![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article contains a
list of miscellaneous information. (May 2008) |
Yes - discouraged, not forbidden. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(...)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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok... so why it was removed? 84.90.24.156 ( talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
...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)
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)}
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 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 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)
Right on. ColdFusion650 ( talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
....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)
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)
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, Van Tucky 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
I tend to agree with Dr. Woodsworth. TaiChiChuan ( talk) 20:48, 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 )
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)
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.
During the late 1970s, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg made a deal with Paramount Pictures for five Indiana Jones films. [2] 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. [3]
Ford disliked the new angle, telling Lucas "No way am I being in a Steve Spielberg movie like that." [4] 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. [3] 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. [5] 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. [3]
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)
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. Van Tucky 22:22, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
JettaMann( talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Everybody has a right to their opinions 1st amendment freedom of speech not that personal opinions belong here.
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)
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)
I can guarantee that that's not true in all cases, because I didn't notice. ColdFusion650 ( talk) 22:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is a British WW2 gas mask bag. It's on the DVD. They chose to use that particular bag in the movies because so many were issued during the war that in 1981 (only 35 years plus or minus) since the end of the war, they could be easily replaced if damaged during the a stunt. Period films in general are always full of anachronisms. If you really want to be upset, pull out a period map and watch the travel sequences. They show countries that didn't even exist yet (or so I'm told). ColdFusion650 ( talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that 1138 was the address of the house IJ breaks into at that nuclear test site. May be worth a mention in the article as an easter egg... also because all of the IJ films have allusions to previous works by George Lucas. That said, thank god the alien at the end of IJ4 was not Howard the Duck though! 99.231.11.56 ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This may be of some interest: That this film is based on "1963 Charlton Heston movie Secret of the Incas,". See http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156582&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156408&contentPK=20820282&folderPk=87028&pNodeId=156139 86.154.219.63 ( talk) 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why a reference and link to Mayanism is considered to be "personal analysis" and its contribution is labeled as "small vandalism". If you read the entry on Mayanism, I think you'll see that it's directly pertinent to the plot of this film, which depends heavily on references to Mayas, Nazca lines, and ancient astronaut theory. (Just as "Judaism" would be pertinent to understanding the Ark of the Covenant in the first film.) This is not analysis or opinion, but FACT.
My comment was specifically intended to help readers to understand the plot in greater depth, not through its analysis, but through links to other pertinent material in Wikipedia.
I haven't attempted to revert the deletion, but I would like to know why this is considered "analysis". Is there somewhere else in the entry where it belongs besides "Plot"?
Hoopes ( talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I got zapped for offering another "opinion" or "analysis", specifically the FACT that the visual imagery of the psychic mental breakdown of Spalko is directly inspired by the visual imagery of the psychedelic art connected with entheogen use. All you have to do is look at the work of artists such as Alex Grey or Robert Venosa to see that this is where the imagery of Spalko's explosion due to information overload came from.
