@HAL 9010' said:

Why a risk to fly it? The events are before the war. The year was 1936.

Maybe it's me, but I don't think that plane could have made it all the way to Germany.

1: They say it was going to Germany

Then why didn't the sub just take it to Germany? Or to some other port where it gets flown to Germany? I think it makes perfect sense to test it somewhere else first, whether or not Indy "got in the way." It seems to me they had all the film equipment and stuff there, just for that purpose. And probably didn't arrange for that AFTER Indy.

2: Submarines are much more fuel efficient when not submerged - and since this was not during war time and not during a military exercise, there was absolutely no reason to submerge it.

But it was presumably a secret base. With the entrance in the side of the rock cliff, etc. Not submerging lets anyone see exactly where you're going, to your secret base. And I doubt Germany had their submarines just cruising around on the surface all the time, pre-war. No matter how fuel-efficient it was.

3: The Submarine lair was a military installation... of which they had several in the Mediterranean.

Yes, but again with the film equipment and stuff, it looked to me like they had it set up in advance, and were always planning to take the Ark there first, for safe testing away from Germany.

@Knixon said:

@HAL 9010' said:

Why a risk to fly it? The events are before the war. The year was 1936.

Maybe it's me, but I don't think that plane could have made it all the way to Germany.

1: They say it was going to Germany

Then why didn't the sub just take it to Germany?

Because it is a submarine in an ocean that does not connect to Germany. Dude. Anyway, when they loose the plane, they say specifically that they will drive it in a truck to Cairo and fly it out from there instead (still to Germany we must assume). So the Submarine was not part of the original plan. Why would it be. If Berlin is the end target (which they specifically say it is) then a submarine and a desert island is out of necessity, not efficiency.

Or to some other port where it gets flown to Germany?

Since Indy took it from them and they had to get it back while out on the high sea, a more convenient place occurred. Anyway, at this point in time the Submarine base must have been the better solution and in any case Belloq was dying to get his hands on it... makes total sense. Circumstances forced them to adapt. They were now on a submarine so they could not avoid a submarine base even if they wanted to... and as I said: Belloq was dying to get his hands on it.... makes sense at that point in the adventure.

But it was presumably a secret base. With the entrance in the side of the rock cliff, etc. Not submerging lets anyone see exactly where you're going, to your secret base. And I doubt Germany had their submarines just cruising around on the surface all the time, pre-war. No matter how fuel-efficient it was.

You may doubt it all you want, but all submarines cruise on the surface unless they are doing military exercises or military operations. Germany and Europe was not at war and having war ships in the Mediterranean during peace time is normal. Essentially they had no reason to submerge, and all the reasons to not submerge.. And Indy knew this. Even getting the Ark was no secret operation.... witnessed by how laud they were in Cairo for example... that they were digging for "treasures" as they were, is no crime. If they had submerged, Indy would have died. Ergo we know they did not. Had they submerged it goes against protocol, common sense and again why would they? They were not breaking any laws or treaties and they were not even chased or followed (Indy was dead, to their knowledge). In their minds, they had already won...

3: The Submarine lair was a military installation... of which they had several in the Mediterranean.

Yes, but again with the film equipment and stuff, it looked to me like they had it set up in advance, and were always planning to take the Ark there first, for safe testing away from Germany.

I disagree. The submarine base is well equipped and cool enough to fit in any Bond movie. Where they open the ark on the other hand is on some barren spot on the island, with very primitive setup. Except for all the cameras. So either this well equipped submarine base had these camera already (not unlikely), or they brought it with them (we see that they carry this equipment as they are walking to this spot - so it was not setup before hand as you seem to think).

Because of Indy causing trouble, Belloq want to leave the dig site as soon as possible (again: directly said in dialogue) so from this it seems fair that his first idea was to actually do it all at the dig site (as in, he had all necessary camera equipment there already). But because of Indy he adapted and wanted to fly it out far away from all the trouble (more or less exactly what he says). Indy again interferes and Belloq then moves it to this Island... though, he brings the cameras himself, as he already had them...

Anyway, watch the movie again. It is clear they want to fly it out. It is clear that after they loose the plane, they want to drive it to Cairo to fly it out...and they mention Berlin several times. Watch the movie man. Just for fun, I just checked Wikipedia... and they too say that the flying wing was to transport the Ark to Berlin. I am not sure why you oppose this so adamantly ?

