Indiana Jones 5

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Speak for yourself. It's all paranormal B.S. to me. Aliens, ghosts, Jesus, magic, astrology, angels, bigfoot, etc., it's all the same to me, and there are plenty of others like me. There are also many, many people that are thoroughly convinced that all that alien-and-UFO stuff is true, (I'm NOT one of those people).

I'd say that's getting close to treading into dangerous territory with regards to the forum rules.

Fact is, based on popular opinion, it would appear that the best Indy flicks are those with a ancient god-related artifact.

There are Crystal Skulls yes, but one and all have been proven to be created within the last couple hundred years, none of them are ancient and none of them hold mystical powers. That's like having Indy dig up a 1957 Chevy and having the writer say that it has mystical powers.

Tying the two of them together as well was really out there {like Crystal Meth out there} I could see it if it were something cool with regards to the crystal skulls, but Spielberg tried to go E.T. with it {but was probably talked out of CGIing a few walkie-talkies in there} and it flopped.

If I may add, I snipped the rest of your convo, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that other folks don't as well, to each his own and I'd say that it's best left out of the forum lest some people get annoyed or insulted.

Logan

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

And that someone can survive a nuclear blast in a fridge.........

Logan

that is a bit incredible to believe, but the guy had asked why it was easier to believe in a magic box/stone/cup then aliens. I don't think that people don't like the fact that it is aliens instead of magical spiritual powers (lots of movies with aliens are liked by many), but the fact that the ending is a big mess. The IJ tend to be very formulaic, IJ goes after a treasure, gets involved with some bad guy who steals it from him,, IJ then realizes bit is because of something bigger, the bad guy has an army, IJ goes after the bigger treasure, he tends to be two steps ahead while at the same time two steps back, they meet at the big treasure, the bad guy uses the army, the treasure is used to defeat the bad guys and the ony ones that survive/win is IJ and his team. I think they came up with the idea of CS and aliens and got to the end and where missing the big finally. So how could an alien skull be useful at that location to destroy the bad guys and IJ be the only one to understand it and tell his friends so that they survive. It would not be IJ if they just went there found the skeletons and that was it. So they added that the ship destroyed them, so why wouldn't the locals have used the ship to destroy others? well the only people that can use it are aliens, so why wouldn't the aliens use it, they are all dead and that is why the skull was found by the explorers and IJ, but if they are dead then how did they fly off? well they came back to life when the skull was placed on the rest of the skeleton..... To me it looked to contrived just to have the big finally, as if tacked on for it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by vegeta88

I probably would not be interested in an Indiana Jones movie with out Harrison Ford.

I don't necessarily disagree, but truth be told I did find the TV show that was on many years ago interesting. But even though I hope I am in any shape that resembles HF when I am at his age, the reality is that with every year it gets harder to see him as the main protagonist of a super mega adventurer.

[Yojimbo68]

KOTCS is just bad storytelling. Halfway through the film on opening day, I kept looking at the time on my cell phone, wondering when I would be put out of my misery. I gave the film another chance when it came out on Blu and screened it with my Father. After that showing was over, my Father looked at me and said "They jumped the shark." He nailed it!

RAIDERS is a classic film. I would put it up there with CASABLANCA and the like. It's that great.

TEMPLE OF DOOM comes closest to the whole idea of the Saturday morning cliffhanger. It's a fun film.

I've really beat up on LAST CRUSADE over the years but it's a masterpiece compared to KOTCS. But I think the introduction of Indy sharing an adventure with his Father does emasculate the character. Imagine James Bond sharing an adventure with his Father. I think that would kill the series!

As for a 5th Indy adventure, I'm reminded of the last few minutes of LAST CRUSADE when Indy is grabbing for the Holy Grail. His father tells him to "Let it go". Amen Sean!

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I'd say that's getting close to treading into dangerous territory with regards to the forum rules...