I assure you that heads in the audience identified the inspiration of Terence McKenna and his own frequent references to Mayas, flying saucers, and the like! What kind of documentation is required to show that something like this is fact and not opinion? Hoopes ( talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone keeps trying to add the bit of business about the kid picking up the fedora and trying to put it on before Indy takes it back from him. The only reason for bringing this up is to infer some kind of "passing of the torch" (or the fedora) to his kid. However, in light of all the principals saying that there is no next-film in the plans, that inference has no basis. Besides which, it could just be the kid trying to get away with something. And with no citable inference, the plot point is too minute to belong in the article. Now, if an announcement comes out that there will be another film and that Mutt will become the new adventurer, then it could be added back. But not until then. And don't hold your breath waiting for it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Although the general shape of the waterfall certainly suggests Iguazu, there is nothing in the film that identifies it as such, and there are sufficient contradictions in the layout to demonstrate that it is not Iguazu. One is the fact that they shot over the edge of a high canyon to land in the river upstream from the falls. There is no such canyon upstream from Iguazu - the upper river has a shallow shoreline, as with Niagara, Victoria, and other such large waterfalls. Then there's the three-tiered aspect of the falls shown in the film - three distinctive tiers with large (and somehow survivable) plunge-pools below each. Iguazu is only two-tiered, and falling from the first to the second tier would land you on mostly rocks, which would be a fatal fall. The waterfall in the film, I am sure, was mostly computer-generated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Samucabueno ( talk) 20:53, 5 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)
Anyway, just out of curiosity, has anyone (besides me and my dad) seen the symbol? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Samucabueno (
talk •
contribs)
23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I resently added a peice about the Wilhelm Scream to the page. It was removed. I would like to know the reason why please. Tacoman10 ( talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That piece had no place here. This is a fictional story. Someone's thinking it's a documentary. The original Raiders was loaded with "historical inaccuracies"... just like the B-movies that inspired these films! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Pancho Villa (a Mexican hero) teaching quechua (Andean language) is ridiculous. Production should've done some damn research on Peru.-- Gonzalo84 ( talk) 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Though set in the late 50's, several countdown displays used LED displays. The first practical LED was invented in 1962 at General Electric Company. The first LEDs displays became commercially available in late 1960s. Nixie tubes should have been used instead. Septagram ( talk) 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
what kind of amphibious vehicle is used in the chase and waterfall scenes?
I know that it isn't a DUKW (too many wheels) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.54.248 ( talk) 03:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Gary King ( talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
While I understand that some contributors to the Indiana Jones topics have put in yeoman's work on these pages, many of the pages appear to be seriously in danger of being "owned" by two editors. If the bulk of one's contributions consists of simply reverting other's work, rather than contributing to an evolving article, I think that's a problem. It's effective, in it's own way: newer editors, exhausted from having their work reverted, do tend to leave. Yet having a series of pages almost wholly under the editorial control of but a handful of writers, however industrious and dedicated they might be, seems, to me, to severely limit the scope of WP's project. Also, I don't know that differences in writing style need be labeled as "strange" (to my mind, a pejorative term). They are simply that: style differences. -- Vaudedoc ( talk) 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
For all the articles we edit, Alientraveller does revert me, and I revert him. Maybe it's not evident on this particular article, but there is no collusion. ColdFusion650 ( talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that the real world crystal skulls have recently been determined to be fake is as worthy of inclusion as the speculation about the "real" Indiana Jones is on his character page. (After all, Jones is only a "pretend" archaeologist.) It could live in a couple of different sections, but should be mentioned, especially as Lucas based key parts of the plot (e.g., energy beams shooting out of the eye sockets) on the legends associated with them. Thoughts?-- Vaudedoc ( talk) 22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
The crystal skeletons of the thirteen aliens can be explained by them having a silicon-based biochemistry -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_life#Silicon_biochemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.127.15.34 ( talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
They are not from earth, so they are aliens. They may be from another universe, but they are still not from earth, so they are aliens. Besides, everything about and related to them screams "Aliens". Tutthoth-Ankhre ( talk) 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is the "Secrecy" section sub-listed under "Impact"? It seems the material within this section better fits with various places of the "Development" and "Marketing" section, but in any case, the secrecy with which the film was developed and shot doesn't seem to logically fit within considerations of the "impact" of the film upon the stars, the industry, popular culture, etc. Thoughts? Also, I have a good pull quote about Crystal Skull being expected to create an upswing in the number of college students expressing an interest in archeology. In what section would people like that to appear? -- Vaudedoc ( talk) 22:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
How did Lucas miss that one? Well, I think he did that once already. It was called Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
