Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[MacGuffin]

The 'Indy 4' That Never Was? We Compare 'Crystal Skull' To 'City Of The Gods' Script Leaked Online
An alternate version of the script, possibly written by Frank Darabont, was (briefly) posted on the Internet.
Source: MTV

What would movie fans give to read every draft of "Indy 4" — especially Frank Darabont's? Well, the wait is over: That very version popped up online late Wednesday.

At least we think it did. Titled "Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods," the version of the script (before it was taken down by legal eagles) is either the Darabont version or the most authentic, beautifully written fake we've ever seen. (Calls to Paramount and Lucasfilm were unreturned at press time.)

And, make no mistake about it, there are moments of real beauty in this thing. So what's the biggest difference between the two versions?

The overall arc of the film more or less follows that of "Crystal Skull," with the adventure beginning at a desert military base/ warehouse, continuing at Marshall College, and ending with Indy and company deep in the jungles of South America searching for skulls.

But the four biggest differences in this draft also double as the four best: No Mutt Williams; no Mac; a tougher, more "Raiders"-esque Marion; and a climax that not only gives Indy something to do (how in the world did David Koepp think to give Indy nothing?) but forces him to make a decision that rivals the end of "Crusade" (the cup or a father's love?), crystallizing the character and his history into one momentous singularity. Bravo!

So how good is Marion, really? Great. The first time we see her onscreen, she literally punches Indy in the face. She's also married, and not to Dr. Jones, but to a rival archaeologist turned communist spy. The banter between the two old lovers sparkles, a lot of it recalling dialogue from "Raiders." For example:

Marion: "What's the matter, Jones? Mileage finally catching up with you?"

Indy: "It ain't the mileage, sweetheart. It's the years!"

A "Raiders" reference! Are there any more? Lots and lots.

We don't see the Ark in this movie, though we can assume from the description that we're in the same warehouse. We also see Sallah (briefly), a play on Indy's fear of snakes, repeated references in the dialogue (Indy: "Marion Ravenwood. I always knew someday you'd come walking back through my door"), and even the golden fertility idol.

Are the groan-inducing moments from "Crystal Skull" in here too? Surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge? A rubber tree that supports a car? Man-eating ants? A character swinging through the trees like Tarzan? Yeah, they're all here, as well as some even sillier stuff, like an "Anaconda"-esque snake that devours Indy whole and a cameo for Henry Jones Sr. that has him singing — singing — Frank Sinatra's "Fly Me to the Moon." Also, there's this dialogue:

Marion: "Oh yeah, what about that glamour gal you spent time with?"

Indy: "She moved out to Hollywood to be a star. Last I heard, she fell in love and married some big-shot director."

(In real life, Kate Capshaw, who played Willie Scott in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," is married to Steven Spielberg. Indefensible.)

Is the silly stuff still as silly? Not really. That's the thing. We can't believe we're going to defend a refrigerator ride on a nuclear wave, but we're going to. For one, the conversation after the event is much more pointed — Indy actually talks about nuclear weapons with his interrogators, telling them that he doesn't think anybody should have that much power. And that exchange, that line, means so much to this film, especially to the climax, that it's easy to say it works better. The film also ends not with a spaceship flying away into space, but a spaceship trying to fly away into space, only to crash-land and explode in a second nuclear inferno. So it's a silly setup that has a serious and poignant payoff. Nobody should have that much power. Not even the aliens.

Oh yeah, there are still aliens. Well, one alien. He talks this time, specifically calling himself a being worthy of worship. We see scenes of primitive man mistaking them for gods. (The red-staters would have a hemorrhage.)

So this climax we keep talking about. What is it?

Indy, Marion, Oxley (yeah, he's here), Marion's husband (the rival archaeologist) and a few others deliver the crystal skull to the temple, placing it on the head of a crystal skeleton. Soon, five members of the group are lifted into the air and offered anything their hearts desire. One wishes for ultimate power. One for ultimate wisdom. Another to be the deadliest creature alive. Indy? We'll let Marion ask:

Marion: "Back in the Lost City. When you were in the dream cloud, what did you see?"

Indy: "It was like ... seeing everything in the universe all at once. Like suddenly knowing all the secrets there are to know. The meaning of it all."

Marion: "So why didn't you take it? All that fortune and glory?"

Indy: "I did."

And then they kiss. Good line. After falling from the cloud, Indy shoots the skull, destroying the entire temple — again, denying any creature that much power. We call that a climax in this business. Scratch that: We call that an awesome climax.

