Xixax Film Forum

DreamWorks Fansite reports that the new issue of Cinescape magazine included quotes from Steven Spielberg on Indiana Jones 4.

Spielberg confirmed that Sean Connery, Karen Allen and Kate Capshaw will indeed return. Connery will have a small role, appearing in the beginning and towards the end of the film, he added. The leading females will also make appearances but not as lengthy as their original roles.

He did not mention a shooting date for the film, we'll have to wait and see if the project gets going this year or next

Lightsoutentertainment got a chance to interview some stars as they strolled down the red carpet for the premiere of Dreamcatcher on Tuesday night!

Frank Darabont was there and briefly spoke about Indiana Jones 4. He said "Those pesky Nazis seem to have departed, which is a shame, because I like those pesky Nazis, because you can just squash them all over the place"

You can see the full interview in Quicktime video by clicking on Indy.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lightsoutentertainment.com%2Fmedia%2Fnews%2F01_02%2Findianajones4.gif&hash=58e6c31c3b0ac80971d0c271dd5c4d9d92197dce) (http://www.lightsoutentertainment.com/news/news.php?id=800)

Frank Darabont on Indiana Jones 4
Source: Alameda Times-Star, TheRaider.net  Saturday, August 9, 2003

Writer/director Frank Darabont talked to the Alameda Times-Star about penning Indiana Jones 4, which is targeted for a July, 2005 release.

"I absolutely don't want to do things like having him say, 'I'm getting to old for this s---,' " says Darabont. "I don't want to be slipping and sliding in cliches. This character is no longer in the 1930s. He has to age honestly. He's got to be in the 1950s."

He doesn't sound too worried about taking on such an indelible character. Darabont likes going from the director's chair to the screenwriter's lair.

"Clearly, you are using different muscles," he says. "One is a very isolated, focused endeavor. The other is a wildly not isolated incredibly focused effort."

He describes working on the Indiana Jones script as a "total blast." Darabont worked with Spielberg on the film "Saving Private Ryan," doing uncredited screenwriting work.

"Let's face it, what's not to like about Indiana Jones," he says. "I saw the first movie in 1981, five years before I started my writing career. Who knew I would grow up to write the sequel."

I notice Speilberg does some things in twos.  Hook and Jurassic Park had exotic, colorful sets. AI and Minority Report look the same and are set in the future. Catch Me If You Can has alot about planes and Terminal shall too. Whoo.

Indiana Jones IV
Source: Empire Online

Empire talked with Producer Frank Marshall recently who revealed the next film will rely more on practical effects than computer-generated trickery - "One of the things I enjoy about these movies is that they do recall the old cliffhanger serials of the thirties and forties. We didn't have computer effects in those days, we couldn't easily erase things and I think one of the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers lazy...In Raiders, that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the excitement and the creative energy on the set. We're not done with the script on Indy 4 but I think we're going to try and rely, like the first two movies, on realism and not try to do too many things with the computer...When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in the Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-Movie feel. We want to make Indy 4 like we made the first three".

Yay!

And when they did use CGI it was damn scary - the swirling, angleic spirits that suddenly turn into ghouls after the ark is opened.

That wasn't CGI. They didn't use CGI back then. It was all optical. CGI didn't start to become a real force until around 1988 or so...

Really!? If you could provide any further information into that process (not neccessarily just for Raiders) it would be much appreciated.

Disc 4 in the DVD box set will give you more info with this featurette:

The Light and Magic of Indiana Jones - In an era before computer-generated effects existed, Industrial Light and Magic managed to bring to life the unique world of Indiana Jones by using groundbreaking techniques in special and mechanical effects. The ILM wizards reveal how they employed miniatures, matte paintings, morphing and more to make Indy's spectacular quests and supernatural adventures believable.

Quote from: Frank Marshall, producerWe're not done with the script on Indy 4 but I think we're going to try and rely, like the first two movies, on realism and not try to do too many things with the computer...When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in the Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-Movie feel. We want to make Indy 4 like we made the first three.

In the new Premiere, Steven Spielberg says "I think the fourth film is going to include some digital stunts, because I dont want to put anybody in jeopardy.  Also, some of the things that are truly spectacular to watch will be done digitally, in order to keep up with the Jonses, so to speak."

This L.A. Times story on stunt men fits in nicely with the discussion...

http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2003-09-10/business/254168.shtml

John Rhys-Davies & Kate Capshaw on Indiana Jones 4
Source: Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2003

Fox News chatted with "Indiana Jones" series stars John Rhys-Davies ("The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) and Kate Capshaw about Indiana Jones 4 and possibly even more films.

John Rhys-Davies, who played Indie's faithful friend Sallah in "Raiders" and "Last Crusade," said he would love to reprise the role but that the project hinges on Spielberg, Lucas and Harrison.

"None of these guys are in it for the money, anymore," he said. "If they're doing it at all, it's got to be better and more remarkable than any one of the `Indiana Jones' films before. And that's a pretty tall order."

Spielberg's wife, Capshaw, was coy about the future during a question-and-answer session last weekend to promote the DVD release.

"There is a lot of demand for a '4' — and no doubt a 5, 6, 7 and 8 — I think George would just make as many as [Harrison and Spielberg] would like," Capshaw told Fox News later. "As long as you have those two guys interested, there will be another 'Indiana Jones.'"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Official Word on Indiana Jones 4
Source: TheRaider.net Monday, October 27, 2003

TheRaider.net has received an official update from Lucasfilm regarding Indiana Jones 4.

Currently, work is continuing on a final version of the screenplay for Indiana Jones 4, and and once all parties have signed off on the script and schedules permit, shooting will begin. Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford and George Lucas are all returning for this fourth Indiana Jones adventure. At this time, we have no details about the plot or other actors.

one of the best things about Indy 4 is that George Lucas may be doing something non SW related

Frank Marshall Talks Indiana Jones 4
Source: Indiana Jones Hub Monday, November 17, 2003

In a new interview with producer Frank Marshall at Indiana Jones Hub, he talked a bit more about Indiana Jones 4.

"It's going to totally be in the style and the tone of the first three. I mean, were not going to do anything different. We're not going to try and change things or modernize things. We're going to stick to what works, and we're probably going to be in the fifties. So, we're acknowledging that we're all a bit older and that's about all I can tell you except that Frank Darabont is writing it."

The complete interview is available at the link here... http://indianajones.ugo.com/movies/news.php?id=98

Frank Darabont Completes Indiana Jones 4 Script
Source: Variety

In a Variety article talking about Frank Darabont's Darkwoods Productions company signing a three-year first-look production deal with Paramount, he mentions that he has completed the script for the long-awaited Indiana Jones 4, which may shoot this year with Harrison Ford starring, Steven Spielberg directing and George Lucas executive producing. Paramount is hoping to distribute the film in 2005. "I've finished my work, so now it's in the hands of God, or Spielberg and Lucas if you prefer," said Darabont.

Indiana Jones 4 on Hold Again, Awaiting New Script
Source: Variety

Variety reports that the reunion of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford for Indiana Jones 4 is on hold again as a new script draft is commissioned. Paramount had hoped to get into production on a fourth film in 2004 for a 2005 release. Frank Darabont had been brought in to script a concept the trio liked, but apparently Lucas wasn't happy with the draft. They will now bring aboard another screenwriter to rewrite Darabont's script.

The trade added that Spielberg had no comment on his plans. Spielberg, Lucas and Ford have been trying for nearly a decade to mount one last Indiana Jones adventure, on the condition that all three had to love the concept and script before proceeding.

Finding an availability window for Spielberg, Ford and Lucas is daunting, and it is now looking like a 2005 production start at the earliest.

Ford, meanwhile, is considering other assignments, and Spielberg is likely to move on to The Rivals, written by Robin Swicord. The DreamWorks drama centers on the catfight between 19th century stage stars Sarah Bernhardt and Eleonora Duse for dominance of the legit stage. Production could begin in the fall or winter, depending on who Spielberg chooses to play the divas.

Spielberg is also said to be interested in a secret project said to be making the rounds.

what about the Secret Life of Walter Mitty?  or is that not happening anymore?

Quote from: MacGuffinIndiana Jones 4 on Hold Again, Awaiting New Script
Frank Darabont had been brought in to script a concept the trio liked, but apparently Lucas wasn't happy with the draft.

:roll:

I don't know what's more insulting: that Darabont was brought in to write the script, or that Lucas wasn't happy with it.

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI don't know what's more insulting: that Darabont was brought in to write the script, or that Lucas wasn't happy with it.

None of the above. Harrison Ford is geting old. HURRY. HURRY.

Haha.

Oh, man, you know this franchise is never gonna die.  You just know they're gonna be digging around for some pretty boy to play Indy's contrived grandson.  Hey, they have a legacy now, since they brought in Connery awhile back.

For fuck's sake guys... c'mon. Hurry up with the next Indy please...!!! I know what you mean, insulting that Lucas didn't like the script, he should take a serious look at the last 2 Star Wars... It'd be interesting to see Darabont's proposed script though (after they've finished -- if they ever do -- the movie though). All news on this subject would be much appreciated - thanks MacGuffin! Who's the new screenwriter they've brought it? Not Lucas!!!

Quote from: SleeplessWho's the new screenwriter they've brought it? Not Lucas!!!

Brett Ratner!!  8)

Quote from: chuckhimselfo

Quote from: SleeplessWho's the new screenwriter they've brought it? Not Lucas!!!

Brett Ratner.  8)

He's not even a writer.  If you want to scare us, you have to say something like Joe Eszterhas (though Lucas is scary enough).

No, but he is a writer!:

Writer - filmography

Whatever Happened to Mason Reese (1990)

EDIT: and speaking of Eszterhas (http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,1134377,00.html)...

Haha.  And I even checked his filmography and saw that before I posted.  But I figured, one film does not a writer make.

QuoteKeep in mind... this was last week... before the big announcements about how Lucas rejected the INDY 4 draft despite both Spielberg and Darabont feeling like they'd really nailed it. I'll have an official statement on this from one of the key players in the days ahead, but for now, let's see how we were feeling about the film just before the announcement...

From the AICN Jedi Council thingamajig. It hard to tell how how much of that stuff is just geek rambling (most of it I suppose) but its interesting if it turns out to be true.

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16995

Frank Darabont on the Indiana Jones 4 Script

Ain't-It-Cool-News attended the recent Santa Barbara Film Festival where Indiana Jones 4 screenwriter Frank Darabont explained why his script did not get the green light:

"The short and simple version of the Indiana Jones 4 situation is that after more than a year of working closely with Steven Spielberg developing the story, I had completed a screenplay that Steven loved and was hoping to shoot in July of this year. However, George Lucas had issues with the script and slammed on the brakes in order to rework the material himself. There is talk of enlisting another writer. Given that George is the producer, but even moreso because of their long and close friendship, Steven is deferring to George in this situation.

It is now up to them to try to find a common ground regarding the film. I wish them luck and hope their efforts result in something they're both excited about shooting. What, if anything, might remain of my work at the end of the process is anybody's guess, assuming the film even gets made at this point. As for me, I'm disappointed, but I'm putting the experience behind me and moving on with my life and my own projects."

Paramount had hoped to get into production on a fourth film in 2004 for a 2005 release, but it is now looking like a 2005 production start at the earliest.

here's proof that george lucas really is the anti-christ.

You gotta admire Darabont for that - he seems upset, but he's taking it all very graciously. He knows that Lucas is just gonna make a hash of it all.

So if the film is shit, we now know why.

I feel bad for Ford because by the time this film gets off the ground, he'll be long dead.

Ah, George. We used to play on the same team, remember?

Aussie working on Indiana Jones 4
Source: Moviehole

Australian screenwriter Stuart Beattie has been hired to rework the fourth "Indiana Jones" movie.

According to a loyal scooper, The "Pirates of the Caribbean" writer - he penned the screen story - was hired by Lucasfilm pretty much based on the success of that film. He's currently at work on a re-write of the newest script, with suggestions the film still might be ready for a release sometime in 2005.

Earlier this year, Frank Darabont was let go from the production after turning in a sequel script that didn't meet up "to either of the uber-beard's standards".

"With Beattie now attached to re-write and everything looking a lot better everyone's trying to clear their dates again - Ford, Lucas, Spielberg, Connery. Karen Allen and Kate Capshaw are part of the storyline too. Lots of reshuffling going on".

Beattie is currently also working on Mikael Håfström's "Derailed".

About That Indy IV Rewrite...
Pirates scribe might not be involved after all.
Source: IGN Filmforce

Last week, the big news for Indiana Jones fans was that Stuart Beattie of Pirates of the Caribbean fame was re-writing Frank Darabont's script for Indiana Jones IV. It's not really clear whether that's the case now, however.

Although it was Beattie himself who first told IF Magazine about his involvement with the Indy movie, The Indy Experience denies his claim, saying that they have been in contact with a Lucasfilm spokesperson on the subject. Whether Lucas and Spielberg are simply holding off on an announcement for now, or re-working the script themselves isn't clear, but what is fairly certain is that the final screenplay will differ significantly from Darabont's draft.

CHUD also adds that contrary to other reports, Spielberg and Harrison Ford were both happy with Darabont's story. Producer George Lucas was the lone dissenter, because he felt that the character-drive story needed a faster pace to it. This being the case, George Lucas himself might very well be editing the Indiana Jones IV script himself.

Hopefully, as has been the case with the previous Indy films, the collaboration between these veteran filmmakers will result in a film that taps the strengths and experience of each, rather than suffering the too-many-cooks malady.

Quote from: MacGuffin
This being the case, George Lucas himself might very well be editing the Indiana Jones IV script himself.

that silly Lucas....

I have a bad feeling about this...

Too many cooks this time...

Maybe they should just get Charlie Kaufman to interview Darabont, Lucas and Spielberg and write a script called "It's Only Human Nature to Struggle While Adapting to the Fact that Spielberg and Lucas Have Lost Their Eternal Sunshine When It Comes to a Spotless Indiana Jones."

I need a drink.