could someone read this and decide whether or not to add it to the article? thanks.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle4386319.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkyoda141 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a better link: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/08/05/exclusive-indiana-jones-5-wont-center-on-shia-labeouf-george-lucas-insists/ — Wildroot ( talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I just started playing Flight of the Amazon Queen (and am now near the end) but I noticed that there are tons of similarities between the stories. Among them is that it takes place in the Amazon, he's supposed to fetch a Crystal Skull for his enemy, the temple is in the Valley of Mist (or "of the Mists" -- can't remember), there are Germans in the story (well, of course what good story doesn't have a German in it? *grin*). Obviously this game was produced long before Indy IV came out, but maybe it had already been partly written. Anyways, I think the connection may be worth mentioning somehow. D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The script shares many plot points with a public radio program that predates it: Dreams of Rio, by the ZBS foundation. Similarities go beyond the obvious (the Amazon & crystal skulls make for good adventure stories) to the legend of El Dorado, the eyes of the skull and much, much more. However, I don't know how to work this into the main article. Source: podcast at http://www.zbs.org/dircast/meatballs/15_Meatball%27s-Podcast.mp3 tharsaile ( talk) 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
So... no mentions in this article to the horrible errors in history, as seen in the Spanish article? 190.43.150.49 ( talk) 02:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Should we mention the oct 8th south park episode, whose plot was mainly based around the SP characters being traumatised because Indiana Jones was raped by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.145.166 ( talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely there's nothing wrong with a "References in popular culture" section as there are with many other articles? 23:36 4 April 2009 (GMT)
Indy went to some Peruvian ruins where they found the grave of Francisco de Orellana. Is it possible that Lucas wanted to imply Machu Picchu through the ruins somehow? I know Machu Picchu is by no means in this movie because from the ruins the Nazca lines which is not around Machu Picchu can be seen. But is there any ruins around Nazca lines like the movie shows? If there is no such a ruins, it could probably be some sort of references to Machu Picchu?-- Mato Rei ( talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
So did anyone else notice that the warehouse Indy and the Russians visit is "warehouse 51" from Raiders of the lost Ark? Also after Indy smashes through several crates the camera looks into a half-opened box, with the Ark inside? A homage to Indy's first movie and an awsome Easter Egg in my opinion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.71.180 ( talk) 05:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed it too, so I am going to add it to the plot.-- GwydionM ( talk) 12:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems quite unusual to me to bring back the Ark from Raiders... -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is important about it not getting nominated for an Oscar? Were any of the Silence of the Lambs sequels nominated? Alientraveller ( talk) 22:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Just read that the theatrical release was 2 minutes and 33 seconds longer than the DVD release. I am not saying that i doubt this, but for my own interest could someone tell me which parts were cut??
Not sure when the above comment was added or to which region it relates to. It's just that when American films/TV shows are transferred to DVD for the UK market, they generally run about 4% quicker. Something to do to with the different systems in the UK and US, I'll see if i can find a link describing this somewhere! ( Scottrb ( talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
This last sentence makes no sense at all:
"The Communist Party of the Russian Federation called for the film to be banned, accusing the production team of demonizing the Soviet Union. Party official Andrei Andreyev said: "It is very disturbing if talented directors want to provoke a new Cold War."[116] Another party official commented that "in 1957 the USSR was not sending terrorists to America but sending the Sputnik satellite into space!"[117] Spielberg responded that he is Russian, as his ancestors came from Ukraine,"
Surely that would make his family Ukrainian, not Russian? They're entirely separate nations, with different alphabets, everything. Even in the days of the USSR, no Ukrainian Soviet would describe himself as Russian, or vice versa. Can we change this? JulesVerne ( talk) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (BST) Lack of camp nazi enemy makes this film poor in comparison to previous ones, Russians don't really have that comedy evil about them like that of the Gestapo agent from the first film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.241.66 ( talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The nuclear test explosion Dr. Jones survives early in the movie is undoubtedly Plumbbob Fizeau, this being the only tower shot at the Nevada Test Range fired during local daylight hours in 1957. This would date the movie with precision as beginning on 14 September 1957 (source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html). I don't know if this counts as original research or not, but if anyone feels confident enough to incorporate it, be my guest :) Nude Amazon ( talk) 06:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
When they showed the flight from south america to the us over south america, central america, belize.... hey wait a minute! belize was british honduras until 1981, and this film was set in 1957. Bidask ( talk) 02:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)bidask 12/17/2009
The whole movie is inspired by real theories of Erich von Daniken et al. Why is there no mention of it in this article?-- Wangond ( talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The manequins used in the Nuclear test scene are the same ones that the Fallout 3 booth were using according to Todd Howard, CEO of Bethesda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.204.68 ( talk) 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"Anticipation for the film was heightened by secrecy, which resulted in a legal dispute over an extra violating his non-disclosure agreement and the arrest of another man for stealing a computer containing various production-related documents."