And the action scenes? Some really good ones, including a rooftop fight between Indy and a Russian assassin, and a midair plane fight in which Indy battles his rival from the wings of a biplane.

Final verdict?

A million times better than "Crystal Skull." Not perfect. Not "Raiders." But it's got its moments of pure Indy magic. Darabont obviously loves the character, and more than anything else, his passion is evident in each and every scene. If made, it could have been a welcome addition to the Indy cannon and easily earned a place alongside the other sequels.

[Sleepless]

Thanks everyone for the link!

[Redlum]

What I like about Crystal Skull is that the CGI effects don't even try to look realistic. They give the film a gloss of falsehood that makes it look like it was ripped from a comic book. I admire that Raimi tried to make Spiderman look comic bookish in style, editing and feel, but Spielberg is inventive to use special effect styles I would have never associated with a comic book feel. His lighting of the amazon to make it "glow" more was unique. Most filmmkers try to emphasize the dark forbidding nature of the jungle, but Speilberg went lighter with his hues. He went lighter with a lot of the sets in how he lit them. I thought was an interesting because nothing struck me as realistic. Add this with the elaborate camera movements and I felt the movie spinning in another universe.

I don't know, I admired the movie for weird reasons, but I don't know if I could rewatch it right away. You can't criticize camp in standard ways. You just decide whether it matches up to your personality. This doesn't for me.

I don't buy that Spielberg told ILM not to make the effects look too relaistic. There's a very fine line between failure and success in those stakes, even when you're trying you're hardest to make it look good. The art hasn't evolved so far as to make such a strategy a matter of switching from acrylic to crayons and the level of believability within some of the effects in Crystall Skull is still within the margin of error of most films today (some of it is well above average).

Even if this was Spielbergs intention it doesn't really work in the films favour beyond some cerebral after thought that you for some reason find admirable. It's not really an interesting idea to retrograde modern tecnology and techniques when you could just as easily use the old technology to a more cohesive and fitting end.

Stylistically, I can understand what you're saying - with the design and motion of the "flying saucer" for example. I also agree with your comment about the brightness and colour of the shooting style - particulaly the jungle. However I think, like Modage, that much of that is down to Kaminski and the uncharacteristic (for Slocombe and Indiana Jones films) use of white-diffusion and bleaching of whites - which he is notorious/famous for.

Regardless, the quality of the effects have minimal impact when used sparingly, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Out of all of Spielbergs films the Desert Truck Chase is still his most exciting and entertaining set-piece and it contains only a single matte-painting shot. Not only the technical bravado but it's placement within the story, it's simplicity and single-mindedness and it's violence (the only time in the series that Indy is shot/injured).

I don't understand why there can be no 'grey' for you GT. Despite its comic book/adventure serial origins I find it far more admirable that, a film of this ilk (whether it be Indiana Jones or Spiderman) at least try to render it's characters with some kind of truth. Take a film like Wages of Fear - sure it may spend a little too long establishing it's characters by todays standards but it only serves to reinforce the action when its delivered.

As for campiness, I agree there is only so much a person can tolerate and Crystall Skull certainly tipped it over the edge for me. Perhaps camp is and always was Spielbergs natural inclination for these films. I think that's where Lawrence Kasdan (and potentially Darabont) came in to help temper Spielberg and Lucas' indulgences...aswell as the occasional stomach bug.

[Gold Trumpet]

I don't buy that Spielberg told ILM not to make the effects look too relaistic. There's a very fine line between failure and success in those stakes, even when you're trying you're hardest to make it look good. The art hasn't evolved so far as to make such a strategy a matter of switching from acrylic to crayons and the level of believability within some of the effects in Crystall Skull is still within the margin of error of most films today (some of it is well above average).

I admit Crystal Skull isn't that much different than most CGI standard affairs, but Spielberg could have done a lot more to make the film more realistic if he wanted to. It would have meant toning down the story, but he didn't. He ran with the screenplay and tried to add as much stylistic whirl as he could. Jurassic Park is a fairly realistic portrait of a fantastic subject, but Crystal Skull is a fantastic portrait of a fantastic subject. I think it was an ethical decision.

 

Even if this was Spielbergs intention it doesn't really work in the films favour beyond some cerebral after thought that you for some reason find admirable. It's not really an interesting idea to retrograde modern tecnology and techniques when you could just as easily use the old technology to a more cohesive and fitting end.

