The knight clearly and unambiguously explains that the grail provides a very limited form of immortality, which will not work if you leave the cave.
I’ve never seen the movie. In the book some of the narrative mentions other dogs and the processes involved in creating the dogs.
Vic may be insane 
but its not due to the talking dog. A boy loves his dog.
This is what they actually say, from the script I posted earlier:
The events were saved and somehow that meant they could resurrect a person for one day. It’s not very soul-like, unlike the events of your life are your soul. And it still doesn’t say that the events, and everything else, would be erased - just that they have this one-day chance and then they can’t retrieve them again, not that they’re no longer there.
If you find a film from 1912 but it’s so degraded that it can only be played once, does that mean the film never existed?
It’s understandable that some viewers might, at first, mistake the future mecha for aliens. Continuing to argue that they were aliens is what I disagree with. If they could be aliens or could be robots, and it’s a film about robots with no aliens hinted at and the makers say they were robots, Occam’s razor says that they’re robots.
And, like I said before, the coincidences with some alien stereotypes are there for a reason - they’re silver because they’re metal, they’re anthropomorphic because that’s how they started out (and perhaps it’s a good design, or perhaps some of it is sentimentality - they seem to be quite sentimental), but they don’t really have muscles because they don’t need them. It’s in keeping with the idea of robots designed by humans eventually evolving independently.
For those of us who’ve never read the novel could you explain this one further please? 
Maybe it just kicked in again briefly during the refrigerator scene.
But, yeah, I thought it was pretty clear that he was not immortal at the end of Last Crusade.
And my two-and-a-half cents on AI – I’ll buy Kathleen Kennedy’s assertion that they were robots, but I don’t get how she can be so perplexed that some people thought they were aliens. They really did look like aliens!
Please elaborate.
Because I feel the same way, but could never quite put my finger on how the movie disappointed. (Really liked the novel.)
.
I understand that the future beings from AI look a lot like classic aliens. But this was deliberate on the part of the filmmakers. Not that it’s supposed to be ambiguous whether they are aliens or robots, they are clearly supposed to be robots. Robots that remind you of aliens. You’re supposed to be all like, whoah, these robots are so advanced they’re almost like, aliens, you know?
As a little kid I thought Indy was now immortal and I was excited at the prospect of Indiana Jones movies being able to take place IN THE FUTURE! With spaceships!
My mom explained to me about the grail knight and the cave. I was disappointed.
I’m not certain because I never read the novel, but IIRC it was the scene with James Woods and Angela Bassett at the end, discussing that while her recording device only recorded static, it recorded 18 hours of static, rather than the second or two during which she dropped through the machine.
The novel pushed the ambiguity and lack of proof. Ellie’s trip through the machine is supposed to be her transcendental experience that leads her to believe in extraterrestrial intelligent life without having any proof to show for it, just like theists who claim to have personally experienced God. That scene eliminates the ambiguity. “Nope, she’s right and there’s proof, it’s just been classified.”
I love the movie anyway.
And I honestly don’t understand the basis of this interpretation, and cannot countenance it.
The novelization of the fourth one or fourth one? I assume you mean third one. What did it say? The film is quite clear that he is not immortal.
" You have chosen wisely. But the Grail
cannot pass beyond the Great Seal.
That is the boundary and the price
of immortality."
because Kirk had worked it out with Spock and knew he wasn’t really trapped. Why would he make a genuine yell of frustration if he had already worked it out?
Let me
[quote myself]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10512176&postcount=75):
The movie turned this around completely, making her take the side of the religionists, exactly the opposite of the point that Sagan was trying to make.
Whoops, I also got it completely wrong. Like I said, I hadn’t read the book. I was just going off Wikipedia.
Edit: Except that same Wikipedia article says this:
Did it? The way I remember it, the novel showed that a message from The Creator was coded into the digits of Pi. Which she only knew about because she had been through the gate. Thus proving that 1) that she had been through the gate 2) a creator of some sort exists.
Okay, if you don’t agree with it and I won’t argue. But what part don’t you understand?
I mean the novelization of Last Crusade got it wrong. The end of the book went something like " And Indy and his father rode off together … into immortality. "
I agree. I knew the book was wrong when I read it.
Well, Occam’s Razor says you accept the simplest explanation that fits the facts, but robots aren’t necessarily the simpler option. How did they survive whatever happened to all the humans? How did they forget what humans were like? Some beings are examining the Earth and trying to learn about its prior inhabitants; in a sense it doesn’t matter much who they are.
And Occam’s Razor applies best to natural phenomena, true mysteries. This was a crafted story. The people making it could show what they wanted to show in order to tell the story they wanted tell. If it was important for the audience to know that these were robots, and in some way derived from those shown earlier in the movie, they could have done a better job of getting that across.
I don’t understand why you prefer an unlikely interpretation to a simpler and better one. There’s nothing in your description that is baffling in and of itself, but to me it looks like choosing between “the man drove the car” and “the man rested his hands on the steering wheel while invisible aliens used their tractor beams to move the road.” They’re both possible interpretations of the scene, but the latter is more cumbersome and less likely and even hurts the film by introducing unnecessary elements.
In my opinion, of course.
I thought they were robots – but while I was watching them I was actively annoyed by how much they looked/acted like aliens. This is confusing as hell – and unnecessarily so, I thought.