Not one source. The paragraph entire only has one source, regarding it's reviews.
Hell, I heard a guy [after signing an NDA] was fired, literally set on fire, after saying the movie had Indiana Jones in it before it was released. His whole family was jailed too, for life. Everyone they knew was then renditioned and taken into the Balkans or something.
I am going to flip a coin and either remove the quoted part, or add a couple things I heard about into the article. [Guess which half is a joke]
postscript: the discussion is mentioned and sourced later in the article. Why can't they source it at the first mention?
71.102.17.212 ( talk) 05:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I understand. I think it will be reasonable if I add some info where I removed. Mentioning legal issues and allow the reader to find it in the article for more info. I think the first part gave too much info for simply being a synopsis. 71.102.17.212 ( talk) 22:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Science has spoken: it is simply impossible. -- Stormwatch ( talk) 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
is it really notable enough to mention? it's obviously bogus and has exactly 0 chance of being successful, so why should it be mentioned in the article? also, even if you do mention it, how does it deserve a section of its own? its only 1 sentence anyway -- 188.110.121.169 ( talk) 04:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm strongly *against* https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indiana_Jones_and_the_Kingdom_of_the_Crystal_Skull&oldid=606909827 - removing the mention of user ratings from a review aggregate on the grounds that "they aren't reliable (people can vote without having seen it)" is totally absurd; a) we're *not* here to judge the reviews as "good/reliable" and "bad/unreliable" in "criticism" section - because that would mean that *we're reviewing the reviews*, and that's an absurd censoring act, b) there is *no* way to check if *any* reviewer (be it anonymous 'net one or NYT one) actually seen the film, c) the data provided is just that, data. We aren't here to decide if the movie was good nor if the reviewers were right nor if the reviews were reliable nor if anybody actually seen the movie at all - *we're here to provide the data from secondary source!*
As to the quality of the source - either we agree that providing scores from review aggregates are good idea (and I assume that's the consensus), in which case it doesn't matter *from where the aggregated reviews come* (since heterogeneity is actually the *pro* here) - or we agree that aggregates are useless, because "they aren't reliable", and drop the mentions of them at all.
Also, as a side note: if somebody wants to dump any of that info on the grounds of "low quality of the reference" etc., *please provide a link to prior talk/discussion consensus on the matter of the quality of aggregates*, since I'm not aware of any.
Poponuro ( talk) 18:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, while I completely agree with MoS on the fact that user scores are inherently *biased* and thus unreliable - still, here the difference is *so significant* IMO *it deserves a mention*.
As a side note: I'm not going to start a battle over this, since it IMO doesn't make any sense. If there ain't nobody understanding/supporting my point of improving the criticism section, I don't see any point in forcing it. I've been active on WP for 6 years, and I've seen enough worthless battles to know one before it starts. Poponuro ( talk) 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"Spalko's bob cut was [Cate Blanchett's] idea," says this article. "Her bob cut was George Lucas' idea and was inspired by Louise Brooks," claims List of Indiana Jones characters. The latter cites an article by Ian Freer in the May 2008 issue of Empire as the source; the former cites it as well, although the attribution is somewhat ambiguous. I don't have access to the issue in question, but I'm not sure how the bob cut could have been both Blanchett's and Lucas's idea. Can anyone shed some light on this? – DybrarH ( talk) 01:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dailyillini.com/news/article_44ba045f-6a1c-50b2-9570-1cbaf299d763.html?mode=jqmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
untold
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article contains a
list of miscellaneous information. (May 2008) |
Yes - discouraged, not forbidden. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(...)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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok... so why it was removed? 84.90.24.156 ( talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
...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)
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)}
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 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 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)
Right on. ColdFusion650 ( talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
....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)
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)
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, Van Tucky 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
I tend to agree with Dr. Woodsworth. TaiChiChuan ( talk) 20:48, 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 )
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)
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.
