Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 5/22 (Trailer is out!)

[niky]

Actually... there is reason to believe that the "Ark" and the "Grail" do exist... but not in the way we understand them to. Holy relics are real, but the chances of these existing till modern times are pretty remote.

That's the thing. You're pretty sure there was a Jesus Christ. And from four or five different Gospel accounts (or six, or seven... hell, I don't know...) there was a last supper. I loved the direction they went with in "The Last Crusade" where they actually went with the most plausible form of the Grail... even though the circumstances they found the Grail in were completely fantastic.

Suspension of disbelief is easy. Take one thing that is fantastic and plop it down in a real world where nothing else is. That's why the older movies worked (though yeah, Temple of Doom was just over-the-top corny with weirdness).

Here, Lucas mish-mashes too many fantastic things. Psychics, Aliens, Crystal Alien skulls.

Spoiler

A magnet that's apparenly strong enough to attract objects from dozens of yards away yet isn't covered in a gigantic beard of magnetic particles sifted from the desert dust that's swirling outside... (and of course, the absolute absence of this magnetic effect at certain other portions of the story... why doesn't that stupid skull stick to the Jeep like a leech?

The idea that such and such ancient civilizations were developed or sheperded by an alien race. Seriously... if I'd been the mentor to those indians, I'd have at least taught them to mix concrete and do brain surgery. And in the end, where the alien craft leaves and destroys all traces of its ever being there... total cop-out. If the idea was to leave no evidence... then why land at all and establish a base and interfere with the local culture? Why not just send robots out to the four corners of the Earth to gather data? Why collect thousands of years worth of treasure only to destroy it by backing the car out of the garage too fast? WHAT THE HELL KIND OF ARCHEOLOGISTS ARE THESE IDIOTS?!?

I actually liked Cate Blanchett. I agree that she did a better job than most Indy villains, who could have been cardboard cut-outs for all the menace they provided.

Shia did a half-way decent job with crappy material. Honestly... "Mutt Williams"? He was being asked to play a comic book character. What can you do with that?

For me, the let-down was that the first half of the movie was absolutely classic Indy stuff. Okay, forget the whole magnetic mumbo jumbo... it was breath-taking. You could almost forget that Harrison Ford (and by extension, Jones) was over 60. Totally fantastic stuff, up to the point where:

Spoiler

the refrigerator flew up into the air and landed, scorched, outside the blast zone...

It was a totally unbelievable moment, and definitely Mythbusters fodder, but who cares? It was fun!

The chase sequence through the city was great fun, too. Dozens of classics, great cars and a great bike. Indy-worthy.

Then, as you get further into the movie. You begin to wonder... is one missed jump the only clue we're ever going to be given that Indy is past his prime? This "crazy old man" doesn't huff, doesn't puff, doesn't get side stitches, doesn't lay flat on his back sore and dying of pain after a fight... c'mon... you'd think at their ages, Lucas and Spielberg would actually understand that part about being old.

Spoiler

Then there was the graveyard scene, which was terribly shot (honestly... the cave-crawling scene seemed very lazily shot for a Spielberg flick... for gosh-sakes... "The Mummy" did those better!. Then the stupid swordfight scenes, which were worse than those in "Pirates", the vine swinging scene, which was not only dumb, but terribly, TERRIBLY filmed, and, of course, the disappointing final part of the movie, which was anti-climactic.

The problem with Kingdom? It starts great, and ends up average. I did enjoy the movie, but I felt that even I could have directed some of the scenes better. Still, might be worth a watch if you enjoy a good, stupid, popcorn flick.

 

[Famine]

and if you ask Dan Brown

I'd no sooner ask Dan Brown for historical information than I'd ask Pol Pot for humane crowd control methods.

 

[Joey D]

There is no archaeological evidence that there was the Holy Grail, Arc of the Covenant, or even Jesus Christ. To claim there is, is not only false but makes a mockery of archaeology. I hate, in fact most archaeologist hate, Biblical archaeology because it uses a myth book to say things are indeed fact. No I don't care if you believe in it either, that it your choice, but from an archaeology point of view it doesn't work.

Aliens are a theory on how ancient civilisations gained their technology and there is some scraped together evidence to support it sort of. The Nazca lines are a perfect example of these. Granted I don't believe aliens did it, in fact most archaeologist don't, because there is no proof, but still it is a theory out there that kind of has evidence to back it up.

 

[Earth]

A cup, a crate, and Jesus Christ, the most influential man EVER aren't real but aliens who helped early civilisation most likely are.

