Indiana Jones and the Magic Fridge

[Yminale]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...ing-the-Fridge

Anyway why are people so angry at this and not Indies amazing ability TO HOLD HIS BREADTH UNDERWATER in Raiders and SURVIVING A FALL FORM AN AIRPLANE BY USING A RAFT In Temple of Doom.

[Gaith]

Yminale wrote:

---

Anyway why are people so angry at this and not Indies amazing ability TO HOLD HIS BREADTH UNDERWATER in Raiders and SURVIVING A FALL FORM AN AIRPLANE BY USING A RAFT In Temple of Doom.

IMDB FAQ:

There is a deleted scene in which you see Indy holding on to the periscope, which is sticking out of the water. Early submarines generally traveled the oceans on the surface of the water under diesel power, which requires access to the air for inlets to the engines. They could only travel short distances under water, as this required electric propulsion and the battery power of the submarine did not last very long. German U-boats would only submerge when they'd attack surface ships. However, there would generally be four or five crewman on the conning tower as lookouts. U-boats generally would submerge to a depth of roughly 12 meters, deep enough to see out the periscope. In the novelization, Indy lashed himself to the periscope with his bullwhip and rode/dozed through 20 frigid hours in oceanic water. In the movie, we never see the sub fully submerge, so are left with the conclusion that Indy rode on the top, a more believable scenario than riding it underwater without freezing or drowning.

Yminale wrote:

---

SURVIVING A FALL FORM AN AIRPLANE BY USING A RAFT In Temple of Doom.

LOTS OF US HATE THAT TOO

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, I almost walked out of the theater when they used the raft as a parachute in Temple of Doom.

On the other hand, I forgave riding the U-boat in the theater, I don't know, because I was having such a good time otherwise, I guess.

As for the fridge? I chalked that up to a higher power looking over his shoulder. By then, God owed him one or two, so it was good.

[davejames]

Because it was easy to assume that the sub stayed above water for much of the journey, or that Indy somehow snuck on board while no one was looking.

And because the raft escape was not only an inspired solution, but looked like something that just might be plausible (and was proven to be so on an early episode of Mythbusters).

Neither were as ridiculous as a human being surviving both a nuclear blast and the gigantic impact of a fridge hitting the ground multiple times.

(Although to be fair, I was still willing to go along with the movie at that point; it was only after a multitude of similar, ridiculous scenes that the movie finally lost me)

[Mr. Laser Beam]

None of this is as bad as having ALIENS in the final film, is it?

Even worse than having difficulty controlling THE CAPITALIZATION of letters.

[CorporalCaptain]

davejames wrote:

---

And because the raft escape was not only an inspired solution, but looked like something that just might be plausible (and was proven to be so on an early episode of Mythbusters).

Yeah, no. That myth was busted [http://mythbustersresults.com/episode37]:

MythBusters wrote:

---

It is possible to jump from a disabled airplane and use an inflatable life raft to safely return to earth (as in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom)

BUSTED

Any attempt to use the raft failed due to the instability of the raft in freefall. It was possible to rig the raft as a parachute and land with minimal injuries, but this would not be possible to perform while jumping from a disabled aircraft.

[Gaith]

davejames wrote:

---

And because the raft escape was not only an inspired solution, but looked like something that just might be plausible

Dude, no... just no. It's every bit as cartoonish and unreal.

[Dream]

Who cares? The Indiana Jones movies obviously never tried to be realistic.

[Professor Zoom]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

None of this is as bad as having ALIENS in the final film, is it?

Aliens crosses a line, but not the spirits of God? THAT is to much to accept?

Even worse than having difficulty controlling THE CAPITALIZATION of letters.

Sometimes it's used for EMPHASIS.

[sojourner]

Bold is emphasis, italics is emphasis, CAPITALIZATION is SHOUTING.

[davejames]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Yeah, no. That myth was busted [http://mythbustersresults.com/episode37]:

Well yeah, obviously in the real world you'd need to strap yourself in first, but that doesn't seem to me THAT far off from the movie. They still showed the raft itself landing pretty damn softly in the end, which is probably more than most people would expect to happen.

[Professor Zoom]

sojourner wrote:

---

Bold is emphasis, italics is emphasis, CAPITALIZATION is SHOUTING.

SHOUTING IS WHEN ALL OF THE WORDS ARE CAPITALIZED.

[Trekker4747]

The "riding the submarine" bit always bugged me but I think by the point it happens the movie has been fun enough that it is easily shrugged off/waved away. It wasn't TOO absurd given it would be "possible" if "certain conditions" were met, which really should have been shown in the movie but, whatever.

The "nuking the fridge" bit was just utterly absurd. The fridge survived a NUCLEAR explosion first of all. (I don't care if the fridge was made out of adamantium it wouldn't have been tossed around like a helium balloon in a stiff breeze like that.) Secondly even if it COULD survive the explosion and even if the lead lining in the fridge was enough to protect Indy from the radiation the thing got slammed around so much "landing" that Indy should have been liquefied by it. That bit (and the multiple waterfalls bit later on, and the Shia and the fencing on the racing cars in the forest and the swinging in the treets and... UGH...) was all simply demanding too much hand waving and suspension of disbelief for utter ridiculousness. What's worse the movie wasn't good enough to shrug all of that off.

The U-Boat thing was silly but only because the "explanation" for it isn't in the movie. The using the life raft bit? Silly and absurd, sure, but it "tried" to make you fall for it by making it seem somewhat plausible. It wasn't too out of line and on the surface it "makes sense."

All of that very different than that damn fridge scene.

[Kelthaz]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Yeah, I almost walked out of the theater when they used the raft as a parachute in Temple of Doom.

Some of you take your movies WAY too seriously.

[davejames]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

Aliens crosses a line, but not the spirits of God? THAT is to much to accept?

Well yeah, because even if you're not a believer, it's not that hard to buy the idea of the Ark of the Covenant (if it were to ever be found) containing some kind of dark and ancient and mysterious power.

The whole "ancient alien" thing, on the other hand, is just a bunch of cheesy New Age nonsense that only got popular in the last 60 years or so. There's no real history to the idea, and it doesn't go back to nearly as deep and primal a place as religion does.