I think it would be regurgitation a little too much to just go back to older effects. Besides, a theme within the film is the 1950s. How things are different now for Indiana Jones and how times are different. You need to introduce new effects. Besides, I think Speilberg was a little intrigued to make new technology look old on film.

Stylistically, I can understand what you're saying - with the design and motion of the "flying saucer" for example. I also agree with your comment about the brightness and colour of the shooting style - particulaly the jungle. However I think, like Modage, that much of that is down to Kaminski and the uncharacteristic (for Slocombe and Indiana Jones films) use of white-diffusion and bleaching of whites - which he is notorious/famous for.

When Kubrick hired his produdction designer on Dr. Strangelove, he got the man who did the production design for Dr. No. Kubrick gave him vague ideas about what he wanted the war room to look like. Finally it was understood that Kubrick just wanted him to replicate his designs on Dr. No with Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick chose him because he liked his staple creations. Speilberg could have done the same thing here.

Regardless, the quality of the effects have minimal impact when used sparingly, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Out of all of Spielbergs films the Desert Truck Chase is still his most exciting and entertaining set-piece and it contains only a single matte-painting shot. Not only the technical bravado but it's placement within the story, it's simplicity and single-mindedness and it's violence (the only time in the series that Indy is shot/injured).

I don't understand why there can be no 'grey' for you GT. Despite its comic book/adventure serial origins I find it far more admirable that, a film of this ilk (whether it be Indiana Jones or Spiderman) at least try to render it's characters with some kind of truth. Take a film like Wages of Fear - sure it may spend a little too long establishing it's characters by todays standards but it only serves to reinforce the action when its delivered.

I admit that Frank Darabont's version would have probably been better. But I also think it would have been a redudant film in comparison to the earlier sequels. Fans want the film to return to its root and re-establish what it originally had, but I don't. Harrison Ford will never look like he did in 1981 and the principle actors will never be able to recreate their original magic so I want the series to change and evolve. I don't say that this version is very good, but it's interesting for reasons that relate to my personality. Speilberg's aesthetic compositions for Indiana Jones go against standard idealizations. It makes it better cultural study. That is an interest of mine and I can't deny it.

I wouldn't want a Sean Connery situation with James Bond. When he did Never Say Never Again in the 1980s, Warner Brothers was trying to recreate the original intrigue of Connery with the Bond role but it has passed him by. He no longer was able to be the same sex symbol and serious character. Speilberg changed the tone of the series to more atune to Ford's increasing age. Raiders of the Lost Ark is what it is and I like it (watched it again last night), but I don't want a retread. Harrison Ford would be too embarassing to don the hat and jacket and be serious with little twinge of humor. The series becoming caricature is both more interesting and more honest to the series and the actors.

[pete]

Spielberg did not ask kaminski to do a dr. no equivalent.  read this month's american cinematographer to see what he asked him to do.
secondly, responding to how shitty a movie is with "isn't that kind of the point" is as hipster and unthoughtful as "people only like it because they're supposed to" which is another stupid accusation you frequently make.  for all of your academic posturing, most of your arguments really boil down to really stupid points.  you need to look at them and think about yourself, 'cause they're so bad even skimming through them becomes embarrassing.  something's wrong with you if you spent like three paragraphs trying to defend why the shit looks so stupid.

again, sometimes in movie discussion, "this part is cool" or "this part is silly" is enough.  you never thought it is, and you get angry at the others when they did.  That's ok, if you have something interesting or informed to say on the subject.  Instead, you and your know-nothing-about-the-process ass have to make guessworks based on anecdotes, heresays, and really, just wild guesses.  and guess what?  that would be ok too if you didn't spend three pages trying to sound smart with them.

in my short life I've come to observe this phenomenon - a good number of cynics are jaded out of inexperience.  they are not happy with their limited contact with the world out there, and have come to conclude that the rest of the world must be like that too.  sometimes I read your insipid paragraphs to re-affirm my simple worldview.  I mean, we are all wasting time, but why must you do it in such a miserable manner?