During the late 1970s, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg made a deal with Paramount Pictures for five Indiana Jones films. [2] 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. [3]
Ford disliked the new angle, telling Lucas "No way am I being in a Steve Spielberg movie like that." [4] 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. [3] 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. [5] 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. [3]
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)
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. Van Tucky 22:22, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
JettaMann( talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Everybody has a right to their opinions 1st amendment freedom of speech not that personal opinions belong here.
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)
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)
I can guarantee that that's not true in all cases, because I didn't notice. ColdFusion650 ( talk) 22:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is a British WW2 gas mask bag. It's on the DVD. They chose to use that particular bag in the movies because so many were issued during the war that in 1981 (only 35 years plus or minus) since the end of the war, they could be easily replaced if damaged during the a stunt. Period films in general are always full of anachronisms. If you really want to be upset, pull out a period map and watch the travel sequences. They show countries that didn't even exist yet (or so I'm told). ColdFusion650 ( talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that 1138 was the address of the house IJ breaks into at that nuclear test site. May be worth a mention in the article as an easter egg... also because all of the IJ films have allusions to previous works by George Lucas. That said, thank god the alien at the end of IJ4 was not Howard the Duck though! 99.231.11.56 ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This may be of some interest: That this film is based on "1963 Charlton Heston movie Secret of the Incas,". See http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156582&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156408&contentPK=20820282&folderPk=87028&pNodeId=156139 86.154.219.63 ( talk) 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why a reference and link to Mayanism is considered to be "personal analysis" and its contribution is labeled as "small vandalism". If you read the entry on Mayanism, I think you'll see that it's directly pertinent to the plot of this film, which depends heavily on references to Mayas, Nazca lines, and ancient astronaut theory. (Just as "Judaism" would be pertinent to understanding the Ark of the Covenant in the first film.) This is not analysis or opinion, but FACT.
My comment was specifically intended to help readers to understand the plot in greater depth, not through its analysis, but through links to other pertinent material in Wikipedia.
I haven't attempted to revert the deletion, but I would like to know why this is considered "analysis". Is there somewhere else in the entry where it belongs besides "Plot"?
Hoopes ( talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I got zapped for offering another "opinion" or "analysis", specifically the FACT that the visual imagery of the psychic mental breakdown of Spalko is directly inspired by the visual imagery of the psychedelic art connected with entheogen use. All you have to do is look at the work of artists such as Alex Grey or Robert Venosa to see that this is where the imagery of Spalko's explosion due to information overload came from.