Quote from: Find Your Magali
I need a drink.

sounds like you already had one

Lucas Keeps Indiana Jones Fans Waiting

Hollywood director George Lucas is refusing to rush pre-production work on the fourth installment of his Indiana Jones franchise - because he'll only set cameras rolling when the script is "really good". The eagerly awaited return of the adventurous archaeologist - played by Harrison Ford in all three previous releases - has already been delayed after Lucas reportedly rejected The Shawshank Redemption film-maker Frank Darabont's script. But the Star Wars legend insists a new writer is now on board to fine tune the plot. And Lucas and director Steven Spielberg are in no hurry to start shooting the movie, because their perfectionist approach to movie-making means the fourth Jones will only hit cinema screens when it's deemed good enough to do the series justice. He tells website EmpireOnline.co.uk, "We are working on the next script. Another writer has started working on it. We're just not going to make it unless it's really good. One of the reasons I'm able to work with Steven so well is because every time we come to a disagreement we'll yield to the other one, which means we'll come up with a compromise that considers both sides, and one person isn't determined to have his way. It's what's best for the movie."

what the fuck does lucas know about scripts anyway? um, ::cough:: attack of the clones::cough

I hope Lucas adds some CGI Nazis to the fourth film.

LUCAS
(to Steven)
What if we send Indy to the planet where E.T. came from? Wouldn't it be a blast? Like, you know, Indy and E.T. That would make money... right?

STEVEN
You're a dick. Let's call the movie off and lemme go and make a movie about the true story of a man who eats through his nose. Tom Hanks is interested in the role.

:lol:

A New Map for Dr. Jones
Scribe Jeff Nathanson will try to please George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford with a fourth installment of the Indiana Jones franchise. Source: FilmStew.com

In February the project had been considered dead, but now George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford are turning to scribe Jeff Nathanson to resuscitate Indiana Jones. In order for the project to move on, Lucas, Spielberg and Ford will all have to give a thumbs up to the script, and Spielberg would have to move it to the front burner to get it into production in the near future.

Back in February, Lucas, Spielberg and Ford did not all agree on the script turned in by Frank Darabont. The project seemed dead, and each moved on to their separate projects.

Spielberg is currently working on an adaptation of the H.G. Wells sci-fi novel War of the Worlds, with Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning attached to star. Following that project, he was looking to returning to the 1972 Munich Olympic Games through a script from Eric Roth that examines the terrorist tragedy during the games. Angels in America scribe Tony Kushner is currently redrafting that script.

Lucas began work on the third installment of the Star Wars prequels, while Ford began reading various scripts. He's currently preparing to star in The Wrong Element and is attached to the sci-fi drama Godspeed.

For his part, Nathanson is not stranger to Spielberg. Nathanson penned the helmer's Catch Me If You Can and co-wrote The Terminal. Nathanson also drafted the Rush Hour films and recently made his directorial debut on the satirical comedy The Last Shot, starring Matthew Broderick and Alec Baldwin.

Hm, an Indy film filled with Comic Relief.
We uh don't uh exactly need that.

Quote from: AntiDumbFrogQuestionHm, an Indy film filled with Comic Relief.
We uh don't uh exactly need that.

Scarlett Set for 'Indiana Jones 4'?
Source: imdb

Harrison Ford is set for a new sidekick when he returns to the big screen as Indiana Jones - in the shape of actress Scarlett Johansson. Tom Cruise has been championing the Oscar nominee for a part in pal Steven Spielberg's fourth Indiana Jones movie as the pair work together on Armageddon drama War of the Worlds. Cruise has been working with Johansson on the third Mission: Impossible movie and he's convinced she'll be perfect for the new Jones film, according to Australia's NW Magazine. An insider says, "Steven was saying there is a shortage of young actresses who can carry off a strong role. He considered Natalie Portman, but she's too connected with Star Wars - Tom suggested Scarlett."

oscar nominee?

Quote from: Pubrickoscar nominee?

and 3 times golden globe nominee

she's not an oscar nominee.

Quote from: Pubrickshe's not an oscar nominee.

neither are you  :yabbse-grin:

New Indiana Jones 4 Script Done
What will Lucas think of this one?
 
In a new interview with Hollywood.com, producer George Lucas has revealed that a new script for the next Indiana Jones movie has been written, and he expects Steven Spielberg to drop by and show it to him any day now.

"I look forward to reading it and seeing if it's what we laid out in the first place. You never know," said Lucas, who is currently overseeing the final touches to Revenge of the Sith. Meanwhile, his effects company ILM is also finishing up Spielberg's War of the Worlds sci-fi epic.

Lucas explained something of the extensive script writes and re-writes that Indiana Jones IV has been through. "Oh yeah. I came up with this idea doing Young Indy, which has got to be about seven or eight years ago, and we've been through a number of scripts – six or eight scripts. Six scripts, two rewrites. So it's been down the path. There were certain aspects of it that Steven and Harrison [Ford] didn't like, and so we changed those, and then we laid out a version and it didn't come out the way it was supposed to, and then we did another version and it didn't come out, so we've just been going through this development hell, which happens once in a while. We'll see. When it comes out, it'll be different. Different, but the same."

