Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Category editing war

Since neither of the users engaged in this silly back-and-forth fight seem willing to open a discussion of their dispute, I'll go out on a limb. As it says on the edit war page:

"An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article. Most users consider sustained episodes of unproductive but animated cut-and-thrust editing to be undesirable."

It seems to me that if a movie is listed under the category "Hebrew language films" that a reasonable person would expect that the film would be primarily in Hebrew. To add categories for every language uttered in a movie seems to me to add confusion rather than clarification.

On the other hand, when I look at the category, there are movies such as The Big Lebowski and Cabaret that are essentially English language films. So it doesn't seem that the definition of these categories is very clear. Does anyone have a way of determining which way this should go? -- InkQuill 02:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary language. ColdFusion650 11:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Otherwise we'll have to reclassify nearly every War film ever made. - X201 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We'd have to reclassify Ghostbusters II as Russian for saying "Da Da Da Da Da Da Da Da Da Da" as part of their theme song at the birthday party. Da is Russian for yes. ColdFusion650 12:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay while I agree it was not necessary to include this in Hebrew language films because there was some Hebrew in the film, your suggestion is frankly not at all the same thing. I find no suggestion the 'da' in the song is supposed to be Russian. There is a very big difference between the actual use of a foreign language in a film and your thinking that a foreign language is used because some sound used in the film sounds like foreign word to you (do you even understand Russian? Because I strongly suspect that it wouldn't even really occur to someone who speaks Russian since it probably doesn't really sound like the way the word is pronounced in Russian). I'm hoping that was meant to be humourous but even so, using silly examples can unnecessarily aggrevate the situation since the OP may feel you don't understand the point Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm positive ColdFusion was joking, no need to take it so seriously. Just a joke. 84.70.52.122 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m also pretty sure coldfusion was joking. Let’s not fly off the handle. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of categories

The Wookieepedian removed several categories, including "English language films," which has been restored (see discussion above). Removal of two, "Category:Films shot anamorphically" and "Category:Treasure hunt films", he explains by saying "Categories already appear at 'Category:Indiana Jones films', which this article is categorized under." But now neither the titles nor "Indiana Jones films" appear under the category of "Films shot anamorphically." When each movie was placed in that category, their titles appeared when I went to that category. Now that it is a subcategory of "Indiana Jones films" there's no easy way to determine that the four movies are shot that way. It's less helpful. In other words, if I was reading an article about a movie with that category and wanted to see what other films have been shot anamorphically, I would not find the Indiana Jones films under that category. I think the two removed categories should be restored. --InkQuill 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

When checking out the category, you should see the subcategory Indian Jones films (which implies all films in the subcat are anamorphic). When checking out the subcategory, you should see this film. Simple and how it's supposed to work. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Article looks great! Really no serious issues, and generally meets the good article criteria with flying colors! The plot section could be referenced by one of the Raiders novels, but I'm not sure this is necessary. I had thought that a spoiler tag should be added, but looking at WP:SPOIL, I don't think that it is necessary.

Overall, the article is very complete, and probably contains more information than I even knew about this movie. A section could possibly be added about the cultural impact and effects of the Indiana Jones saga, possibly? It shouldn't be too hard to bring this up to FA status.

Great job! Dr. Cash 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Japanese seiyū

Since there's nowhere else to put it...

Character	English voice actor	Japanese seiyū (Television)	Japanese seiyū (Video and DVD)
Indiana Jones	Harrison Ford	Kunio Murai	Kunio Murai
Marion Ravenwood	Karen Allen	Keiko Toda	Mika Doi
Rene Belloq	Paul Freeman	Kei Taguchi	Tarō Ishida
Arnold Toht	Ronald Lacey	Kenji Utsumi	Ben Hiura
Sallah	John Rhys-Davies	Osamu Kobayashi	Osamu Kobayashi
Colonel Dietrich	Wolf Kahler	Osamu Saka	Mitsuo Senda
Marcus Brody	Denholm Elliot	Yōichi Miyagawa	Tadashi Nakamura
Major Eaton	William Hootkins	Masao Imanishi	Masaru Ikeda
Colonel Musgrove	Don Fellows	Kōichi Kitamura	N/A
Satipo	Alfred Molina	Akio Nojima	N/A
Barranca	Vic Tablian	Shōzō Hirabayashi	N/A

Cat's Tuxedo 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The point? Alientraveller 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it would be something interesting related to the cast that I could share. Besides, since not much people can read hiragana, I thought I'd post it here so that others don't have to go to the Japanese W to see who dubbed over who over there in Japan. I mean, IMO, it's not like the ANN is a very reliable source for dubbing roles. I've done the same thing for other live-action films. Cat's Tuxedo 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of remake

Editor2008 (talk · contribs) believes that mention of the amateur remake is not warranted. This is absurd: the entire shot-for-shot remake endeavour hit the headlines when discovered. This editor has the cynical belief that we are advertising it. Clearly if this jaded opinion to anything sourced was a highly-held opinion, there would be no articles on works of art. Alientraveller (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All major films have amateur remakes, I don't see any reason why this one is that different. They have been a little more aggressive about marketing theirs, and got a typical form letter quote from Spielberg to boost themselves, but this doesn't seem that noteworthy at all to me and, as written, it reads like advertisement. I don't think it belongs in the main article about the film. I am happy to be convinced otherwise if others have a stronger opinion.Editor2008 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have provided you with all the reliable sources you need on your talk page. If a Variety review doesn't impress you just because you're cynical of how famous these fans are, I don't know what will. Alientraveller (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor2008 said: "The existence of this remake was added to the ROTLA article years after the remake was shot."

Well, no duh. The paragraph said that it was shelved until 2003. It's existence didn't come to light until a few years ago. You expect Wikipedia to have agents breaking in people's houses to steal tapes to write about?

Editor2008 said: "Has anyone other than the users and their friends, a few people on Youtube maybe, seen it? No. It is not a well-known remake."

The Raider routinely announces worldwide screenings of the film on it's homepage. Check some recent ones.

Editor2008 said: "If the remake itself is noteworthy (it is not), they should have their own page."

You're relatively new, so I'll cut some slack on that one. Not everything worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia deserves it's own article. Sometimes there just isn't enough information to form an entire article, even though the information is valuable. That is why there is a process to nominate mergers for articles. The fact it gets mentioned in multiple reliable sources and that Paramount is making a movie about these guys, makes it notable. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the editors who argue for its inclusion; it's clearly notable, having received worldwide press coverage. However, do we think it could maybe use a minor trim of some detail to reflect its importance in the scheme of things? Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the film deserves listing on the page - it probably even deserves its own article, but that's another argument for another day. Also, as to Editor2008's comment that the Raiders guys only got a form letter from Spielberg, that's demonstrably false, as it's been well documented that Spielberg invited all three of them out to his Dreamworks office and personally met with them after the film was rediscovered. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I had came here after reading a comment in wikiproject films all to ready to defend the removal the mention of a fan remake but after reading the section I have to agree it should be mentioned. Clearly this specific remake has gained sufficient noteability to be mentioned here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Size of boulder

This line is ridiculous:

"A fibreglass boulder 22 feet in diameter was made for the scene where Indiana escapes the temple, but Spielberg rejected it and had it made 50 feet (15.2 m) larger."

This makes it sound like the boulder is 72 feet in diameter (22 + "50 feet larger"), which it is clearly not.

Is it possible they decided to make the *tunnel* that the boulder chases Indy down 50 feet *longer*? Maybe this is the source of confusion.