Since when was it against forum rules to point out that not everybody shares the same beliefs?

If I may add, I snipped the rest of your convo, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that other folks don't as well, to each his own and I'd say that it's best left out of the forum lest some people get annoyed or insulted.

Logan

If people are offended that I don't share their beliefs, that's their own thin-skinned problem. "Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean others don't"? No kidding. At no point did I imply that my beliefs are the cause of other people's beliefs, I don't know where you would get that logical extrapolation. Look it up for yourself, as a statistical fact: there are millions of people in the world who have no belief in anything supernatural, up to and including any form of god. That is not a controversial fact, don't try making it into one.

Classing the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy grail, magic stones, and crystal skulls as occult/new age is not a belittlement of anybody's beliefs, it is an academic reality. That is the correct classification. The Ark and the Holy Grail are folklore, they are not religion. Christian folklore, yes... nice and familiar; but it is still "legendary treasure", like Excalibur or the fountain of youth. It is no more offensive than pushing the cultural chauvinism that medieval Christian legends are superior and "more real" than the others.

That seems to be the division: there are millions of Indiana Jones fans who arbitrarily made up the rule in their own mind that Indy has to chase relics from the Bible, in spite of the fact that the second movie should have dispelled that paradigm, (which, by the way, would not include the Holy Grail: it's not in the Bible anywhere, it's FOLKLORE that is derived from the Bible). Meanwhile, the rest of us accept it for what it is: Indiana Jones is a relic hunter who finds himself chasing "mystical (not just Biblical) treasures".

So, a lot of people wrinkle their nose at the 2nd and 4th movies and say "magic stones and crystal skulls are just goofy... Indy needs to chase a "real" treasure, like the Staff of Moses or Noah's Ark", while the rest of us shrug and say "it's just a movie, they're magic treasures, none of them are real, it's just for fun", and consequently we are able to enjoy the movies because we haven't made up our mind ahead of time that Indy has to follow a bunch of made up rules about which magic treasures are real and which ones aren't.

If you insist on Biblical treasures for Indiana Jones, then you are just being a killjoy, and you are presuming to dictate the rules of the story to the storyteller. Those of us that are comfortable with Indy chasing a treasure that is outside of that mythos, we are the ones that "get it", because two of the movies don't have anything to do with judeo-christian folklore. It's Lucas's damn story, he never imposed that Biblical parameter onto it, some narrow-minded fans did that. Buy a ticket or don't, but it's not your story to tell. Dismissing half of the series because it didn't fit in with your preconceptions, that is just plain crazy.

[vegeta88]

mjbethancourt, I agree with what you are saying. However, as an individual with a Catholic background/education, I just enjoy the Judeo-Christian relic stories than the stones or Crystal Skulls. They just appeal to me more; I'm not implying that is the same as the majority but I think some people feel the same as me.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Classing the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy grail, magic stones, and crystal skulls as occult/new age is not a belittlement of anybody's beliefs, it is an academic reality. That is the correct classification.

no, none are new age, and as for occult, I don't know if the stones are, depending on the definition the ark and grail might be but the skull definitely is not.

That seems to be the division: there are millions of Indiana Jones fans who arbitrarily made up the rule in their own mind that Indy has to chase relics from the Bible, in spite of the fact that the second movie should have dispelled that paradigm,

I think it is more mystic treasures, and I think that is the issue with the 4 they decided to make something that was not mystic (skull) into mystic (magic powers that brought the aliens back to life.)

(which, by the way, would not include the Holy Grail: it's not in the Bible anywhere, it's FOLKLORE that is derived from the Bible).

yes it is, it is in several gospels. The holly grail is the cup used by JC at the last supper. He took it put wine in it and made the cup (or at least what was in it sacred) http://christianity.about.com/od/faq...scommunion.htm that is why every (or at least most) Christians mass (be they Catholic, Orthodox or the several Protestant I went to) have communion as a corner stone, (which is the re-enactment of the last supper).

