Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raiders of the Lost Ark article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Raiders of the Lost Ark has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
Archive
Archives
# September 2002 - May 2007


It is requested that a photograph or photographs of an image of the original release poster, the current poster image is from the re-release. be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
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.[1]

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.[1] 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 seaplane. thumb|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.[1]

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c Luceno, James (2008). "Indiana Jones: The Ultimate Guide". New York: DK Publishing, P. 58-61. ISBN 978-0-7566-3500-8. 

bg:Чачапоянски златен идол

[edit] 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)