You named the wrong problems.

Posted by the Fiddler from www.sd131.k12.id.us on July 14, 1999 at 10:52:56:

In Reply to: Something that bugs me about "Temple of Doom." posted by ROB T. on July 14, 1999 at 03:34:49:

If anything that you named as wrong, was wrong. It was the plane-crash thing, but other than that you point out the wrong problems.

First of all people have survived falls of even greater heights without even as much as a rubber raft for wind resistance (and in more than one case come through with only bruises). If they had lain on the inflated sides of the raft, those sides would have boken their fall, and don't tell me the pressure of them landing on it would have broken a hole in the raft! because it wouldn't! The other thing that would have aided in a soft landing would be that they landed on a steep mountain covered with snow. Which means that, unlike hitting a solid cement floor or something where their momentum would be completely opposed by an opposite and equal force, their decent/momentum was slowed down but not stopped, which made for a softer "touch-down." The real error here is not any of what you mentioned, but the fact that the raft fell straight down--without turning over in the air. I don't know if you have ever tried to drop anything that is flat--like a peice of bread :)--but the resistance of the air always makes it filp while falling, especialy over any kind of distance.

When you say that the fall into the river was also unbeleivable, you are accusing the creators of the wrong mistake. In this case it is again beleivable that they could have survived the fall--if it happened the way that was shown. What is unbeleivable, again, is the way the raft fell, plus they way they landed. Had the raft remained open as it did and falled straight down (bottom side down) they would have hit the water, the raft would have folded around them--squishing them all into the middle, gone into the water--forced by the momentum, then resurfaced and unfolded leaving them mostly dry and unharmed.

In both cases you make the wrong accuasation, the problem is the way the raft falls. It should have folded around them a fair amount as it fell through the air, unless they were holding the sides. If they were each hugging the inflated sides of the raft, it is possible that they COULD have fallen the way they did. If they did fall the way shown, then both falls were completely survivable. That leaves only one problem or error in the movie: How come the raft landed on the water so stiff and straight? There is where the error lies, and in the empty fuel tanks of course.

Who cares though? the Indy films aren't exactly what we would call real life anyway, lets face it they are just a fun way to get away from the pains of real life. That is why we are fans.

LucasNews --News on anything Lucas

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: If anything that you named as wrong, was wrong.  It was the plane-crash thing, but other than that you point out the wrong problems.

: First of all people have survived falls of even greater heights without even as much as a rubber raft for wind resistance (and in more than one case come through with only bruises).  If they had lain on the inflated sides of the raft, those sides would have boken their fall, and don't tell me the pressure of them landing on it would have broken a hole in the raft!  because it wouldn't!  The other thing that would have aided in a soft landing would be that they landed on a steep mountain covered with snow.  Which means that, unlike hitting a solid cement floor or something where their momentum would be completely opposed by an opposite and equal force, their decent/momentum was slowed down but not stopped, which made for a softer "touch-down."  The real error here is not any of what you mentioned, but the fact that the raft fell straight down--without turning over in the air.  I don't know if you have ever tried to drop anything that is flat--like a peice of bread :)--but the resistance of the air always makes it filp while falling, especialy over any kind of distance.

: When you say that the fall into the river was also unbeleivable, you are accusing the creators of the wrong mistake.  In this case it is again beleivable that they could have survived the fall--if it happened the way that was shown.  What is unbeleivable, again, is the way the raft fell, plus they way they landed.  Had the raft remained open as it did and falled straight down (bottom side down) they would have hit the water, the raft would have folded around them--squishing them all into the middle, gone into the water--forced by the momentum, then resurfaced and unfolded leaving them mostly dry and unharmed.

: In both cases you make the wrong accuasation, the problem is the way the raft falls.  It should have folded around them a fair amount as it fell through the air, unless they were holding the sides.  If they were each hugging the inflated sides of the raft, it is possible that they COULD have fallen the way they did.  If they did fall the way shown, then both falls were completely survivable.  That leaves only one problem or error in the movie:  How come the raft landed on the water so stiff and straight?  There is where the error lies, and in the empty fuel tanks of course.

: Who cares though?  the Indy films aren't exactly what we would call real life anyway, lets face it they are just a fun way to get away from the pains of real life.  That is why we are fans.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]