I assure you that heads in the audience identified the inspiration of Terence McKenna and his own frequent references to Mayas, flying saucers, and the like! What kind of documentation is required to show that something like this is fact and not opinion? Hoopes ( talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone keeps trying to add the bit of business about the kid picking up the fedora and trying to put it on before Indy takes it back from him. The only reason for bringing this up is to infer some kind of "passing of the torch" (or the fedora) to his kid. However, in light of all the principals saying that there is no next-film in the plans, that inference has no basis. Besides which, it could just be the kid trying to get away with something. And with no citable inference, the plot point is too minute to belong in the article. Now, if an announcement comes out that there will be another film and that Mutt will become the new adventurer, then it could be added back. But not until then. And don't hold your breath waiting for it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Although the general shape of the waterfall certainly suggests Iguazu, there is nothing in the film that identifies it as such, and there are sufficient contradictions in the layout to demonstrate that it is not Iguazu. One is the fact that they shot over the edge of a high canyon to land in the river upstream from the falls. There is no such canyon upstream from Iguazu - the upper river has a shallow shoreline, as with Niagara, Victoria, and other such large waterfalls. Then there's the three-tiered aspect of the falls shown in the film - three distinctive tiers with large (and somehow survivable) plunge-pools below each. Iguazu is only two-tiered, and falling from the first to the second tier would land you on mostly rocks, which would be a fatal fall. The waterfall in the film, I am sure, was mostly computer-generated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Samucabueno ( talk) 20:53, 5 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)
Anyway, just out of curiosity, has anyone (besides me and my dad) seen the symbol? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Samucabueno (
talk •
contribs)
23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I resently added a peice about the Wilhelm Scream to the page. It was removed. I would like to know the reason why please. Tacoman10 ( talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That piece had no place here. This is a fictional story. Someone's thinking it's a documentary. The original Raiders was loaded with "historical inaccuracies"... just like the B-movies that inspired these films! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Pancho Villa (a Mexican hero) teaching quechua (Andean language) is ridiculous. Production should've done some damn research on Peru.-- Gonzalo84 ( talk) 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Though set in the late 50's, several countdown displays used LED displays. The first practical LED was invented in 1962 at General Electric Company. The first LEDs displays became commercially available in late 1960s. Nixie tubes should have been used instead. Septagram ( talk) 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
what kind of amphibious vehicle is used in the chase and waterfall scenes?
I know that it isn't a DUKW (too many wheels) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.54.248 ( talk) 03:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Gary King ( talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
While I understand that some contributors to the Indiana Jones topics have put in yeoman's work on these pages, many of the pages appear to be seriously in danger of being "owned" by two editors. If the bulk of one's contributions consists of simply reverting other's work, rather than contributing to an evolving article, I think that's a problem. It's effective, in it's own way: newer editors, exhausted from having their work reverted, do tend to leave. Yet having a series of pages almost wholly under the editorial control of but a handful of writers, however industrious and dedicated they might be, seems, to me, to severely limit the scope of WP's project. Also, I don't know that differences in writing style need be labeled as "strange" (to my mind, a pejorative term). They are simply that: style differences. -- Vaudedoc ( talk) 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
For all the articles we edit, Alientraveller does revert me, and I revert him. Maybe it's not evident on this particular article, but there is no collusion. ColdFusion650 ( talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that the real world crystal skulls have recently been determined to be fake is as worthy of inclusion as the speculation about the "real" Indiana Jones is on his character page. (After all, Jones is only a "pretend" archaeologist.) It could live in a couple of different sections, but should be mentioned, especially as Lucas based key parts of the plot (e.g., energy beams shooting out of the eye sockets) on the legends associated with them. Thoughts?-- Vaudedoc ( talk) 22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
The crystal skeletons of the thirteen aliens can be explained by them having a silicon-based biochemistry -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_life#Silicon_biochemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.127.15.34 ( talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
They are not from earth, so they are aliens. They may be from another universe, but they are still not from earth, so they are aliens. Besides, everything about and related to them screams "Aliens". Tutthoth-Ankhre ( talk) 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is the "Secrecy" section sub-listed under "Impact"? It seems the material within this section better fits with various places of the "Development" and "Marketing" section, but in any case, the secrecy with which the film was developed and shot doesn't seem to logically fit within considerations of the "impact" of the film upon the stars, the industry, popular culture, etc. Thoughts? Also, I have a good pull quote about Crystal Skull being expected to create an upswing in the number of college students expressing an interest in archeology. In what section would people like that to appear? -- Vaudedoc ( talk) 22:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
How did Lucas miss that one? Well, I think he did that once already. It was called Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