Every time I try to fix something like this, someone changes it. So I've said my piece, somebody with clout please fix this. I've noticed it for a year now. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.238.250 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2008

I've just checked the DVD. Spielberg totally happy with the size of the boulder, so much so that he told the production designer to increase the length of the run by 50ft. - X201 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Smith

"though he convinced Lucas to change the character's surname from Smith to "Jones"." vs "had the character's surname changed from Smith to "Jones" The first reads like Spielberg didn't like the name and asked Lucas to change it. The second reads like Spielberg didn't like the name and ordered it to be changed.
The first is the better form of words because what actually happened was the Spielberg said "I don't like Smith" and Lucas replied "OK, what about Jones". - X201 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to me they mean the exact same thing, and given the option I always go with whatever is shorter. However, if you draw a distinction, then some readers may also, and I don't want there to be any confusion. If you think the second is better, go with it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've re-jigged the sentence to how Lucas and Spielberg say events unfolded. - X201 (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Name

Shouldn't the title of this article be Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark? All of the other films have Indiana Jones in the name and the new DVD boxes say Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Before anyone says that it was released as just Raiders of the Lost Ark, may I point out that George Lucas has a habit of changing titles. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was originally released as just Star Wars, but the title was extended later on. Currently, Wikipedia uses the extended title, so we should follow this example. Emperor001 (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For Star Wars, the actual film was edited to change the title. If you watch the DVD, it still has just Raiders of the Lost Ark. The movie title was not changed. The packaging on the DVD was changed. And with the new movie coming out, they keep playing all three movies back to back, and TVGuide, USA, and Scifi list just as Raiders of the Lost Ark. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because a film wasn't edited doesn't mean the title wasn't changed. In the "James Bond will Return" section of some 007 films, the producers changed their minds for the anounced titles and, to date, have not fixed the credits of For Your Eyes Only or Octopussy. TV guides are not infallible. Again this is like Star Wars. There are still some who refuse to call Episode IV Episode IV. For all we know, Lucas was too lazy to go back and change the credits. Besides, how do you know it won't be changed when the new DVD's come out? Emperor001 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it will? The name of the article shouldn't be changed on speculation that the new DVDs may have the title changed in the film. As far as James Bond, you're talking about a film incorrectly predicting the next film in the series. That's completely different from them changing the name of the movie itself and not changing the title in the movie. Nothing I know of except the packaging on the tapes and DVDs has Indiana Jones in the title. It seems to me that they did it for uniform branding on the merchandise, but the name of the movie is still the same. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The film's title hasn't actually changed. From what I understand, it's advertised with the "Indiana Jones and the..." in order to keep all the films together on store shelves. It's kind of a superficial thing. The Wookieepedian (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing that must be considered is Indiana is a "raider" of the Ark. Google wise, there's eighty thousand more hits for the film's true title than it with the "Indiana Jones and the" prefix. Alientraveller (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are more hits for the shorter title because the shorter one is more vague. The extended title might be more specific. Emperor001 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The local newspaper in my areas specifically says "the retroactivly retitled Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark." Emperor001 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And they're wrong. Alientraveller (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have phrased that better myself. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One Question that still plagues me is "Why are all the other films Indiana Jones and blank while this one doesn't get the Indiana Jones and? Emperor001 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it was the original: it wasn't a franchise. Alientraveller (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, according to IMDB (so take this for what it is), they didn't add Indiana Jones to Temple of Doom until late into production. It was originally just supposed to be The Temple of Doom. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read the back to the DVD box, and it treated Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark as the real title. If the change was only made for organization, only the front of the box would have been changed. Emperor001 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The official website also lists it as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Emperor001 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You assume that if the change was only for organization, they would have only changed it on the front of the box. You can't really prove that. Anyway, Raiders of the Lost Ark is still the title. It's still that way in the movie. In merchandise and some promotional material that add Indiana Jones to the title for consistency. This article will still be the way it is until there is a more compelling reason to change. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

New Inconsistencies

I added a new section covering two of the more famous inconsistencies that are mentioned in the film. I'm well aware that this site often tries to stay away from long and drawn out "goofs" sections which I agree with. I think this is a bit different given the notability of the two plot errors I mentioned. -OberRanks (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The section is uncited though. Alientraveller (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then an uncited tag? I'm sure we could find a source. -OberRanks (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind the article is GA and should not have uncited statements. Secondly, pointing out anachronisms in an intentionally over-the-top adventure film may be futile. Perhaps a cultural references section should be started: starting with the Ark, and Nazis. Alientraveller (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can find other sources; for now, I pointed to IMDB. I agree having a goof section is a bad idea; but these are two of the extremely often mentioned problems and should somehow be incorporated. The section can be transposed to the talk page if there are still issues with it and can be worked on from here. Its good data and shouldn't be simply cut. -OberRanks (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is not really a source. Anybody with an account can post anything they want. I agree that putting this in the article is pretty pointless and doesn't really belong. If we're going to include these two, we should also point out that the Nazi's didn't have a viable flying wing design until the end of the war. Some of the maps show countries and boundaries that didn't exist yet. There are anachronisms spread all of the place. If we start including trivial elements like this, they'll be nothing to stop all of the trivial elements. If the cold war has taught us anything, it's taught us that a policy of containment does not work. If we try to just keep this evil that is trivia from spreading without eradicating it, we will fail. We must have a policy of complete and utter domination. We must wipe it out at it's source... Too over the top? ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually interesting to know that that wasn't a real plane! Good points. My last thought is that somehow someway it should be incorporated that the silliest thing about the film was that an armed unit of the German Army would never have been allowed into British controlled Egypt in 1936...much less right outside of Cairo. The rest can stay on IMDB I suppose. -OberRanks (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Section

In 1936, Egypt was one of the most important British colonies in the Middle East. It is doubtful that the British government would have permitted a large armed German force to be stationed outside of Cairo, in particular due to international events in Europe, such as the occupation of the Rhineland that same year, which had already seriously strained relationships between the United Kingdom and Nazi Germany.

Many fans have observed that the bazooka, with which Indy threatens to blow up the Ark, wasn’t invented until the 1940s (the film is set in 1936).

Above items cited from the Internet Movie Database

Sentence about Egyptian Pharaoh getting cut by editor

The following sentence keeps getting removed by User:ColdFusion650

"Jones surmises that the Nazis assume the Ark is in Tanis due to the legend of a Pharaoh named Shishaq stealing the Ark from Jerusalem in 980 BC."

ColdFusion states that this is "too much information", however this is very useful to the plot and identifies the name of the actual Egyptian Pharaoh mentioned straight from the dialog in the film (I was actually very surprised that the plot summary of this article didn’t have the Pharaoh's name in it).

I will not edit war over a single sentence, but one user cutting it out because they personally feel its too much information is not justification for its removal and borders on violation of WP:OWN. What do others think of this? -OberRanks (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence keeps getting added by User:OberRanks

"Jones surmises that the Nazis assume the Ark is in Tanis due to the legend of a Pharaoh named Shishaq stealing the Ark from Jerusalem in 980 BC."

OberRanks states that this is "very useful to the plot", however this is too much information and merely adds useless information mentioned straight from the dialog in the film (everyone likes to add their favorite bit of trivial information from the film, and experience shows that too many people doing this leads to somebody else adding a {{plot}} tag to it).

One user adding it because they personally feel that it belongs is not justification for its addition and borders on violation of WP:OWN.

