels nominated? Alientraveller (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Running Time

Just read that the theatrical release was 2 minutes and 33 seconds longer than the DVD release. I am not saying that i doubt this, but for my own interest could someone tell me which parts were cut??

Not sure when the above comment was added or to which region it relates to. It's just that when American films/TV shows are transferred to DVD for the UK market, they generally run about 4% quicker. Something to do to with the different systems in the UK and US, I'll see if i can find a link describing this somewhere! (Scottrb (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Soviet?

This last sentence makes no sense at all:

"The Communist Party of the Russian Federation called for the film to be banned, accusing the production team of demonizing the Soviet Union. Party official Andrei Andreyev said: "It is very disturbing if talented directors want to provoke a new Cold War."[116] Another party official commented that "in 1957 the USSR was not sending terrorists to America but sending the Sputnik satellite into space!"[117] Spielberg responded that he is Russian, as his ancestors came from Ukraine,"

Surely that would make his family Ukrainian, not Russian? They're entirely separate nations, with different alphabets, everything. Even in the days of the USSR, no Ukrainian Soviet would describe himself as Russian, or vice versa. Can we change this? JulesVerne (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (BST) Lack of camp nazi enemy makes this film poor in comparison to previous ones, Russians don't really have that comedy evil about them like that of the Gestapo agent from the first film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.241.66 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Test

The nuclear test explosion Dr. Jones survives early in the movie is undoubtedly Plumbbob Fizeau, this being the only tower shot at the Nevada Test Range fired during local daylight hours in 1957. This would date the movie with precision as beginning on 14 September 1957 (source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html). I don't know if this counts as original research or not, but if anyone feels confident enough to incorporate it, be my guest :) Nude Amazon (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When they showed the flight from south america to the us over south america, central america, belize.... hey wait a minute! belize was british honduras until 1981, and this film was set in 1957.Bidask (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)bidask 12/17/2009

For purposes of "average joe" it's Belize. They did something similar in all the movies, gave a recognizable location instead of the proper one for the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ancient astronauts theory not mentioned once?!

The whole movie is inspired by real theories of Erich von Daniken et al. Why is there no mention of it in this article?--Wangond (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned because there is no reference for it. If you know of a reliable source that says Lucas and Spielberg were inspired by Daniken, you can add it. But do not add that claim, as you have already done, without a source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Fallout 3 booth

The manequins used in the Nuclear test scene are the same ones that the Fallout 3 booth were using according to Todd Howard, CEO of Bethesda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.204.68 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced legal statements/rumors.

"Anticipation for the film was heightened by secrecy, which resulted in a legal dispute over an extra violating his non-disclosure agreement and the arrest of another man for stealing a computer containing various production-related documents."

Not one source. The paragraph entire only has one source, regarding it's reviews.

Hell, I heard a guy [after signing an NDA] was fired, literally set on fire, after saying the movie had Indiana Jones in it before it was released. His whole family was jailed too, for life. Everyone they knew was then renditioned and taken into the Balkans or something.

I am going to flip a coin and either remove the quoted part, or add a couple things I heard about into the article. [Guess which half is a joke]

postscript: the discussion is mentioned and sourced later in the article. Why can't they source it at the first mention?

71.102.17.212 (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm...I think the editors where trying to follow WP:LEADCITE, which advises against "redundant citations" in the lead paragraphs. However, as we can see with the reviews source you mentioned, exceptions can be made for content likely to be challenged (which this thread could be an example of). FallingGravity (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I understand. I think it will be reasonable if I add some info where I removed. Mentioning legal issues and allow the reader to find it in the article for more info. I think the first part gave too much info for simply being a synopsis. 71.102.17.212 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A scientific study on nuked fridge survivability

Science has spoken: it is simply impossible. --Stormwatch (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what they'd think of my face melting box?

Assuming that the fridge escape would work, which seems a smidge doubtful, what I want to know is: 1) why is there a custom-built lead-lined fridge in the mockup town in the first place, 2) for what reason did someone label it as such, and 3) how did Indy get out, since '50s fridges could not be unlatched from the inside (it was only in later years that this was changed due to safety reasons)? Afalbrig (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are prepared to accept the existence of Aliens with big ol' heads without question, then we should also accept Indy's ability to escape a fridge - and its existence in the town in the first place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

lawsuit

is it really notable enough to mention? it's obviously bogus and has exactly 0 chance of being successful, so why should it be mentioned in the article? also, even if you do mention it, how does it deserve a section of its own? its only 1 sentence anyway --188.110.121.169 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

NNPOV-ing criticism

I'm strongly *against* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indiana_Jones_and_the_Kingdom_of_the_Crystal_Skull&oldid=606909827 - removing the mention of user ratings from a review aggregate on the grounds that "they aren't reliable (people can vote without having seen it)" is totally absurd; a) we're *not* here to judge the reviews as "good/reliable" and "bad/unreliable" in "criticism" section - because that would mean that *we're reviewing the reviews*, and that's an absurd censoring act, b) there is *no* way to check if *any* reviewer (be it anonymous 'net one or NYT one) actually seen the film, c) the data provided is just that, data. We aren't here to decide if the movie was good nor if the reviewers were right nor if the reviews were reliable nor if anybody actually seen the movie at all - *we're here to provide the data from secondary source!*

As to the quality of the source - either we agree that providing scores from review aggregates are good idea (and I assume that's the consensus), in which case it doesn't matter *from where the aggregated reviews come* (since heterogeneity is actually the *pro* here) - or we agree that aggregates are useless, because "they aren't reliable", and drop the mentions of them at all.

Also, as a side note: if somebody wants to dump any of that info on the grounds of "low quality of the reference" etc., *please provide a link to prior talk/discussion consensus on the matter of the quality of aggregates*, since I'm not aware of any.

Poponuro (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to provide the mandatory links. OK first there's Wikipedia:Review aggregators which is an essay. But the MoS on Audience response states, "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." However, if people think this is an instance where we should WP:Ignore All Rules, then you can try to get consensus for that. FallingGravity (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the links. Still, my view stands with rationale as follows: there *is* a significant offset in the ratings (critics vs users), and it's consistent between the sites (RT/MC) - furthermore, it completely fits the phenomena described in "fan response" section; as such, while the *user rating* *itself* doesn't prove anything, the negative bias *does*. Omitting this information altogether is, OTOH, significally biasing the criticism section in favour of the positive reception of the movie. Bear in mind that the quality of aggregated critic scores is nearly as worthless as user scores after a couple of years from the premiere, due to link rot and related unverifiability.

Also, while I completely agree with MoS on the fact that user scores are inherently *biased* and thus unreliable - still, here the difference is *so significant* IMO *it deserves a mention*.

As a side note: I'm not going to start a battle over this, since it IMO doesn't make any sense. If there ain't nobody understanding/supporting my point of improving the criticism section, I don't see any point in forcing it. I've been active on WP for 6 years, and I've seen enough worthless battles to know one before it starts. Poponuro (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65olbBrXC to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory claims regarding the inspiration for Irina Spalko's bob haircut

"Spalko's bob cut was [Cate Blanchett's] idea," says this article. "Her bob cut was George Lucas' idea and was inspired by Louise Brooks," claims List of Indiana Jones characters. The latter cites an article by Ian Freer in the May 2008 issue of Empire as the source; the former cites it as well, although the attribution is somewhat ambiguous. I don't have access to the issue in question, but I'm not sure how the bob cut could have been both Blanchett's and Lucas's idea. Can anyone shed some light on this? – DybrarH (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dailyillini.com/news/article_44ba045f-6a1c-50b2-9570-1cbaf299d763.html?mode=jqm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C30200-1286762%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216081625/http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=83076 to http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=83076
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-indianajones21apr21%2C1%2C4784324.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512065444/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_1270011.php to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_1270011.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511112452/http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html?deeplink=videos%2F1%2Fv18 to http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html?deeplink=videos%2F1%2Fv18
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513112804/http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html to http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220035507/http://www.showbizspy.com/2008/02/15/ray-winstone-thinks-cate-blanchett-is-the-best-actress-in-the-world/ to http://www.showbizspy.com/2008/02/15/ray-winstone-thinks-cate-blanchett-is-the-best-actress-in-the-world/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215124713/http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html?deeplink=news%2Fn13 to http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html?deeplink=news%2Fn13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511112441/http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html?deeplink=news%2Fn12 to http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html?deeplink=news%2Fn12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006134005/http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=117923 to http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=117923
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120104556/http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6128&Itemid=99 to http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6128&Itemid=99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130035032/http://rt.com/news/prime-time/indiana-jones-and-the-propaganda-machine/ to http://rt.com/news/prime-time/indiana-jones-and-the-propaganda-machine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)