Lucas also hinted that there might be a younger character involved alongside Dr. Jones, as well as the return of one or more characters from previous Indy films. "You need characters to make the film work. It's not just an adventure story. There's actually got to be human relationships in it."

Maybe if the Flanneled One likes what he reads, we will finally hear an announcement on Indiana Jones IV production.

Spielberg Commits to Shooting Indiana Jones IV
Could it arrive in late 2006?
 
Just the other day, George Lucas told an interviewer that a new script for Indiana Jones IV was finished, and that directing partner Steven Spielberg would be delivering it soon.

Well, Lucas – who is serving as producer on the new adventure film – has the script, and it sounds like he, Spielberg, and Harrison Ford are ready to get started. Lucas confirmed this in an interview with Time magazine (and quoted at The Indy Experience:

"You know, I said three's fine. And then I came up with an idea I thought was brilliant, so I told the other guys [Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford], and they kind of flipped out. It's vaguely in the realm of the supernatural. We have to accept the fact that Indiana Jones is an older man. But it's been hell getting a script out of it. Steven is committed to shooting it next year. I just got the latest script yesterday."

It's nice to hear that, like the previous three Indy movies, Indy 4 will continue to combine archaeology and pulp-fiction adventure with supernatural phenomena.

Depending on when next year Spielberg wants to shoot, we could be looking at a theatrical release in late 2006 or spring 2007.

I look forward to Indy 4.

I don't look forward to Indy 5, which will inevitably get made with a different actor as the lead.

Lucas Gives Indy 4 Script Thumbs Up
With Harrison's approval, it's ready to go.
Source: IGN.FilmForce
 
More news on the next Indiana Jones film emerged this week, and it's good. George Lucas has finally given his sanction to the script Steven Spielberg delivered a few weeks ago. The latest treatment, which is based on a rejected screenplay by veteran Frank Darabont, was written by Jeff Nathanson (Rush Hour 2). According to Variety, Nathanson and Lucas spent some time together at Lucas's place to go over the draft before declaring the new version a success.

Spielberg's decision to bring Nathanson in on the project seems to be working out well. Nathanson also reworked screenplays for Spielberg's recent dramas The Terminal and Catch Me If You Can.

Although the biggest obstacle facing Indiana Jones IV – getting Lucas's approval – appears to have been cleared, a few more hurdles remain. Actor Harrison Ford must give his approval to the script, and the moviemaking trio – producer Spielberg, producer Lucas, and Ford – need to coordinate their schedules. Spielberg in particular is currently busy with his drama picture based on the 1972 Munich Olympics (currently titled Vengeance), and Ford will soon be shooting the science fiction film Godspeed.

With any luck, we'll soon be hearing a pre-production announcement for Indiana Jones IV. The final outing of adventurer-archaeologist Henry Jones Jr. could make it to theaters in 2006.

''Approved'' Indy Script Still Under Revision
Producer says it could be ready soon, though.
 
Steven Spielberg's longtime producing partner, Kathleen Kennedy, says that while Lucas and Spielberg have both approved Jeff Nathanson's latest draft for Indiana Jones IV, there's still work to be done on the script before the project is officially greenlit.

"I know this sounds like something that we've been saying for 15 years, but I'm hoping that we're going to see something in a couple of months," Kennedy told Now Playing Magazine. "Jeff Nathanson is working on the script right now; I will say this: If it comes in and we're all happy with it, it will be more than likely the next thing we do."

Kennedy suggested that while the screenplay is by and large complete, there is still some "finesse" to be added to it. She also did not think that Harrison Ford's age would negatively affect the film. "Certainly we're not writing the script as though [Indiana Jones is] 20 years old. You know, Sean Connery spent a lot of time in the Bond role and whatnot. I think it's great that we can go make another Indiana Jones movie and Indy can be a little older. I think playing with that is a good thing."

Kennedy would not reveal any more details about the story, other than that it takes place in the late '40s. That would make Dr. Jones chronologically about 10 years older than in The Last Crusade. While Ford is actually 18 years older this time around, it shouldn't be impossible to pull off.

Indy 4: Not Just Talk
Contracts negotiated, schedules readied.

More good news is trickling in that should squelch doubts that one more Indiana Jones adventure could find its footing.

SKNR is reporting that "the ball is rolling" (perhaps that same one that chased Indiana in Raiders), and that contract negotiations with all the important people – Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford – are in progress. A certain amount of bargaining is to be expected – the lucrative arrangements that those three ultimately agree to will most likely include a share of the box office and DVD profits.

It is still believed that Sean Connery is not involved in the project at this point.

