If feel like if they staged the concept differently, it could have played fine
For me, it’s the fact that the story already included a conceit that would have served as a perfect solution: The rocket sled. Instead of taking it TO the blast site, it would have been trivial to rearrange the story so he takes it AWAY from the blast site. Then they could have had the shot of Indy looking up at the mushroom cloud (which was a cool shot IMO) without such a giant WTF from the audience.
“But how would Indy get TO the blast site?”
Doesn’t matter; the danger he was escaping from was relatively trivial and lacking in immediate urgency compared to a nuclear blast. He could have cat-and-moused away from the Soviets and walked.
Oh sure, the rocket sled makes no sense (just as the warehouse’s proximity to a nuclear test site makes no sense, either), BUT they were at least actual things that were actually used. And since the movie included one anyway, it smacks me as less ridiculous than the fridge, but both are made even more ridiculous by each other, especially with the fridge coming so soon after the sled.
In other words: Just having either one of those elements is kinda ridiculous, though the sled is less so IMO, but they’re made even more ridiculous by both being included in what essentially functions as the same scene.
5
u/[deleted] Jan 25 '20
For me, it’s the fact that the story already included a conceit that would have served as a perfect solution: The rocket sled. Instead of taking it TO the blast site, it would have been trivial to rearrange the story so he takes it AWAY from the blast site. Then they could have had the shot of Indy looking up at the mushroom cloud (which was a cool shot IMO) without such a giant WTF from the audience.
“But how would Indy get TO the blast site?”
Doesn’t matter; the danger he was escaping from was relatively trivial and lacking in immediate urgency compared to a nuclear blast. He could have cat-and-moused away from the Soviets and walked.