At that time, I don't believe the "flying wing" had that kind of range, and it wasn't really equipped for longer flights even with stopovers. At most, it might have taken the Ark as far as Cairo, where it might have gone onto a longer-range cargo plane for - I would say - transport to the island for testing.

And how long did it take for the submarine to reach the island? It seems a bit of a question whether Indy would have been able to make it even on a non-submerged submarine.

I don't necessarily take the word of Wikipedia on anything, either. Especially if it doesn't seem to make sense. They might have "explanations" too for how the gate dialing stuff in the Stargate movie and series-es supposedly made sense, but that was obviously all crap (for example, you couldn't navigate outside of our galaxy using constellations that only appear INSIDE OUR galaxy, and only from CERTAIN PLACES within our galaxy for that matter), so explanations of it would necessarily be crap too.

@Knixon said:

At that time, I don't believe the "flying wing" had that kind of range, and it wasn't really equipped for longer flights even with stopovers....

The range of a flying wing of this type in that era (e.g. Horten Ho-2-29) is near 6000 km. Partly because it also incorporates gliding. Anyway between Cario and Berlin there is less than 3000 km.

PS: I tried to come up with an explanation to you as to why they had cameras at the island (in my reply above, but as an edit so here it is also :) : Because of Indy causing trouble, Belloq want to leave the dig site as soon as possible (directly said in dialogue)) so from this it seems fair that his first idea was to actually do it all at the dig site (as in, he had all necessary camera equipment there already). But because of Indy he adapted and wanted to fly it out far away from all the trouble (more or less exactly what he says). Indy again interferes and Belloq then moves it to this Island... though, he brings the cameras himself, as he already had them... (plus we see the soldiers carry them, so it is not setup before hand, fyi). Works ? I think so.

@Knixon said:

And how long did it take for the submarine to reach the island? It seems a bit of a question whether Indy would have been able to make it even on a non-submerged submarine.

he is a badass sob, what can I say :) But since they had already sailed for at least a full night on the smugglers boat and knowing the Mediterranean in this area, then I think it is probably not more than a day, if even that.

Was the death of Nazis ever an objective of the film's story's intent?

For movies where there are good guys and bad guys, the objective is that the good guys survive & the bad guys die/arrested. One can bring this question in case of Die Hard had the story been such that the absence of Bruce Willis character wouldn't matter and that the bad guys would die anyway (face the same circumstances).

But Raiders doesn't need this label of a story flaw. Its a story of archaeologists / explorers and not THE Archaeologist / Explorer. It just happens that the German Archaeologists die because of their lack of wisdom. The End.

It was a race. A greedy pursuit. And if one character isn't part of the race, it obviously doesn't matter to the story. Someone is going to cross the finishing line.

Indiana Jones just happens to be part of this race where at the end nobody gets nothing. It so happens that everyone reached the finishing line together (by means of their individual contribution) like 'Its a mad, mad, mad world' . Jones gets saved because of some wise judgement and the men totally consumed by greed dies. And that's the story.

I don't know why is this topic extensively debated. Its not a flaw as the central focus of story's circumstance was never on death of the Nazis. Its was on the collective adventure.

I enjoyed following this debate a lot, so don't take this the wrong way, but I think by this point we're trying to attribute way too much logical reasoning to the writing of a movie series that basically resolved every episode through invoking a mystery magical force 😄 I doubt that the writers thought about these potential plot holes as much as we have here.

I always took the submarine scene the way I did the refrigerator scene from Indy 4. It's fine, just as long as you don't think about it. It always felt to me like the Indy movies were lampshading and having deliberate fun with that kind of thing anyway. It's a tribute to comic books and saturday morning adventure shows, after all.

This may be HERESY, but I've never watched "The Big Bang Theory" for more than 10 minutes. (Who is this "Amy"?) I'd much rather watch "Marion Ravenwood" drink that burly porter "under the table."

You really missed out.

So, the conclusion is that the movie was not ruined for anyone, but the guys in "The Big Bang Theory", who were just not smart enough to understand the fallacy of what Amy said.

@wonder2wonder said:

So, the conclusion is that the movie was not ruined for anyone, but the guys in "The Big Bang Theory", who were just not smart enough to understand the fallacy of what Amy said.

That's how it seemed to me. Maybe that's because Chuck Lorre didn't understand it either.

The key issue seems to be that Amy says it's just about the Nazis getting the Ark, opening it, and they all die. But that's NOT the end of the movie!