Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[MacGuffin]

Comic Cover Art for 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'
Source: Cinematical

The cover for the comic adaptation of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has been released online, courtesy of Dark Horse Comics. Here's the non-spoilerish plot synopsis that came along with this cover art:

The most anticipated movie event of the summer comes to comics in this adaptation of the fourth Indiana Jones film! The intrepid Doctor Henry Jones Jr. is back in his biggest adventure yet! This time, the world-renowned archaeologist finds himself caught in a series of events that all point to a discovery unlike any other. But will his rivals in pursuit of this priceless treasure seize his quarry from right under his nose? Not if he, and a few unexpected companions, have anything to say about it! The thrill and the humor, the action and the romance, the hat and the whip--everything you love about Indy is here! This is a tale sure to please longtime fans as well as foster a whole generation of new ones!

The publication date is May 22, 2008, the comic runs 96 pages, and it will sell for $12.95.

[MacGuffin]

[MacGuffin]

Exclusive: New Indiana Jones Pic
Have bazooka, will travel
Source: Empire Magazine
 
Paramount and Lucasfilm have provided us with a brand new, exclusive image from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which you can see above and which is printed in full in the new issue of Empire, on sale Friday, along with another new still of Cate Blanchett in action as Agent Spalko. We also spoke with producer Frank Marshall about the fourth film in the Indy franchise.

"This picture is locked," Marshall told us of the current progress. "Steven's pretty much done editing. And we're going into the phase with John Williams where he starts scoring the movie. He's really writing now and then we'll start scoring in February".
 
When asked where this movie sits tonally with the rest of the series, Marshall said: "I would say it's closest to the third one (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). It's all adults. I mean, you have the sidekick in Shia (LaBeouf), but you don't have a Short Round and I think the banter between the characters is as fun as it was in the third movie".

A new Last Crusade would be just dandy by us. When not discussing the finer nuances of Fassbinder or trying on Vulcan ears, we in the Empire office like to argue over which is the best Indy movie. There's currently a heated battle between the Raiders and Crusade teams.

[polkablues]

There's currently a heated battle between the Raiders and Crusade teams.

Are there actually people who think Last Crusade is a better movie than Raiders of the Lost Ark, or is that just some bullshit they made up to give the article an ending?

[Gold Trumpet]

There's currently a heated battle between the Raiders and Crusade teams.

Are there actually people who think Last Crusade is a better movie than Raiders of the Lost Ark, or is that just some bullshit they made up to give the article an ending?

There are fans who think Crusade is better. It's not that big of a stretch to say because there isn't much difference between the films. I prefer Crusade because the film accepts the comic nature of the characters and runs with it. The action scenes are better written and the relationship between Ford and Connery makes for a more dramatic storyline than anything in Raiders.

[grand theft sparrow]

I am only one of two people in my circle of friends who understands that Raiders is a better film than Last Crusade.  I have been having this argument for years; I think it's simply because LC is the one they've seen the most.  It's good and all, I'm not knocking it... but come on.  

Some of these same people also think that Die Hard With A Vengeance is better than the original.  

[ddiggler]

when i was a kid, i liked LC more, it's just a more kid friendly film.  i think it was due to the fact that the only copy of raiders i had was taped off tv on crappy vhs. once i finally saw it unedited and widescreen this was corrected.

i think your friends might have the same problem with the first die hard.  the uncut version of that film is not only one of the most thrilling action films, but it's also the funniest.  most of the punchlines are ruined when seen on television (ex. "i'm not the one who just got ass fucked on national television!") just a thought.

[Gold Trumpet]

The Die Hard analogy doesn't make sense. Vengeance is extremely different than Die Hard. You can easily judge the differences between the two while all the Indiana Jones movies resemble each other. Besides the fact Raiders is more famous, how is it better than any of the other two? Nobody should act like its superiority is obvious at all.