Okay, so it doesn't, but I figured I would just replace a few key words to show how silly it is to criticize me and throw up policy no less when we're both doing the exact same thing. Neither of us is violating WP:OWN, and one user's personal feelings (in the absence of any consensus to the contrary) is not evil. You're exercising your opinion just as much as I am mine. (I hate it when people don't realize that, but they frequently ignore that bit when they disagree with someone.) ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for you removing so minor an edit from another user. There also is presently not a single link to Shishaq in the entire article and he is the entire reason that the Ark was in Tanis to begin with and is also a reference to a historic figure; such information needs to be in the article. Your arguments dont stand up here and you are now close to breaking WP:3RR. I'll add Shishaq as a "see also" reference for now. Please dont revert that as you will have gone over 3 reverts in a 24 hour period which is very clearly against policy. -OberRanks (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Shishaq gets mentioned in one sentence. That tells you really how important he is. And on the flip side, I could say, "There is no justification for you adding so minor an edit" or "There is no justification for you reverting so minor an edit." Are you seriously asking for a pass on what I feel is a bad edit just because it is small? ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

At this stage the opinion of other editors is needed. I was researching this for another reason, trying to find out who the historic Pharaoh was mentioned in the film. I was very surprised that his name was not linked anywhere in this article and in turn I had to go to IMDB. As it stands, my most recent edits added no more than 4 or 5 words to the article and simply links to anotehr article about a historic figure mentioned in the film. If *that* is still an issue then I suggest getting the opinion of other editors. Right now its just you and me talking about this. -OberRanks (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to do this directly, because it may in some states be considered a partial revert, but it would be better as "Ravenwood is the foremost expert on the ancient Egyptian city of Tanis, which has been rediscovered by the Nazis and is believed to be where the Pharaoh Shishaq brought the Ark of the Covenant, a chest the Israelites built to hold the fragments of the Ten Commandments." ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That solves the issue of linking the Shis-ter just as good as anything else and is a good compromise. You'll get no argument from me. -OberRanks (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Golden Idol

The page was redirected here, as it was absurdly long for a completely non-notable prop. The info is mentioned below, to allow integration, if appropriate, with this article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Golden Idol" (Ancient Chachapoyan goddess of fertility) from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Golden Idol, is a ficticious golden idol that belonged to the Chachapoyan tribe in Peru South America in the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark", also known as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark,a 1981 adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg.

The idol was sought after in 1936, in the Peruvian jungle, by archaeologist/treasure hunter Indiana Jones. Jones had heard of the idol when a score of golden Chachapoyan figurines began to appear on the antiquities market. Indy and Marcus Brody, curator of the National Museum, believed that new Chachapoyan temples had been located and were being plundered. All evidence pointed to one of Indy's competitors, a Princeton archaeologist named Forrestal, who had embarked on an expedition to Peru a year earlier and had yet to return. With help from the journal of a 19th century explorer and contacts in South America, Indy decided to follow in Forrestal's footsteps, determined to acquire the real prize: a golden representation of the Chachapoyan goddess of fertility and childbirth, said to be secreted in the heart of the Temple of Warriors. While traveling through one of the cave-like corridors in the Temple of Warriors Indy spotted a now decayed Forrestal who met his end while havin' broken a beam of skewed sunlight. The light beam had tripped a spring-loaded bed of wooden spikes that shot out from the wall of the tunnel; resulting in impaling him.

The idol was made of pure gold and was placed upon an ancient Chachapoyan alter. The golden fertility idol was the exact weight to hold an ancient self-destruct mechanism in place. Indy knew of the booby trap and attempted to replace the idol with a bag of sand. His attempt failed however when he incorrectly estimated the weight of the idol. After escaping the many traps set by the Chachapoyans including a giant boulder, he finds rival archaeologist Rene Belloq waiting outside with a group of Hovitos, the local natives. Surrounded and outnumbered, Jones is forced to give up the artifact to Belloq. Jones escapes from Belloq and the Hovitos after a jungle pursuit and flying away on a waiting floatplane.

File:IJROTLA-Statue-Swap.jpg

The price of incorrectly estimating the idol's weight.

Years later, Indy regains the idol from a black market antiquities dealer located in Marrakesh, Morocco. However, also on the trail fo the idol is Xomec, a descendant of the Chachapoyans, and Ilsa Toht, sister of Gestapo agent Arnold Toht. The two want to use the idol to unite Amazonian tribes and distrupt wartime rubber production in South America, as well as lure Indy to his death.

References

bg:Чачапоянски златен идол

Category deletion

Contributors to this article may be interested in this category deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_31#Category:Indiana_Jones_films. Miami33139 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Family film

Should the family film paragraph live within the "Impact" section (because it changed the nature of the family film) or "Reception" (because it is now rated as one of the best family films)? --Vaudedoc (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Retroland a decent source? Parents generally let their kids watch anything these days even if it's clearly adult-rated (eg. Alien, Terminator et al.). Raiders is PG, no surprise there. Alientraveller (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm... "decent." Well, to be honest, I included it not because of the notability of the source, because of the freshness and (I think) logic of the contention, and the way they built off of Weinraub's article: Raiders invited grandparents along for the ride because of its similarity to old serials. Other reviews of the film from 1981 certainly talk about Raiders vis a vis the Republic fare, just not in the context of Raiders being a "family film." In terms of the overall paragraph's placement, though (regardless of whether or not the Retroland sentence stays), whattaya think? The aspect I found interesting about Weinraub's article was that it historically situated how we got to the "these days" to which you refer, times when, yup, most parents have no qualms about sending their kids to PG films. He finds that historical point to be the release of Raiders. In that sense, it seems to want to live under "Impact." But if it's about the fact that Raiders is now considered a great family film, then it seems to want to live under "Reception." And it seems counter-productive to split the family film section in two. (And on a side note, it would be interesting, given your work in the Temple of Doom entry about the creation of PG-13, to try to pursue a section somewhere--the franchise entry? Spielberg's entry?--about the importance of the Indy series in changing family films and child attendance. Seems data might be found to support A) Raiders expanded the category of "family film" to include more action/violence, and then subsequently B) Temple of Doom, in helping to create PG-13, made the now lower-ranked PG look more acceptable to parents. Be interesting to poke around with and see if the material is there) --Vaudedoc (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sound effects

There's a vague reference that sponges and cheese casseroles "were used" to make the snake noises. It's an unusually vague contention in the midst of an otherwise specific paragraph. Used how? Allowed to slither down a board? Used together? What is this phrasing supposed to mean to the reader? --Vaudedoc (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly from the DVD, some guy stuck his fingers in the casserole to make the noise. Don't take my word for it though. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Style

Paranthesis: Again, this is a style question. Setting aside remarks that might be considered "side remarks" to the central flow of a paragraph or argument within parentheses is grammatically acceptable. The entire article need not be styled to match one person's preference. --Vaudedoc (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Most use of parenthesis is generally not considered professional. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

When an absence of parentheses allows the sentence to exist as an interrupting element to the central flow of the paragraph, their presence is preferred. You are, however, quite right about avoiding their overuse, inasmuch as a high number of parentheses often signifies the writer leading the reader down too many tributaries. In this case, because the flow of the paragraph leads the reader through the critical evaluation of the film, the parenthesis marks the brief notation of Lucas and the Willow name as a subordinate point. --Vaudedoc (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Flying wing?

