BritishChap007
Civilian
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 583
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Originally Posted by Iceburgeruk
That argument is completly illogical.
What evidence points to the fact that healed wounds would have to be re-opened after crossing the seal simply because the imortality does not last past the seal?
Henry Jones Snr. had yet to die of the wound. The pouring of the water heals the wound and restores his health. In the realm of the movie, the wound now no longer exists. He's cured, so to speek. Why then, would the wound re-open? Again, it is 100% gone. Immortality does not last past the seal, but the wound is irrelevant to the seal.
It would be almost like this: Say in your family you can drink Pepsi in the kitchen, but once you go into the family room, you are not allowed to have it anymore. You drink some Pepsi and go into the family room. But, when you enter the family room, your body still contains the liquid you have already consumed. Does this mean that you are allowed to have the Pepsi in the family room? No, that doesn't make sense. It just means that you have already drank some Pepsi and that isn't going to change!
You are not allowed to take the grail across the seal, and the powers of immortality follow suite. But, before they crossed it, they heal the wound. When they leave, and the wound is still 100% healed, does this mean that the grails powers extend past the seal? No, that doesn't make sense. It just means that the wound has already been healed and that isn't going to change regardless.
Last but not least, that would be a terrible idea to have Indy young in all the films due to immortality. James Bond isn't immortal. James Bond lives in an impossible timeline where he is always young. No, the audience doesn't care. He is a fictional character. But, if you gave Indy a reason for always being young in every movie (the grail), regardless of the decade, suddenly it is rediculous because of the fictional explination.
Having Harrison Ford in the film is the only answer. And making it take place in the 50's only makes sense!

Lucas and Spielburg are idiots. They had the nigh perfect franchise and ruined it.
How you ask?
At the end of last crusade both indy and indy`s father drink from the holy grail. It heals the dad`s wounds and apparantly grants eternal life. The only apparant proviso is that you can`t remove the grail form the place they got it from.
The effects of the grail must extend beyond the interior of that building because otherwise indy`s dad would have died from the wounds immediatly he got out of range.
So where doe this leave us?
Indiana Jones should be Immortal!!! (Barring of course death through injury and murder, the immortality is obviously an extension of life. He would have an unending life expectantcy he would NOT be invulnerable. He could still die from getting shot its just if he doesn`t meet with nay fatal encounters he would live forever.)
And by casting Harrison Ford again they blow the immortality bit out of the water because he has aged. Now the only way we will see future indy films is with indy`s stupid kid running around temples.
It is laughable considering spielburg and lucas had set up the perfect bit in last crusade.
If indy had been left as an immortal they could have had a never ending james bond style franchise where everytime the actor decides to leave you recast. Because indy would be immortal and forever aged about 30-40-ish.
But instead we get geriatric ford and indiana jones junior junior. what a waste.
well at least thats what i think.
That argument is completly illogical.
What evidence points to the fact that healed wounds would have to be re-opened after crossing the seal simply because the imortality does not last past the seal?
Henry Jones Snr. had yet to die of the wound. The pouring of the water heals the wound and restores his health. In the realm of the movie, the wound now no longer exists. He's cured, so to speek. Why then, would the wound re-open? Again, it is 100% gone. Immortality does not last past the seal, but the wound is irrelevant to the seal.
It would be almost like this: Say in your family you can drink Pepsi in the kitchen, but once you go into the family room, you are not allowed to have it anymore. You drink some Pepsi and go into the family room. But, when you enter the family room, your body still contains the liquid you have already consumed. Does this mean that you are allowed to have the Pepsi in the family room? No, that doesn't make sense. It just means that you have already drank some Pepsi and that isn't going to change!
You are not allowed to take the grail across the seal, and the powers of immortality follow suite. But, before they crossed it, they heal the wound. When they leave, and the wound is still 100% healed, does this mean that the grails powers extend past the seal? No, that doesn't make sense. It just means that the wound has already been healed and that isn't going to change regardless.
Last but not least, that would be a terrible idea to have Indy young in all the films due to immortality. James Bond isn't immortal. James Bond lives in an impossible timeline where he is always young. No, the audience doesn't care. He is a fictional character. But, if you gave Indy a reason for always being young in every movie (the grail), regardless of the decade, suddenly it is rediculous because of the fictional explination.
Having Harrison Ford in the film is the only answer. And making it take place in the 50's only makes sense!