The Indy Experience adds more details from another source: Lucas and screenwriter Jeff Nathanson should have the current script – which is by and large approved already – tweaked and production-ready by fall; and Spielberg is scheduling Indiana Jones 4 to be his next project once Munich is done.

The site hears that February 2007 is the projected release date – a somewhat odd month to choose (Passion of the Christ is the only major blockbuster to ever have opened in February). SKNR suggests Summer 2007 as a more likely window for the next Indiana Jones.

Michelle Yeoh in Indy 4
Crouching Tiger's heroine might co-star in the adventure.

It's been rumored before, but it sounds like Chinese-Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh, star of the epic Chinese film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, may indeed be one of Harrison Ford's female co-stars in Indiana Jones IV. According to Michelle Yeoh Web Theatre and The Indy Experience.com, the news came to light during a recent visit by Steven Spielberg to the set of Memoirs of a Geisha – in which Yeoh has a leading role. Spielberg, who was there in his capacity as a producer, was overheard to tell Yeoh, "Don't forget we are supposed to work together on an Indiana Jones sequel."

It was reported on previous occasions in 1998 and 2000 that Yeoh was in talks with Spielberg for a part. That seems likely now, if the new Indy movie goes forward next year as planned.

Movie File: Indiana Jones
Source: MTV News

Harrison Ford's not getting any younger (and Karen Allen's not getting any more relevant), so fans can't help but wonder: When, exactly, are we going to see the long-promised fourth Indiana Jones movie? "We just keep working on it," shrugged series writer/producer George Lucas. "You know, we just write and write and write and write and write. But we are getting closer, and hopefully this year we will have a start date and we will have a script that we all love and hopefully it will come out next year." Lucas added that Jeff Nathanson ("Catch Me if You Can") is the newest addition to a pile of screenwriters bigger than the Cairo swordsman's weapon of choice. Ford has said that he will reprise his whip-wielding adventurer role for the first time since 1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," and Steven Spielberg is making plans to direct. ...

This is totally speculation, but I smell a big problem with this film.  In particular, I have a feeling that Spielberg and Lucas are having a major disagreement about what the story should be.  I'm only basing this on the reports that Spielberg and Ford loved the Darabont script and then Lucas vetoed it and declared that he himself would work on the writing of the script.  I'm sure Spielberg likes his friend a lot, but even he has to realize that despite Lucas' imagination and creativity, he is a horrible screenwriter, and I can only surmise that there are major and maybe even insurmountable creative disagreements going on there.  Spielberg has become so successful and independent that it must be hard to allow anyone that kind of veto power over his work.  One strength that Spielberg has is that he realizes his limitations as a writer, will write what he can (like A.I., and Close Encounters) but leave the rest to more talented writers.  I think Lucas' hubris will be the undoing of this project and I really have my doubts that it will happen.  That said, this is all just me speculating out of thin air.

haha, it makes sense that you wouldn't get pozer's joke in the "OIL!" thread.

Madsen Favorite To Play Indiana Jones' Girl

Sideways star Virginia Madsen so impressed co-star Harrison Ford in new thriller Firewall, she's now the frontrunner to play his love interest in the fourth Indiana Jones adventure. Madsen plays Ford's wife in the new movie and admits they both found an unusual chemistry on set - after the ageing action man handpicked her for the role. And now Madsen is a clear favorite to play the leading lady in Indiana Jones 4. Ford tells movieline.net, "She was an absolute delight - professional, very talented and simply, very sweet. She also took what could have been a fairly one-dimensional damsel in distress role and added so many layers to it - there isn't many who could do that. I'd work with her again in a heartbeat. I'm actually hoping she'll come over for Indiana Jones. We've talked about it."

Damn... she is a great actreess but if they expect Indiana Jones to be a hit again they need someone way hotter!

Quick, delete your post before someone sees it!  Oh... too late.

Steven Spielberg to Take a Year Off
Source: Fox411 March 6, 2006

Fox News columnist Roger Friedman talked to Steven Spielberg at the Academy Governor's Ball last night and says that the director revealed he is taking a year off after having produced and directed both War of the Worlds and Munich.

Spielberg said that he does not have a project on the front burner right now. His main work in 2006 will be preparing his Abraham Lincoln film with award-winning author Doris Kearns Goodwin, and acting as a producer, not director, on several other smaller projects.

He was also asked about the highly-anticipated Indiana Jones 4. Spielberg said he will still direct the film, which, given the fact he is taking some time off, might be a while.

Jeff Nathanson wrote the latest draft of the "Indy 4" script, but he has been succeeded by David Koepp.

"I have David Koepp on it now, and he's my 'closer,'" Spielberg said, using a baseball reference to the pitcher who comes in during the 9th inning and finishes up a winning ball game.

