Raiders of the Lost Ark turns 40, and is still an unqualified masterpiece (2021) | Hacker News Reader

Raiders of the Lost Ark turns 40, and is still an unqualified masterpiece (2021)

arstechnica.com

66 pointsTomte73 comments

It's a fabulous film, and when you compare it to the average Marvel blockbuster of today (which seems a relevant comparison), it just feels so much more full of invention and magic.

I always felt uncomfortable with Indy's relationship with Marion Ravenwood. According to the dialogue he was 25 and she was 14 or 15 when they had their relationship. That just strikes me as wrong and creepy and unsure how Spielberg/Lucas thought that was appropriate.

It was a different era. A more civilized era.

16 according to https://indianajones.fandom.com/wiki/Marion_Ravenwood

Looks like 15 is the intended age

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34318095

I’m in the same camp. I love that movie but can’t bring myself to show it to my kids yet with that relationship, the rapey behavior of Jones forcing to get his kisses, and the casual killing.

Wow, I had no idea about that, though Wikipedia seems to say that was Karen Allen's own idea for a backstory. I don't remember it from the film though apparently it is in the novelisation which I've never read.

No, did not appear to be her idea https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34318095

> According to the dialogue he was 25 and she was 14 or 15 when they had their relationship.

Exactly what dialog? Because (based on my recollection) if there was any dialog that implied that, it was ambiguous or must be the kind of thing you'd have to be paying pretty careful attention to to pick up on. So close attention that you're probably ignoring the actual plot of the movie.

> Exactly what dialog?

M: I learned to hate you in the last ten years.

I: I never meant to hurt you.

M: I was a child! I was in love! It was wrong and you knew it!

I: You knew what you were doing.

M: Now I do! This is my place. Get out!

I: I did what I did. You don't have to be happy about it, but maybe we could help each other out now.

https://youtu.be/Q4PlXSw0BQo?t=118

It's ambiguous (since we don't know for sure how old Marion is during the events of Raiders), but "Marion was 16(ish)" is a perfectly valid reading.

> It's ambiguous (since we don't know for sure how old Marion is during the events of Raiders), but "Marion was 16(ish)" is a perfectly valid reading

Yeah, which is kind of my point. That may be a valid reading of the dialog, but so is 18, 20, or even 25. 16 may be in the movie's "writer's bible," but (IMHO) the viewer has to do too much work during that 10 seconds or so to get there. A regular viewer isn't paying much if any attention to the character's ages, and pretty much all of them will assume something legit.

You can find a transcript from George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Larry Kasdan's original brainstorming sessions for this film online (http://maddogmovies.com/almost/scripts/raidersstoryconferenc...). In the transcript it's made clear that she would have been underage, but in the film it's only hinted at. Here's an excerpt:

G — I was thinking that this old guy could have been his mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

L — And he was forty-two.

G — He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

S — She had better be older than twenty-two.

G — He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve.

G — It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.

G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he...

Who are they talking about?

...themselves? I'm not sure what you're asking here.

I wonder I've never heard anyone say anything about "Big", directed by Penny Marshall and released in 1987. The main narrative thread in that film is unambiguously about a corporate executive who grooms and repeatedly rapes a pre-adolescent boy. It was hit with audiences and critics alike.

You're not wrong.

I think it's the whole push to "decamp" the comic books when getting them to the big screen. It just makes them so much less interesting than source material.

My theory is that Iron Man demonstrated that super hero movies are a lot more profitable than comic book movies.

What does that mean? Iron Man is a super hero from a comic book.

>>> I think it's the whole push to "decamp" the comic books when getting them to the big screen. It just makes them so much less interesting than source material.

>> My theory is that Iron Man demonstrated that super hero movies are a lot more profitable than comic book movies.

> What does that mean? Iron Man is a super hero from a comic book.

I'm not the OP, but I think he meant that "superhero characters" and "campy elements" are distinct characteristics, and the Iron Man movie demonstrated that dropping the latter make a film more appealing to a wider audience.

One of the best reveals in “Raiders” comes midway, when the sadistic Nazi shows his gruesomely burned hand — the result of a previous seemingly throwaway scene — to explain how the Nazis know exactly where Indy’s gone off to dig for the Ark. It’s one of the most perfect types of twists: humorous and dramatic, yet completely logical and discernible on repeat watches.

Contrast that with the Crystal Skull, where there’s a clunky scene of the villain basically saying “I am using this magical tracking device” as he holds up the tracker to make sure we understand his plan. Maybe audiences have gotten dumber, but I think Spielberg and Lucas were phoning it in for Indy 4.

Crystal Skull, for me, is really one of the most disappointing continuation of any series ever. It's even worse than the Star Wars prequels (and later on sequels), because those at least managed to set up interesting world building apart from being bad movies. It's no surprise that Lucas had a say in both of them.