Just found out that the flying wing in the plane fight scene was a fantasy model, and not a real German design, should this be included in the article or is it not worth mentioning? ~W35M4N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.60.29 (talk • contribs)

Tom Selleck in header

Yes, it is notable that Tom Selleck was almost cast in the lead. Yet to warrant mention in the entry lead it has to be of such significance that it is one of the most remarkable aspects of the film, something anyone simply skimming just the lead should know. Clearly, it is not this. (See "relative emphasis in WP: lead section or the lead section bit in WP:MOSFILMS.) The Selleck bit is mentioned in the appropriate section below. As an experiment, go to other more notable films in which casting was a far great part of pre-production and filming (The Godfather and Gone With the Wind (film) immediately spring to mind) and see how these projects reasonably treat the casting issues: in the appropriate section. The casting of Scarlett for GWTW occupied the nation and its newspaper front pages for almost two years... and is not mentioned in the lead. Can anyone find any film on WP in which the casting process is mentioned in the lead? The issue with Raiders is more of a "What if..." or "whew!" (depending on one's point of view). It appears to live most correctly in casting alone.--Vaudedoc (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The lead is a summary of the article, and Tom Selleck is not significant enough. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie poster

Which version of the film poster should be used; the original one, or the 1982 reissue poster? David Pro (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The second one is by far more recognizable, that's why they used it for the cover of the DVD box set. ColdFusion650 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fate of the Ark

As the ark is placed in a storage at the end (revealed/implicated in TKotCS to be area 51), the crate is marked with something like "do not open, ever". it is not unlikely that a certain amount of research was done prior to that, and the scientists ended much like the Germans. once it was discovered that the ark could not be used by "the good guys", it was locked away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgjerp (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presented by..

I'm putting Paramount back under "studio" as it is a co-producing, and a presenting, studio.Hiphats (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes the student video significant?

Regarding this, I guess I'm missing something. How does this add to the reader's understanding of the subject matter, the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark? Why is this important or significant? BTW, see a related section at WP:RSN#aintitcool.com. Dlabtot (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would think that the level of significant coverage from major independent media outlets (such as Vanity Fair, ABC News, Wired, The Guardian, Variety, the LA Times, and other papers around the world), this should be obvious - and that's before you count Spielberg's blessing and the possible future film. I'm surprised there isn't a separate article on the adaptation yet, as it certainly deserves one. But until then, one paragraph in a section on the impact/influence of the original film seems appropriate. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any references to Vanity Fair, ABC News, Wired, The Guardian, Variety, or the LA Times. Just the Austin Chronicle and aintitcool.com. What are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I found a couple of those and added them, since I'm not sure that aintitcool passes muster. I still think this text is overkill as far as length and a bit peacocky, though. Perhaps if it gets an article we could pare this down. Dlabtot (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some editing on the Ain't It Cool News article, since it apparently was in some serious need of references - but AICN is easily a reliable news source in the industry, for most non-spoiler/rumor material, in my opinion. Also, I don't know who originally added the Adaptation info into the Raider article, but I doubt it was the filmmakers, given the level of coverage the film has had, so I'm not sure "peacocky" is appropriate - as I said before, I don't think one highly sourced paragraph is giving the project any undue weight. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Flying a seaplane to Nepal?

Under the last character in "Cast," it mentions the "seaplane Indiana Jones takes to Nepal." I daresay the seaplane did not go anywhere near Nepal, but landed in the sea in India or somewhere and Indy secured other transport to Nepal. Paulburnett (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect that kind of oddity is covered in various internet sites, as per the next section. One thing you can't see on-screen because it's small and dark, and which was just a little inside joke for the film's creators, are illustrations of C-3PO and R2-D2 amongst the hieroglyphs in the Map Room or possibly the Well of Souls, I forget which now. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In 1936 the "seaplane to Nepal" flies over the Golden Gate Bridge which wasn't completed until 1937

I just watched the film again and noticed this anachronism. Paulburnett (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of little oddities in that movie. That's true of all movies, but the more popular a film is, the more oddities tend to be spotted. If you go to Google and enter ["raiders of the lost ark" bloopers] you'll see a lot of references. If you're asking whether it should be in the article, probably not. However, a link to a list of bloopers and goofs might be a useful external link. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Section of Plot

Shouldn't the very important scene where Indiana finds Marion in the tent be in the plot. I have put it in twice, and it has been removed twice, saying it is unnecessary information. It is very necessary. It's an important scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatarfan2345 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical and technical inaccuracies

Due to the many historical and technical inaccuracies in the film, what about including them in an appropriate section? This has been already done in the Italian voice: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_predatori_dell%27arca_perduta#Inesattezze_storiche

I can translate:

• the Ark had support rings on its base, not on its top; and it was 1.20m long, while in the film it seems long more than 1.50m;
• some Nazi man rose the left arm to make the Nazi salute, instead of the right one, as seen in the scene with the little monkey;
• in the film it is stated that the Ark conserved Moses Tablets after they were broken; instead the Bible states that God made new Tablets;
• the MP-38 was a 1938 model, not used in 1936;
• Indiana Jones uses an RPG to menace the German column on the Greek island (likely to simulate a Panzerfaust, anyway designed in 1942);
• the German airplane in Egypt was never seen among German planes; likely it was inspired by Arado E555, but it seems to be an American Northrop N-1M;
• in several scenes the names Thailand and Israel are written on the map;
• French archeologue Pierre Montet discovered the burials of three Pharaos in 1939 in Tanis, which is depicted in the film as a lost city buried by sands;
• the biggest error, anyway, is the presence of German soldiers in Egypt (a British protectorate at that time), as well as seeing the symbol of Afrika Korps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippo83 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Italicised

Dear sirs, how and/or where is the title for this article set to be italicised? Yours, the curious, JCrue (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's done via the film infobox, to comply with a new guideline; see Template talk:Infobox film. YLee (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Not sure if this belongs under "Soundtrack" on this article or within the "Raiders of the Lost Ark (soundtrack)" main article and I don't even know if this is entirely relevant to the soundtrack, so forgive me but I thought I'd point it out ...

In the warehouse scene of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, there are six notes that can be heard from the "Raiders" soundtrack during the chase scene as the camera pans down to the broken box of the now-exposed Ark of the Covenant from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Again, I don't know if it's materially relevant but in that the soundtrack is played in the first and fourth (and so far last of the) movies across the quadrilogy, it's an interesting thing to note -- especially in that it lies within the motif of George Lucas to reuse well-known elements with franchise movies (such as he did within the Star Wars movies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.145.138 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Greece

In the movie it's clearly seen that Jones goes to Greece, why isn't that mentioned in the plot or atleast the "Locations that Indiana Jones has been to map" ? The map in the film says Greece, the island is unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.138.154 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

Did Nazi operatives really fake Marion's death? Why would they do that? As I recall, Indy thought she died when the truck she was on exploded, but she must have survived some how or been in a different basket. –CWenger (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of that sentence to more plainly reflect the story. This interpretation was probably based on Belloq's meeting with Indy, after the explosion, in which Belloq blames Indy for her fate but makes no reference to whether she is dead or alive. He probably knows that Jones thinks she's dead and leaves it that way. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasn`t it implied, that Indy and Maron had sex on the boat, cause in the morning when she gets out of bad she seems totally naked????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.130.67 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confusing this movie with Animal House. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Secret of the Incas

Shouldn't there be a section on how Indiana Jones was based on Charlton Heston's depiction of Harry Steele in the 1954 Paramount movie "Secret of the Incas"? It seems the Indiana Jones movies were simply derived from "Secret of the Incas". 69.104.54.113 (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What's your source for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Over at the Wiki site for "Secret of the Incas" the costume designer for Indiana Jones, Deborah Landis, states that they derived the costume for Harrison Ford (fedora, leather jacket, tote bag, pistol, khaki, etc.) from Charlton Heston in "Secret of the Incas". Indiana Jones just took the Heston character, mixed in some Robert Young/archaeologist from "Secret of the Incas" and presto! you've got Harrison Ford. She also says that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an almost shot-for-shot rip-off of "Secret of the Incas". Since Hollywood is well known for plagiarism and script theft, and since Steven Spielberg has a history of stealing scripts (see "Wild Realm Film Reviews--Steven Spielberg Plagiarism") it's pretty much a given that Indiana Jones was ripped off from "Secret of the Incas". Also, they've posted "Secret of the Incas" on YouTube and a view of it makes it quite obvious. 69.104.54.113 (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, but still no valid sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Go to "The Raider.net--Interviews" site and read the "Secret of the Incas" interview by Deborah Nadoolman Landis, there's the RS. 69.104.54.113 (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Shishak

You might mention this Pharaoh since he is the one referred to in the film as the one who brought the Ark to Tanis. Some people maybe interested in exploring the historical elements of the film. --DanielCD (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The pharaoh Shishaq (sp.) is mentioned. David F (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot

Should the article not include the fact that the film's plot is crap! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.151.68 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

big bang theory, plot

I added the following to the article :

As pointed out in the Big Bang Theory episode The Raiders Minimization, "Indiana Jones plays no role in the outcome of the story. If he weren't in the film, it would turn out exactly the same... If he weren't in the movie, the Nazis would still have found the Arks, taken it to the island, opened it up, and all died, just like they did."