"He wrote 'Spider-Man' and 'War of the Worlds,'" Spielberg added, "so he'll get it done."

Harrison Ford is gonna be dead by the time they do this thing.

Indy 4: Is There a Consensus?
Ford and Lucas say it's ready to go.

We've heard a lot of things about the Indiana Jones IV script lately. Lucas suggested that a draft by Jeff Nathanson (Rush Hour, Catch Me if You Can) had been approved and was ready to shoot, while director Steven Spielberg said he was having War of the Worlds collaborator David Koepp work on it some more.

The latest from star Harrison Ford, however, is that Spielberg does have a script he is satisfied with. "Steven Spielberg and I now have a script in hand that we both like. I believe that we can start with the filming soon," the actor told German magazine Fit for Fun, according to E! Online.

Spielberg's publicist Marvin Levy also told E! Online, "[The script] certainly seems to be [in the can], but I don't think we're at that point where we have a firm start date. But this is certainly the closest where we've been in this whole development process."

Lucas spoke about Indy IV again this week, this time with Time magazine. "I've been working on Indy 4 for ten years. So I've been more involved, so no matter how you count it on this one I'll be more involved than I'll have ever been on the other three put together. It's taken forever to get a script of it. That's my part of it."

Lucas also gave a caution, apparently aimed at the same sort of fan base that had conjured up their own ideas of what the Star Wars prequels would be like and then came away disappointed. "You know the problem there, which is not a problem, is that we don't have to make that movie. All we can do is hurt ourselves, all it's going to do is get criticized. I mean it's basically Phantom Menace we're making. No matter how you do it, no matter what you do, it won't be what the other ones were in terms of the impact or the way people remember them."

Lucas also mentioned that Spielberg was planning to use his own tried-and-true film techniques while making Indy IV, instead of Lucas's cutting-edge digital technology.

"He'll win. He's the director. The great thing about working with Steven is that we don't have agendas. We want to make the best movie possible, I want him to be happy. If he wants to shoot it on film and cut it on a Movieola... Hey, he's got a great editor. Michael Kahn can cut faster on a Movieola than anybody can cut on an Avid. And I don't really care."

So where do things stand now? A high-level production source has confirmed for IGN FilmForce that, as was previously reported , Spielberg is indeed taking a year off, despite all the recent progress on the Indy IV front. Script revisions will continue, as will development on the Oscar winner's long-planned Abraham Lincoln project. Hang in there, Indy fans!

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 20, 2006, 12:41:06 AM
"I mean it's basically Phantom Menace we're making."

I just got a shiver all up and down my spine.








***TANGENT WARNING***

Here's what drives me crazy about George Lucas... the man honestly believes that the reason the new Star Wars trilogy is criticized is because people had heightened expectations, or they're being unfairly compared to the original trilogy.  If anything, people cut those movies a tremendous amount of slack, just because they're part of the Star Wars Whatever.  Those movies are awful.  Incompetently awful, no matter how you slice it.  Sorry, George.  You seem like a nice guy, but you're delusional.

***END TANGENT***

Quote from: polkablues on March 20, 2006, 01:08:19 AM
***TANGENT WARNING***

Here's what drives me crazy about George Lucas... the man honestly believes that the reason the new Star Wars trilogy is criticized is because people had heightened expectations, or they're being unfairly compared to the original trilogy.  If anything, people cut those movies a tremendous amount of slack, just because they're part of the Star Wars Whatever.  Those movies are awful.  Incompetently awful, no matter how you slice it.  Sorry, George.  You seem like a nice guy, but you're delusional.

***END TANGENT***

***CONTINUING TANGENT WARNING***

Oh George Lucas...don't even get me started. I am a die-hard Star Wars fan. The originals are just my favorite movies of all time, and always will be. Being such an insane fan, I do like the new movies....but they were definitely nothing compared to the old ones. The story (I suppose that's the word I want to use) is just so drab compared to the old movies. It may contribute to the fact that you know what to expect, they just gave it a little life, but it seems like they were just thrown together without much work. Especially once you get to the third one. Hayden Christiansen's acting was absolutely putrid. I went to the midnight premeire, and I laughed...a LOT...at lines that weren't supposed to be funny. I'm just a little bit upset by it all. I think I went off on my own tangent. But hey, I'm posting again, so yay me.

Revenge of the Sith is good.  Real good.  As good as Return of the Jedi good.

That is all.

Quote from: killafilm on April 03, 2006, 12:47:05 AM
Revenge of the Sith is good.  Real good.  As good as Return of the Jedi good.

That is all.

You're smoking crack.

That is all.

My crack addiction is beside the point.

I liked Revenge....I mean, the action was good, but the dialogue in that movie was the worst I have ever seen.....ever.....in my life. (Or heard, I suppose would be the proper term)

Worst the AOTC?