I thought aliens vs predator taught that

Well, bring out the aliens, since they're our creators let's worship them like how they did in the movie by binding our children's skulls and making them egg shaped

 

[Joey D]

No they aren't more then likely the cause of this, I'm saying there is a theory with scrapped together evidence that suggests this. I don't support that aliens came to earth to teach human civilisation any more then I believe a man who claim to be the son of a god came to earth to save us. Occam's Razor says there is a simpler explanation for all of it, probably most of the stuff that aliens would have taught us (agriculture, building, domestication, etc.) was either discovered by accident or there really is only one good way of doing it.

 

[niky]

There is no archaeological evidence that there was the Holy Grail, Arc of the Covenant, or even Jesus Christ. To claim there is, is not only false but makes a mockery of archaeology. I hate, in fact most archaeologist hate, Biblical archaeology because it uses a myth book to say things are indeed fact. No I don't care if you believe in it either, that it your choice, but from an archaeology point of view it doesn't work.

Aliens are a theory on how ancient civilisations gained their technology and there is some scraped together evidence to support it sort of. The Nazca lines are a perfect example of these. Granted I don't believe aliens did it, in fact most archaeologist don't, because there is no proof, but still it is a theory out there that kind of has evidence to back it up.

See, I didn't mention archeological evidence. I meant historical evidence.

There is no doubt that there was a Jesus Christ. At least several writers have written about the man's life. They don't all agree with each other, which is why there are only four gospels left in the Bible. Whether he was actually divine or not is debatable, but there at least was a man who was the inspiration for the Christ figure and most of the Gospels agreed that there was a Last Supper.

The legend of the "Holy Grail" started much later, though. And it's from those legends that much of the story of "The Last Crusade" was taken. Thus, I found it a surprisingly refreshing note when they found the Grail to be the most realistic choice possible amongst those on display at the shrine.

The Ark... well, historical record... which the Bible is, in parts... though distorted by the centuries... suggests that there was one, and it played a big part in Judaic history. Whether it actually survives to this day is debatable, and whether the sight of the tablets containing the ten commandments can actually melt Nazi flesh is something scientists have yet to test. Although since these are Jewish relics, it would have been poetic justice.

----

Aliens in the ancient world, on the other hand, have never been proven, and are borne of wild conjecture by armchair hacks who think that simply because people are thousands of years old, they must naturally be thousands of years dumb. Which is stupid. Ancient civilizations had batteries for electroplating, compasses, mathematics, astronomy, etcetera... being ancient doesn't mean you're too dumb to build a pyramid... it just means that you had less tools at your disposal with which to build one. Who knows how many untold Einsteins were born into ancient civilizations? Guys who are turning in their graves because your average 100 IQ ordinary human believes that all their work and innovation is the result of alien intervention.

 

[Joey D]

See, I didn't mention archeological evidence. I meant historical evidence.

How do you think historical evidence, from documents and such, gets supported? Writings mean nothing without some sort of proof they were real. This is where archaeology comes in.

There is no doubt that there was a Jesus Christ. At least several writers have written about the man's life. They don't all agree with each other, which is why there are only four gospels left in the Bible. Whether he was actually divine or not is debatable, but there at least was a man who was the inspiration for the Christ figure and most of the Gospels agreed that there was a Last Supper.

There is doubt that Jesus was even real, let alone many parts of the Bible. Once again there is no evidence to support this, except for a body found that James Camron did a tv programme with...but I never heard any more about it so I'm not really going buy into it just yet.

The Ark... well, historical record... which the Bible is, in parts... though distorted by the centuries... suggests that there was one, and it played a big part in Judaic history.

The bible is not an accurate historical record and nothing in it should be taken as fact, yes events in it happened...but remember in Homer's Odyssey and the Iliad have true events in it as well but I'm going to guess most of it never happened. The bible is a myth book, not a historical documents, which is why it really shouldn't be used in archaeology. Trust me, I sit in class after class listening how to conduct archaeological research.

Aliens in the ancient world, on the other hand, have never been proven, and are borne of wild conjecture by armchair hacks who think that simply because people are thousands of years old, they must naturally be thousands of years dumb. Which is stupid. Ancient civilizations had batteries for electroplating, compasses, mathematics, astronomy, etcetera... being ancient doesn't mean you're too dumb to build a pyramid... it just means that you had less tools at your disposal with which to build one. Who knows how many untold Einsteins were born into ancient civilizations? Guys who are turning in their graves because your average 100 IQ ordinary human believes that all their work and innovation is the result of alien intervention.