Mentioning someone saying in media that the plot is faulty and not putting a comment after it, makes the reader assume that the plot is incorrect indeed. But the argument itself is faulty. The headpiece was only found by Thot spying on Indiana Jones (in the airplane), so there was no way the Nazis knew where to dig for the ark. Even if they found the ark by themselves, the presence of Indiana Jones is the requirement of hiding the ark in the american hangar at the very end. Otherwise there was nobody, who knew to close the eyes during the ceremony, ending in the advantage of the Nazis beeing the only one who knows where the ark is and beeing able to take it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.244.239.142 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And was reverted by OldJacobite. This is a valid and interesting critique of the plot of this movie, therefore directly relevant to this article, and is covered by MANY MANY reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you added that to the plot, where it certainly does not belong. Beyond that, a critique of the film by a fictional character on a tv show does not seem very notable or important, even if other people talk about said fictional character talking about it. Of the sources you listed above, I see only two that might be considered reliable. But, in the end, my response to this is "So what?" A fictional character on a tv show talked about this movie, so what? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Its not about the fictional character. Its about having a citable source pointing out that giant gaping plot hole. We could drop the reference to big bang all together. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is about the fictional character, and dropping the reference to the tv show would make no sense. Either way, it is still trivial. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The fictional character in question did not come to this conclusion on their own. I realise that we are supposed to believe that, but the fictional character was just reading words on a script, meaning that someone must have written that script. Which means this is an actual critique of the film by a living, breathing human being (in this case, the person who wrote the script). And the fact that the lead character plays no overall part in the film seems pretty important to a discussion of the film. Because it does beg the question - if this is a combination of two of the greatest film-makers of our age (at least that is how a lot of people consider them. I tend to think only Spielberg merits that title and Lucas merits a wholly different title, but one I will not put for fear of suing/libel actions) then how did they not notice it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.232.123 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Steven Soderberg treatment

I wonder if we can link to this site, [1], where soderberg strips the film of color and dialog, adds his own soundtrack, and discusses the filming/framing. is this a copyvio? he did it for educational/critical purposes, not to make a buck. it is a brilliant transformation, and was noted by media, as here [2].Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

In the section of popular culture, can the big bang theory episode, the raiders minimization be included? Thanks. Shelok12 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We generally do not include trivial mentions in other works. In other words: why is that notable and how many reliable, 3rd party sources covered it? DP76764 (Talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not worth entering there anyway, since it is complete fiction; the "minimization" the show depicts is factually inaccurate. The whole point of the movie is that the Nazis are following Jones around hoping he'll lead them to it because he knows more than they do about how to find it since he actually worked with Abner. I'm surprised they even made up such a provably false claim like that for the show, but I guess they needed to contrive something for Sheldon to be mad about.12.31.187.178 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Secret of the Incas

There have been a recent spate of edits noting the influence of Secret of the Incas on Raiders of the Lost Ark. While it is encouraged to document the various influences on a piece of work there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Cut and paste jobs from other articles are inappropriate as is adding notes to the lead. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the main points of the article, so it should not include content that is not covered in the main body. The development section already references works that influenced the production such as The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, so it should be relatively straightforward to incorporate the The Secret of the Incas into this section. Please ensure any claims are sourced though (merely linking to another article will not suffice per WP:CIRCULAR) and please observe WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Release Date

Entry is inconsistent. It says the film was released in both august and June 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4000:4D:40D7:53A2:51D8:B1D0 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory Controversy

An anonymous editor has repeatedly added a section entitled "The Big Bang Theory Controversy" to the article, which has been removed several times on the grounds of poor sourcing. While I support the actions of the editors removing the content one of them really should have dropped a note on the talk page to explain the exact nature of the problem. Wikipedia has various policies regarding sourcing, and the sources used in the section (primarily Youtube and open wikis) fail to meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards (see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:NOYT). Even if these sources could be replaced by legitimate sources, WP:Secondary sources are still necessary to establish the WP:WEIGHT of the content in relation to the article. Before this section is re-added ideally fresh sources need to be reviewed here first and a consensus obtained for adding the content. Betty Logan (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090309014753/http://thechronicleherald.ca:80/ArtsLife/1057438.html to http://thechronicleherald.ca/ArtsLife/1057438.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening ceremony, Plot

As a Hebrew speaker, I've noticed that:

• During the opening ceremony, Belloq is uttering an actual Jewish prayer. This prayer is customarily said during the opening of the Torah Ark (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue#Interior_elements). As mentioned in the article, "The ark is reminiscent of the Ark of the Covenant".

• Belloq actually omits the last verse of the prayer, in which the Jewish people are blessed. This shows that he was aware of what he was saying; someone working for the Nazis is hardly likely to bless the Jews.

However, other than knowing the prayer, there are no external sources for this. Anyone who knows the prayer (or Aramaic) would recognize it, though. Is there any way to add this to the article? The only citation can be to a Jewish prayer book.

Shapiraspire (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The source for that prayer in literature is the Zohar, although it was likely recording a prayer even more ancient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.75.128 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Fortress of Kuelap information

This seems more like trivia rather than having anything to do with the cultural impact of the film and IMO should be removed. Spartan198 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Raiders of the Lost Ark. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160822120854/http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/500-greatest-movies/ to http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/500-greatest-movies/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828111945/http://www.empireonline.com/indy/day1/2.asp to http://www.empireonline.com/indy/day1/2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421180850/http://www.movie-page.com/scripts/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark.html to http://www.movie-page.com/scripts/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421180850/http://www.movie-page.com/scripts/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark.html to http://www.movie-page.com/scripts/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124174212/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1981 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1981

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Raiders of the Lost Ark. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112034418/http://www.oaklandaviationmuseum.org/Collections.html to http://www.oaklandaviationmuseum.org/Collections.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328091116/http://www.gamespot.com/news/lego-indiana-jones-the-original-adventures-company-line-6189105 to http://www.gamespot.com/news/lego-indiana-jones-the-original-adventures-company-line-6189105
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722215245/http://www.indianajones.com/details.php to http://www.indianajones.com/details.php

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor addition to plot reverted - why?

