Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)