[Gold Trumpet]

Spielberg did not ask kaminski to do a dr. no equivalent.  read this month's american cinematographer to see what he asked him to do.
secondly, responding to how shitty a movie is with "isn't that kind of the point" is as hipster and unthoughtful as "people only like it because they're supposed to" which is another stupid accusation you frequently make.  for all of your academic posturing, most of your arguments really boil down to really stupid points.  you need to look at them and think about yourself, 'cause they're so bad even skimming through them becomes embarrassing.  something's wrong with you if you spent like three paragraphs trying to defend why the shit looks so stupid.

again, sometimes in movie discussion, "this part is cool" or "this part is silly" is enough.  you never thought it is, and you get angry at the others when they did.  That's ok, if you have something interesting or informed to say on the subject.  Instead, you and your know-nothing-about-the-process ass have to make guessworks based on anecdotes, heresays, and really, just wild guesses.  and guess what?  that would be ok too if you didn't spend three pages trying to sound smart with them.

in my short life I've come to observe this phenomenon - a good number of cynics are jaded out of inexperience.  they are not happy with their limited contact with the world out there, and have come to conclude that the rest of the world must be like that too.  sometimes I read your insipid paragraphs to re-affirm my simple worldview.  I mean, we are all wasting time, but why must you do it in such a miserable manner?

Congratulations, Pete. Your ridiculous angst against me has resounded to a three paragraph inquiry into why I am what you say I am even though you only make one point of actual contention against me. You have read what was said in American Cinematographer and said that a wonderment of mine was wrong. OK, tell me what was said. I'd be very curious to hear it, but remember what I said was just a curious guess. I phrased it as such. I most definitely was not speaking in absolutes about what happened and what didn't.

The rest of what you say is bullshit. It's more airy generalizations about why you disagree with me on every account and no actual detail to why. I made no contention with anyone else's opinion by speaking down to them. My review was a disagreement with others on what Indiana Jones is. I was able to do it without speaking about others in a denigrating tone. Look at your own reviews. Whenever you get hot and bothered you speak down to anyone. Besides the academic insinuations, I was more reminded of you with what you said. I may carry a tone you disagree with, but I don't elaborate on by personally slamming people and saying what they said is dumb. I've seen you do it though more than once.

And besides, I just had actual conversation with people. Redlum and Alexandro were able to exchange fair remarks back and forth with me. There was no negative tone to anything. I may have spoken a little too much in what Speilberg hypothetically wanted, but I doubt anyone can insinuate I was basing my argument on the grounds I thought I knew what Speilberg wanted. I have absolutely no clue. But as a viewer I can try to make an educated guess. Speilberg himself even said he's most grateful when a critic tries to understand what he is accomplishing. I made insinuations to what I believe Speilberg was trying to do, but so does everyone.

And I don't see how any of my review is academic posturing. I made an allusiong to Indiana Jones being culturally interesting, but my piece is no different than a lot of general reviews.

Also, as a fair explanation, I've held a lot recent antagonism with the There Will Be Blood over praise. I never had seen a movie be called greatest this or that so easily with little effort. My last signature referred to that situation. Call a movie good or what not, but the hyperbole of praise went on for so long. Thanks goes to Children With Angels with trying to explain it, but I saw little effort elsehwere and instead saw a lot of fervor against anyone who may have disagreed with them. I may have countered arrogance with more arrogance, but nobody's perfect.

[Redlum]

I admit that Frank Darabont's version would have probably been better. But I also think it would have been a redudant film in comparison to the earlier sequels. Fans want the film to return to its root and re-establish what it originally had, but I don't. Harrison Ford will never look like he did in 1981 and the principle actors will never be able to recreate their original magic so I want the series to change and evolve. I don't say that this version is very good, but it's interesting for reasons that relate to my personality. Speilberg's aesthetic compositions for Indiana Jones go against standard idealizations. It makes it better cultural study. That is an interest of mine and I can't deny it.

I wouldn't want a Sean Connery situation with James Bond. When he did Never Say Never Again in the 1980s, Warner Brothers was trying to recreate the original intrigue of Connery with the Bond role but it has passed him by. He no longer was able to be the same sex symbol and serious character. Speilberg changed the tone of the series to more atune to Ford's increasing age. Raiders of the Lost Ark is what it is and I like it (watched it again last night), but I don't want a retread. Harrison Ford would be too embarassing to don the hat and jacket and be serious with little twinge of humor. The series becoming caricature is both more interesting and more honest to the series and the actors.

As fan of the series I knew from the outset that any new outing in the 21st century would need to evolve; not only to deal with the inescapable effects of aging but also if the film were to be worth anything. The film could have dealt with the aging of the protagonist in a much more interesting way than having Indy bumble around a bit more and make clever remarks that essentially amount to: "I'm getting too old for this shit".

