Indy kills more of his enemies than Michael, therefore if we’re to judge Michael as evil, isn’t Indy more so?
shareIndy also got into a relationship with Marion when he was ~25 and she was ~15, so...there's that.
shareYes good point. It’s not looking good for Indy...
shareMichael's pros are that he's a family man, has a code of honour and ethics, tries to do the right thing, keeps his head screwed on right, acts on rationality, and leads with a tough-but-fair hand.
Indy's biggest plus is that he fights the Nazis.
Of course, Michael was a decorated WWII vet, so...
There's not necessarily anything wrong with Indy being in a relationship with Marion when she was fifteen. It depends on how he behaved toward her, and how she felt about it. We need to lighten up and stop out-Victorianing the Victorians.
shareYou're right, but more often than not those relationships don't end well and I'd guess that most are suspect if not a problem; but your point is well taken: an age gap is not a problem and teenagers are sometimes mature enough to be in a mature relationship - but it's *rare*. Here, though, I was mostly just joking a bit. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark is a great adventure film, the lead is charismatic, and while he might engage in questionable archaeology and have a sketchy dating history, I don't think I'm ever going to stop digging the film.
shareit was the 20's/30's it was a different time.
shareMmm...not that different. And, while I do view historical missteps in context and judge accordingly, I also do believe that something like dating children is - and has always been - wrong. I value Socrates and Plato as philosophers, and I understand why it wouldn't occur to them otherwise, but their views on pederasty was still bad, even though it was a different time.
Look, I think I'll always love Raiders of the Lost Ark and I'm not "calling out" Indy or saying it's "problematic" or anything. But it is funny to look at it from a different angle and realize that Indy can be made to seem worse than Michael. Of course, that isn't the case. But it's fun to tease, I suppose.
15/16 year olds arent children
Let's say "dating minors", then?
This was unlikely a healthy relationship, and in most circumstances, they are not.
This was during the Great Depression, I think there were far bigger social issues going on back then . But we live in modern times, and with people like Joe Biden in charge I'm sure trying to get off with underages won't happen again.
shareThere is a very interesting question about context where we want to understand how, in the past, certain actions were more acceptable. We don't want to judge too harshly somebody who was operating according to their civilization's standards, because how would they know any better? On the other hand, isn't it important to recognize that there are certain actions which are universally abhorrent?
Example 1: the Spanish Inquisition came at a time when the culture in Europe was maximally primed for religious zealotry. Should this excuse the torture and witch-hunting, or should they have known better regardless?
Example 2: slavery has been a tragic constant within human civilization (if we have a right to either name while we are slavers) since its beginnings. If slavery is accepted in a society, should a slaver be considered abhorrent or not?
I'm not sure there's an easy answer. Specifically to the discussion we're having, age of consent differs between time periods and countries, so there might not be something pervy depending on when and where it was. I also think that people probably matured faster in the Dark Ages, for instance, likely out of need. If you could die from wild animals, feudal barons having temper tantrums, the Black Death, or the Inquisition, well, you probably learn how to be steely tough, savvy, and mature by 15 years old. Should that 15 year old then be fully adult, including in a sexual way? Maybe.
My main point in participating with this thread, though, was to have a little fun with the concept of Indiana Jones being worse than Michael Corleone. I don't really think that would be the case, but it's fun to play with the idea. Somewhere along the line it seemed to get a little serious.
If's its part of history then it's part of history. Once you start re-writing it then you're pandering to the woke brigade. Look at the recent series about Anne Boleyn for example. Or if you want to go the full religious route, look at the Aztecs who used to sacrifice themselves. Abhorrent now, but to them, it's part of their society.
I don't know the source of Indy's / Marion's relationship origins. For all we know it's with her father's consent. And there certainly doesn't seem to be any bad consequences of it (Unless you count Shia LaBoeuf playing your son...)
Indy doesn't kill in cold blood (at least I don't think he ever did) so that's something to consider. I would call Indy an Anti-Hero (does the right thing for selfish reasons) and Michael an Anti-Villain (does bad things for noble reasons)
shareThey both kill those who are trying to kill them, but Indy kills more.
shareRight, but I cut Indy some slack people it's clearly self defense. Either way they both have noble characteristics and immoral characteristics.
shareIsn’t it self defence (or defence of family) in Michael’s case as well?
shareNot directly, they didn't pose a direct threat to him as in if he didn't act within the next 2 seconds he would be dead.
shareIs defending yourself, and your family, from premeditated murder less moral than doing the same for immediate murder? If so, why?
shareHyman Roth was not a threat to him when he had him whacked, he was going to die soon anyways nor was Fredo. The only person I can think of who was an actual credible threat to him was Barzini and even he seemed like the kind of person who would have left Michael’s wife and children out of it.
