In a recent episode of "The Big Bang Theory", Amy (Mayim Bialik) "ruins" Raiders of the Lost Ark for Sheldon (Jim Parsons), when she points out that... Indiana Jones was completely USELESS in the story line. If he had never been involved, the EXACT SAME THING would have happened....the Nazis would have gotten the Ark, Belloq would have opened it, and all the Germans and he would have been killed. At the end of TBBT episode, Sheldon, Leonard, Howard and Raj watch the film again and try to figure out a "way around" what Amy said....including "If Indy hadn't been there, the Ark wouldn't have ended up with the proper authorities" (Howard)....they were momentarily satisfied until Leonard points out "Yeah, but wasn't Indy suppose to get the Ark to a museum where it could be studied? It ended up in a big Army warehouse where nobody ever saw it again." And they become disappointed again. So.....anybody else wanna take a shot at it? What would have changed if Indy had never gotten involved?
That was an exceptionally well written episode, in terms of nerd alert one of the best they have ever done. To address Amy's point. Nup I got nothing except the significant positive financial impact Mr Spielberg and Lucas enjoyed from the romp
Marcus provides the answer in the scene where he and Indy talk to the Feds: "An army which carries the Ark before it is invincible." How did Indy know the Nazis would look at the Ark? This assumption is being made without any evidence; while Indy knew enough not to look directly at the Ark, wouldn't it be presumed, the Nazis knew this also? The Biblical reference:1 Samuel 6:19 mentions that those who looked upon the Ark were smited. The Nazis were privy to the same clues as Indy were they not? Merely carrying it would have sufficed to make the Nazis invincible, for it is looking at it that is.... Verboten! Indy wanted to keep it out of the hands of the Nazis, for the very possession of the Ark would have made them invincible.
But the scene at the island proved that the Ark (or God) was AGAINST the Nazis...when Belloq (using the proper rituals) opened it...and the "spirits of the Ark" destroyed him and the Nazis and even non-Nazi German soldiers. Thus showing that ONLY an army which God considered righteous would be triumphant "carrying the Ark before it." Plus what would have happened to the Ark with no Indy, when the other German soldiers on the island found it...but all the men killed? Likely same thing the US Government did...they'd have put it away in a warehouse somewhere and not touched it again. Later in 1945, US wins the war, finds the Ark, takes it back to the States...and THEY put it in "Area 51" and forget about it. Bam....back to the original ending of the movie.
The fear was, that any army taking possession of the ark and carried before them, would be invincible. Again, I refer to the conversation between Marcus and the Feds. Indy kept his eyes closed and told the others "Don't look at it, no matter what happens!" which is what spared them from being smited themselves.
The Ark Returned to Israel 1 Samuel 19 19 He struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. He struck down of all the people, 50,070 men, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great slaughter Smited! for merely gazing upon the Ark. Indy..."No matter what happens, don't look at it!" Hence they were spared.... The key is to carry the Ark before (never gazing upon it) your Army and they will be invincible...anyone's Army. The Nazi's looked and suffered the consequences.
So God, owner and operator of the Ark, would have given its power to have an "invincible army" to the Nazis??? Or are you saying the Ark is some kind of "neutral artifact" that gives power to whoever operates it correctly, regardless of their morality?
Your argument, is that no matter what...the Nazi' were never going to be able to utilize the power of the Ark..no matter if Indy intervened or not. The premise of the movie, is that Indy and company, did not know this...therefore even if it is true, Indy ws motivated to keep the Ark out of the hands of anyone who would abuse it's power. The audience has the gift of 20/20 hindsight, knowing already the bad guys would get smited. Indy did not know this...yet again I allude to the conversation with Marcus, Indy and the Feds specifically saying that an army that carries the ark before it will be invincible. You must look at the film away from observer into Indy's character. Keep the bad guys from getting the Ark, if they get it, they will use it's power for evil. He is essential to the storyline therefore. Saying, the Nazis were going to die anyway is a bit ridiculous. Did Indy know this? what evidence is presented Indy knew all along the Ark would never work for evil? What scene, what dialog specifically discusses this? Only do not look at the Ark...that's all that is revealed that Indy knew beforehand.
