Other mistake: After getting on aboard the dirigible, Henry is holding a German newspaper when addressing Indy. But he'd have a hard time reading it as it's upside down. Even if he's just trying to hide, holding an upside-down newspaper would draw the attention of suspicious guards.
Suggested correction: Henry Jones Sr. doesn't have his glasses in this scene. He can't really see anything on the newspaper, that's why he is holding it upside down.
I'd say that, more than anything, a hasty attempt to blend in would be more likely the culprit. Even without the spectacles, Henry, being the fastidious person he is, would have righted the paper, with or without eyewear.
But since he couldn't see the letters, how would he have righted the newspaper (or even noticed it was upside down)?
Ipon! (Japanese for "point.") I can see your point; however, I would ask that the following be considered: that there is usually more than just letters and words in newsprint. Even if not viewed, pictures are good indicators of the newspaper's orientation.
Continuity mistake: In the library before he goes through the hole in the floor, Indiana takes the map out of the diary and gives the diary to Marcus. When Indiana gets caught trying to rescue his dad, they take the diary from him and say Marcus has the map.
Suggested correction: You've forgotten the scene at Donovan's apartment. There, Indy could have cut the page and give it to Brody off-screen.
Factual error: The evil SS officer is addressed as "Herr Oberst" (Colonel) throughout the movie. In the SS, however, this rank was called "Standartenfuehrer". (00:56:40)
Suggested correction: In fact, Oberst is the literal translation of the word "Colonel" into German. It would not be unusual for Germans to call a colonel by his rank in his native language (even if he is an SS colonel).
This correction doesn't address the mistake, which is the rank on his uniform isn't what he's addressed as. It has nothing to do with what the word translates into (which the mistake even points out).
Corrected entry: When Indy and Marcus are in Indy's father's house, one of the letters in the mail on the desk has a three cent Texas centennial stamp on it, which was 1945, not 1938. This can easily be seen in the closeup.
Correction: The Texas Centennial was celebrated in 1936 to celebrate Texas's independence from Mexico in 1836, not its statehood in 1845, which some in the state still lament. Texas Centennial stamps could therefore have still been in circulation in 1938.
A correction to the correction. The original entry is correct. The blue Texas Centennial stamp is for the Centennial of the State of Texas in 1945. The stamp was issued by the U.S. Post Office on December 29th, 1945. Reference: Scott Stamp Catalogue, catalog #938. They should have used U.S. Scott #776, which was issued in 1936 for Texas Independence.
Corrected entry: Once Indy has found the grail, he goes back with Elsa to heal his father. But how was it possible for him to get back? Wouldn't he have to face the challenges again, but in reverse order?
Correction: Yes, but he knows what they are now, so he can pretty much just walk (or run) straight through them. The filmmakers just chose not to waste valuable screen-time showing it.
Correction: Furthermore, he stopped at least one from working.
Exactly this. He stopped the first one from working – the second trap, he can just walk on the exact letters he used on the way in, but backwards. And finally, the third trap: we see him throw sand on, so it is very visible.
Corrected entry: When the Zeppelin takes off, you see the German officer has fallen into a pile of bags. These bags obviously belonged to the passengers on the Zeppelin, so why weren't they on the Zeppelin when it took off? (01:12:55)
Correction: Perhaps the bags belonged to passengers on the incoming flight rather than the outgoing flight?
Zeppelins didn't turn around that quickly.
Corrected entry: After the motorcycle chase, Indiana drives past the road sign, which points to Venice and Berlin. He then talks to his dad before looking straight ahead at a sign which is behind him.
Correction: He's not looking at the sign, he's making a decision. The shot of the sign was for the audience's benefit.
The combination of the two shots is conventional movie language for him looking ahead at the sign (which, I agree, signifies his decision). But he drove PAST the sign.
If it's not in the same shot, he is not looking at the sign but towards the road ahead. The mistake is an assumption and has been corrected appropriately.
Indiana Jones is not some experimental, challenging movie, like Fellini Satyricon. It follows standard montage conventions for understandable viewing. Person looks ahead, followed up with a "subjective" shot. It's textbook stuff - it's called the Kuleshov effect ("a mental phenomenon by which viewers derive more meaning from the interaction of two sequential shots"). Also, since they drove past the post, they should then be visible in the second shot.