Granted both Indy and Michael only killed people who were already evil so the way I see it they had it coming anyways. The only possible exception was Fredo and Michael very easily could have spared him, and just put him on probation or have Neri keep a closer eye on him and of course not trust him with confidential information. But he had him whacked purely out of hatred
Is defending yourself, and your family, from premeditated murder less moral than doing the same for immediate murder? If so, why?
shareOk I’ll play this game, Indiana Jones was defending his family as well, if the Nazis or the Thuggees got the Ark, Sankara Stones , Grail, etc they might take over the world and that could mean his father could be killed . In Crystal Skulls his son was in danger along with his sons mother so he was defending his family as well
shareYou said that Michael was not acting in self-defence:
Not directly, they didn't pose a direct threat to him as in if he didn't act within the next 2 seconds he would be dead.
He wasn’t acting in self defense, Indy however was, there you go
shareHow so if he’s constantly under attack from rival gangs who want to kill him and his family?
shareThere was no direct threat on his family, however Indy had received multiple direct threats on his family, if Kali Ma ruled the world it would be a matter of no time before his father would be sacrificed to the lava pit.
shareYes there was - his dad and brother both had hits put on them and Michael was in a permanent kill or be killed situation.
Michael getting hit was a far more realistic danger than Dr Henry Jones Sr getting lowered into a lava pit.
There was no confirmed hit on Michael and there was no reason to believe they would have harmed his family. Heck, in the beginning they intentionally spared Fredo because they knew he was pathetic despite the fact that he had a gun. It was far more likely that Henry Jones Sr would have his heart ripped out by Mola Ram.
shareThere was clearly an attempted hit on Michael and his family at the start of GFII, to say nothing of the hits on Vito and Sonny in GFI. The Corleone’s were permanently under attack and Michael was in a kill-or-be-killed situation, just like Indy.
It’s better that you actually watch the films before trying to participate in these discussions.
Your suggestion that attacks on the Corleone family are far less likely (even though they’ve literally happened) than Henry Jones Sr having his heart ripped out by Mola Ram and being lowered into a lava pit is… insane.
And if Michael killed the gunman as they were shooting at him that would be on the same level as Indy killing the Nazis or Thuggees who were actively trying to kill him.
You don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about, douche. Your entire premise is one big false equivalence and you refuse to accept the answers you asked for even when they are figuratively slapping you in the face.
Indy had to kill random Thuggee Temple Guard #4 immediately or else he would have killed Indy, Michael Corleone did not have to kill Hyman Roth or Fredo immediately and while I’m at it when he did kill them they were in no way posing any kind of threat. Hyman Roth was going to die of natural causes soon and Fredo was legitimately sorry and knew he fucked up, hell he never even intended to cause Michael any harm in the first place.
you refuse to accept the answers you asked for
You can't even keep up with what I'm saying, shit for brains. I said NOTHING about Henry Jones Sr. and Mola Ram.
I answered your question multiple times, numb nuts: Michael obviously and it's not even close, this is a dumb question however and I can't believe I actually answered it.
You know I made a mistake, I actually thought I could convince you to actually produce a rational thought, I am wasting my time here and I am bowing out, so feel free to continue your fallacious discussion. And if you see this as some sort of victory for yourself congratulations, it'll be your finest fake victory of your life.
You can't even keep up with what I'm saying, shit for brains. I said NOTHING about Henry Jones Sr. and Mola Ram.
I answered your question multiple times, numb nuts: Michael obviously and it's not even close, this is a dumb question however and I can't believe I actually answered it.
You know I made a mistake, I actually thought I could convince you to actually produce a rational thought, I am wasting my time here and I am bowing out, so feel free to continue your fallacious discussion. And if you see this as some sort of victory for yourself congratulations, it'll be your finest fake victory of your life.
Indiana Jones is more evil, you convinced me, you win. Are you happy now?
shareWhy would there be people planning to murder you and your family?
shareIn Michael’s case he was born into a family of gangsters.
shareYou can take that argument of Michael killing his enemies from fear of premeditated murder and apply that to all the other mafia families involved. You can't do that with Indy Vs the Nazis as their motivations for trying to kill each other are entirely different.
shareWell the Corleone’s were enjoying a period of peace until Barzini went on the offensive. As for the Indy, he’s just after ‘fortune and glory’ in Temple Of Doom and kills scores of people on his quest. So if Michael’s evil then surely Indy is too, perhaps more so?
shareMichael's and Indi's motivations for killing people are entirely different tho. You're totally correct about the Corleones, but Indy's priority was to make sure sacred artifacts didn't fall into evil hands. He also helped bring down a cult which sacrificed people in a lava pit and kidnapped children for slavery.
shareTake Indy in Temple of Doom - steals the Shankara stones then kills scores of people attempting his getaway. Surely that’s far worse than Michael killing those who want to murder him and his family?
shareIndy wiped out a death cult that enslaved children to work in mines and dunked sacrificial prisoners in a lava pit and you saying _he_ is the bad guy in all this?
shareNo never said that, don’t strawman, don’t evade the question.
If murder is evil and Michael is evil then surely Indy is more evil because he murders many more people, correct?
