Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Pozer]

another one for the marquee, Mac: Are you a Raider or a Crusader?

[MacGuffin]

Here come Harrison (in fine form) and 'Indiana Jones'
By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY

Indiana Jones fanatics are about to get the ultimate Valentine's Day gift: the first trailer of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which hits airwaves and the Internet Thursday.

The trailer, which marks the first time fans get new scenes of Harrison Ford as the intrepid archaeologist, will air on ABC's Good Morning America (between 8 and 9 a.m. ET/PT) before moving to IndianaJones.com, Yahoo and theaters.

The ad for the film, due May 22, is the latest maneuver in a stingy marketing campaign meant to create new fans as well as rekindle interest among older ones in a franchise that left theaters 19 years ago.

Director Steven Spielberg and executive producer George Lucas have kept nearly all elements of the movie, from plot points to set locales, under wraps.

But Ford is willing to answer at least one of the foremost questions on fans' minds: How much of a swashbuckler can Indiana Jones still be as a senior citizen?

"My body is fine," Ford, 65, says with a laugh. "It really was not an issue."

Ford says that he has kept in shape partly because "I've been anticipating and hoping we'd have one for the past 15 years."

He says the same is true for getting back into the mind-set of a bullwhip-cracking adventurer fond of fedoras and leather jackets.

"I more or less kept the character warm in my head," says Ford, whose next film is the immigration drama Crossing Over, due June 13. "Although we hadn't made one in 18 years, every moment I spent in that (expletive) suit, I remembered."

Script and scheduling conflicts kept the movie out of theaters for nearly two decades; the last episode was 1989's The Last Crusade.

Crystal will be set during the height of the Cold War in 1957, with Jones on the hunt for South American relics with supernatural powers. But Ford believes fans have always been as drawn to the spirit of the franchise as the plot.

"It's a very special kind of audience film," he says. "The film style is more in phase with the late 1950s than 2007."

Which means elaborate sets and stunts. While there will still be plenty of computer-generated effects, Ford says that Crystal is one of the most physical films he has done.

"I probably did more in this film than I did in the ones previous because there have been advances in the area of stunt technology," he says. "I was nothing but happy to get back to that kind of filmmaking."

[Redlum]

In one shot he's delivering a "I'm getting too old for this shit" line and in the next he's pulling off stunts that an Indiana Jones of 20 years ago wouldn't have even attempted. I know it's just a trailer but it doesn't bode well.

It looks wrong. It looks like The Daddy Returns.

Raiders is the superior and most enjoyable film to me because it has the balls to takes itself seriously when neccessary. There's nothing more removing than when the audience shares a laugh with a central character at the absurdity of a scenario. That's why I've never liked Will Smith as a leading man; the eye-rolling and camera-winking seem inherent to most of his performances. The other thing with Raiders is that it treats the biblical artifact of the title with the appropriate amount of reverence.

I don't mind that minor characters in Raiders turned into comic versions of themselves in Last Crusade because they were already walking cliches and thus disposable. As Temple of Doom proved you can add new characters and make them fit the basic mold of the series. Doing what Last Crusade did and making them comic and dependent on the chemistry between each other makes them more household to the audience and more lovable.

I completely disagree with this. When Indy spews those lies about Brody to the Nazi interegator about "he'll disappear, blend in..." based upon Brody in Raiders, I could potentially believe that about him. The Salla, Brody and Marion of Raiders are far more interesting than subsequent incarnations of themselves or character types. I think it all comes down to taking the story seriously and how highly you value immersion in the story versus the entertainment of viewing it slightly removed. I would imagine that kids watching Saturday morning serials would have taken them extremely seriously and that's how I viewed Indiana Jones growing up. I find the new trailer such a disappointment because the tone that they have decided to pursue (that of The Last Crusade) doesn't lend itself to any kind of 'seriousness' or rather my ability to take it seriously as an adult.

In fact, re-watching that trailer, I realise they've knowingly or un-knowingly made a complete mockerey of taking the film at all seriously. The first segemtn makes Indy out to be some kind of All-American Hero, with the stars and stripes flying.

[Fernando]

Teaser here

[Sleepless]

So far so 'Live Free Or Die Hard.'

[grand theft sparrow]

Yep.  That's about what I was expecting.  

[Stefen]

George Lucas one-liners and stale sense of humor are in full effect. That's too bad.

[grand theft sparrow]

I sent the link on to one of my friends and he replied:

It's like not knowing you're on a date with a transsexual.  Looks good but something doesn't feel right.

[Gold Trumpet]

In one shot he's delivering a "I'm getting too old for this shit" line and in the next he's pulling off stunts that an Indiana Jones of 20 years ago wouldn't have even attempted. I know it's just a trailer but it doesn't bode well.

It looks wrong. It looks like The Daddy Returns.

