The 27th General Hall of Fame

Tools    





In the latter case, they’re at 18 years old, seeing as they're college students, so it isn’t nearly as salacious. Also, I don’t take that imply anything “inappropriate” was going on between him and his students, but rather a young girls fixation on him.
This is the only thing I remembered, which is nothing. I'll have to watch to remember the other stuff.



In the latter case, they’re at 18 years old, seeing as they're college students, so it isn’t nearly as salacious. Also, I don’t take that imply anything “inappropriate” was going on between him and his students, but rather a young girls fixation on him.
its salacious in combination with the previously mentioned scene and to me his reaction is suggesting something.



The trick is not minding
its salacious in combination with the previously mentioned scene and to me his reaction is suggesting something.
It isn’t salacious if there isn’t anything there. I don’t read anything implied between them, other than her fixation. He seems to react in surprise a bit, rather than smug satisfaction.
And who cares if there were? She isn’t underage, and at 18 she is old enough to decide who she wants to sleep with anyways, right?



It isn’t salacious if there isn’t anything there. I don’t read anything implied between them, other than her fixation. He seems to react in surprise a bit, rather than smug satisfaction.
And who cares if there were? She isn’t underage, and at 18 she is old enough to decide who she wants to sleep with anyways, right?
doesn't have to be illegal to be gross i just think having both of these scenes doesn't paint the hero character in the best light.



The trick is not minding
doesn't have to be illegal to be gross i just think having both of these scenes doesn't paint the hero character in the best light.
And what makes it gross exactly? The age factor? In the students case, again, she is old enough by legal standards, which is 16 in many states, to decide to enter these types of relationships if she wants to or not. So what makes it gross, exactly? Why is it ok for her to be with someone at age 18, but the age of 27 (Indy’s stated age in the script) so terrible?

I’ve legitimately never understood why age, with the caveat of 18 being the mark of course, should be an issue if the girls in question are the ones seeking it out?





Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981

Part-time professor and part-time adventure-archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is called in to find an important relic before a Nazi-sponsored team can find it. His pursuit of the ark finds him reuniting with an old friend, Sallad (John Rhys-Davies), a former acquaintance, Marion (Karen Allen), and an old enemy, Belloq (Paul Freeman).

Like probably most people in this thread, I've seen the Indiana Jones movies a few times. I have always enjoyed them well enough, but never loved them. Then a few years back someone linked a transcript of a conversation that took place in 1978 between several filmmakers involved in the film and, um . . .

George Lucas: I was thinking that this old guy [Marion's dad] could have been his mentor. He could have known this little girl [Marion] when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

Lawrence Kasdan: And he was forty-two.

George Lucas: He hasn’t seen her in twelve years. Now she’s twenty-two. It’s a real strange relationship.

Steven Spielberg: She had better be older than twenty-two.

George Lucas: He’s thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve.

George Lucas: It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

Steven Spielberg: And promiscuous. She came onto him.

George Lucas: Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it’s an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she’s sixteen or seventeen it’s not interesting anymore.
So with that in your mind, watching a scene that goes:

Marion: I've learned to hate you in the last ten years!

Indiana: I never meant to hurt you.

Marion: I was a child. I was in love. It was wrong and you knew it!

Indiana: You knew what you were doing.


"You knew what you were doing." Yikes. I mean, this is now the main association I have with his character: this is a dude who would sleep with someone who is still young enough to be losing baby teeth. (Later in the conversation they admit that they can't actually say on screen how old she was, they'll just have to imply it by casting someone about ten years younger than him).

Some people might say that it's not fair to judge a film by what's not actually on screen, but I would argue that it is actually on screen. It was something I questioned the first time I saw it, but assumed it was a classic case of casting a women much younger than her male counterpart but we're supposed to believe they are about the same age.

ANYWAY.

This is the kind of movie that is your classic 80s adventure. There are memorable setpieces (like the infamous rolling ball) and memorable lines ("Why did it have to be snakes?"). There are memorable moments of comedy (like shooting the guy in the market).

I think my 12 year old self would have given this a big thumbs up. But I'm not my 12 year old self, and so by the time Indiana Jones was burning animals to death, a lot of the magic had worn off for me. I definitely get why this film is so beloved and would be considered a crowd pleaser. I am just really no longer the audience for it.

I do like Harrison Ford, and props to Karen Allen for her physical comedy chops. The film does have that big-scale adventure momentum to it that I bet would make it a lot of fun to see on the big screen.




And what makes it gross exactly? The age factor? In the students case, again, she is old enough by legal standards, which is 16 in many states, to decide to enter these types of relationships if she wants to or not. So what makes it gross, exactly? Why is it ok for her to be with someone at age 18, but the age of 27 (Indy’s stated age in the script) so terrible?

I’ve legitimately never understood why age, with the caveat of 18 being the lark of course, should be an issue if the girls in question are the ones seeking it out?
i'm not approaching this from a realism standpoint. i think having both these scenes in a script is the screenwriter saying something about the character and wanting barely legal women (or explicitly underage women) isn't the most endearing quality. also man looks mid 40's here lmao.



The trick is not minding
i'm not approaching this from a realism standpoint. i think having both these scenes in a script is the screenwriter saying something about the character and wanting barely legal women (or explicitly underage women) isn't the most endearing quality. also man looks mid 40's here lmao.
Fair enough.



The trick is not minding
Really curious what I'm going to think of Raiders now. I almost wonder if I'm best left with a fond memory.
For me, the whole underage thing does t detract from the film at all. It’s still an enjoyable romp



Magical Girl



Not going to say anything about the narrative, which doesn't really make an appearance until about 40-45 minutes in. It's definitely not the type of film I could recommend to the average film watcher, only at a place like this. It's not raw and brutal like many of my past nominations, more weird without being unrealistic, and dark without being disgusting. A bit of dark humor and ambiguity. Very well made and excellent performances. I enjoyed it the same as I did the first time and I hope you guys get something out of it.

-



@edarsenal

I just realized that Witness for the Prosecution is ineligible as a nomination per the rules, as it won the 1950s HoF

50's Hall Of Fame
Host: Friendly Mushroom

Winner: Witness For The Prosecution (1958 Billy Wilder)



@edarsenal

I just realized that Witness for the Prosecution is ineligible as a nomination per the rules, as it won the 1950s HoF

50's Hall Of Fame
Host: Friendly Mushroom

Winner: Witness For The Prosecution (1958 Billy Wilder)

GASP!!! Oh my gosh! You guys I am so sorry! I must have missed it when I skimmed the lists!

Oof, and several people already watched it.

Do you guys want to:

1) Just drop it/me from the HoF "official list" (people can watch it for fun and just nobody puts it in their final rankings). I will still watch and rank everything.

2) I pick a (VERY SHORT RUN TIME) replacement

I will happily do either!



GASP!!! Oh my gosh! You guys I am so sorry! I must have missed it when I skimmed the lists!

Oof, and several people already watched it.

Do you guys want to:

1) Just drop it/me from the HoF "official list" (people can watch it for fun and just nobody puts it in their final rankings). I will still watch and rank everything.

2) I pick a (VERY SHORT RUN TIME) replacement

I will happily do either!
I don't think you should have to drop out, just pick another nom. But up to the host of course.



Do you guys want to:

1) Just drop it/me from the HoF "official list" (people can watch it for fun and just nobody puts it in their final rankings). I will still watch and rank everything.

2) I pick a (VERY SHORT RUN TIME) replacement
I see no reason why you shouldn't still be allowed to have a horse in the race. Just pick a replacement and don't worry too much about runtime.