I'm noticing this is happening more and more, but my minor edit to the Plot of the movie has been reverted due to being comprised of "uneccesary details". Why? The fact that Indiana Jones, after everything he went through to obtain the Ark, is understandably frustrated by the US Government's treatment of the artifact adds a bittersweet moment to the conclusion of the film, alleviated by the fact that Marion is waiting for him and suggests they go for a drink. I don't deem those to be uneccesary and feel their reversion is more than a little petty. CynicalNurse (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's definitely unnecessary details. The point of a plot summary is to tell the reader what happens in the film, not to convey little touches. Otherwise, each editor adds the little touches that means something to them and we end up with enormous bloated summaries, which have historically been a problem on Wikipedia. Mezigue (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"Greatest film" claims

May I remind editors that per WP:Verifiable all claims such as this should be backed up by a source. Furthermore, List_of_films_considered_the_best#Action only lists Raiders of the Lost Ark in respect to action films, not "film in general". Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Indiana Jones is one of my favorite heroes of all time, and there is no doubt that he is one the greatest action heroes, but that's about it. I too wanna see a reliable source before it gets added back. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for the second opinion. In regards to your question as to why I created a "see also" section, it is generally understood that such sections only provide links to context relevant articles and do not make encylopedic claims, and as such that is why you never see sources in a "see also" section. That said, I agree that the ideal approach would be to integrate the link fully into the article as a claim backed up by sources. The other editor claims to have sources so we may as well wait and see if they are forthcoming. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, looks like it did happen. Someone did provide a source, but that person provided the source in the edit summary instead of the article, I fixed that. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's re-animate this topic, as it's reared it's head again. The source included int he article is Empire Magazine, and the article is entitled "The 100 Greatest Movies", and places Raiders at number 7. By default if a film is considered "greatest" without qualifier then it encompasses all genres.

Also, what you state in your edit summaries "the greatest film" and "regarded as the greatest film" is not what the article (or source) says. The claim is "one of the greatest films of all time, both in the action-adventure genre, and in general" - "One of", not "The" as you say. The Empire source corroborates this claim. However, I have also added a couple of other sources to support this.

Finally - don't disregard WP:BRD - once your edit has been reverted, you should discuss not revert again. That's edit warring. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark - the greatest and most outstanding film in the history of human beings?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't believe we have to start a discussion about this, but here it goes. The following statement in the introduction:

'Raiders of the Lost Ark is often ranked as one of the greatest films of all time, both in the action-adventure genre, and in general. The film also ranks #2 on Empire's 2008 list of the 500 greatest movies of all time.'

is completely ridiculous. The fact that an average film magazine with no authority at all is calling ROTLA one of the greatest (action)-films of all time, doesn't mean a statement like the above is justified. At best you could say: 'Empire Magazine called ROTLA...'. Also the sources are highly dubious. At least two of the three sources are referring specifically to action films, so a statement that includes 'often considered' and 'in general' is already highly inappropriate. Can we get rid of this POV nonsense? Or do the fanboys want an extensive discussion? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to tone down your aggression. WP:NPA is applicable here. You are also not starting a discussion - I had already started one above.

Yes, we need to discuss this - but in the meantime the original version stays as it is. You hold one opinion, other editors hold another. Can you clarify why you consider Empire to be an "average film magazines with no authority at all"

You're also confusing in your vitriol - where is the second "average film magazine"? Only Empire is referenced. The other sources come from The Guardian and The Telegraph - which are acceptable sources.

The statements are also fine as they are, they reiterate what is claimed in the sources. If you don't like the sources, may I point you towards Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I'll forewarn you that both the Guardian and Telegraph have been discussed there before and ultimately found to be reliable and admissible.

And finally, I assume you're now being facetious with your section title - the article, sources, and even the editors involved, do not make the claim that Raiders is the best or greatest ever - just that it is one of the best and greatest. There's a big difference between the two claims, because Star Crystal is quite obviously the best film ever made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the statements are far from being 'fine'. And you don't get to decide that. Also, I don't need to explain anything. You on the other hand, need to explain why you extrapolate one source (Empire Magazine for instance) to a general statement like 'often (!) ROFLA is considered one of the greatest film of all time'. Even a fool should be capable of seeing that this statement is completely inappropriate. Certainly if you would've had any basic knowledge of film history. And also because the sources you're using are mostly talking about action/adventure/war films specifically. Furthermore, The Guardian and the Telegraph are the opinions of two specific individuals. Does that legitimize a statement as 'one of the greatest'? The answer is of course no. I can't believe I have to explain this to someone. In fact, I can't believe I have to explain that Raiders of the Lost Ark is not considered one of the greatest films of all time. What's the next step? Bob Ross is considered the greatest painter of all time? Perhaps by his mum he is. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that if your edit has been reverted - yes you do have to explain it. Three different - reliable - sources have claimed that Raiders is one of the greatest films of all time. The fact that you are still refuting the opinion of three reliable sources is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't know who Bob Ross is, but if reliable sources can be found to corroborate your statement, then yes, he may be considered the (or one of the greatest) painters of all time.

Ok, I agree that I don't get to decide that - we discuss it and come to an agreement. This is called "consensus" and is apparently something you're not familiar with! You also don't get to decide that the statements are not fine - so you don't constantly revert.

You cannot dismiss reliable sources just because they do not meet your own expectations.

Here's another source that serves two purposes - it shows that the film is widely referred to as "one of the greatest adventure stories in cinematic history – if not the greatest."[3] but it also includes a quote from Vincent Canby

And here, The Evening Standard[4] "As action adventure goes, it’s about the best there is."

Yes, I accept in those two examples the term "adventure" is used, but that still doens't lessen the validity of the original statement there are now three sources to corroborate the claim. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading is difficult, isn't it? 'Three different sources are claiming ROTLA is one of the greatest films of all time'? That's not true. First of all, two of those sources are claiming it's a great action/adventure film. Only one is talking about films in general. Secondly, since when are three random (rather unreliable!) sources enough to make a big claim like 'ROTLA is one of the greatest films of all time'. This makes not sense. You have to come up with sources that make the claim. What you're doing is taking a few (three in this case) random sources and extrapolate them to a statement that doesn't reflect those sources in any way. By the way, this is original research (WP:ORIGINAL). Last but not least: the people who add something to the article ought to defend what they add (WP:TALK). This hasn't been done at all. On top of that, if you take a look on this very page, you'll see that I'm not the only one taking issue with this ridiculous claim. And seriously, stop distorting sources. Your source of 'Galbes Art Cinema' (talking about: WP:RELIABLE) is about the story, not the film. Also, taking a random cinema from Miami as a source. Are you fucking kidding me? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently reading is difficult. You say that you are not the only person with this issue. Yes, I know that - I joined in the discussion there. Perhaps if you could see through that red mist descending across your vision you'd know that. You'd also be able to see that the claim was questioned, a source provided, and those involved were happy with the outcome.

I think you're confusing Original Research with WP:SYNTH. You are claiming that because three sources call it one of the greatest it is unrealistic to say this equates to "Often". Is that the case? Because there is no way that providing sources when requested can be called original research. And I'm also pretty sure that a film contains a story - that just shows you clutching at straws. The point of that review was to show that even outside the major reviewers and critics the film (or story - pedant,) is considered one of the greatest.

To summarise: No, I am not fucking kidding you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not only reading is difficult, but also thinking. No, of course you can't say 'often regarded as one of the greatest' if you only have three sources, which by the way - and I'm going to repeat it again, since you keep ignoring it - are not even calling it 'one of the greatest films of all time'! Secondly, I'm not confusing 'Original Research with WP:SYNTH'. You can't extrapolate the opinion of a few people to general statements as 'often' or 'in general'. Where are you basing that upon? The answer is of course clear: on your own research. In short, you need (reliable) sources that make the statement itself.

But lets take this all aside. Like I already said: everyone with a basic knowledge of film history/film criticism knows that Raiders of the Lost Ark is not by any serious critic even considered as a candidate for the title of 'greatest film of all time' (whatever that may be). And no, not even 'one of the'... So this statement is nothing more than the POV opinion of a fan, which, how charming it may be, is not very encyclopedic. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You state that I need reliable sources that make the statement of Raiders being considered one of the greatest, yet when provided say that they don't count - despite them stating exactly that, and despite them coming from reliable critics and magazines.

Incidentally, your statement of "everyone with a basic knowledge of film history/film criticism knows that Raiders of the Lost Ark is not by any serious critic even considered as a candidate for the title of 'greatest film of all time'" is so obviously contentious - given that the article already contains sources which claim exactly this...

