Damn that was fun to listen to. One of the best DIFs.

Connery as Gandalf? I can't picture anyone but McKellen saying 'you shall not pass!' but The Matrix is interesting. It would've had a totally different, campier vibe. He was too old to do his own fights, though.

Nice to hear Trey state the obvious about riding the sub. I've read many times 'it makes no sense cuz he'd drown!' Subs travel faster on the surface, they only dive if there's a reason to. These are the same people who say Decker's lips not matching the dialogue in the snake salesman scene in Blade Runner is a blooper - where really it's a quick way of showing that it was a longer conversation.

Congratulations on 100 guys, gonna be a great year. (for us!)

I'm sure they built in overrides and auxileries systems for night, come on, it's not like we're talking about a 2000 year old civilization barely out of the stone age.

YAY HE LIKED IT

This is a bit of a retcon, but I interpret the end of the film as the character comic to believe in the supernatural. When he packs the gun, he talks about how he doesn't believe any of that stuff, but rather than being a skeptic at the end, he has to accept that these aren't just artifacts in some temple with booby traps, this is something real, a radio for talking to god. It's a character arc that takes a character from thinking he can overcome anything with brute force to a climax where he admits his own powerlessness, a strange choice and one that would never get made today.

Anywhere in the story conference transcripts does Lucas drop more hints that Indy is actually a replicant?

Replied.

Also sent Fardawg an email (he's a forumer) asking him to package up his general God-bashing argument into a paragraph, might be a good thing to bring up on the anniversary episode.

I didn't want to clutter up Zarban's commentary section with a response, so it's here:

Accusations of "ignorance" come from a very provincial perspective of a specific interpretation of the theology. I may not know (or agree) with his interpretation of the Bible, but he seems to be under the impression that his is the only-possible-everyone-agrees-and-certainly-correct-one -- which is, of course, what everyone he disagrees with thinks about their own. I also find it amusing that he makes such accusations of ignorance while himself demonstrating so little understanding of the history of the development of the Bible and especially of early Judaism.

I do personally tend to try not to bring up religion in commentaries unless the movie is religiously themed, in which case I think we should be free to discuss the film's underlying mythology like we do with any other.

Nachos? ....I don't think so.

It's March now.

So...