Lets just break this statement down:

- Aliens in the ancient world have no more proof for or against then Jesus. There are many written account of seeing "the gods" and there are many things that boggle our minds today which suggest that aliens were some how involved. The Nazca lines can only be seen from the air yet they are perfect in how they are constructed...why would an ancient civilisation build these if they couldn't fly?

- They aren't armchair hacks, while I don't really agree with them and think they don't give the ancients enough credit, some are still using the correct method of putting together a theory.

- Yes the ancients had math and astronomy, which are old. But the earliest known compass I've even come across was from China during the Han Dynasty and it really wasn't a compass like we know now. Also the Baghdad Battery hasn't been accepted as that yet, we don't know what it really is.

- I have no doubt ancient civilisations built everything on their own and developed it, however I do believe some sort of alien contact was made which they assumed to be gods. No the aliens didn't give them anything or show them anything, but it is a decent theory on why they would have the fear struck in them to build things like Stonehenge.

 

[niky]

How do you think historical evidence, from documents and such, gets supported? Writings mean nothing without some sort of proof they were real. This is where archaeology comes in.

There is doubt that Jesus was even real, let alone many parts of the Bible. Once again there is no evidence to support this, except for a body found that James Camron did a tv programme with...but I never heard any more about it so I'm not really going buy into it just yet.

The bible is not an accurate historical record and nothing in it should be taken as fact, yes events in it happened...but remember in Homer's Odyssey and the Iliad have true events in it as well but I'm going to guess most of it never happened. The bible is a myth book, not a historical documents, which is why it really shouldn't be used in archaeology. Trust me, I sit in class after class listening how to conduct archaeological research.

Yet the fact remains that these books are a record of reported events that happened in the past. While the accuracy of any of these texts is questionable... the fact that some event occured or that some person existed in the past as the inspiration for the text, however wild the concoction, is a real possibility.

The Odyssey was written as a poem regarding a hero that existed in Homer's past. The Gospels of the Bible were often written just decades after the birth of Christianity and some were dictated or composed by people who were actually present. While their accuracy is debatable, the fact that they were written close to the time of the occurence really isn't.

This isn't about archeology. It's about historical research. While you take such documents with a grain of salt, the documents themselves provide clues to the era they were written in.

[qupte]Lets just break this statement down:

- Aliens in the ancient world have no more proof for or against then Jesus. There are many written account of seeing "the gods" and there are many things that boggle our minds today which suggest that aliens were some how involved. The Nazca lines can only be seen from the air yet they are perfect in how they are constructed...why would an ancient civilisation build these if they couldn't fly? [/quote]

The Nazca lines are easy to make. Lots of scientists have shown how you can create Nazca lines with nothing more complicated than a diagram and bits of string.

- They aren't armchair hacks, while I don't really agree with them and think they don't give the ancients enough credit, some are still using the correct method of putting together a theory.

The correct method is considering all of the evidence and creating a theory that is supported by all the evidence, and then testing it for validity. People say it was impossible to create perfectly geometrical pyramids but the Egyptians did it with good engineering and simple tools.

These "theories" are simply wild conjectures, based on a disbelief of the evidence provided. Evidence that shows that these ancient people did do these things.

- Yes the ancients had math and astronomy, which are old. But the earliest known compass I've even come across was from China during the Han Dynasty and it really wasn't a compass like we know now. Also the Baghdad Battery hasn't been accepted as that yet, we don't know what it really is.

Earliest known doesn't equate to earliest.

- I have no doubt ancient civilisations built everything on their own and developed it, however I do believe some sort of alien contact was made which they assumed to be gods. No the aliens didn't give them anything or show them anything, but it is a decent theory on why they would have the fear struck in them to build things like Stonehenge.

"Gods" could be anything... a thunderstorm, an earthquake, a typhoon, the sun... if aliens had shown themselves to us, there's no reason to believe that they would look so unerringly human (as in the "astronauts" in South American carvings) or would act in such strange ways.

Simply put... why give certain gifts, which ancients could have (and eventually did) discovered themselves? Why not give something interesting? Like metallurgy, surgery, anatomy, etcetera? Why give incomplete and incorrect calendar systems? Why not give an entirely accurate 365 1/4 day calendar? Any way you look at it, it doesn't add up.

 

[Joey D]

This isn't about archeology. It's about historical research. While you take such documents with a grain of salt, the documents themselves provide clues to the era they were written in.

