I can't remember how the analysis went or how it worked but it's online and well documented with facts but Indiana Jones in Raiders is one of those rare films were the hero doesn't change or alter anything and everything that happened in the film would have happened weather he was there or not

@@jplonsdale7242 Although, without Indy, the Ark would still be on that Nazi island, ready to be picked up by more Nazis! I'm still not clear what Hitler was planning to do with it, mind you.

Bet he watched a lot of Monty Python...lmbo

I was born mid 70s and I totally agree. This is one of the most relatable channels on KZfaq for me.

"Grumpy carpenter" is some deep lore 🤣

Extra points to Stam for the Devo reference!

Interesting comment. I suppose it depends on how you define a, “hero,” really? We get so many words like this in English from the Greek, washed through Latin. The protagonist of a story with whom we’re meant to sympathise does not have to be one with whom we empathise, though. Most, “heroes,” in most stories are people with a flaw (usually resolved by the story ark by the end of the tale) with whom we can only partially identify. Indeed, they have many characteristics we find abhorrent or distasteful, but we back them anyway, because they’re not the villains and because the focus is on them. But, when we look at the original heroes of Greek myth, it’s a bit of a challenge to find anyone with whom you can empathise, or with whom their original audiences could empathise, despite us all being able to sympathise with their subsequent plight. Look at Oedipus Rex? Odysseus? Or later, Latin creations like Aeneas? These are not clubable types, but meant to be embodiments of a way of thinking, feeling and most importantly, “believing.” I say all that, but I agree completely with you. Jones is far less likeable than we are (I think) meant to accept at face value. And much harder to identify with than even most superheroes of the current zeitgeist. Obsessive and rather selfish, murderous in that obsession and ruthless to all around him, he does soften toward the end of the first movie, apparently finding love and seeking forgiveness for dumping his (probably under age?) girlfriend. But, as subsequent movies show, that didn’t last long either . . . But, as an, “archetype,” he works very effectively. Unusual for modern audiences to take to an archetype, unless they would wish they could be like them, like James Bond, Tony Stark, etc. That’s his appeal, I think. What teenager wouldn’t want to have his kind of adventures? Travel the world, see exotic things, be the smartest guy in the room (or temple?) and kill a bunch of Nazis with impunity. And do it all in time to get home for a good shag with the leading lady! What’s not to love?

Indy's mercenary streak is very obvious in The Temple of Doom...Fortune and Glory, Kid...Fortune and Glory.

@@ashroskell Great comment. Jones does fit the 1960's Bond 'hero' more than the traditional Hollywood hero. I still think that final scene in 'Raiders' with Marion (a last minute addition after Marcia Lucas pointed out at an early rough cut screening that Marion simply disappeared from the story - that's not Denholm Elliot at the top of the stairs) shows Jones still not exactly focused on her and more caught up in the fate of the Ark.

Selleck played a character not unlike Indy in 'High Road To China' (1983). He doesn't quite have the slightly nasty edge that peak Ford had, though, so his Indy would certainly have been different...

Believe what you like; but, he got cast in Star Wars because of carpentry work.

they've never really made any secret about how much they were inspired by specific serials.

He's in all three, but his scene was cut in Last Crusade.

Yup. It's the pointless completism of people so rich that there's nobody around them to say "Look, just f*ng leave it alone, will you?"