I'm not strawmanning anything. I'm detailing Indy's actions in ToD which you are comparing to Michael's actions, claiming that Indy's are far worse.
All of Michael's kills were pre-meditated. That's murder. Indy's were self-defense. For a more recent example, see Kyle Rittenhouse.
Wrong, Hyman Roth wanted to kill Michael for revenge of the murder of Moe Greene. Also while Michael was not in the family business it was made quite clear to the other families that he was off limits. Michael was never in any danger until he willingly entered organized crime. As for protecting Vito and Sonny (who were in the family business), they made their choices and they accepted the consequences.
shareMichael could not exit the Mafia, he lost his civilian status when he killed Sollozzo and the head cop, plus there were plenty of vengeful mob bosses and psychos who would kill him out of spite, whatever he went on to do. Hell, he was increasingly trying to ‘go legit’ but just when he thinks he’s out they pull him back in.
Indy could have exited archeology and stopped killing much more easily, but he didn’t.
They’re both murderers who kill in self defence, but Indy kills many more, so surely he is more evil?
Michael was off limits before he killed Sollozzo and the cop, he made the decision to kill them, hell even Sonny at first didn’t want him to do it. The fact that he couldn’t get out of the business was his own damn fault because he was the one who walked right into it.
Please explain to me how Fredo was posing a threat to Michael when he had Neri whack him? I’m also confused why you would ask these questions when you get so upset when someone doesn’t give you the answer you want. Indiana Jones and The Godfather are also completely different types of movies with completely different themes, comparing them is fallacious, it’s like comparing Star Wars to Platoon. There is a difference between killing someone who would have killed you 2 seconds later had you not killed them, and killing someone while they are literally unarmed. Michael did not have to kill either Fredo or Hyman Roth, he did because of his anger and his pride.
In all cases Michael killed those who were trying to kill him or his family, just as Indy killed those trying to kill him (in the case of the Shankara stones, they were simply trying to retrieve what he stole from them).
The big difference is that Indy kills scores of people by his own hand, while Michael only killed two.
So bearing all that in mind, who is more evil?
I have explained to you multiple times why Michael is more evil and why this thread in general is stupid. There’s a difference between someone who is pointing a gun at you and about to kill you and someone who might Kill you in the future .one is clearly self defense while the other is not. And it’s not self defense if you are the one who initiates deadly force. Get it douche?
shareGreat question.
Indy is a professor (teacher) and pays taxes.
Michael Corleone delivers a service that feeds vice and pays no taxes.
Who creates better people for society?
Indy hands down.
OK but given that Indy kills far more people than Michael can we not conclude that Indy is more evil?
shareIndy kills, Michael murders.
shareSophistry. They’re both killing people.
Given that Indy kills far more people than Michael can we not conclude that Indy is more evil?
A world where there is no difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder is a world in which I wouldn't want to live in.
Indy’s kills are not ‘manslaughter’, he doesn’t accidentally murder countless people per film, he intends to kill, just like Michael, except that he kills vastly more. So therefore isn’t Indy more evil than Michael?
shareSome are, all (?)others are in self defense, which is not evil.
Premeditated murder, especially of one's own kin, is exceptionally evil.
Can you give a example of Indy planning to kill someone? Because I don't think it happened in the series.
Michael’s kills are self-defence, he defends himself and his family from premeditated murder with… premeditated murder.
Plus remember that Michael only kills two people himself, whereas Indy kills many multiples of that.
Therefore isn’t Indy more evil?
By that argument Putin isn't evil at all because he hasn't personally killed anyone.
shareLuke Skywalker probably killed more people when he blew up the Death Star than Michael Corleone, Indiana Jones, and James Bond combined. This would include janitors and maintenance people. And that's just the first Star Wars movie. On the other hand, he stopped a moon (Yavin) from being destroyed in the process and avenged the destruction of an entire planet (Alderaan).
shareGood point. So can we conclude that Luke Skywalker is much more evil than Michael Corleone?
shareGod flooded the planet killing everyone except Noah and his family.
shareYour point?
shareGod is more evil than Luke Skywalker.
shareThat’s a shaky comparison since God isn’t human.
shareDidn't stop God from killing more Nazis than Indy did in Raiders.
shareIrrelevant. God is not human, if he even exists, so you’re comparing apples to oranges.
The question is about two humans. Surely Indy is more evil for killing more people?
Indy killed people who were trying to kill him. If he did start a fight then it was just to KO a guard or such. Michael too the initiative with premeditated kills. Also, we have no idea how many people he killed during his active service.
shareMichael also only killed people trying to kill him (his premeditated kills were to prevent the premeditated murders of himself and his family) and only two kills by his own hand, compared to scores of kills by Indy.
So surely Indy is more evil?
Both Indy and Michael could have walked away from their chosen lives and lived in safety away from Nazis/mafia families/whatever. Except Indy was mostly a 1-man operation whereas Michael had a whole family to look after. In the end Michael lost his wife and kids and orders a hit on his own brother. Indy ends up with a family.
share