Now if you mean that we don't know if the chalice used had magical powers? well then that applies equally well to the Ark, if we look at the bible we know it was built and was carried because it contained a sacred relic, the tablets of Moses and the covenant between God and the Jews, but there was nothing in the bible about ghosts that come out if you open it, after all when Moses came down from the mountain with them he showed the tablets to the people and told them these are Gods commandments. And let’s face it, if such a powerful weapon existed the side that had it would never lose and so it would never be lost (which is why biblically it was not such an important weapon).

Meanwhile, the rest of us accept it for what it is: Indiana Jones is a relic hunter who finds himself chasing "mystical (not just Biblical) treasures".

what is mystical about an alien skull?

If you insist on Biblical treasures for Indiana Jones, then you are just being a killjoy, and you are presuming to dictate the rules of the story to the storyteller. Those of us that are comfortable with Indy chasing a treasure that is outside of that mythos, we are the ones that "get it", because two of the movies don't have anything to do with judeo-christian folklore.

but most (all really) treasure hunters/archaeologists do specialize, any treasure worth findings takes time and effort so people can't be looking for everything. Right, for example in order to read ancient inscriptions you need to read and comprehend that ancient language and that takes years of learning (especially if you are meant to be good at it, or good enough to find something that many people before you have looked to find but could not decipher the texts). So yes expecting some form of specialization is not uncalled for.

It's Lucas's damn story, he never imposed that Biblical parameter onto it, some narrow-minded fans did that. Buy a ticket or don't, but it's not your story to tell. Dismissing half of the series because it didn't fit in with your preconceptions, that is just plain crazy.

I don't think anyone hates it because it is not Christian (or mystic ) in nature , it was just a bad movie that made no sense in the mythos it created. Like I said before, the skull is that of a dead alien, but somehow once placed on the rest of the skeleton the alien comes back alive. Can you explain how the head was chopped off to begin with? Wwhy the skull would be needed(it was just the “bones”, there was no brain in the see-through skull)or why did the rest of them die at the same time (or else why did they not get the skull back) and come alive at the same time?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't think anyone hates it because it is not Christian (or mystic ) in nature , it was just a bad movie that made no sense in the mythos it created. Like I said before, the skull is that of a dead alien, but somehow once placed on the rest of the skeleton the alien comes back alive. Can you explain how the head was chopped off to begin with? Wwhy the skull would be needed(it was just the “bones”, there was no brain in the see-through skull)or why did the rest of them die at the same time (or else why did they not get the skull back) and come alive at the same time?

Anthony...no one in their right mind could explain to either one of us how this flick even made its money back. Dude...I OWN the Blu-Ray, and I won't even TRY to explain why I bought it. (My youngest son asked...got tired of me sputtering, babbling, and blaming my wife...and finally walked away in disgust. He's warned be about it beforehand, too.)

Anyone who could explain anything in a Spielberg film is automatically worth a million dollars, because Spielberg hires them to script his next movie. One of the things you have to be able to explain, of course, is why the female characters are always doing stupid, self-destructive things out of pique, and why the most contrarian, idiotic, selfish, and greedy dumbass men are always in some key position of power, using their greed to kill everyone around them, even though everyone knows the dumbass is as useless as shoes on a snake.

Look, if we work together and figure it out, I'll split the million bucks with you. All you have to do it help me untie this straitjacket.

Come on, man, I'm not really crazy.

Look, I tied the knots myself, I just can't get them untied. Really. Trust me on this.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

There are also many, many people that are thoroughly convinced that all that alien-and-UFO stuff is true

UFO's aren't real? Damn, I was hoping they would come down and set things straight, since mankind seems determined to destroy itself. I guess it's up to us.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by vegeta88

mjbethancourt, I agree with what you are saying. However, as an individual with a Catholic background/education, I just enjoy the Judeo-Christian relic stories than the stones or Crystal Skulls. They just appeal to me more; I'm not implying that is the same as the majority but I think some people feel the same as me.