Corrected entry: When Indy and his father come to the crossroads after having escaped the Nazis the sign says "Berlin" and "Venedig". When they leave it says "Berlin" and "Venice". It's the same side of the sign both times.
Correction: Yes, it does. And the wavery effect in the middle of the shot is meant to be a translation so that viewers can understand where Indy is driving to.
What wavery effect? Not sure if joke or false memory. Still, stuff being in English for the benefit of the viewer isn't necessarily a mistake. In fact, the previous shot was of the other side of the sign.
Correction: It is not the same side of the sign, the last shot is from the front.
Corrected entry: When Indy and Elsa are back at the hotel after the boat accident, Elsa's room is wrecked. How did Indy not know she wrecked it herself or hear her wrecking it? He was only 2 doors down. He could hear the music playing in the bathroom but not her trashing her own room. He should have known she did it when she came out the bathroom surprised. Seriously, how can you be in the bathroom and not hear someone trashing your hotel room?
Correction: If the music was loud enough for him to hear it, it would have been loud enough to cover up the noise.
It seems a bit weak, but even a wind-up gramophone can make a lot of noise, especially in a small bathroom.
Corrected entry: There is a problem with the following scene: The Nazi plane crashes into the tunnel, slides past Harrison Ford and Sean Connery and explodes when exiting the tunnel. The problem is that the plane shouldn't explode since its wings (filled with gas) were torn off. It couldn't have been a bomb attached to the plane either, since, as it is seen only seconds afterwards, a bomb would leave a big crater in the street and make it impossible for the car to go on. Yet, Harrison Ford has no problems at all driving through what's left of the plane.
Correction: The engine and hosing that delivers the gas to it is attached to the fuselage.
Could someone elaborate on the proposed correction please?
The engine can still explode and there could hypothetically still be fuel in the hosing connected to the engine.
But there's not a LOT of fuel left there, when the tanks fell off half a minute earlier. It's not a terribly entertaining mistake, granted, because some movies really do need explosions. But it might be technically valid in a boring way.
Corrected entry: When Indie rescues his father and shoots the Germans, the one that he pushed over stayed on the floor. Surely being pushed over couldn't have caused him that much damage.
Correction: He probably stayed down to avoid getting shot, since that's what happened to the others.
I checked the scene just now - the guard who has some lines is taken out without any sort of proper fight. I ask you, Mitchell and Webb excepted, when do Nazi henchmen EVER decide to take it easy and live to tell the tale instead? At any rate, he's taking a huge risk that the Joneses won't sway the gun on him for good measure.
Corrected entry: When the Nazi convoy enters the canyon the Nazi leader says "it must be one or two miles away from here" but if he is German wouldn't he use kilometres instead of miles?
Correction: Not in the late '30s. It took a while longer to become a standard (ie. daily usage) even in Europe.
It had been the official system since 1872... But they aren't speaking German either, so we can simply consider it translated.
Corrected entry: At the book signing in Berlin, the camera pans from right to left and the guard at the very end of the line of soldiers (to the left) has his left hand raised in military salute to Hitler. All the other soldiers have their right hands extended.
Correction: The person in question could have an injured right arm that he simply can't lift.
Exactly. "If physical disability prevented raising the right arm, it was acceptable to raise the left." Kershaw, Ian (2001). The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192802064.
There's nothing about it in the script though. So between the two options, on the one hand (no pun intended!) that the creators were aware of that fact, and on the other hand, that it was a movie mistake that wasn't noticed, well... There's no possible reason why they'd put that in deliberately. Still, Jon decides, and the rules seem to be that behavioural oddities are not generally considered mistakes.
But not every single bit of background extra behaviour gets detailed in the script. The point is simply that based on what we see there's no way to decree something like this as a "mistake", because it has a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation, and there's no point having an endless chain of bickering about it.
So just to summarise: the "perfectly reasonable explanation" is, then, that some random bystander has an extremely convincing prosthetic arm (which serves no purpose at all for he story); and NOT that one of the many "extras" simply made a mistake.
Continuity mistake: When Indy and gang are racing the Nazis to the canyon of the Crescent Moon, Indy looks at the Nazi convoy with binoculars. Close-ups of Indy show the sun is clearly behind him, and the binoculars are in his shadow. But then a glare from the lens alerts the Nazis to their presence. (01:24:25)
Suggested correction: It is not clear that the glare is coming from the binoculars rather than the car behind them (after all, the Nazis target the car with the tank).
