6 ms·

George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Larry Kasdan sat around talking through all the ideas they had for “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. They tape recorded their meeti

George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Larry Kasdan sat around talking through all the ideas they had for “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. They tape recorded their meetings. This is a transcription of those tape recordings. I read it a long time ago, and the most interesting thing that stuck in my mind had to do with the headpiece with a crystal in the center that Indiana Jones had to obtain. A quote from the movie itself to refresh memories: "And what you did was you take the staff to a special room in Tanis... a map room with a miniature of the city all laid out on the floor and if you put the staff in a certain place, at a certain time of day, the sun shone through [the crystal] and made a beam that came down on the floor... and gave you the exact location of the Well of the Souls. [Which is] where the Ark of the Covenant was kept." Lucas, Spielberg, and Kasdan got into a discussion about why it had to be a physical thing like a crystal. It couldn't be a map, diagram, or document that gave the exact place to dig. Because valuable information like that, even if it were engraved or printed on a gold artifact, would have been photographed and distributed to museums around the world. Then Indiana wouldn't have needed to go to Nepal to retrieve the original. Hence the headpiece with a crystal -- which isn't easily copied. There was so much attention to the logical flow of the story.

Jedd 5y ago
> There was so much attention to the logical flow of the story. In some ways, but the most famous observation (that I've heard) about the first Indiana film is that the outcome -- all the bad guys getting fried when they open the ark -- would have also happened had Indiana done nothing.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Hmm. True, but I suppose if he wasn't there, the nazis might have reclaimed the ark post-death of their team, learned, and done something different? And maybe the woman he was tied up with would be dead... But yeah, I get it. Never heard it before.
- sonofhans 5y ago
  The Nazis may never have found the headpiece if they hadn't followed Indy. That's his primary contribution. He clearly knew exactly where Marion was, even though he bullshitted the spooks about it. So he was careful with that information, and it's not likely anyone else would know. Here's a question: how do we know those were government spooks at all? Maybe they were Nazis trying to setup Indy just so that they could follow him :D
- andi999 5y ago
  But after that the ark was boxed and shipped to the US which wouldn't have happened in that case, would it?
  - Jedd 5y ago
    You're right - I should have said 'done nothing until that point'. That leads to the question 'how could he have followed them?' but that's not a terribly difficult question to entertain, as there's several junctures in the story where he could have safely transitioned into an 'observe from a distance' mode. Certainly once landing in Egypt that's the case, but even the early Nepal detour becomes optional if you assume the Nazis would have continued to excavate everywhere until they found the Well of the Souls (or lost the upcoming war before doing so). From Egypt-arrival onwards, if he'd kept an eye on things, then followed the bad guys into the desert, kept his eyes shut (he's the only one to know that was important) he could have transported the ark away without interference once that all went down.
    - andi999 5y ago
      So now goint meta: is this actually a fault? I mean this flaw is only in hindsight, from the perspective of the character everything was done right (at the moment to moment decisions without the gift of clearvoyance). Maybe the criticism shd be more that opening the ark is actually a deus ex machina (literally and figuratively), since nothing else could have saved indy in that situation).
      - Jedd 5y ago
        Yup, and as Al-Khwarizmi says in a sibling comment, we are entertained through the journey. Whether it diminishes your entertainment, once you get to the end of the story, to realise almost everything was pointless - in the fictional universe you just partook - well that's a question for you. For me, it does not. But I also really enjoyed Joseph Heller's second novel.
        ghaff 5y ago
- Al-Khwarizmi 5y ago
  And how does that go against any logic? I have seen this kind of criticism against several other movies (e.g. also much of "The Last Jedi", although I don't like that one for different reasons) and I don't get it. In real life, the things we do aren't part of a great scheme that always leads to some grand goal, sometimes they can be just inconsequential. I don't understand what's wrong with that happening in a movie, in fact I even find it refreshing when a movie forgoes the standard clichés where everything has to "fit" perfectly and if they focused on a seemingly irrelevant object in the initial parts of the movie, you know it has to play a role in the end. The character did live experiences and learn, and we were entertained along the way.
  - michaelgrafl 5y ago
    It's bad storytelling. In stories you break up routines by introducing characters and problems which then eventually get reintegrated. If a big part of the story cancels out during reintegration it doesn't feel right and the ending won't feel satisfying. Obviously in this case the story doesn't get ruined, but in general it's a good idea to not introduce things into a story that won't be needed later on.
    - hairofadog 5y ago
      I love the movie, and I agree with you. Big Trouble in Little China is an example where I think they did this intentionally and it worked; Kurt Russell’s character (arguably the main character) doesn’t actually do anything but witness the story, and everything would have turned out more or less the same if he hadn’t been there. In the case of Raiders, I don’t think it was intentional and it didn’t work (though like you say the rest of the movie was so strong and fun it doesn’t matter). I do love the warehouse scene at the end, however, and think about it all the time. Top. Men.
      - Vaslo 5y ago
        I think the great Top Men comments is another excellent detail. When I was a kid I thought there might be some secret team that could work for the government and Indy would have to believe. But now that I’ve worked in research, it’s clear that whatever research field you work in, you absolutely know who the best is. We talked about the best Synthetic chemists all the time. It would be next to impossible for Indy to not know those big names (in the same “notorious” way he knew of Belloq) so it really adds more to the government BS.
- samizdis 5y ago
  That was used in The Big Bang theory episode The Raiders Minimization, as discussed (among many other places) at https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/14508/is-amy-right-about-indiana-jones-being-irrelevant-to-the-outcome https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/14508/is-amy-righ...