Raiders is the superior and most enjoyable film to me because it has the balls to takes itself seriously when neccessary. There's nothing more removing than when the audience shares a laugh with a central character at the absurdity of a scenario. That's why I've never liked Will Smith as a leading man; the eye-rolling and camera-winking seem inherent to most of his performances. The other thing with Raiders is that it treats the biblical artifact of the title with the appropriate amount of reverence.

I don't mind that minor characters in Raiders turned into comic versions of themselves in Last Crusade because they were already walking cliches and thus disposable. As Temple of Doom proved you can add new characters and make them fit the basic mold of the series. Doing what Last Crusade did and making them comic and dependent on the chemistry between each other makes them more household to the audience and more lovable.

I completely disagree with this. When Indy spews those lies about Brody to the Nazi interegator about "he'll disappear, blend in..." based upon Brody in Raiders, I could potentially believe that about him. The Salla, Brody and Marion of Raiders are far more interesting than subsequent incarnations of themselves or character types. I think it all comes down to taking the story seriously and how highly you value immersion in the story versus the entertainment of viewing it slightly removed. I would imagine that kids watching Saturday morning serials would have taken them extremely seriously and that's how I viewed Indiana Jones growing up. I find the new trailer such a disappointment because the tone that they have decided to pursue (that of The Last Crusade) doesn't lend itself to any kind of 'seriousness' or rather my ability to take it seriously as an adult.

In fact, re-watching that trailer, I realise they've knowingly or un-knowingly made a complete mockerey of taking the film at all seriously. The first segemtn makes Indy out to be some kind of All-American Hero, with the stars and stripes flying.

Serious? That's the wrong word for these movies. See, since the films are based off on on serial action stories, they are based on stories that weren't meant to gratify the intelligence of an 8 year old child. All the ideas of "serious" you get in Raiders of the Lost Ark is a child's idea of a serious character. The characters in Raiders of the Lost Ark has characters you are meant to believe as both meaningful and respectable. Thing is, they are all walking cliches and add absolutely no deeper context than their pulp printed 1930s counterparts. The fact that audience members wanted to revert to their childlike identity to enjoy that one film is understandable because it was a unique sight to see in 1980, but to base an entire series off an such an old idea of characterization would be absurd. The allure would wear off and audience members would see that their intelligence was being pandered to.

Call it cynical times, but it's more interesting and fascinating to utilize the characters to meet their comic selves and start to reference great old comedy movies. You can fascinate both the young and the old instead of ask the old to relive the times when they were 8 years old. It's a structural evolution to the stories and broadens the appeal. I don't want to just go back to being a kid. I have zero interest to have the feeling I want to pick up my old toys again.

[Redlum]

Regardless of how you wish to enjoy and interpret the films, do you not think the characters themselves should be taking every second of what transpires as seriously as those in any dramatic movie? It isn't that the characters in Raiders are any deeper than those in subsequent outings, it's just that certain styling are introduced that remove their mystique. I am no longer able to suspend my disbelief the moment the actors stop suspending theirs.

I see what you're saying as being similar to the battles of film-making ideologies best illustrated by Shrek and Toy Story. The former is existing on two levels that rarely overlap, two subsets of the same film; one for kids and one for adults. A smattering of jokes laid on for parents that the children won't understand but involve the parent's in a knowing wink down the lens. Toy Story and all Pixar films exist purely to tell a good story and not to pander to any cynical, post-modern nonsense that says every film must have it's tongue in its cheek in order for an adult to enjoy "childish" tales of adventure.

[B.C. Long]

George Lucas one-liners and stale sense of humor are in full effect.

Have you ever seen an Indiana Jones movie? If you don't remember there being one-liners in the other movies I suggest you re-watch them, because they're everywhere. As for the stale sense of humor, I think its no different than what we've seen in the previous films.

I'm not saying the movie is going to be good. It's just kind of weird people are complaining about things that are pretty much staples of the Indy series.

[polkablues]

I'm going to be brutally honest; this looks terrible.

And besides, it's not Tintin, so I really don't give a flying fuck.

[Stefen]

George Lucas one-liners and stale sense of humor are in full effect.

Have you ever seen an Indiana Jones movie? If you don't remember there being one-liners in the other movies I suggest you re-watch them, because they're everywhere. As for the stale sense of humor, I think its no different than what we've seen in the previous films.

I'm not saying the movie is going to be good. It's just kind of weird people are complaining about things that are pretty much staples of the Indy series.

No those boring one note one liners. No doubt the series is full of them, but none as bad as "Ugh, I thought we were closer!" or "Not as easy as it used to be" I can picture Lucas just laughing up a storm when he thought these up (and they were Lucas, you can totally tell)

Lucas used to be a filmmaker. Now he's a business man going for the biggest audience he can over making good movies. Spielberg may be the same. Look at the horrible one liners in the prequels. TERRIBLE.

[Redlum]

The knock-on effect of the Walkie-Talkie debacle:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35630

Removal of guns and insertion of the American Flag.

[Sleepless]

And a link to the international version:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article802170.ece?CMP=KNC-powersearchSEM1&HBX_PK=