They see a glare rather than a car. But anyway, regardless, the problem remains that the sun is behind the car too.
Corrected entry: In the tank scene, a German fires a bullet which hits the tank driver and he falls on to the controls, turning the tank. As almost everyone in the tank is dead/unconscious nobody would move the body so the tank should go round in circles.
Correction: Henry Jones Sr and Marcus Brody were in the tank when this happened and they weren't killed nor knocked out. It is likely that they moved the body.
Senior and Marcus are consistently depicted as totally useless in practical situations. They get out and there's no indication that they contributed anything like that off camera. The original mistake should stand?
Yes. They had no reason to move the body.
The body could just as easily have slid off.
Yeah, in THIS case I can see that happening. I've never driven a WWII tank, but car steering rights itself. (Although I still think that some of the other rebuttals for this movie's mistakes are way beyond generous.)
Question: Are Indiana Jones and his father immortal at the end of the movie or does the grail's power become null and void when it crosses the seal? The knight said something like "The grail cannot cross the seal, that is the price of immortality." That makes it sound like they are not immortal at the end but I still want to check.
Chosen answer: They're not, no. An individual doesn't become immortal after one drink - it requires them to drink regularly in order to remain alive. So neither Jones has been rendered immortal, merely healed of any wounds that they might have. But your surmise is basically correct - as the Grail cannot leave the shrine, any individual wishing to use it to prolong their life must stay there if they wish to enjoy its effects.
Also, in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull, Henry Jones, Sr has passed away before the start of the story and therefore was not immortal.
Question: In the last shot of the knight waving goodbye to the Joneses, is it just me or has the actor been swapped out with a dummy?
Answer: It is the real actor and not a robotic dummy. He moves a bit slowly and deliberately, apparently for effect, but it's a real person.
Just to be clear, I'm not referring to when we see the knight raise his hand to wave goodbye to them, but rather right after Indy says "Please Dad," and he and Henry begin to flee the collapsing temple, you can see the knight in the background with his arm raised and he looks rather stiff. You can see it at around 2:22 of this clip: https://youtu.be/PAfZ7V2VyD8.
I took a closer look. There is the shot where the knight raises his hand and you can see him moving. It then cuts to Indy and Henry, then a cut back to the knight where it briefly looks like it could be a mannequin, then there is another cut and back to the knight again and this time it's definitely the live actor. So yes, for that brief long shot, I think it could be a dummy. This may have been for the purpose of efficiency in the filming, it being easier to use a stationary prop for doing multiple takes, rather than the live actor just standing there. Sometimes they do what is called "pick up" shots, where, post-production, a part of a scene or close-ups are re-shot or added weeks or months later, and it would just be easier to use mannequin rather than recall the actor.
But he does move, so most likely a real person.
Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
Question: In the first half of the movie, the problem that needs to be solved is where the known route starts. Indy finds out when he finds the second, complete shield in Venice and deciphers it later. When exactly do the Nazis find out? He has told Marcus Brody, but not Elsa, because he does not fully trust her. The Nazis find the diary, but not the rubbing. They don't "extract" the information from the Joneses when they are captured in Austria, at which time Indy confidently states that Marcus has a two day head start (unless the Nazis know something that Indy doesn't). But they are already waiting for him in Iskenderun when he arrives. (No indication is ever given that Marcus is being followed in Venice; at any rate, no-one pays much attention to him, because all eyes are on Indy.) When and how do the Nazis discover where to go?
Answer: There is one theory to answer my own question. It could be that the room where Jones Sr. Is kept is "wired" (seen and mentioned), and Indy is saying out loud that the mystery city is in fact Alexandretta. Only, he KNOWS that it's wired. So that would be spectacularly stupid after all the safety precautions he took.
Answer: They don't know Alexandretta is the city when they set out to capture Brody; he travels to Iskenderun (modern Alexandretta) himself, and the Nazis capture him there. They probably sent his description, and orders to capture him, to all their agents in Hatay (whose leader is sympathetic); as we see, Brody is very easy to spot, and naïve enough to be captured with relative ease (he also contacts Sallah in advance of going there, leaving a further trail). At that point, it's not difficult for them to deduce that the starting point on the map is the city that Brody has traveled to.