Here was a perfect opportunity to take a look at a case of art imitating life and how an icon like Jones reconciles his adventurous spirit with a body that is twenty years older since we last saw him. Let's face it the media were full of snide remarks about Harrison Ford and a zimmer-frame - to turn that on its head - now that wold have been something to admire. You may not find the idea very interesting but taking a stab at some thematic elements like that has got to be better than the inconsistency of having Jones make some knowing and vaguely funny line about his age before proceeding to perform some acrobatic stunt that a 20 years younger Indy would have laughed at. I'm not talking about great profundity here but at least give me something - even the Last Crusade dabbled in with the destructive idea of obsession.  Only when the story ambitions had been raised would I deem any kind of upgraded aesthetics a consistent and and truly worthwhile.

Essentially, I don't think that devolving the film to its humble, adventure serial routes is that interesting beyond film academic after-thought. While I concede that in some respects this is a trend set by the sequels and that to aspire too far beyond these conventions will only result in pretentious silliness, I think that Raiders was most successful because it had all the elements in balance. Crystal Skull is the first of the films to tip the balance too far in one direction, like it had projected the increasingly camp trajectory of Doom and Crusade for 20years, on a line of best fit.



Thanks (for the second time, I believe) for the tip-off on the ASC article, Pete.

[Alexandro]

I never expected them to shut out cgi effects for nostalgia's sake. After all, this is 2008. But I did thought Spielberg would be wiser and keep them to a minimum. I don't know about the new generations, but I can tell you that a couple of months back when I re watched Temple of Doom, every time a bug of some sort was onscreen I got the willies. And I think that's because even though the scenes were supposed to be funny, those bugs (whereas they were real or animatronics or whatever) were really convincing as the real thing. That didn't happen once during the overlong and boring killer ants sequence in Skull. To me the reliance on cgi is laziness. Not to mention how it makes the film look like any other adventure flick out there. The resemblance to The Mummy is particularly painful. 

The Darabont scrypt is way better in all the little details. Lucas really has turned into Darth fucking Vader. Why the fuck doesn't he stop being an asshole and makes all those experimental art films he hasn't found the time to make in the last 25 years? Probably because is bullshit.

[Alexandro]

oh gt, and about there will be blood...look man, some things are just what they are. movies are artistic pieces anyway, and you either feel them or you don't. arguing with you about the value of there will be blood is useless. i love it too much and find too much to love about it to even care anymore when someone doesn't like it. it's greatness is, to me and others, so obvious, and the way it affected me personally so direct, that the discussions on plot points, ideas, and character developments we were having became just pointless.

this is a film that works as a painting and as a symphony. it gets deep inside you. I've seen it with people who don't care about directors and actors, and they feel it just the same. if you don't like it, that's a shame. i remember once a girl told me and another guy that she didn't liked Kubrick films, that she couldn't understand what was so great about them, and i said to her: well, that's your loss. sometimes a person doesn't like something even if it is great for anyone else. I've never liked Godard. i actually find his movies to be a sleeping pill, Valium in celluloid at best, intolerably obnoxious and unfunny at worst. and people have pointed out to me how I'm wrong, and i don't care. feelings are feelings.

sorry everyone for detouring, let's go back to trash Indy 4.

[MacGuffin]

M. Night Shyamalan Talks 'Indiana Jones' Experience
Source: MTV

In Michael Bamberger's "The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale ... And Lost," which was written with the director's permission in the lead-up to "Lady in the Water," Shyamalan is painted as something of an egomaniac, an absolutist who wants things his way or not at all. So what's the twist? Turns out Shyamalan is actually quite personable, engaging and even charming.

And humble? When the topic is "Indiana Jones" he is.

Shyamalan was contracted to write a version of "Indy 4″ sometime in the early 21st century after the phenomenal success of "The Sixth Sense" (which was coincidentally produced by Frank Marshall, a co-producer on Indy).

Having heard horror stories from writers like Frank Darabont, who liken their experience working on Indy to a "waste of a year," we expected the worst. So what does he recall from his adventure in Indy screenwriting?

"I was just gathering information at that point from all the deities," Shyamalan said, referring to Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford, Marshall, and George Lucas. "I haven't seen the new one yet. I can't wait."

Even having not seen the film, Shyamalan, like Darabont, believes there are portions of his film treatment that eventually found their way into "Crystal Skull," although beyond saying that it wasn't Marion or Shia, he isn't giving up the ghost on what they are.

"I understand there are a few things we all talked about that are there," Shyamalan insisted.