Like I already said (to coin a phrase): You cannot dismiss reliable sources just because they do not meet your own expectations. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, are you intellectually incapable of understanding this? You did not give sources that made the statement at all! The statement: Raiders of the Lost Ark is often ranked as one of the greatest films of all time, both in the action-adventure genre, and in general is not provided in any of your 'sources'. You sir, made that statement. And yes, that falls under own research (WP:NOR).

Secondly - and now for the third time! - two of the three sources you gave didn't even claim it is 'one of the greatest films of all time'. They're referring to the action/adventure genre specifically. And even if they did, you can't extrapolate the opinion of one or two people to a general claim. You need consensus, preferably from critics with a certain degree of reliability (WP:RELIABLE). Hence my (implicit) appeal on common sense, serious critics won't consider Raiders of the Lost Ark as a great film, let alone 'one of the greatest'. Apart of course from dubious, unreliable (and in may cases popular) sources such as Empire Magazine or some guy from a cinema in Miami (still can't believe you brought that up...).

In conclusion, the only thing that supports the claim I contest is Empire Magazine. And do you really think that's enough to support a rather big claim like the one in the introduction? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - ROTLA does not make AFI or IMDB or All-Time top 100 list, is #39 in Rotten Tomatoes. The WP List of films considered the best puts Mad Max and Die Hard at Action, ROTLA is not shown. By WP:V, it just is not highly rated in general. Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest - probably not, but you've just been such an arse about putting forward your point of view I felt duty bound to argue in a bear-baiting kind of fashion; the more steam I could see coming out of your ears, the more I had to respond. (Starting a discussion by telling the other editor to "Piss off" is a pretty good indicator of how the topic is likely to progress...) Now that another editor has weighed in, politely and with a reasonable viewpoint I'll back off - but with the comment that had you been reasonable in discussion and not such an aggressive armchair warrior this could have been avoided from the very first edit.

Let us hope you've learned something positive about interaction, communication and collaboration with other editors during this debacle. Even if not, I don't care. As I said - Star Crystal is better anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to disappoint you, steam wasn't coming out of my ears by far, it was more a combination of despair and amazement by the amount of stupidity I was encountering. I do like your original way of admitting you're full of shit, very interesting! Just out of curiosity though, if you didn't believe this in the first place, why bother? Surely people who make edits like this ought to follow the rules (i.e. start a discussion on the talk page) or piss off. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You repeatedly removed sourced information because you didn't agree with it. Then, when reverted, you repeatedly used abusive and aggressive language toward other editors. You are in no position to talk to other editors about "following the rules". You should have posted here as soon as you were reverted the first time, instead of edit-warring. WP is a collaborative project, you need to understand that or leave. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The regulations are clear on this: the person who wants to add something to the article ought to give justification for it. That's indeed why WP is a collaborative project. Where do I see you or your friend on this talk page instigating a discussion on this matter? So no, I shouldn't be posting here, instead you and your friend should have.

Secondly, my entire point was all along that the information was in fact not sourced at all. Surely, the definition of something being sourced has to be that a certain statement is reflected in the sources. This is absolutely not the case with the disputed sentence: Raiders of the Lost Ark is often ranked as one of the greatest films of all time, both in the action-adventure genre, and in general which of your sources is stating this? Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I told you why I bothered - because you were (and still are) behaving like an arse. In fact, the longer it goes on the more of an arse you're showing yourself to be. I should imagine it won't be long before your eventual reply simply consists of "Piss off, fuckity fuck, shitty response, your [sic] a dick," complete with a smattering of spelling and grammatical mistakes.

A glance at my editing history and talk page shows that I have an acknowledged weak spot and will often defend a tenuous position simply because the opposer is a wanker has put forth their opinion poorly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Kostrowicki, you need to get your facts straight. Neither Chaheel nor I added that information to the article – it has been in the article for well over a year, as a cursory glance at the history will show you. After removing it and being reverted, the onus was upon you to post here explaining your removal, not to edit war and attack other editors. At that point, you lost all credibility. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chaheel, I don't begrudge you your guilty pleasure of what you would call 'defending a tenuous position', but what I would call 'behaving like an arse'. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. In any case, I happen to have an acknowledged weak spot for chauvinism and POV statements in articles. My response is usually to reciprocate or to react slightly irritated (or both). In other words, I simply don't understand how someone could make a statement like 'ROTLA is one of the greatest films of all time' other than out of ignorance or POV motivations. I detest the latter. The fact that The Old Jacobite reverted the deletion of the sentence above with the explanation that it was 'sourced material' is therefore beyond me. It's either ignorance (which I don't believe) or willingly defending a claim that stinks. In any case, it's his (and your) job to justify a statement on the talk page and to find a compromise. So since you didn't bother, I hereby made an attempt:

Since the praising part has become a standard component of Wikipedia, I suppose it's out of uniformity logical that some of the sentence remains intact. I therefore suggest to remove 'in general' and to move the 'action/adventure' part in front of 'films'. I consider this in the light of me being an arse a generous compromise. The other option is to remove the sentence in its entirety. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@The Old Jacobite, my friend, I never said you added that information to the article. But apart from that, who cares if it's you, your friend or the fairy fucking godmother who added that statement? You defended the statement in the summery saying it was 'sourced material', so it's up to you to justify that on the talk page. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Coming here as a result of the listing in RFC. I've read through the recent comments on this talk page, and also some of the recent edit history. I feel compelled to start off observing that most of the regular participants in this particular discussion have been pretty rude and I hope that won't continue. Beyond being a waste of air, it discourages people from wading in who might otherwise help steer discussions productively (like me -- I almost didn't, because who needs that?). It looks to me like the crux of the current problem is use of the word "often." Is that correct? — e. ripley\^talk 19:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. The crux of the problem is that the statement Raiders of the lost ark is often considered as one of the greatest films of all time is not reflected in any of the given sources. That includes the word 'often', but also the addition 'in general' and even 'one of the greatest' (action-adventure or in general doesn't matter) is problematic (like user Markbassett pointed out above). Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Certainly seems to be at least one of the sticking points. I'll try to dissect this a little more thoroughly tomorrow, and hope to hear from the dissenting side as well. — e. ripley\^talk 05:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought this had been resolved? There has been a compromise made, and the text now no longer claims it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and additionally makes the distinction between film in general and action adventure. Both The Old Jacobite and myself have reverted to this version rather than the original which we previously championed, and Wim Kostrowicki has made no negative comment regarding it either - which is not surprising seeing as it's his addition. The RFC was made on the 19th October when the flames were high indeed, but by the time it garnered a response it was the 25th - six days later - and Wim had already made the compromise here which we now seem to agree on. As I pointed out - both ToJ and myself have reverted a lone editor who tried to reinsert the contentious text.

Whilst I thank e. ripley for coming along, I don't think any action is required, as it seems to have died a death, and stability has been found. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've requested page protection for the article. IP Vandalism just when we've agreed on a version. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) Is there an RfC here? If there is still a live RfC, could I suggest that you open it with a neutrally framed question and move most of the above to 'prior discussion' or 'hide' it. If the RfC is not necessary, perhaps you should close it so that editor time is not wasted. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've requested that it's closed: RFC - closure Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Remove often That is pure WP:synth. You can't cite three sources and claim often. You need to attribute it. Also remove from the lead and put it in the reception section. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Circling back on this. Basically agree with Aircorn above. "Often" is inappropriate here and should just be removed (it appears to be even fewer sources than three, since two of them appear to basically be the same.) — e. ripley\^talk 20:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Remove it - the reception section does not support the claim, so it should not be in the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indy silent when shooting swordsman?