Temple of Doom was nowhere near the quality of Raiders or Last Crusade, but it was still a good Indy movie. They should have never touched the franchise again after the trilogy. Harrison Ford is Indy. And Indy without his charisma & agility is just really plain…

I still think it's funny how now some people after watching new SW trilogy go "hell, prequels weren't that bad after all"

In a comparison to the Crystal Skulls, the SW prequels were much better. That doesn't make the prequels good.

In the SW series, the recent versions were not as good as the original trilogy but still better than the prequels.

I always liked Doom the most. But I was like 13 when I first watched them so perhaps the campiness of Doom appealed to me as it was perhaps Goonies-esque for me at the time..

I don't think audiences have gotten dumber, but what has happened for most major motion pictures like Crystal Skull is that the plots have been simplified for an international audience. When you have to translate a story into 50 different languages, you have to keep the story pretty basic and straight forward or else expend lots of effort in each translation to take into account cultural nuance, humor, innuendo, etc.

That's one reason you see so much more reliance on special effects and crazy action. Because those are pretty universally entertaining.

So in other words, globalization has ruined the film industry.

I found it interesting that the plots always seemed to match the scripts, stereotypes and cinematography styles of the eras that the plots occur in. That's what stood out more to me.

Yes, the dialogue in Crystal Skull wasn't the greatest but it didn't really take away the fun for me.

I remember when Siskel & Ebert (the original Siskel and Ebert) reviewed The Last Crusade in 1989, Siskel gave a thumbs-down because the father-son relationship wasn't believable. Ebert's response was, to paraphrase, this is an Indiana Jones movie, not a real-life drama.

If you're into music podcasts, it's worth listening to The Soundtrack Show (can't find the episode number but it was released Aug 28th 2019) where he talks about the music of Raiders. The discussion of how the music reflects Indy's morally ambiguous character and his struggles is really enlightening. (Although I've heard the opposite argued[0], so maybe this is partly a kind of post-facto reasoning!)

[0]https://filmmusicnotes.com/2013/03/23/john-williams-themes-p...

It truly belongs in a museum.

I can't help but to think about what Amy Farrah Fowler said about it on TBBT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYa26EnN8t0

It is very, very cutting. It hasn't stopped me enjoying the film thankfully

would they really have taken it to that island though, if it wasn't for Jones? I think without him they might have taken it straight to the Fuhrer?

Also without Jones they wouldn't have found the actual Ark, because they were digging in the wrong place.

I don't know who this Amy person is, but I am unimpressed. :(

Also without Jones the ark wouldn't have ended up in a big government warehouse at the end.

boo, Amy.

So, what you're saying is, without Jones, they would have taken the ark to the Fuhrer, and upon opening it, the Fuhrer and all of the attendant Nazi leaders would have had their faces melted off, thus probably ending WWII.

So, Indiana Jones prolonged WWII. Got it.

exactly, that guy is a prime exemplar of the long line of lovable doofus action heroes.

but I don't think he had absolutely no effect on the events of the movie.

British had a plan to assassinate Hitler during his routine walks through a certain garden. They supposedly realized Hitler's death was more likely to prolong the war. Because while Hitler may have been charismatic he was a mediocre, even bad, commander by that point in the war.

Regardless, Indy movies are less about politics and more about swash buckling action with a dash of history.

> Also without Jones they wouldn't have found the actual Ark, because they were digging in the wrong place.

They were only digging in the wrong place because Jones stopped them from getting the headpiece of the Staff of Ra. Without Jones they get the headpiece and then dig in the right place.

oops yep, I was wrong there.

Nah, that's baloney.

Marion would be dead and the Ark would've been in Berlin where the baddies could keep trying after getting it wrong the first time.

For folks who don't want to click, the argument is Indiana Jones didn't have an impact on the outcome of the story; the Nazis still would have found the arc and died in the end.

It's an amusing idea, but I've always thought it was weird to call it a problem with the movie, as it would apply to the protagonist in a bunch of movies (spoilers abound in this extremely random assortment of movies off the top of my head):

* If Kurt Russel's character hadn't been in The Thing, everything that happened still would have happened

* If Harry and Sally hadn't been in When Harry Met Sally, New York would still be Yorking

* If Florence Pugh's character hadn't gone to Sweden in Midsommar, the tourists still would have died

* If Richard Dreyfuss's character hadn't been in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the aliens still would have made contact, dropped off their old passengers, and picked up new passengers

* If Scott Pilgrim hadn't been in Scott Pilgrim, everyone would probably still just be hanging out more or less the same

* If Matt Damon's character hadn't been in The Martian, they would have all still ended up back on Earth

* If Rocky Balboa hadn't been in Rocky, probably two other people would have boxed and one of them would have won

To each their own, but for my money good stories are about character journeys, not about... I dunno, like, an accounting of what changed during the movie.

That's the same argument with every "Gullivers Travels" movie, where we see through the eyes of a character that is present at all the significant moments. It's a theatrical device, it's often used, and there's nothing wrong with it.