Archaeology is historical research.

The Nazca lines are easy to make. Lots of scientists have shown how you can create Nazca lines with nothing more complicated than a diagram and bits of string.

Show me were people have recreated them. It's far from easy.

The correct method is considering all of the evidence and creating a theory that is supported by all the evidence, and then testing it for validity. People say it was impossible to create perfectly geometrical pyramids but the Egyptians did it with good engineering and simple tools.

Yes and the alien theory does have evidence, not much but it's there. You seem to be forgetting I don't subscribe to that theory. I agree with you that ancient civilisations actually did this stuff and had the intelligence to know what they were doing.

These "theories" are simply wild conjectures, based on a disbelief of the evidence provided. Evidence that shows that these ancient people did do these things.

So is anything remotely relating to religion. The bible is full of wild conjectures that lack any sort of proof...hence why it's faith.

Earliest known doesn't equate to earliest.

No, without proof we can't assume civilisations before hand had such instruments. That's bad science and archaeologist will not say x civilisation had something when they don't have any thing to support it.

"Gods" could be anything... a thunderstorm, an earthquake, a typhoon, the sun... if aliens had shown themselves to us, there's no reason to believe that they would look so unerringly human (as in the "astronauts" in South American carvings) or would act in such strange ways.

Look at other gods, some look quite odd, mostly the Hindu ones. Yes they have human characteristics but it can be a combination of things. I still think there was some sort of alien contact in the past, but without proof I will accept the status quo that most archaeologist subscribe to.

Simply put... why give certain gifts, which ancients could have (and eventually did) discovered themselves? Why not give something interesting? Like metallurgy, surgery, anatomy, etcetera? Why give incomplete and incorrect calendar systems? Why not give an entirely accurate 365 1/4 day calendar? Any way you look at it, it doesn't add up.

The ancients had pretty accurate calenders as far as we know.

Once again you are forgetting I don't accept that aliens came to earth and taught that ancients, I merely think the reason for them building the monuments stems from ancient contact with other world beings. I might have only happened once or twice but the leaders could have easily kept the story alive to secure their power. It's not uncommon among civilisations to say that a "god" gave them power and wants them to be there...look at President Bush.

 

[YSSMAN]

Can I just say that it is arguments like these that make Indy less fun?

You either buy into it while you are there, or you don't. Its a movie, just enjoy it...

 

[niky]

Show me were people have recreated them. It's far from easy.

While I hate pulling anything off of Wikipedia... I actually watched a documentary on this:

researchers such as Joe Nickell of the University of Kentucky, have reproduced, without aerial supervision, the figures using the technology available to the Nazca people of the time. With careful planning and simple technologies, a small team of individuals could recreate even the largest figures within days. Contrary to the claims of several commentators, the figures can be observed from the ground by standing on top of nearby foothills.

Yes and the alien theory does have evidence, not much but it's there. You seem to be forgetting I don't subscribe to that theory. I agree with you that ancient civilisations actually did this stuff and had the intelligence to know what they were doing.

Yes, it's okay, I'm just playing the counterargument, for argument's sake...

So is anything remotely relating to religion. The bible is full of wild conjectures that lack any sort of proof...hence why it's faith.

That's true, that's where biblical archeology comes in. It helps provide evidence for some events and people, while shows no evidence for others. But it's difficult. Many scholars frown upon using the bible for this, as it is... as you say... full of wild conjectures and amazing stories... while many theologians hate it, because it tries to dig into history and find the events that actually inspired the stories.

It does not aim to prove or disprove the bible. Merely to find the historical basis for biblical events. Yes, such study is fraught with peril, but uncovering the truth behind biblical stories is a worthwhile endeavor. There is evidence for some people and places within the Bible, and even some evidence for some of the events. Of course, physical proof of Jesus Christ does not exist, and he is not recorded outside of Christian writing till decades after his death, but I've no doubt they will eventually turn up something. See, Jesus probably was a preacher, probably was a prophet or an evangelist, but probably wasn't all that important or popular outside his circle of followers. He was a commoner for Christ-sakes, one who had no birthright, no sigil, no golden cups or land to his name... but decades after he started this small movement (or decades after somebody started the movement), Christianity suddenly became "the big thing". But the history of Christianity was written by the church itself, which vigorously squelched and writings by other proto-Christians that disagreed with them. Through the discovery of some of the Gnostic Gospels, we discover discrepancies, but still no solid evidence regarding Jesus. We may never know who this unknown evangelist who eventually became the source of the Jesus-myth, is, but there's a good probability that there was a man who was the inspiration for the myth.