Harrison Ford's actual script from Raiders I, referencing the dialog discussing the Ark's power. You notice Harrison noted..."Is Indy a believer" what motivates his character, is it actual belief in God. He talkis about what the Ark's power actualy is...fire lightning etc, the power of God, who knows. Note that specifically in the dialog... "Who knows" You'll notice this is posed as a question...he's not sure. He's not sure what's gooing to happen so he looks to the Bible to substantiate it, Refer to 1 Samuels 16-19, gazing at the Ark will get you killed. This Bible verse, though never discussed in the dialog is referenced by Indy later in the film..."No matter what happens, don't look at it" Indy knows enough, from Biblical references what the power of the Ark entails, but again, can it be manipulated by anyone? I don't think the character is convinced one way or another on that. While I agree, an interpretation can be made that the power of the Ark is God himself and it is required to have God on your side to utilize the power of the Ark...yet we see Ford's character Indiana Jones, is somewhat ambivalent about his religiousity. He's not quite sure who can utilize the power of the Ark, can it be manipulated by anyone? He's not sure...though we know of course that God must be on your side to use it...from Indy's perspective, he's not convinced that's the case.
They have extremely good nerd advisers on the show to handle those sort of conversations. In a previous episode, Leonard explained how the the liquid metal terminators were eliminated from the timeline for The Sarah Connor Chronicles. But I was blown away by what Amy had said. I had never thought of that angle, and she's right. The movie actually can work without Indy.
All of you are missing the point of Raiders and are obviously not true fans of the genre. Lucas based the story on serials in the 30s and 40s along the lines of Buck Rogers... this is a character based film...it sets up the protagonist...one Indiana Jones and the antagonist...the Nazis . Indy is set upon by US agents Colonel Musgrove and Major Eaton to find the Ark before the Nazis. The final scene is, that even when the protagonist is ultimately thwarted from his goal...good still triumphs over evil. it is an adventure...and all of you...who clearly are clueless about plot development and character studies in a story, say to yourself... " oh well gee, the Ark kills the bad guys, Indy sure did waste a lot of time chasing them and the Ark, heck he didn't get the Ark in the end" "the agents should of let the Nazis have the Ark, since it was just going to kill them anyway" It's a ridiculous assertioin...the characters in the film do not fully know or understand the power of the Ark, hence the adventure...leading to the climatic scene where the characters witness the wrath of God himself. Your arguments are the equivalent of saying well making a movie like Apollo 13 is stupid because everyone knows how it ends. Y'all are truly an embarrasment to the Raiders series...not surprsing as the pseudo-intellectualism implied by the Big Bang Theory does appeal to a lesser intellect... Raiders was good story telling and introduced the World to a movie icon the equivalent to Rocky Balboa, Indiana Jones. It established a character and many sequels. The response: What's the point of this film..."The Nazi's die anyway" It's truly embarrasing....it truly is.
Not sure if it is still the case but in the first three series they had an astrophysicist vet the scripts for any silly (*)(*)(*)(*) ups
Funny stuff... Your assertion. Nazis want Ark, the container of the 10 Commandments, for it is rumored to carry the power of God and when opened reveal the Messiah...to the Nazis, the Ark represented introducing a New World order with Hitler himself as the Messiah. In fact Hitler was into the occult and it's plausible he would pursue religious artifacts as symbols of his power...even it it was never opened, it's mere possessioni would add credence to his rightful place as leader of the Aryans, the dominant race. The movie is action/adventure. Indy's adventures include romance, should we say the barkeep, Marion Ravenwood, character is non-essential? This is not the ultimate goal of film...the goal is to entertain, which Raiders does, highly successfully... Yes the antagonist's ultimately cannot harness the power of the Ark, God has the final say and indeed this was the eventual outcome regardless if Indy was ever introduced...yet we as the audience go on the adventure leading to the climatic ending...Evil cannot triumph over good. Many, many plot lines can be dissected and the claim made, the protagonist was unnecessary...there was no "happy ending." All loose ends tied up...the good guys win. I thought the plot twist showing the Nazis gaining possession of the Ark, essentially defeating Indy...after all of that...was far better than had Indy won the day and the Nazi's never given the opportunity to test the Ark's power. It's ridiculous on it's surface to assert Indy's character had no influence in the final outcome...Indy was the story...his adventure, his character. We, as the audience get to know Indy and to care about him beyond a one dimensional "Super Man" who wins every time. Indy was the point of Raiders of the Lost Ark...hence a nod that Lucas gave to the serial adventure shows in the 30's and 40's. You all are just too dense to understand story telling I presume.
