Posted by Yoda Boy from ppp47.yellowhead.com on May 06, 1998 at 15:59:57:
In Reply to: Re: I have a question... posted by Rob Roy on May 06, 1998 at 13:51:38:
: I totally agree with you. Putting Indy in existing mythological plots is entertaining, but limiting. The writer (probably Boam) has to do all this research to become as factually correct as he can, while at the same time allow for creative license. Nine times out of ten this will result in inconsistencies or errors that people will nit pick at. Take the end sequence of 'Last Crusade' for example. Do you really think those crazy booby traps could have been built by two brothers who walked into the desert? No, because we are familiar with the mythology surrounding the Holy Grail, and we know that there were no "mystic builders" assembling the various puzzles and deathtraps. But if we had never heard of the Grail, we would be more susceptible to believe because we had no preconceived notions of what to expect.
: The use of completely original myth's and artifacts for Indy to pursue opens a door to countless ideas. Just look at the novels. Most of those were original ideas and they were pretty good.
I understand the limitations it creates but the blending of fact and fiction, reality and mythology is one of the things that makes the Indy movies fun to watch in my opinion. I like researching the various artifacts and seeing how the various myths and legends relate to information presented in the movies. Sure it's more work for the writers but in the long run I think it's more satisfying than having them create a new myth or artifact. As for the people who nit-pick about things like the booby traps... it IS just a movie after all :-).
Post a Followup: