5 ms·

My answer would be no and never, respectively. I mean, Ok, that video has been played 2.5 million times, but according to Wikipedia, 77 million people watched t

by rob74 4y ago

My answer would be no and never, respectively. I mean, Ok, that video has been played 2.5 million times, but according to Wikipedia, 77 million people watched the first Indiana Jones movie in the cinema alone, never mind TV, DVD, Blu Ray, streaming etc. The good thing about Indiana Jones is that, because it's set in the past, it doesn't look as dated as an 1981 movie that actually played in 1981 looks. Ok, you can probably guess that it's old if you compare the way Harrison Ford looked then to the way he looks now, but other than that...

wahern 4y ago
How many of those 77 million are dead? 42 years is a long time. If you asked me to put money down, I'd definitely place my bet with Raiders of the Lost Ark. But I'd still like to know the numbers. And if we put a cap on age, say, 35, things would get even more interesting--for example, by exaggerating the effect of population growth.
- gpderetta 4y ago
  those 77 watched it on release. Many many millions more have watched it since and will in the future. Indiana Jones still has cult status and will probably maintain it for a while more.
- mellavora 4y ago
  > How many of those 77 million are dead? And of those, how many are dead because they forgot to bring their gun to the swordfight?
actionfromafar 4y ago
> The good thing about Indiana Jones is that, because it's set in the past, it doesn't look as dated as a 1981 movie that actually played in 1981 looks. I think I agree, but when I have to rationalize it, I can't really say why! I only come up with vague things like: - being made to look like in the past, the visual language is a caricature of the past. This caricature of the 30s has not changed much for us between 1980s and present time. - which leads to... our present is not as clear as in hindsight (or we haven't formed a caricature of it yet) while it happens - being set in the past, some of the artefacts of being shot on film, don't stick out as much (in fact, these artefacts are often emulated in modern productions to signal "the past") - ... as opposed to films set in the future, there are fewer pitfalls
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Eh sorry now? Can't some downvoter please tell me what I'm missing instead of just downvoting.

by rob74 4y ago

wahern 4y ago

How many of those 77 million are dead? 42 years is a long time. If you asked me to put money down, I'd definitely place my bet with Raiders of the Lost Ark. But I'd still like to know the numbers. And if we put a cap on age, say, 35, things would get even more interesting--for example, by exaggerating the effect of population growth.

gpderetta 4y ago
those 77 watched it on release. Many many millions more have watched it since and will in the future. Indiana Jones still has cult status and will probably maintain it for a while more.
mellavora 4y ago
> How many of those 77 million are dead? And of those, how many are dead because they forgot to bring their gun to the swordfight?

actionfromafar 4y ago

> The good thing about Indiana Jones is that, because it's set in the past, it doesn't look as dated as a 1981 movie that actually played in 1981 looks. I think I agree, but when I have to rationalize it, I can't really say why! I only come up with vague things like: - being made to look like in the past, the visual language is a caricature of the past. This caricature of the 30s has not changed much for us between 1980s and present time. - which leads to... our present is not as clear as in hindsight (or we haven't formed a caricature of it yet) while it happens - being set in the past, some of the artefacts of being shot on film, don't stick out as much (in fact, these artefacts are often emulated in modern productions to signal "the past") - ... as opposed to films set in the future, there are fewer pitfalls

actionfromafar 4y ago
Eh sorry now? Can't some downvoter please tell me what I'm missing instead of just downvoting.