Perhaps you can learn a thing or two from Lucas and Spielberg if indeed you question the story line. Raiders of the Lost Ark was the year's top-grossing film and remains one of the highest-grossing films ever made. It was nominated for nine Academy Awards in 1982, including Best Picture, and won four (Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Sound, Best Visual Effects) and a fifth Special Achievement Award for its Sound Effects Editing. The film's critical and popular success led to three sequels.. Yet a silly television show reveals some hidden flaw in Raiders? Some great epiphany...the Nazis were going to die anyway... Yes Apollo 13...2 hours of drama to reveal what history already revealed...they make it back to Earth safely. Again, a great story telliing film...we care about these astronauts even though we know already what happens in the end. We are swept up into the drama of surviving in outer space after a catastrophic equipment failure. We know they live, yet we as the audience find it compelling. Stupid is as stupid does...to quote another movie icon. Stay away from the marijuana guys...it doesn't make you any smarter..and clearly you would have to be high to think some great epiphany was made saying the Nazis died anyway, Indy's character is therefore irrelevant to the story..
Relax, no one is saying it wasn't a great movie, or great story telling. I've enjoyed the movie and think it's a classic. But that has nothing to do with the point of the thread, which is without Indy, events would still have played out much the same. I don't think there are a lot of movies you could say that about the protagonist.
I was being a little tongue and cheek, in defending Raiders by the way... I do regard the film as essential in terms of it's cinematic influence, and at or around 17 years old when I saw it. It made the equivalent impact as Star Wars. I loved the movie. First timers seeing it might think it a bit dated in terms of CGI compared to say the Transformers...another beloved show by many youth, just not my generation. Yes Indy, Luke Skywalker...products from my generation and we will defend it with our lives. *sarcasm* I don't watch Big Bang Theory, so I'm guessing this "Amy" character sees Raiders for the first time and unemotionally states. Indy is non-essential. Blasphemy! Heck the first scene in the jungles of South America is non-essential..yet it sets a tone, it introduces us to Indy...not your proto-typical boring Professor of Archaeology...a man of adventure. An alpha male of epic proportions yet with a little beta thrown in, he happens to be deathly afraid of snakes...humanizing his character...He isn't Super Man...this is a new kind of action movie hero; but in reality a throw back to the serial movie heroes. Yes the plot is full of non-essential roller coaster rides of adventure, that do not further the story...but that's not the point. This is entertainment...popcorn munching fun. A nod to the serial movies, the Buck Rogers adventures for example, of the 30's and 40's. This isn't an art house film, this is rollicking good fun with a moral message...much like Star Wars. I lifted this quote from another forum...credit goes to "Fat Daddy" not my words his... Good analogy, Fat Daddy... and again, I'm more tongue in cheek than serious in this thread..but Indy is a definite favorite movie icon for me.
I'd have to think on that. Read my post above this. Indy is human... God has the ultimate say in the battle of good vs. evil I think there's a moral message under the surface....our fate is preordained by God , not by the adventures of one Indiana Jones who proves to be fallible in the final analysis...yes essentially...non-essential to the defeat of the Nazis attempt and gaining the Ark as a tool to use for evil. I believe the ending is intentional, leaving Indy ultimately as unable to influence events. Victory for God, not Indy...Indy is not made a Saint and above God. How's that?
Which seems to be the point completely lost here. Entertainment is where you find it. Not every film or show has to challenge the human condition, try to change how we view the world, want us to somehow be better people. Amy's point is not about the enjoyment value of the film, but simply the protagonist plays a surprisingly small role in how events unfolded.
I have thought of a film/literature wherein the protagonist, essentially does not effect the outcome. Old Man and the Sea...a Hemingway classic later made into a film version. The character lands a large marlin...a visceral battle..pitting man against nature....hours if not a full days ensue and the old man lands the fish tying it up to his boat to transport back to his village. in the process of bringing back to his village battles sharks who slowly eat away at it, leaving nothing but skeletal remains His battle, though ferocious, proving nature remains unchallenged. The fish returned to the sea, one way or another...leaving the protagonist...essentially the same as when he started the book / film... Fishless. This "Amy" character might see the film and unemotionally state...it's movie about a guy who lost a fish. Yeah...that is the basic storyline I suppose, but dig deeper....think a little bit dear...your character is supposed to be one of these super smart nerd types... talking to the writers here not the character...a true revelation. A guy loses a fish...I'm guessing this would be the writers of big bang theory's take on the story. yet another classic, with not plot hole...but a message. Obviously Raiders was not intended to rival great literature, but suffice to say there is a message....as alluded man's folley to influence events ultimately leaves man in the same state that they started.... Arkless... Protagonist does not influence final events....nature, God...whatever theme that is presented as greater than man...prevails. It's a theme in both literature and film...I wouldn't say common, but certainly not a rarity. The writer's of Big Bang Theory have probably never even heard of Old Man and the Sea, I'm guessing...sure they can reference plenty of comic book themes I'm sure...it's not, I get the feeling...brilliant writing. Maybe in comparison to a soap opera it may appear as "genius" but not hardly...television remains a wasteland for the most part with an occasional gem. By the way as addendum...at the end of the film Indy is thanked by the U.S. agents and thanked. Yes the Ark is confiscated and not studied, but clearly Indy's actions did influence the outcome, certainly enough to be compensated for his trouble, and in fact thanked. It is therefore open to interpreation his role in the outcome as completely non-essential. To the agents, this was not the case, He played a direct role in recovering the Ark.. Again...poor television writing seems to impress some folks.
how come the first biblical army that that carried the ark before it lost, shouldn't they still be ruling the world?