Certainly... the familiarity of those stories is a large part of what made 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' so successful. In this culture, most of us grew up on those stories. We also grew up with King Arthur and medieval knights, Robin Hood, etc., so I think legends can be very familiar and "western" without being Biblical.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

UFO's aren't real? Damn, I was hoping they would come down and set things straight, since mankind seems determined to destroy itself. I guess it's up to us.

Man, some dude walks up to you and his head is made of glowing blue glass, and he says, "Yo...home boy...I got all the answers right up here" and starts tapping his head, and every time he taps, lightning and sparks a flying out of his eye sockets...

What, exactly, are you gonna do?

I"ll hand you the paper and pencil, and let you take notes or whatever.

Call me long distance when you get it all written down.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no, none are new age, and as for occult, I don't know if the stones are, depending on the definition the ark and grail might be but the skull definitely is not.

OK, you're obviously not going to take my word for it, so I urge you to make your own investigation as to the meaning of the terms "new age" and "occult". I assure you, I am not pulling that classification out of thin air, you will find those topics in the occult/new age section of a bookstore. Of all those four things, crystal skulls are especially occult. Magical, mystical powers of crystal skulls is a popular paranormal belief these days.

I think it is more mystic treasures, and I think that is the issue with the 4 they decided to make something that was not mystic (skull) into mystic (magic powers that brought the aliens back to life.)

That is only according to your own paradigm. When was it officially decided that aliens are not mystical? Aliens are every bit as "mystical" as anything else. The way they are presented in the movie, according to a popular occult model of aliens as the antecessor of human civilization, even equated to ancient "gods", it is very much a "new age", "mystical" view of aliens. They have magic psychic powers, and the secrets to immortality and all that stuff. They're from an alternate dimension rather than outer space. That's all in keeping with occult UFO legends... it doesn't get much more paranormal and mystical than that.

yes it is, it is in several gospels. The holly grail is the cup used by JC at the last supper. He took it put wine in it and made the cup (or at least what was in it sacred)

Wrong. The Last Supper is in the Gospels. The legend that the cup from the Last Supper has special powers, and that it was squirreled away by Joseph of Arimathaea, is a Medieval European legend. As it appears in the Bible, it's not the Holy Grail, it's just a cup. It doesn't become the Holy Grail until medieval legend makes it so. A legend derived from the Bible is not the same thing as one in the Bible.

well then that applies equally well to the Ark, if we look at the bible we know it was built and was carried because it contained a sacred relic, the tablets of Moses and the covenant between God and the Jews, but there was nothing in the bible about ghosts that come out if you open it

That is correct, and you must be catching on, for you have a very good point there: The Ark of the Covenant IS in the Bible, but the "Lost Ark" is not; the "Lost Ark" specifically refers, again, to an article of Medieval legend derived from a Bible story. The difference from the grail, however, is that the Old Testament clearly identifies the Ark of the Covenant as a sacred relic of great power, or at the very least, as an object that is important enough to god that he would smite cities and armies that mess with it.

what is mystical about an alien skull?

What? You mean besides containing a disembodied super-intelligence and possessing magical powers?

Again, when was it decided that made-up, fictional alien skulls can't have mystical powers? I'm pretty sure there are no hard rules about that... (although, to those that are into that sort of thing, aliens and UFOs are very mystical. It's a straight-out cult for some people, I've even seen people pray to aliens). It's a story, why suspend your disbelief for one Indy movie, but not the other?

but most (all really) treasure hunters/archaeologists do specialize, any treasure worth findings takes time and effort so people can't be looking for everything. Right, for example in order to read ancient inscriptions you need to read and comprehend that ancient language and that takes years of learning (especially if you are meant to be good at it, or good enough to find something that many people before you have looked to find but could not decipher the texts). So yes expecting some form of specialization is not uncalled for.

