So Indy unlocks some giant bible and just so happens to open it... - Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Discussion

What would be the odds

50/50 - there is a picture of the Ark in that version on every other page..

As for plot hole, I'll defer to Millsey to make that call.

I often wondered if it was an editing goof more than anything - maybe they had a reaction shot from Brody or one of the Feds that was supposed to be inserted between the time Indy opened the bible and the time he found the picture, but the reaction shot wasn't good so they left it out.

reply

[–] Obifuntoknowme (1093) a year ago

lol yeah can always rely on Millsey.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1489) a year ago

Even if it's just one page, the odds are literally one in however many pages are in that book. 3000? 4000? That's probably the best odds Dr Jones faces all movie.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6691) a year ago

Yes, Millsey could perhaps shed some light on the plot hole aspect.

There is some area of plot holes, which isn't as straightforward as you may think though - something to do with inconsistencies also being covered by the term. It is under this aspect I think we may have one...

reply

[–] millsey72 (9530) 4 months ago

Don't be silly. Opening up a book to the correct page on the 1st try is not a plot hole.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6691) 4 months ago

It's funny you just bumped this as I was watching Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes the other day and Cesaer does exactly the same thing!

The Governor asks him to pick himself a name from a book. He randomly opens it and magically has done so on the page containing his name! Amazing stuff...

reply

[–] millsey72 (9530) 4 months ago

That is funny but that is different. There were names on every page of the book. So whatever page he picked, he could have used any of those names

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6691) 4 months ago

Yeah but he was already called Caesar, so it was very much a lucky break he could choose his own name.

reply

[–] Obifuntoknowme (1093) a year ago

No not at all. Indy probably knew that book very well. The Ark was one of his specialist passions, for all we know he may of looked at the book repeatedly, at that particular section of the book, over a long period of time and know it intimately. He would therefore of known where to open the book.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1489) a year ago

He's good with his books.

Anyway, not really sure how this would be a plot hole, since his flipping to a page in the book has literally no affect on the plot.

It's not like this Raiders of the Impossible Page Tuners.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Yeah, imagine the several seconds wasted if Indy DID open the book at the wrong place and spend precious MOVIE SECONDS flipping back and forth, it would break the smooth flow of the story.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Seriously? A movie based on the trashy adventure serials of the 1950s that inspired Lucas and Spielberg to make Indiana Jones in the first place and you pick on THIS? I'd say the movie has many other issues of "lack of realism" that people like you love to moan about.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4096) a year ago

Whataboutism fallacy.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1489) a year ago

Just another overused buzzword that really has no real use here.

Just like the irrelevant use of the term "plot hole" in this context.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4096) a year ago

"Just another overused buzzword that really has no real use here."

It has no use if you don´t know what it means.
By his logic, fantasy/supernatural movies are immune to criticism since there is always a more fantastic/unreal element to criticize, that´s a flawed argument.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1489) a year ago

No, that's because you use it as a blanket term instead of actually applying it in a relevant way. The fact that you went so general with your latest statement proves that.

You don't see that's a whataboutism in itself.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4096) a year ago

What you said makes zero sense.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1489) a year ago

Thats because you think too broadly. See, your whole thing is predicated on the idea that there's a flaw to even criticize. In this case, there isn't. The page thing isn't a flaw. It's not an error, it's not an oversight, it's not even a suspension of disbelief. It's a complete nothing.

So to say to somebody "THIS is what you're focused on instead of the actual flaws" is not any sort of fallacy. That's not a whataboutism. That's just a "what the fuck are you even talking about."

Your use of "whataboutism" is just a general term that you threw out there much the same way the OP tossed out "plot hole" or much the same way some women toss out the word "mansplain" whenever a man says something.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4096) a year ago

"See, your whole thing is predicated on the idea that there's a flaw to even criticize".