No, I'm sorry, but that second reply makes very little sense. Sure we can speculate that his phone call to Sallah was tapped. But speculation is not good enough. And there's no indication at all that Brody was being followed. In fact he's all but ignored. The idea that at every train station there would be nazi agents waiting is a bit impractical. Hatay is perhaps small enough to do that, but then we're just renaming the problem: how did the nazis know to go there, and not Syria, or Palestine, or Istanbul, or any other place once visited by crusaders? They can't watch out for every scholarly type in every train station in the entire Middle East.
Answer: There are several possibilities. Indy started trusting Elsa after their escape in Venice when he revealed the grail diary to her. He sent Marcus off to Iskenderun after, while he and Elsa rescued his father in the castle. It's possible Elsa asked him before they left Venice or on the way to the castle where Marcus was going and Indy revealed it. She could have slipped away when they stopped somewhere and called her superiors. The other possibility is Indy or Marcus called Donovan and let him know about their progress. Marcus could have told Donovan where he was headed.
Most of that is conjecture or speculation, though. I simply mean that we don't see or hear that happening. I've thought over my original question, and the only provable point is some extreme stupidity on the part of Indiana Jones himself. If he hadn't mentioned the town while he was in his dad's room (that he KNEW was 'bugged'), they wouldn't have known.
Answer: They capture Max Brody with the map shortly after they capture the Jones'. They learned through him.
And WHERE do they capture him...? Right. So that's not it.
When wandering around Egypt alone with the map, Brody meets up with Sallah who tries to prevent him from being captured. He fails by accidentally leading him into a nazi controlled truck that takes him away and into the hands of Donovan. They have the map then.
Brody is not "wondering around Egypt." We explicitly hear Indy instruct Salah and him to meet in Iskenderun before he left for Austria and that is where Brody descends from the train station. Or am I to believe, again, that the nazis have camouflaged truck traps in every town in the entire Middle East, just in case? No, they intercept Brody because they know where he's going to be. (Iskenderun, by the way, is nowhere near Egypt, it's not even on the same continent. I suggest you re-watch the relevant bit of the movie first).
Corrected entry: While Donovan and Indy are looking at the tablet, if you freeze the movie while it shows the tablet, you can clearly see the word "deorum", meaning "of the gods". Not something you would expect a Christian to be carrying around, considering they are monotheistic. (00:17:50)
Correction: Firstly if you have to pause the movie then it's not a mistake but aside from that, some early Christian theology believed that the holy trinity was to be interpreted literally and hence Christianity was not monotheistic.
It's visible without freezing - although the normal viewer wouldn't start reading. It's not coherent Latin to begin with, deorum is basically just one example of that. Borderline. They knew what they wanted it to say, so they could have made a better prop. But if someone is reading a newspaper headline and there's nonsense below, is that a mistake? Not sure.
The tablet simply should not speak of gods, plural, because the Crusaders were monotheistic. The trinity (although a confusing concept) is not referred to as three gods. And other, obscure and far away versions of Christianity have nothing to do with it.
Actually it says "rex deorum nostrum" which means "Our king of the Gods." Meaning the one true God, above all other gods. If you read the few words before it left of the cross it fully says "The army of the king of the Gods.", meaning the templars I think.
I feel that this is putting a positive spin on it. Nostrum by the way should be "noster" for your interpretation to work. I stand by my earlier opinion that they could have made a better prop, one with a "prop-er" Latin text without errors.
I think for a prop it's actually pretty good. Most parts of the text in Latin is almost identical to what Indy is reciting. He just happens to skip the part we are talking about. The tablet is worn down and partial too so the wrong spelling is explained by the missing words or letters, like "nostrum." They took a while to make this thing for the movie.
Oh right. Good, except that the fact that there were plenty of people just a phone call away who could have made a CORRECT Latin text. And I don't want to sound sarcastic or anything, but I didn't know stone inscriptions could develop spelling errors. It hasn't been badly copied by a monk - they are looking at the original - epigraphy is generally very reliable, when it's there, it's there. And IF there were gaps in the text, then we would see the actual gaps. (Also: If you want to connect "exercitum" to "rex" then the latter should become "regis.").
You know what? You may be right. For those few seconds of screen time, I'm OK with it though, personally.
Yes that is what I agree with as well. It's not visible long enough for any normal person to start seeing the errors.