There is no such thing as an archeologist who specializes in magical treasures, because there is no such thing as a magical treasure.

I don't think anyone hates it because it is not Christian (or mystic ) in nature , it was just a bad movie that made no sense in the mythos it created.

No, I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people who had a visceral dislike for it because equating angels to aliens offends their worldview. In fact, I know some of those people. Some people really bristle up when their personal beliefs are classified as a myth or legend, whether explicitly, or implicitly through equating a cherished belief to something else that they do not believe in. Those people are being offended by their own misunderstanding: the term "mythology" does not mean "lies and bullcrap", it means a group of stories that are a foundation of the common identity of a culture because of themes of moral value and ideals. Myths are neither true nor false, they are stories that may or may not have a basis in fact, but "true or false" is irrelevant to judging a myth, a myth has its own intrinsic cultural value. Legends are similar in that "true or false" is irrelevant, what makes a legend a legend is its currency in the culture. Larry Bird is a legend, and I watched him on TV, I'm pretty sure he's real.

The statement that it "makes no sense in the mythos it created" is something I completely disagree with, because I think you are confusing the mythos that fans arbitrarily created, for the mythos created by the original storyteller. I don't recall George Lucas ever postulating that in the world of Indiana Jones, aliens do not exist and certainly do not have magic powers. You and others came up with that on your own.

Like I said before, the skull is that of a dead alien, but somehow once placed on the rest of the skeleton the alien comes back alive. Can you explain how the head was chopped off to begin with? Wwhy the skull would be needed(it was just the “bones”, there was no brain in the see-through skull)or why did the rest of them die at the same time (or else why did they not get the skull back) and come alive at the same time?

Sounds like magic and supernatural powers to me.

We've all been through this, ad nauseum. You don't need to justify your opinion to me or anybody. If you don't like it, then you don't, and I really don't care what your reasons are; that is your own business, and I'm not trying to change your opinion. My point was to dispute the following statement that you made:

we all tend to believe in something supernatural, if we want to admit it or not. So it is a bit easier then something we know is not right

Every part of that statement is incorrect. Many people do not believe in anything supernatural; and aliens are no more disproven than angels, the Lost Ark, Sacred Indian Lingum, or the Holy Grail. They are all beliefs, not measurable, provable (or disprovable) facts. If I wandered too far afield and babbled on and on with my discussion of that, then I apologize for wasting so much of your time.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Man, some dude walks up to you and his head is made of glowing blue glass, and he says, "Yo...home boy...I got all the answers right up here" and starts tapping his head, and every time he taps, lightning and sparks a flying out of his eye sockets...

What, exactly, are you gonna do?

I"ll hand you the paper and pencil, and let you take notes or whatever.

Call me long distance when you get it all written down.

If they are malevolent, might as well get it over with and be the first to go. If they have the the technology to travel interstellar or intergalactic space, humans will probably not last long, despite the reverse outcome depicted in most of the movies. But if they are "Close Encounters" - type aliens, civilization is in store for some huge advancements; for example, just think how good their beer would be.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

If they are malevolent, might as well get it over with and be the first to go. If they have the the technology to travel interstellar or intergalactic space, humans will probably not last long, despite the reverse outcome depicted in most of the movies. But if they are "Close Encounters" - type aliens, civilization is in store for some huge advancements; for example, just think how good their beer would be.

Always wanted to try Romulan ale

[radagast]

Originally Posted by vegeta88

mjbethancourt, I agree with what you are saying. However, as an individual with a Catholic background/education, I just enjoy the Judeo-Christian relic stories than the stones or Crystal Skulls. They just appeal to me more; I'm not implying that is the same as the majority but I think some people feel the same as me.

I feel the same way.

[Ex Accountant]

How I have missed these discussions. Please continue.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Anthony...no one in their right mind could explain to either one of us how this flick even made its money back. Dude...I OWN the Blu-Ray, and I won't even TRY to explain why I bought it.