Jedd 5y ago

> There was so much attention to the logical flow of the story. In some ways, but the most famous observation (that I've heard) about the first Indiana film is that the outcome -- all the bad guys getting fried when they open the ark -- would have also happened had Indiana done nothing.

bbarnett 5y ago
Hmm. True, but I suppose if he wasn't there, the nazis might have reclaimed the ark post-death of their team, learned, and done something different? And maybe the woman he was tied up with would be dead... But yeah, I get it. Never heard it before.
sonofhans 5y ago
The Nazis may never have found the headpiece if they hadn't followed Indy. That's his primary contribution. He clearly knew exactly where Marion was, even though he bullshitted the spooks about it. So he was careful with that information, and it's not likely anyone else would know. Here's a question: how do we know those were government spooks at all? Maybe they were Nazis trying to setup Indy just so that they could follow him :D
andi999 5y ago
But after that the ark was boxed and shipped to the US which wouldn't have happened in that case, would it?
- Jedd 5y ago
  You're right - I should have said 'done nothing until that point'. That leads to the question 'how could he have followed them?' but that's not a terribly difficult question to entertain, as there's several junctures in the story where he could have safely transitioned into an 'observe from a distance' mode. Certainly once landing in Egypt that's the case, but even the early Nepal detour becomes optional if you assume the Nazis would have continued to excavate everywhere until they found the Well of the Souls (or lost the upcoming war before doing so). From Egypt-arrival onwards, if he'd kept an eye on things, then followed the bad guys into the desert, kept his eyes shut (he's the only one to know that was important) he could have transported the ark away without interference once that all went down.
  - andi999 5y ago
    So now goint meta: is this actually a fault? I mean this flaw is only in hindsight, from the perspective of the character everything was done right (at the moment to moment decisions without the gift of clearvoyance). Maybe the criticism shd be more that opening the ark is actually a deus ex machina (literally and figuratively), since nothing else could have saved indy in that situation).
    - Jedd 5y ago
      Yup, and as Al-Khwarizmi says in a sibling comment, we are entertained through the journey. Whether it diminishes your entertainment, once you get to the end of the story, to realise almost everything was pointless - in the fictional universe you just partook - well that's a question for you. For me, it does not. But I also really enjoyed Joseph Heller's second novel.
      - ghaff 5y ago
Al-Khwarizmi 5y ago
And how does that go against any logic? I have seen this kind of criticism against several other movies (e.g. also much of "The Last Jedi", although I don't like that one for different reasons) and I don't get it. In real life, the things we do aren't part of a great scheme that always leads to some grand goal, sometimes they can be just inconsequential. I don't understand what's wrong with that happening in a movie, in fact I even find it refreshing when a movie forgoes the standard clichés where everything has to "fit" perfectly and if they focused on a seemingly irrelevant object in the initial parts of the movie, you know it has to play a role in the end. The character did live experiences and learn, and we were entertained along the way.
- michaelgrafl 5y ago
  It's bad storytelling. In stories you break up routines by introducing characters and problems which then eventually get reintegrated. If a big part of the story cancels out during reintegration it doesn't feel right and the ending won't feel satisfying. Obviously in this case the story doesn't get ruined, but in general it's a good idea to not introduce things into a story that won't be needed later on.
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    I love the movie, and I agree with you. Big Trouble in Little China is an example where I think they did this intentionally and it worked; Kurt Russell’s character (arguably the main character) doesn’t actually do anything but witness the story, and everything would have turned out more or less the same if he hadn’t been there. In the case of Raiders, I don’t think it was intentional and it didn’t work (though like you say the rest of the movie was so strong and fun it doesn’t matter). I do love the warehouse scene at the end, however, and think about it all the time. Top. Men.
    - Vaslo 5y ago
      I think the great Top Men comments is another excellent detail. When I was a kid I thought there might be some secret team that could work for the government and Indy would have to believe. But now that I’ve worked in research, it’s clear that whatever research field you work in, you absolutely know who the best is. We talked about the best Synthetic chemists all the time. It would be next to impossible for Indy to not know those big names (in the same “notorious” way he knew of Belloq) so it really adds more to the government BS.
samizdis 5y ago
That was used in The Big Bang theory episode The Raiders Minimization, as discussed (among many other places) at https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/14508/is-amy-right-about-indiana-jones-being-irrelevant-to-the-outcome https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/14508/is-amy-righ...