Joshua 7:6-9 6 Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the Lord, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. 7 And Joshua said, “Alas, Sovereign Lord, why did you ever bring this people across the Jordan to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us? If only we had been content to stay on the other side of the Jordan! 8 Pardon your servant, Lord. What can I say, now that Israel has been routed by its enemies? 9 The Canaanites and the other people of the country will hear about this and they will surround us and wipe out our name from the earth. What then will you do for your own great name?” Apparently an army was defeated while in possession of the Ark, I do think Raiders took liberties in extending the myth of the Ark. I can find no Biblical reference that would explain the passage in Joshua, as in it defeat is lamented and the Ark is sought for consolation of the defeat. I suppose it comes down to God's will, if God wills it the Ark can help, hinder or just be a nice center piece. One can say that while in the possession of the U.S. the Nazis were defeated, I guess that's one way to interpret the Ark's power if the film's narrative is carried to it's fruition. Evidently though, a deleted scene shows the U.S. symbol on the box containing the Ark in a government warehouse is burned off. Much like the Nazi symbol is burned off when the Ark is carried by the Wehrmacht. The Ark therefore belongs to no nation, but to God and only God decides how it's power is used, by whom and when. This is one interpretation though I have difficulty in finding Biblical verification. Remember, once Christ the Messiah is on scene, the old covenant of God and man is replaced by the new covenant.. God receives grace via the death of Christ. Therefore the Ark no longer belongs solely to the Israelites but all seeking a covenant with God. The Ark is without borders basically, no single army can use it unless God wills it...my opinion, I have no basis in scripture to assert this. I'm not certain of the exact claims the Ark is supposed to have...but indeed Raiders took liberties not directly traceable to Biblical text. If there's a real flaw, it is that, but c'mon it's a movie ultimately, not Scripture.
The drama in a story comes from the character growth (or sometimes regression) in the protagonist. The MacGuffin is really unimportant. In this one, Indy's failure to do anything can be seen as the whole point. He learns that he can fail, even if he is morally right, but also that his failure doesn't matter. The struggle is the important thing. This kind of plot is actually something of a favorite in spy movies. The spy is caught or the key to the code is taken, then the spy is exchanged or a new code comes in a week later. The game continues, though several people are dead. And there is the fact that I think Lucas throws these plot holes in just to see if his audiences will notice. In Star Wars the Jedi treat Anakin Skywalker's mother so cavalierly that she eventually dies due to their neglect, no wonder he turns on them. Then again, maybe the Jedi are the actual villains in the movie.
Good points! I watched Raiders last night, as it's free online on a couple websites. It holds up pretty well, as action/adventure...still a thrill ride though I've seen it probably going on 15 times now. It's escapism, and not meant as any kind of social commentary. My main beef is with this Big Bang Theory show, which I have admittedly seen a few episodes of as repeats. To me it's sophomoric drivel, as yes these are original characters, essentially science nerds...as the lead characters of a show. Yet they seem pre-occupied with getting "laid" to go along with one sexual innuendo after another...making it the equivalent of frat boys with PhDs. It could be the plot of the next American Pie as easily as a TV show. The theme...nerdy guys, inept with women, try to get laid. Sure they throw in the occasional "M theory" quip ...but basically their lives revolve around comic books and trying to get laid, with the antagonist Sheldon to balance things out. I think it's played out myself, nerds making fun of themselves basically. It appeals,ultimately, to the lowest common denominator...sex...wrapped up in a pseudo-intellectual facade...with Sheldon being the one true original character to television...the others are more stereotypes we've seen already in films like "Revenge of the Nerds." Wherein smart guys use their tech savvy to spy on girls in the shower.... It's played out. Yeah we get it...you like comic books and World of Warcraft....funny not. The dysfunctional male who can't talk to women, has an extensive Star Wars collection of memorabilia...ever hear of 40 year old virgin. We've seen these characters multiple times...the neurotic Sheldon should have his own spin-off, he basically makes the show watchable as the other 3 are thoroughly un-original.