I am sure many of us own it, as to how it made its money, the answer is easy, it is IJ, I am sure like me, you bought it because you had to see the next IJ no matter how bad the reviews where.

[Offender_Mullet]

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

OK, you're obviously not going to take my word for it, so I urge you to make your own investigation as to the meaning of the terms "new age" and "occult". I assure you, I am not pulling that classification out of thin air, you will find those topics in the occult/new age section of a bookstore. Of all those four things, crystal skulls are especially occult. Magical, mystical powers of crystal skulls is a popular paranormal belief these days.

Crystals are new age, and I don't know maybe some of them are skull shaped, but this was not a Crystal but the skeletal remains of the aliens.

Wrong. The Last Supper is in the Gospels. The legend that the cup from the Last Supper has special powers, and that it was squirreled away by Joseph of Arimathaea, is a Medieval European legend. As it appears in the Bible, it's not the Holy Grail, it's just a cup. It doesn't become the Holy Grail until medieval legend makes it so. A legend derived from the Bible is not the same thing as one in the Bible.

it is not just a cup, it is a cup used by a sacred person in a sacred ritual (if you are a believer) which makes it sacred. Does "it" have special powers, that is for the believers to decide, was it saved by anyone at the time? who knows. You said there was nothing in the Bible about it, call it a cup or a holy grail it is not important but it plays a prominent role and is referenced several times in the Bible

That is correct, and you must be catching on, for you have a very good point there: The Ark of the Covenant IS in the Bible, but the "Lost Ark" is not; the "Lost Ark" specifically refers, again, to an article of Medieval legend derived from a Bible story. The difference from the grail, however, is that the Old Testament clearly identifies the Ark of the Covenant as a sacred relic of great power, or at the very least, as an object that is important enough to god that he would smite cities and armies that mess with it.

not at all, if it had those powers how was it lost? The issue is that you don't realize that something becomes a sacred relic in the future and not the past or present. The old testament (Torah) was written a long time after the fact and based on oral traditions. Also if you realize that the ark is the box to hold the covenant then you should realize that the covenant would have been created a long time before the Ark. Assuming the Ark existed and that the commandments put in it then they would have been old and so considered a relic by the time they where placed in there. The grail in the bible is talked about in the almost present, JC took it used it and it disappeared (from the bible), it is Holy (sacred) because JC used it in a sacred ceremony, it would not be a relic in the bible because a relic means remains of the past and it was being used in a holy (sacred) fashion in the present. If you also accept colourful language then JC put wine in the cup and told them drinking from it would give everlasting life. So such colourful language can be used to say see that is why the Holy grail kept the knight (and IJ father) alive in the movie, the “magic powers” are in the bible.

What? You mean besides containing a disembodied super-intelligence and possessing magical powers?

Again, when was it decided that made-up, fictional alien skulls can't have mystical powers? I'm pretty sure there are no hard rules about that... (although, to those that are into that sort of thing, aliens and UFOs are very mystical. It's a straight-out cult for some people, I've even seen people pray to aliens).

I did not say some people that beleive in aliens are not nut jobs, but the world is not defined by nut jobs. On the other hand here is the issue with mysticism. Let's say somehow (not important) some hic in his pick up truck with gun in the back travels 5000 (or even 2000) years in the past, the people will see his car and go "oh wow the guy has a can travel super fast", "look the guy can make thunder and smite people a long distance away".... mystical powers to such primitive people that don't understand the tech. But it is tech, not mystical nor spiritual that give him those powers. If aliens come to earth today their tech will be as advanced compared to ours as that hic's tech was to the people he meat after his time travel.