No it isn´t. I honestly don´t care whether its a plot hole or not. I was merely pointing that AMJF´s argument is logically unsound. His argument is that there are more unrealistic things about Indiana Jones films to criticize. That is a fallacy. You can use his poor logic to defend any position you disagree with. For example, if you think the snakes in Raiders looked fake, no problem, it doesn´t matter because we have a scene at the end of the movie where evil spirits melt humans, therefore your criticism of the snakes is invalid. CGI gophers a problem for you in Crystal Skull? Sorry, that´s invalid, there was a scene where Indy survived being nuked in a fridge. Do you get it yet?

reply

[–] blindfolded (1489) a year ago

You just used real criticisms as the counter in both of your examples. There isn't one here. That's my point. Just because Footofdumass takes issue with it for some reason doesn't make it so.

AMJF isn't saying "no problem, look at this instead" he's saying "There's really nothing here for you to bitch about."

It's not a fallacy, it's true. I your examples, you use other issues as distraction to cover up other issues.

There's no issue to cover up, therefore, no the statement is valid, therefore, no fallacy.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4096) a year ago

AMJF isn't saying "no problem, look at this instead" he's saying "There's really nothing here for you to bitch about."

AMJF: Seriously? A movie based on the trashy adventure serials of the 1950s that inspired Lucas and Spielberg to make Indiana Jones in the first place and you pick on THIS?
I'd say the movie has MANY OTHER ISSUES OF "lack of realism" that people like you love to moan about.

Just because he didn´t name specific examples doesn´t mean the logic isn´t the same.
You can use "MANY OTHER ISSUES" without stating what they are to dismiss anything you disagree with which is exactly what he did, so therefore its a logical fallacy.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6691) a year ago

A movie based on the trashy adventure serials of the 1950s that inspired Lucas and Spielberg to make Indiana Jones in the first place and you pick on THIS?

Not sure of the relevance of this nugget to the question at hand....

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

They were not known for their realism and common sense, that's what.

reply

[–] davodikum (5968) a year ago

Not a plot hole. Editing choice.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6691) a year ago

Funny you said that. I was thinking at the time - would it really have killed the scene to have him leafing through the book for even just a second or two to avoid this huge error but no, they obviously couldn't give any slack in the pacing.

reply

[–] davodikum (5968) a year ago

It would kill them. It's unnecessary.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33736) 3 months ago

We could of had a whole film of him flipping through the book to find the correct page: -

Indiana Jones and the Lost Page.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Yeah, the theatrical release leaves a lot to be desired. As for this scene I prefer the ultimate-extended-directors-assistant cut where Indy looked up Lost Ark in the index but somehow ended up reading the wrong page number and ended up on Noah's Ark. He then spends several minutes giggling and pointing out the various animals in the illustration to the government men. His delivery of the lines "Do you see the elephants beside the giraffes? Amazing detail..." and "LOOK! They have cats sleeping on the roof of the ark next to the squirrels and chipmunks. Cute little guys" is especially noteworthy.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1489) a year ago

If you shell out for "Super Whip-cracking and Bad Dates Extended" version, you get the scene of him turning to Adam and Eve but then throwing the entire book at Marcus when he sees a serpent.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Snakes. I hate snakes!

reply

[–] fani (371) a year ago

No. He used bookmarks to know where it is. It's as simple as that.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Yes, bookmarks are a good way of making sure a book falls open at the right page.

reply

[–] fani (371) a year ago

Do you not know how bookmarks work?

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Of course I do.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6691) a year ago

Good job he'd bookmarked that one particular page just in case any people were to show up asking about the ark!

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

No, just a supernatural something assisting Indy. You do understand that supernatural events are a real thing in the Indiana Jones universe?

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6691) a year ago

Ah, interesting take - I never considered that this in itself could also be a supernatural occurrence!

If we take it as such, this would remove the event as a potential plot hole:-

A plot hole can be taken as an inconsistency which goes against the logic established by the plot. Now Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't a film were we see incredible coincidences play out such as this book opening, so it would seem to go against the established logic and thus qualify as a plot hole. However, the film does have a supernatural element at play, with the Ark itself later being seen to have something akin to a conscious (e.g. it burns the Nazi symbol off it's box). Therefore, yes, maybe in some way it helps Indy open the book on EXACTLY the right page!

In this context, it would follow the film's internal logic and therefore would not be a plot hole...

reply