That is a good case for war. But if the bosses prefer to turn a blind eye...
Why was Indiana Jones upset at the end of Raiders?
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
Yeah, in the Indyverse American was at war with the Nazis at lot earlier.
I'll just regard this movie as being set in an alternate universe.
Certainly not; whatever gives you that idea? Indy was fighting Nazis as a civilian. He didn't have any military backup. The government men in Raiders were concerned about the rising threat Hitler posed, but the US wasn't yet at war with Germany, which is why they hired an archaeologist to try to beat the Nazis to the Ark instead of just sending in troops.
The whole reason they set the movies pre-1941 was probably so that they could do stories about a hero fighting Nazis in an adventure-movie format without requiring them to be full-on war stories.
Hmm... According to the Indiana Jones wiki, the Egyptian portion of Raiders takes place in early August 1936, which is a few weeks before the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty in which the UK agreed to remove its troops from the Kingdom of Egypt. So at the time, while Egypt was nominally an independent, neutral country, it was effectively under British military occupation. And Britain at the time took a policy of appeasement toward the Nazis, or at least it would do so in 1938-9 under Neville Chamberlain, so it probably wouldn't have been more hostile to them before then.
You may have a point that they were using Belloq as cover, but I think there might not have been much official resistance to a Nazi expedition to Egypt in '36. Especially since most people probably scoffed at Hitler's pursuit of supernatural artifacts and considered it harmless.
That brings up an interesting question to my mind... We know that in the Indyverse supernatural artifacts with real powers exist...is the discovery of the Ark the first time a world government receives evidence of such an artifact living up to its reputation?
Put another way, it's one thing for Hitler's pursuit of artifacts to be dismissed in our reality where (AFAIK, heh) there's no real evidence that artifacts with supernatural powers exist, but it's another thing for it to be dismissed in the Indyverse where such things really do exist, unless we assume that to that point the major world powers just have no clear evidence of them.
Put another way, it's one thing for Hitler's pursuit of artifacts to be dismissed in our reality where (AFAIK, heh) there's no real evidence that artifacts with supernatural powers exist, but it's another thing for it to be dismissed in the Indyverse where such things really do exist, unless we assume that to that point the major world powers just have no clear evidence of them.
Not necessarily. There were already politics at play, and the UK was facing conflicts from other African countries, and pressures from Italian aggression.
Perhaps not enough evidence to warrant their pursuit, or devoting more resources to it what with the whole world war thing going on.
Though it would be interesting to look at artifacts we regard as not consequential as potential items for Indyverse stories.
Except it ignores the real world politics of the time.
Last edited:
This is why I don't care for fantasy/SF stories that try to pretend they're in the "real world" by having the paranormal elements be secret. Logically, if this stuff actually existed and worked, it would've had a major, ongoing influence on history. Artifacts of such power would surely have been used by armies and conquerors throughout history, not just in ancient Biblical accounts or other such myths, so there would be abundant documented proof of their existence.
(One trope that's bugged me for decades is the convention of wizards like Merlin being merely advisors to kings like Arthur. If people with magic superpowers existed, surely they'd become the kings and emperors themselves, not just sit back and advise them. Though I guess you could argue that wizards need to study their craft for decades and don't have time for the business of war or politics, so they pick out allies or figureheads to handle that stuff for them.)
I guess it's a little more justifiable with something like the Ark, the Sankara Stones, or the Grail, where it's a source of divine power and the divinity in question only grants its use to causes deemed worthy. But then, why have said divinities not intervened as directly in more recent history as they did in ancient myth and lore?
I've always appreciated how Jim Butcher handles the Council of Wizards in his Dresden Files books, and how they have seen magical attempts out overpowering regular people and try to regulate it as much as possible, and find being advisors and working on their craft is more beneficial to their long term survival than weaponizing their abilities to rule the world.
This is always my difficulty with a lot of fantasy works is how to set the limits on the magic. It can do this but not this? Why? Well, you're unworthy. Ok, what does that mean? (Nicholas Cage impression). And why just the objects and not have YHWH (or angels) or Shiva or Zeus show up?
Did you have your eyes shut with Marion and Indy at the end of Raiders?
That's what Indy said to do.
Similar threads