[ddiggler]

i'm not saying that they're not very different films, i'm just saying (based on your age) there's probably a better chance that your friends saw die hard with a vengeance in theaters and a crappy televised version of the original, which would give it an unfair advantage. 

i suppose the raiders superiority isn't obvious. i really like Last crusade, but for some reason when they describe the new one as being "most like the last crusade" i take it as a bad thing.

[polkablues]

"Raiders" was like a reinvention of the wheel (the wheel being old pulp adventure stories and action serials), while "Last Crusade" was essentially the same reinvented wheel with some shiny spinners on it.  It's still a great wheel, but the spinning chrome isn't necessarily an improvement over the original.

"Temple of Doom", in this analogy, is a flat tire.

[Gold Trumpet]

"Raiders" was like a reinvention of the wheel (the wheel being old pulp adventure stories and action serials), while "Last Crusade" was essentially the same reinvented wheel with some shiny spinners on it.  It's still a great wheel, but the spinning chrome isn't necessarily an improvement over the original.

"Temple of Doom", in this analogy, is a flat tire.

Star Wars modernized the action serial. Indiana Jones just transported it to a different venue. Either way it isn't a grand enough discovery to warrant awards for excellence. The new action serial was just a modification of cliche entertainment movies. Speilberg should only get kudos for developing it to reach the heights of Last Crusade which was a development of everything done in both Raiders and Temple.

[Alexandro]

I enjoy Doom the most. Spielberg was out of control on that one, and I guess that's why I like it. Every ridicoulous thing that could happen to the characters and more was ready to go. It's over the top in every aspect, from the exhuberance of the opening musical number and the next "get the diamond" sequence, to the violence inside the temple. There's not much of a story there, but that's why to me it's a more fun ride than raiders or crusade. The Last Crusade I revisited a few weeks ago, and yes, Connery and Ford together are the really compelling aspect of this. It has a better dramatic arc than the others, but the first half of that movie (meaning when Connery is not around) is kinda slow.

[grand theft sparrow]

Besides the fact Raiders is more famous, how is it better than any of the other two? Nobody should act like its superiority is obvious at all.

I think my assertion comes from the fact that I have been defending Raiders for so long against people who have seen Last Crusade a dozen times but Raiders once or twice at best. 

Bear in mind that I enjoy all three movies and think that Last Crusade is a perfect end to the Indy saga, part of the reason why I'm still annoyed that they're making a fourth film.  But it has to be said, Last Crusade is much more cartoonish than Raiders.  I know that Raiders has its moments where it gets a little silly (i.e. the Nazi monkey, "bad dates") but for the most part, it plays it straight without being any less fun.  Temple of Doom is by far the most ridiculous, there's no denying that, though I still really enjoy it.  Last Crusade splits the difference.  It plays it much straighter than Temple of Doom but the characters are still more caricatures than they were in Raiders, with lots of winks and nods along the way.  Yes, the father-son aspect of Last Crusade does provide an emotional thru-line that the other two didn't have and a lot of the fun of the movie comes from that.  But I feel that Last Crusade, as much as I enjoy it, is a borderline pastiche of Raiders.

Take the character of Marcus Brody.  In Raiders, he is a straightforward curator.  Not a particularly interesting character, that's true.  But in Last Crusade, he is inexplicably turned into a buffoonish comic relief who "got lost in his own museum."  There is zero evidence of that in Raiders and not particularly necessary in LC as Henry Sr. was already portrayed as out of his element in Indy's world.  We don't need two characters filling the same function at different times (and occasionally, the same time).  Sallah, who was mild comic relief in Raiders, was much more over the top in Last Crusade.  Even Indy himself was at his silliest in that one scene where he's faking a Scottish accent to get into the castle; that in particular was so out of character for him.  Then there's the scene where Indy meets Hitler and gets his autograph.  Yeah, these are all funny moments and they work well within the story but they border on self-parody.  If the story itself wasn't as well-crafted or the action sequences as spectacular, no one (myself included) would be as forgiving of it.

Again, I'm not really knocking the film; all these gripes are completely insignificant when I'm watching the film but at the same time, they're also minor points against it when comparing it to Raiders.

