3 ms·

Completely insane idea. > Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it’s an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she’s sixteen or seventeen it’s not interes

Completely insane idea. > Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it’s an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she’s sixteen or seventeen it’s not interesting anymore. It would certainly be... interesting... in the sense that it would be very unusual and offensive. Maybe he was intentionally going for that?

b112 3y ago
It's a movie, so emotional turmoil is often a desired thing. Especially non-modern films. One also has to understand when Indy was born. 15 and 25 may not have been too far apart, for someone born in the late 1800s. And the woman's father was around, I believe, at the time. I strongly dislike judging people's actions by modern ideals. What I mean is, did historical figures try to show understanding, compassion, and not intentional cruelty, whilst wrapped in the morals of the day? Gauging history by today's morals, would be as gauging cleanliness standard. Or the average person from 1000 years ago, for thinking the world was flat, or the solar system revolved around the Earth. And I certainly know that our descendants will look back at us, and think our actions morally reprehensible in some way, just as some do the same to our ancestors, currently. And by the way, I don't mean something we think is wrong now. While our descendants may look at global warming, or some such and judge us, I mean over issues that almost no one today views as wrong. So if you think "Oh of course, our descendants will view this $x thing as wrong!", you're wrong. It'll be something you 100% think is sensible today. Judging the past is so... beneath us. Or perhaps not judging, but blaming.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Wholeheartedly agreed. No mileage in rewriting historical morals and then holding people to them, past the standards of the day. Participating in evil perpetrated by everyone at the time just makes you... average. The baseline is intrinsically linked to the time. I think the "interesting" reference is the standards of the character's day (~1900-1940s) clashing with viewing audience standards (~1980). Personally, by modern standards, I think it absolutely still fits with the Marion Ravenwood character. She's idealistic and driven. It wouldn't matter who the object of her affection was, even an older Indiana. She wanted him, and she made that happen, her age be damned. Which also aptly sets up their movie-time interactions, where she still flummoxes him. (In contrast to most others, who are generally respectful or deferential)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  >One also has to understand when Indy was born. 15 and 25 may not have been too far apart, for someone born in the late 1800s. And the woman's father was around, I believe, at the time. sure, but the writers weren't writing at that time and they weren't arguing well, the proper historical age division would be X and Y but rather hmm, let's make it a bit salacious here, Indy is naughty!
- ryandrake 3y ago
  This happens a lot when discussing all kinds of influential people from the past. Take some author with a lifetime of producing great works of art and influence… inevitably someone will come out of the woodwork to say “bbbbbut he was a homophobe” or “bbbbbut he married a girl at 15” or “bbbbbut he was a slave owner” As if that one fact, measured by today’s very strict moral yardstick, invalidated the person’s lifetime of achievement. We invent taboos very quickly and lose them slowly. What mundane thing we do today will be taboo in 50 years, and be used to tarnish our reputation?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
emmelaich 3y ago
It's not her age that's the problem as much as the age difference. Priscilla started her relationship with Elvis when she was 14. Resumed at 17 and married at 22. Dunno quite what to think about it. I have a lingering thought that people mature later mentally / emotionally these days. But physically earlier. Another important factor is that women have may more options these days so the pressure or inclination to marry is much less strong.

b112 3y ago

It's a movie, so emotional turmoil is often a desired thing. Especially non-modern films. One also has to understand when Indy was born. 15 and 25 may not have been too far apart, for someone born in the late 1800s. And the woman's father was around, I believe, at the time. I strongly dislike judging people's actions by modern ideals. What I mean is, did historical figures try to show understanding, compassion, and not intentional cruelty, whilst wrapped in the morals of the day? Gauging history by today's morals, would be as gauging cleanliness standard. Or the average person from 1000 years ago, for thinking the world was flat, or the solar system revolved around the Earth. And I certainly know that our descendants will look back at us, and think our actions morally reprehensible in some way, just as some do the same to our ancestors, currently. And by the way, I don't mean something we think is wrong now. While our descendants may look at global warming, or some such and judge us, I mean over issues that almost no one today views as wrong. So if you think "Oh of course, our descendants will view this $x thing as wrong!", you're wrong. It'll be something you 100% think is sensible today. Judging the past is so... beneath us. Or perhaps not judging, but blaming.

ethbr1 3y ago
Wholeheartedly agreed. No mileage in rewriting historical morals and then holding people to them, past the standards of the day. Participating in evil perpetrated by everyone at the time just makes you... average. The baseline is intrinsically linked to the time. I think the "interesting" reference is the standards of the character's day (~1900-1940s) clashing with viewing audience standards (~1980). Personally, by modern standards, I think it absolutely still fits with the Marion Ravenwood character. She's idealistic and driven. It wouldn't matter who the object of her affection was, even an older Indiana. She wanted him, and she made that happen, her age be damned. Which also aptly sets up their movie-time interactions, where she still flummoxes him. (In contrast to most others, who are generally respectful or deferential)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
>One also has to understand when Indy was born. 15 and 25 may not have been too far apart, for someone born in the late 1800s. And the woman's father was around, I believe, at the time. sure, but the writers weren't writing at that time and they weren't arguing well, the proper historical age division would be X and Y but rather hmm, let's make it a bit salacious here, Indy is naughty!
ryandrake 3y ago
This happens a lot when discussing all kinds of influential people from the past. Take some author with a lifetime of producing great works of art and influence… inevitably someone will come out of the woodwork to say “bbbbbut he was a homophobe” or “bbbbbut he married a girl at 15” or “bbbbbut he was a slave owner” As if that one fact, measured by today’s very strict moral yardstick, invalidated the person’s lifetime of achievement. We invent taboos very quickly and lose them slowly. What mundane thing we do today will be taboo in 50 years, and be used to tarnish our reputation?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

emmelaich 3y ago

It's not her age that's the problem as much as the age difference. Priscilla started her relationship with Elvis when she was 14. Resumed at 17 and married at 22. Dunno quite what to think about it. I have a lingering thought that people mature later mentally / emotionally these days. But physically earlier. Another important factor is that women have may more options these days so the pressure or inclination to marry is much less strong.