could someone read this and decide whether or not to add it to the article? thanks.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle4386319.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkyoda141 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a better link: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/08/05/exclusive-indiana-jones-5-wont-center-on-shia-labeouf-george-lucas-insists/ — Wildroot ( talk) 08:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I just started playing Flight of the Amazon Queen (and am now near the end) but I noticed that there are tons of similarities between the stories. Among them is that it takes place in the Amazon, he's supposed to fetch a Crystal Skull for his enemy, the temple is in the Valley of Mist (or "of the Mists" -- can't remember), there are Germans in the story (well, of course what good story doesn't have a German in it? *grin*). Obviously this game was produced long before Indy IV came out, but maybe it had already been partly written. Anyways, I think the connection may be worth mentioning somehow. D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The script shares many plot points with a public radio program that predates it: Dreams of Rio, by the ZBS foundation. Similarities go beyond the obvious (the Amazon & crystal skulls make for good adventure stories) to the legend of El Dorado, the eyes of the skull and much, much more. However, I don't know how to work this into the main article. Source: podcast at http://www.zbs.org/dircast/meatballs/15_Meatball%27s-Podcast.mp3 tharsaile ( talk) 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
So... no mentions in this article to the horrible errors in history, as seen in the Spanish article? 190.43.150.49 ( talk) 02:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Should we mention the oct 8th south park episode, whose plot was mainly based around the SP characters being traumatised because Indiana Jones was raped by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.145.166 ( talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely there's nothing wrong with a "References in popular culture" section as there are with many other articles? 23:36 4 April 2009 (GMT)
Indy went to some Peruvian ruins where they found the grave of Francisco de Orellana. Is it possible that Lucas wanted to imply Machu Picchu through the ruins somehow? I know Machu Picchu is by no means in this movie because from the ruins the Nazca lines which is not around Machu Picchu can be seen. But is there any ruins around Nazca lines like the movie shows? If there is no such a ruins, it could probably be some sort of references to Machu Picchu?-- Mato Rei ( talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
So did anyone else notice that the warehouse Indy and the Russians visit is "warehouse 51" from Raiders of the lost Ark? Also after Indy smashes through several crates the camera looks into a half-opened box, with the Ark inside? A homage to Indy's first movie and an awsome Easter Egg in my opinion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.71.180 ( talk) 05:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed it too, so I am going to add it to the plot.-- GwydionM ( talk) 12:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems quite unusual to me to bring back the Ark from Raiders... -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is important about it not getting nominated for an Oscar? Were any of the Silence of the Lambs sequels nominated? Alientraveller ( talk) 22:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Just read that the theatrical release was 2 minutes and 33 seconds longer than the DVD release. I am not saying that i doubt this, but for my own interest could someone tell me which parts were cut??
Not sure when the above comment was added or to which region it relates to. It's just that when American films/TV shows are transferred to DVD for the UK market, they generally run about 4% quicker. Something to do to with the different systems in the UK and US, I'll see if i can find a link describing this somewhere! ( Scottrb ( talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
This last sentence makes no sense at all:
"The Communist Party of the Russian Federation called for the film to be banned, accusing the production team of demonizing the Soviet Union. Party official Andrei Andreyev said: "It is very disturbing if talented directors want to provoke a new Cold War."[116] Another party official commented that "in 1957 the USSR was not sending terrorists to America but sending the Sputnik satellite into space!"[117] Spielberg responded that he is Russian, as his ancestors came from Ukraine,"
Surely that would make his family Ukrainian, not Russian? They're entirely separate nations, with different alphabets, everything. Even in the days of the USSR, no Ukrainian Soviet would describe himself as Russian, or vice versa. Can we change this? JulesVerne ( talk) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (BST) Lack of camp nazi enemy makes this film poor in comparison to previous ones, Russians don't really have that comedy evil about them like that of the Gestapo agent from the first film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.241.66 ( talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The nuclear test explosion Dr. Jones survives early in the movie is undoubtedly Plumbbob Fizeau, this being the only tower shot at the Nevada Test Range fired during local daylight hours in 1957. This would date the movie with precision as beginning on 14 September 1957 (source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html). I don't know if this counts as original research or not, but if anyone feels confident enough to incorporate it, be my guest :) Nude Amazon ( talk) 06:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
When they showed the flight from south america to the us over south america, central america, belize.... hey wait a minute! belize was british honduras until 1981, and this film was set in 1957. Bidask ( talk) 02:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)bidask 12/17/2009
The whole movie is inspired by real theories of Erich von Daniken et al. Why is there no mention of it in this article?-- Wangond ( talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The manequins used in the Nuclear test scene are the same ones that the Fallout 3 booth were using according to Todd Howard, CEO of Bethesda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.204.68 ( talk) 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"Anticipation for the film was heightened by secrecy, which resulted in a legal dispute over an extra violating his non-disclosure agreement and the arrest of another man for stealing a computer containing various production-related documents."