[Gold Trumpet]

Besides the fact Raiders is more famous, how is it better than any of the other two? Nobody should act like its superiority is obvious at all.

I think my assertion comes from the fact that I have been defending Raiders for so long against people who have seen Last Crusade a dozen times but Raiders once or twice at best. 

Bear in mind that I enjoy all three movies and think that Last Crusade is a perfect end to the Indy saga, part of the reason why I'm still annoyed that they're making a fourth film.  But it has to be said, Last Crusade is much more cartoonish than Raiders.  I know that Raiders has its moments where it gets a little silly (i.e. the Nazi monkey, "bad dates") but for the most part, it plays it straight without being any less fun.  Temple of Doom is by far the most ridiculous, there's no denying that, though I still really enjoy it.  Last Crusade splits the difference.  It plays it much straighter than Temple of Doom but the characters are still more caricatures than they were in Raiders, with lots of winks and nods along the way.  Yes, the father-son aspect of Last Crusade does provide an emotional thru-line that the other two didn't have and a lot of the fun of the movie comes from that.  But I feel that Last Crusade, as much as I enjoy it, is a borderline pastiche of Raiders.

Take the character of Marcus Brody.  In Raiders, he is a straightforward curator.  Not a particularly interesting character, that's true.  But in Last Crusade, he is inexplicably turned into a buffoonish comic relief who "got lost in his own museum."  There is zero evidence of that in Raiders and not particularly necessary in LC as Henry Sr. was already portrayed as out of his element in Indy's world.  We don't need two characters filling the same function at different times (and occasionally, the same time).  Sallah, who was mild comic relief in Raiders, was much more over the top in Last Crusade.  Even Indy himself was at his silliest in that one scene where he's faking a Scottish accent to get into the castle; that in particular was so out of character for him.  Then there's the scene where Indy meets Hitler and gets his autograph.  Yeah, these are all funny moments and they work well within the story but they border on self-parody.  If the story itself wasn't as well-crafted or the action sequences as spectacular, no one (myself included) would be as forgiving of it.

Again, I'm not really knocking the film; all these gripes are completely insignificant when I'm watching the film but at the same time, they're also minor points against it when comparing it to Raiders.

I prefer Last Crusade for many of the reasons you are going against it. I like that the characterizations are comic. As you said, there are a few parts about Raiders that are comic, but a lot of it is straight laced. Star Wars didn't have any talented filmmakers to help make a competent story or anything, but I believe it was attractive because the majority of the characters were comic versions of the real thing. I think Last Crusade had a similar mixture of comedy and seriousness. I've even imagined that a lot of minor characters in Crusade mirrored ones in Star Wars.

I don't believe Raiders takes itself too seriously, but I do believe its generic tone is a little boring. Raiders looks like the old action serials the most because like the serials, the characterizations are cardboard cut outs of the real thing. Speilberg allows the interaction to play out to the basic assumptions. I imagine someone who went into watching Raiders of the Lost Ark and grew up on the action serials would see a decent imitation by Speilberg. To prefer Raiders of the Lost Ark is to have high regard for the nature of action serials. The only major difference is that Speilberg graces his film with great production and a competent story.

Speilberg developed the storytelling when he developed the comedy. Last Crusade has a similar plot to Raiders of the Lost Ark, but developed the writing because so many scenes play out to great comedy routines. I felt Speilberg was honoring great silent comedy in some aspects. What is good about that is he developed the Indiana Jones serial to be more than just the actioneer adventure story. 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.

If Star Wars was just about Luke Skywalker's travels, new characters could be put into every film, but the fact the film relied on the same supporting cast and made each character memorable for their own quirk is what made them redeemable. The minor characters didn't have interesting dimensions to speak of in Raiders of the Lost Ark. They were hallmarks of an old serial that Speilberg dusted off but didn't make new. The characters did become their own by the time of Last Crusade which is why I'm happy Karen Allen is coming back so the series is still trying keep with the likability of familiarity. 

[MacGuffin]