It's a story, why suspend your disbelief for one Indy movie, but not the other?

it is not a matter of disbelief, like I said over and over again. I have no issue watching Independence day and accepting that aliens came to conquer us, I have no issue watching CE3K and accepting the aliens come in peace. The issue I have with this movie is that the story does not make sense, I will ask you the same question I asked several times, There where several alien skeletons in the room one was missing his head, IJ puts the head on they all come alive. Why and how? use mysticism, mumbo jumbo, what ever you want to call it and explain it.

There is no such thing as an archeologist who specializes in magical treasures, because there is no such thing as a magical treasure.

did I say he specializes in magical treasures? maybe they call him, maybe he is lucky but in ToD he crash landed in India and went to the temple to find out what was happening and to find the villagers rock(which he did not believe in). The other two where biblical relics and the HG was his dads specialization but he brought his knowledge of latin, Grrek and Hebrew to help with it (which would have been important for the Ark as well).

No, I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people who had a visceral dislike for it because equating angels to aliens offends their worldview. In fact, I know some of those people.

maybe but none of them have posted on here. Yet you are pigheaded about the dislike being about that. Right? when someone (since some did) says” I can't understan someone surviving a bomb being in a refrigerator” how would that have anything to do with angels and aliens.

Some people really bristle up when their personal beliefs are classified as a myth or legend, whether explicitly, or implicitly through equating a cherished belief to something else that they do not believe in. Those people are being offended by their own misunderstanding: the term "mythology" does not mean "lies and bullcrap", it means a group of stories that are a foundation of the common identity of a culture because of themes of moral value and ideals. Myths are neither true nor false, they are stories that may or may not have a basis in fact, but "true or false" is irrelevant to judging a myth, a myth has its own intrinsic cultural value. Legends are similar in that "true or false" is irrelevant, what makes a legend a legend is its currency in the culture. Larry Bird is a legend, and I watched him on TV, I'm pretty sure he's real.

but this makes no sense with the rest of the paragraph. You are contradicting yourself. You say people like the other movies (especially 1&3) because it is compatible with their beliefs (even though it trivializes the objects) but not CS. If CS had the skull be that of JC then I would agree with the above and could see the connection between the two parts of the paragraph but, it is not. Do you think people go I hate Thor because if they portray Thor as a mythological person it invalidates JC?

The statement that it "makes no sense in the mythos it created" is something I completely disagree with, because I think you are confusing the mythos that fans arbitrarily created, for the mythos created by the original storyteller. I don't recall George Lucas ever postulating that in the world of Indiana Jones, aliens do not exist and certainly do not have magic powers. You and others came up with that on your own.

you missed the point, I did not say that in 1,2 or 3 or all of them he said aliens don't exist but in 3 they do, I was just talking about 3. In 3 you obviously have aliens, obviously these aliens can be killed (there where several skeletons) and dismembered the skull was far away from the rest of the body, but yet, somehow when one of them got his head back on they all became alive. The aliens where on the planet, they where also here for a long time (before dying as shown in the pictoglyphs) either they liked it here or
their ship was broken, but somehow the second the head was put back on and they became alive they left, why?

Sounds like magic and supernatural powers to me.

so does a gun or a band-aid to someone living 5000 years ago

Every part of that statement is incorrect. Many people do not believe in anything supernatural;

not true, even though some wont admit it, if you dig in you will see they believe in something that can't be explained.

and aliens are no more disproven than angels, the Lost Ark, Sacred Indian Lingum, or the Holy Grail. They are all beliefs, not measurable, provable (or disprovable) facts.

but what are facts, in order to have facts you must have stuff that you take as a priori. And then facts and belief mean the same thing. Let me ask you this, is there a computer (or smart phone) in front of you while reading replying to this thread? Is that a fact? but how are you sure? what if it is an illusion (like the Matrix or when Descarte wrote "I think, therefore I am")

If I wandered too far afield and babbled on and on with my discussion of that, then I apologize for wasting so much of your time.

no problem this was fun

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no problem this was fun

Good. I didn't want you to get the wrong impression.