Not one source. The paragraph entire only has one source, regarding it's reviews.
Hell, I heard a guy [after signing an NDA] was fired, literally set on fire, after saying the movie had Indiana Jones in it before it was released. His whole family was jailed too, for life. Everyone they knew was then renditioned and taken into the Balkans or something.
I am going to flip a coin and either remove the quoted part, or add a couple things I heard about into the article. [Guess which half is a joke]
postscript: the discussion is mentioned and sourced later in the article. Why can't they source it at the first mention?
71.102.17.212 ( talk) 05:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I understand. I think it will be reasonable if I add some info where I removed. Mentioning legal issues and allow the reader to find it in the article for more info. I think the first part gave too much info for simply being a synopsis. 71.102.17.212 ( talk) 22:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Science has spoken: it is simply impossible. -- Stormwatch ( talk) 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
is it really notable enough to mention? it's obviously bogus and has exactly 0 chance of being successful, so why should it be mentioned in the article? also, even if you do mention it, how does it deserve a section of its own? its only 1 sentence anyway -- 188.110.121.169 ( talk) 04:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm strongly *against* https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Indiana_Jones_and_the_Kingdom_of_the_Crystal_Skull&oldid=606909827 - removing the mention of user ratings from a review aggregate on the grounds that "they aren't reliable (people can vote without having seen it)" is totally absurd; a) we're *not* here to judge the reviews as "good/reliable" and "bad/unreliable" in "criticism" section - because that would mean that *we're reviewing the reviews*, and that's an absurd censoring act, b) there is *no* way to check if *any* reviewer (be it anonymous 'net one or NYT one) actually seen the film, c) the data provided is just that, data. We aren't here to decide if the movie was good nor if the reviewers were right nor if the reviews were reliable nor if anybody actually seen the movie at all - *we're here to provide the data from secondary source!*
As to the quality of the source - either we agree that providing scores from review aggregates are good idea (and I assume that's the consensus), in which case it doesn't matter *from where the aggregated reviews come* (since heterogeneity is actually the *pro* here) - or we agree that aggregates are useless, because "they aren't reliable", and drop the mentions of them at all.
Also, as a side note: if somebody wants to dump any of that info on the grounds of "low quality of the reference" etc., *please provide a link to prior talk/discussion consensus on the matter of the quality of aggregates*, since I'm not aware of any.
Poponuro ( talk) 18:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, while I completely agree with MoS on the fact that user scores are inherently *biased* and thus unreliable - still, here the difference is *so significant* IMO *it deserves a mention*.
As a side note: I'm not going to start a battle over this, since it IMO doesn't make any sense. If there ain't nobody understanding/supporting my point of improving the criticism section, I don't see any point in forcing it. I've been active on WP for 6 years, and I've seen enough worthless battles to know one before it starts. Poponuro ( talk) 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"Spalko's bob cut was [Cate Blanchett's] idea," says this article. "Her bob cut was George Lucas' idea and was inspired by Louise Brooks," claims List of Indiana Jones characters. The latter cites an article by Ian Freer in the May 2008 issue of Empire as the source; the former cites it as well, although the attribution is somewhat ambiguous. I don't have access to the issue in question, but I'm not sure how the bob cut could have been both Blanchett's and Lucas's idea. Can anyone shed some light on this? – DybrarH ( talk) 01:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dailyillini.com/news/article_44ba045f-6a1c-50b2-9570-1cbaf299d763.html?mode=jqmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
untold
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).