And what I wouldn't pay to find out what they were. Honestly, I think I would empty my bank account to read every draft of "Indy 4," from Shyamalan, to Darabont, to Koepp. If anyone out there wants to send them to me, I will exalt your name to the heavens.

[Sleepless]

Honestly, I think I would empty my bank account to read every draft of "Indy 4," from Shyamalan, to Darabont, to Koepp. If anyone out there wants to send them to me, I will exalt your name to the heavens.

Ditto that for me.

I've read Darabont's City Of The Gods - that is the spirit of the Indy films I remember and love. It's all there; the typical wise-ass remarks, a believable relationship between Indy and Marion, no pesky kid... This is the movie they should have made - for fuck's sake!!!

Of course there's some some dodgy bits... I'm thinking ride-in-a-snake, wedding, Oxley.... Btw, if anyone ever gets the chance to meet William Hurt please ask him how it feels to be the Jar-Jar Binks of the Indy franchise. And as for the whole alien/dream cloud/spaceship finale - I don't personally like it, but I guess it depends on how it works on screen. The way it worked in Crystal Skull - well, it didn't work did it?

Some great action sequences. A gaggle of "bad guys". Henry Senior and Sallah!! Wonderful stuff. I really really liked it, and hope I do get the chance to read some of the other unused drafts. It's yet more disappointment that in the end they wound up with Crystal Skull - a heartless computer game of a movie.

What I liked about City Of The Gods was - get this - there was actually a STORY moving things forward. It wasn't simply a chase movie with zero motivation and random attackers popping up for the sake of pointless slapstick action. Of course there were a lot of parallels with Skull, but Gods handled all the elements in cohesive way, making us care and understand what was going.

Overall I found it to be far, far superior to the movie we're stuck with - and that I hope we all boycott on DVD. Darabont succeeded in capturing the spirit of the original movies, which Skull painfully did not. Whatever GT says.

[cron]

[MacGuffin]

I read the Darabont draft of the script and pretty much agree with Sleepless's comments. I would have liked to have seen this version rather than the version that was released. It gave Marion a hell of a lot more to do, and their banter was so charming. There's a scene - the shooting stars scene - that would have been so memorable; it was my favorite of the script. This was closer to the spirit of the trilogy, but at times, still felt disconnected; most likely because the MacGuffin wasn't something that felt worthy of the journey. But it went back to Indy in peril and the escalating "how will he get out of this?" progression of danger that I felt was so lacking in the released film.

[MacGuffin]

Paramount and Lucasfilm have just officially announced that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will arrive on DVD AND Blu-ray Disc on 10/14, just as we first posted in The Rumor Mill about a month ago. Each will be a 2-disc set, and both will carry an SRP of $39.99. A single-disc DVD will also be available for $29.99. Extras on Disc One of the DVD will include the film in anamorphic widescreen video with THX Certified Dolby Digital English 5.1 audio, and 2 featurettes (The Return of a Legend and Pre-Production). Disc Two of the DVD will include the 6-part Production Diary: Making Kingdom of the Crystal Skull documentary (includes Shooting Begins: New Mexico, Back to School: New Haven, Connecticut, Welcome to the Jungle: Hilo, Hawaii, On-Set Action, Exploring Akator and Wrapping Up!), 6 additional featurettes (Warrior Makeup, The Crystal Skulls, Iconic Props, The Effects of Indy, Adventures in Post Production and Closing: Team Indy), 3 Pre-Visualization Sequences (Area 51 Escape, Jungle Chase and Ants Attack), and 5 image galleries (covering The Art Department, Stan Winston Studio, Production Photographs, Portraits and Behind-the-Scenes Photographs). The Blu-ray Disc will feature 1080p widescreen high-definition video with THX Certified English 5.1 Dolby TrueHD audio. All of the DVD special features will be included on the Blu-ray in high-definition, and you'll also get a trio of interactive Indiana Jones Timelines (including a Story Timeline, a Production Timeline and a Historical Timeline).

Note that all four Indiana Jones films will also be released together as a Complete Adventure Collection box set ON DVD ONLY for SRP $89.99. We're hearing that the other films COULD appear on Blu-ray sometime in 2009, but take that as Rumor Mill-worthy until they're officially announced. Here's a look at the cover artwork for the 2-disc DVD and Blu-ray version of Indy IV. Note that the Amazon DVD link says single-disc, but the price listed is the 2-disc SRP so we believe this is simply an error on Amazon's part...

[Sleepless]

Don't buy it.