My view on this always been that if it did not happen to this specific character, we (the audience) wouldn't have learn about their story.

This is also true of Luke in Return of the Jedi. Luke does nothing to help destroy the death star and Vader and the emperor would have probably been killed when it was destroyed without Luke being there (okay, maybe they would have escaped but it doesn’t feel like Luke was super impactful)

This is true, but neither of these things are what Luke is after.

Luke's motivations in RoTJ are a) becoming a full Jedi Knight; and b) his father's redemption - not his death. He achieves both of these, and Vader would not have turned from the dark side without him there.

If you’re into RotLA, I definitely recommend reading the transcripts of the brainstorming session Lucas, Spielberg and Larry Kasdan had in Jan 1978: http://maddogmovies.com/almost/scripts/raidersstoryconferenc....

It’s fascinating seeing the ideas that will be in the final movie take form in real-time

And seeing what they left out that then went into Temple of Doom!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/sep/24/steven-soderber...

Soderbergh's 'recut' as a silent black and white movie with a Trent Reznor soundtrack gave me an appreciation for the cinematography and how much of the story is told visually, with no need for dialogue. Some of the tracks reappeared in HBO's Watchmen (also excellent).

Never knew it was that old. Sure, watching it nowadays, it's obviously not done using modern technology, but a compelling story and acting instead (which is often lacking in modern blockbusters). I'd have put somewhere in the nineties maybe, not '81..

I was re-watching Alien (1979) with my wife just yesterday, commenting on what a masterpiece it is, even at age 44. I've gotten into 35mm film a lot lately, and have a new appreciation for these other movies shot entirely on film (the lighting, dynamic range, camera work, the physical sets, the practical effects, etc...). This is in addition to the writing, acting, and pacing. There are some real gems in movies from that era.

> I've gotten into 35mm film a lot lately

While Alien was shot on 35mm negative film, what defines it and other films like it is that they were shot with an anamorphic lens in anamorphic widescreen, commonly known as CinemaScope[1] using the full 3:2 35mm frame rather than cropping. When the prints are projected (effectively decoded through another anamorphic lens), the aspect ratio becomes 2.39:1. Alien also had blowup 70mm prints with a less common 2.20:1 aspect ratio.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope

That's amazing! Thank you for this info! Regarding "I've gotten into 35mm film lately", I just meant to say that I've taken a deep technical interest in film in general, which has given me new appreciation. What you just provided is another learning-rabbit-hole for me! Thank you!

It's not just movies; TV shows in the 60s were shot on 35mm film too, so now when they make Blu-Ray remasters, they look absolutely fantastic in HD.

You're totally right! This is why the remaster of Star Trek TNG looks so good, but we don't have good remasters of Voyager or Deep Space 9 - the former was shot on film and they rescanned them all, whereas the latter were shot on electronic format, so there's no going back and re-scanning.

Not just TNG, but the late-60s Original Series of Star Trek too; the remaster looks absolutely amazing. It's too bad they screwed up shooting DS9 and Voyager that way.

> You’re totally right! This is why the remaster of Star Trek TNG looks so good, but we don’t have good remasters of Voyager or Deep Space 9 - the former was shot on film and they rescanned them all, whereas the latter were shot on electronic format, so there’s no going back and re-scanning.

Nope, all four were shot on 35mm, but the latter three were transferred to videotape for editing, while TOS was cut on 35mm negative, so it could be “remastered” from the film more easily.

For TNG, they had to rescan and edit, and recompose VFX, and recreate some of the VFX in CG, which was much more laborious, than the process for TOS, which, in addition to be edited on film, had more practical effects and simpler other effects (which the remaster was used as an opportunity to upgrade, in some cases.)

AFAIK, cost for expected return is why they didn’t do for DS9 and VOY what they did for TNG.

Interesting. But DS9 seems pretty popular with Trekkies, so I'm surprised they haven't done this process for that series yet after the success of TNG. VOY was less popular, so that makes sense.

How was ENT shot? Personally, I'd actually rather watch ENT than VOY, though I have to skip that awful intro song.

Thank you for the correction. I appreciate the info!

It borrowed hugely from a 1950s movie, Secret of the Incas

Earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28151759

I've seen that movie. I don't know about 'hugely', but I definitely would agree it's highly likely that at least one of Spielberg or Lucas had seen it. Overall it was a very mediocre movie though.

If you boil a performance down to a script, and then you boil it down further into some archetypes, tropes, and a timeline, then not much is original, but you're also boiling away everything that makes a film unique. Just because things like sound design, actor charisma, and historical context are hard to measure doesn't mean they don't all add up.

This came out when I was 4. I was certainly a tiny bit older when I first saw it — but not much! — on my neighbors’ basement den VCR with wired remote. It was my introduction to who the Nazis were, to archaeology, and to so many other things. What a film.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com