No, without proof we can't assume civilisations before hand had such instruments. That's bad science and archaeologist will not say x civilisation had something when they don't have any thing to support it.

Which also supports the argument that we cannot assume alien contact without definitive proof. I'm not saying cavemen had compasses. I'm just saying that you cannot assume that the creativity and logical faculties to produce technology was not there simply because you don't know whether the technology itself existed. \

It's something that Harry Turtledove wrote into one of his alternative history shorts... along the lines of: "Just because we're ancient, doesn't mean we're stupid..." when an ancient Greek detective catches a time-travelling criminal. Many ancient structures can be built using simple machines (levers, wheels, pulleys, etcetera... hell, bungee cords were invented by tribesmen wearing grass thongs) and a liberal application of muscle-power.

Look at other gods, some look quite odd, mostly the Hindu ones. Yes they have human characteristics but it can be a combination of things. I still think there was some sort of alien contact in the past, but without proof I will accept the status quo that most archaeologist subscribe to.

Hindu gods are mostly animalistic or half-animalistic in nature. (I studied Hindu mythology on a lark when I was twelve). Though it is nice to believe that this is merely a misinterpretation of the way some alien visitors might have looked, no smoking gun yet... no radioactive traces, artifacts, nothing.

The ancients had pretty accurate calenders as far as we know.

Many ancient societies start with the lunar calendar, then switch to a solar one when they find the lunar one doesn't match up. And then they still had to reform them, when, after quite a while, the years started wandering and the solstices come on different calendar days. After some time, everyone lands on 365 1/4 days, but then, that's still not completely accurate, because of leap seconds, leap minutes and leap hours that accumulate over time. Many calendars are only accurate for a certain number of years, after which they start becoming inaccurate, as it is impossible for merely one generation of ancient astronomers to detect that extra leap hour or leap minute required to keep the calendars accurate for multi-century spans. It's only in relatively modern times (last few hundred years) that the Catholic Church (yeah, the church, of all things) reformed the calendar and corrected for error that had accumulated over a span of more than a millenium by deleting a whole bunch of days... which pissed people off greatly (especially those whose birthdays fell within that span...

Once again you are forgetting I don't accept that aliens came to earth and taught that ancients, I merely think the reason for them building the monuments stems from ancient contact with other world beings. I might have only happened once or twice but the leaders could have easily kept the story alive to secure their power. It's not uncommon among civilisations to say that a "god" gave them power and wants them to be there...look at President Bush.

But that's merely a belief. Gods can come in all forms, and without a single piece of discarded alien plasticware to go on, the chances are pretty slim.

 

[///M-Spec]

I'd no sooner ask Dan Brown for historical information than I'd ask Istvan to perform last rites on my deathbed.

Fixed.


M

 

[Solid Lifters]

Finally got to see this one. I thought it was OK, fun to watch despite things being ridiculous. I hated the character Mutt. Can't stand Shia, either. Maybe that's why I disliked him. Loved the return of Marion. She's so damn hot still after all these years.

The story was way out their and a bit too late. Many people, such as myself, don't believe aliens have visited Earth. Not yet, at least. Didn't care for some other characters like evil Russian chic. She was meh. It didn't seem like the Russians were really after Indy, like the Nazis were after him in previous movies. I guess they did that on purpose to ease any tension with the Russians.

Despite the story and character flaws, I thought it had the usual charm of an Indy movie. I loved how they showed his age in this one. So, the movie wasn't a total wash. 7.5/10

 

[Pupik]

The coolest part about this move would have been if it came out in 1991 or '92 instead. Otherwise, a long passage of time tends to bruise add-on works; once we wait many years to develop new tastes in film, the iron shrink wrap around our nostalgia won't easily allow new ideas, lest they merge with our ideals.

Yeah, wasn't terribly impressed: A Millennium Falcon should have popped out instead.

This film just wasn't necessary...

 

[Spacegoat]

A Millennium Falcon should have popped out instead.

That would have made more sense.

This film just wasn't necessary...

Agreed. 👍

 

[Blitz187]

Funny this thread pops up again now... Saw the South Park episode about this again last night on TV....

 

[DQuaN]

Me too! Was hilarious!

 

[Spacegoat]

Funny this thread pops up again now... Saw the South Park episode about this again last night on TV....

That episode is hilarious and strangely accurate.