I saw Raiders in the theater when it first came out. As I recall, Indy mutters to himself something like "Ah, hell" as he draws his pistol and shoots the swordsman. But in the copies I see online, he is silent even though you can see his lips move as if he mutters something to himself. Did they edit that in the film? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned? Phantom in ca (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raiders of the Lost Ark. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525201745/http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15081 to http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15081
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.indianajones.com/%7CIndianaJones.com%7D%7D

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Indy" and Jones"

Does anyone know why the plot mentions Indiana Jones as "Indy" and Jones"? It makes him sound like 2 distinct characters. Thissecretperson (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That lack of consistency is one of the unwanted consequences of collaborative writing... I have edited that out. Mezigue (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Did the same for Abner Ravenwood, as he is mentioned as "Abner" once while the latter is "Ravenwood". Thanks for the edits! Thissecretperson (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"Mean Mongolian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mean Mongolian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Mean Mongolian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Giant Sherpha" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Giant Sherpha. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Giant Sherpha until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Mean Mongolian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mean Mongolian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Mean Mongolian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Giant Sherpha" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Giant Sherpha. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Giant Sherpha until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

40th anniversary piece

Three days ago, The Hollywood Reporter published this article reflecting on the movie 40 years after its release. It might be useful for expanding on character, production, and aftermath details. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Peru" vs "South America"

The film itself only refers to the jungle as "South America" (via an onscreen subtitle). However, the more specific location of "Peru" can be deduced from the credits (as well as through supplemental materials published later, like comics or novels). The crew for those scenes are credited as "Peruvian-Hawaiian Unit" (referencing the Hawaiian shooting location), and a minor character is credited as "Peruvian Porter".

This likely doesn't need to be explained in the article itself, but I am including it here for reference. Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Modern Reception via The Big Bang Theory

I recently researched the "Indy doesn't matter" theory - including Wikipedia - and found this article positing that the theory doesn't matter because of Indy's character arc, which actually helps enhance the thematic commentaries: https://collider.com/indiana-jones-doesnt-matter-theory-is-bad/

I was wondering if there was a way to integrate this topic after mention of Matt Pomroy's essay conclusion.Madden Boseroy (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That link is a tracking cookie nightmare. Is there a version of it that doesn't want to know my uncle's inside leg measurements and what size of raisin was in my breakfast cereal? - X201 (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Prequel, sequels and adaptations

The section seems out of scope, with at least a few irrelevant details. I'd be happy to add my suggested changes one at a time, but since two of more sweeping attempts to shorten the section were reverted, I'll happily start the discussion to see if others find this an issue.

To my mind, the article is already very long, so we don't need to know what was passing through Spielberg's mind while he was making Last Crusade or what all topics get covered by books and video games. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a summary of those contents. You're talking about 77-100 words per film but the series also encompasses other media and they are covered. Some of the content was specifically asked for at the FA it passed only 8 weeks ago, AND your edit left 6 dead references because you removed content. To be comprehensive, it's going to be long, it's an infinite encyclopedia, you don't have to read it all and no one has asked you to. EDIT: And not only that, because you're removing references and moving content around, it can't be guaranteed the remaining sources cite the content anymore. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the removal of references was a mistake. My tired edit. But your arguments that "it's going to be long, it's an infinite encyclopedia" disregard WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I actually think the section is pretty well-written, but again we don't need things like I mentioned above or what specific actors portray the young Indy in a spin-off series. That's got nothing to do with Raiders. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I totally understand the recent revert. Footnotes are tedious anyways. I do think the list of spin-off adventures could be abridged somewhat, maybe to only include links which are to actual Indy games, rather than mentioning random details which don't lead anywhere. Just a thought, and I'll return to that later. I have a couple of more common-sense copyedits I'll work on first. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The article does not mention that if Indiana would have let the Nazis carry the ark to Germany, it would have wiped out most of the Nazis.

2601:643:C002:2830:2553:6C63:18E6:C66 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

For the IP to discuss changes

• The guideline is to conceal extra titles if they're unwieldy which is what has been done. You're also removing the shorthand that is used throughout the article. Even IMDb lists it as Raiders of the Lost Ark, because that is it's name.
• Paramount is not a production company. It put up the money for distribution and sequel rights. That was the deal, that's why every studio was rejecting it until Paramount. It had no input on it whatsoever or any hand in its creation beyond essentially giving a loan.
• if you dispute these things, discuss it here, as it is you've been reverted multiple times by multiple people so I've moved beyond explaining it and have added a warning to your page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Colonialism analysis

Agreement on this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark&diff=1062005201&oldid=1061907370 Not every analysis deserves inclusion and this seems like a pretty bad one. Something expected from an extreme woke/SJW high school student. The 'Indiana' name nonsense helps show it's not worthy of inclusion. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of with you on this one. Having read it, it comes across as single author who just doesn't like it. For such sweeping statements I think we need more than just the one opinion/source, especially when (as you point out) it's not necessarily accurate either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What's inaccurate about it? Seems pretty fair analysis of what is happening in the film. It's no different to Britain taking foreign artifacts and bringing them home for display. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

She makes assertions that are not backed up by anybody other than her own opinion for a start, and that are directly contradicted by the dilm itself. In order for them to be considered accurate they need to be agreed by the film-makers themselves, otherwise her opinion is just that - opinion. At the very least the section needs to be re-written to clarify that it's the view held by a single person. Jones makes it constantly clear that he's only interested in the archaeological aspect of any piece he retrieves, so again - for Prorokova to think otherwise when the opposite is stated in the film itself is dubious. Admittedly not in this particular film, but two of his more insistent scenes in Last crusade are when he declares that he doesnt' really care about the grail, and is just looking for his father, and earlier when he declares - twice - that a certain artefact belongs in a museum. It's very different to Britain taking artefacts, because of context - why is Jones taking the artefact? Specifically not to put it in a museum, but to prevent another white male from abusing it. Nor the same as taking things without consent and putting them behind a glass barrier for the next 80 years. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's a poorly written article which ignores aspects of the film to push her own agenda. I'm surprised it's included.Halbared (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly not anti-woke and love to over-analyse things: but it's rather jarring, subjective and tenuous. I'm not sure wiki articles are the right place for a film studies student to try and show off. There's a few other places this crops up - the Die Hard entry has/had similar. -- 20 Feb 2022.

I might be misreading it but the statement is assigned specifically to Provoka, and it's no different than the other statements in this or other theme articles that are ascribed to one person. It's ultimately their interpretation of events, and ties in with the assessment that Jones is a poor archaeologist destroying irreplaceable things to recover other irreplaceable things. It's not saying this is an example of colonialis, but that the roots of the story are possibly borne of that, and can certainly be seen as that. I don't even like theme sections for the most part but I can certainly see the point she is making so it's not completely out of left field. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Being already one of the most analyzed films in relation to its affirmative representation of racism toward non-white indigenous peoples and colonialism, and abuse and misrepresentation of archaeology with portrayal of impudent looting as noble act of science and civilization (in contrast to indigenous, say, mishandling, uncivilized treatment, incapability of evaluation and management, and so on), the section-subsection on this issues is still embarrassingly short anyway. If you get rid of this para based on Tatjana/Svjetlana, whatever, Prorokova/Profukova, then we are left with two small para's, and one of which is barely critical of film's tropes.

But, here's smart assessment, that could be even better, elaborate and down to earth description of this belongs-to-archive-situated-in-old-uranium-mine movie: Indiana Jones is actually a villain--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

1982 reissue vs 1981 original

Can I replace the 1982 reissue poster with the 1981 Original Theatrical Poster Hellonature (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

For what purpose? THe image is meant to be used as an identifying common image, not just the first image. The current image is more recognizable than the original and is used on most home media as well. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)