The only parts of dialog i'd say where questionable would be between Anakin and Padme.  And that clocks into what, like a 10th of the movies total running time.  People also seem to forget some of the AWFUL delivery in the OT.  If you enjoy the OT I don't see how the second half of the movie isn't one of the most visceral/depressing/what have yous of recent cinema. 

What I think is really going to let ROTS pass the test of the time is the impact it was on the three films that follow it in the story.  It changes everything.  Everything becomes a bit more sad.  The way Lucas has built visual links throughout the two trilogies is great.


'The Empire Strikes Back'

By Judith Martin
Washington Post Staff Writer
May 23, 1980
To call "The Empire Strikes Back" a good junk movie is no insult: There is enough bad junk around. And surely we're getting over the snobbery of pretending that it is undemocratic to recognize any hierarchy of culture, as if both low and high can't be appreciated, often be the same people.

But when light entertainment is done well, someone is bound to make extravagant and unsupportable claims for its being great art. You will hear that this sequel to "Star Wars" is part of a vast new mythology, as if it were the Oresteia. Its originator, George Lucas, has revealed that the two pictures are actually parts four and five of a nine-part sage, as if audiences will some day receive the total the way devotees now go to Seattle for a week of immersion in Wagner's complete Ring Cycle.

Nonsense. This is no monumental artistic work, but a science-fiction movie done more snappily than most, including its own predecessor. A chocolate bar is a marvelous sweet that does not need to pretend to be a chocolate soufflé; musical comedies are wonderful entertainment without trying to compete with opera; blue jeans are a perfect garment that shouldn't be compared with haute couture. There are times when you would much rather have a really good hot dog than any steak, but you can still recognize that one is junk food and the other isn't.

"The Empire Strikes Back" has no plot structure, no character studies let alone character development, no emotional or philosophical point to make. It has no original vision of the future, which is depicted as a pastiche of other junk-culture formulae, such as the western, the costume epic and the Would War II movie. Its specialty is "special effects" or visual tricks, some of which are playful, imaginative and impressive, but others of which have become space-movie clichés.

But the total effect is fast and attractive and occasionally amusing. Like a good hot dog, that's something of an achievement in a field where unpalatable junk is the rule.

In this film, as in "Star Wars," a trio of nice, average-looking young people (Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, Harrison Ford as Han Solo and Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia) is pursued by a sinister figure in black mask and cloak, Darth Vader. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Skywalker is dull-witted -- for various reasons, he is hanging upside down during most of this film and is always having to be rescued by the others -- but brave young heroes traditionally are.

There are new bad robots, as well as the good robots, C-3PO and R2-D2, whose humanistic fussiness charmed audiences in the earlier film. A new puppet, representing a great guru but looking like an elderly, Eastern rodent, is a success; an invented beast of burden that looks like the rear half of a cheap camel costume is not. The monkish character played by Alec Guinness is back with sparkling lights on his shoulders and a transparent body to indicate that he was killed off in "Star Wars."

The Future is no longer quite pictured as belonging to white males plus one pedestal princess in a white gown. The princess has put on more sensible clothes for wartime, and there is exactly one other woman in the universe, who can be glimpsed working at the home base. There is one black, Billy Dee Williams as a man who seems to have been set up with his own planet by the Small Business Administration and keeps complaining that he has "no choice" about betraying everyone.

At the beginning and end of the new film, the bad Empire and the good Rebellion are still at odds. The fact is that there is no beginning or end, just several middle-of-the-story chases -- one on ice, several using spacecraft in airplane dog-fight style, and some classic duels, except that the swords are laser beams and use of the mystical "Force" means that one can will one's weapon back in hand after it is knocked away.

As for the idea of the Force, it is a mishmash of current cultic fashions without any base in ideas. It doesn't seem to be connected with ethics or a code of decent behavior, either. Shywalker is never called to account for having behaved unpleasantly to his guru before knowing who he is -- even to the extent of knocking food out of the hungry guru's hand. How many religions of any kind would tolerate a disciples having refused to share his food with his disguised spiritual leader?

But then, you don't go to junk movies for your philosophy or religion, do you?



And to get back on track, Raiders is the best of the Indy films.

New Indy Details
Story timeline and possible shooting locations.

Is Indiana Jones headed Down Under? Australia's Herald Sun newspaper recently caught up with producer Frank Marshall who hinted at that very possibility and gave an expected timeline for the film's story.

Marshall, who was in Australia promoting Eight Below, said, "My job as producer is to get the movie made so if I can do it better and cheaper here in Australia, then I am going to do it.  Australia is a definite possibility for Indiana Jones and a couple of other things I am working on at the moment." He also gave Europe and the United States as other possible production locales for the long-awaited film.

Indiana Jones 4 is expected to go into production next year, once Steven Spielberg returns from his planned year-long filmmaking hiatus. At last report, the much-delayed script for the film now appears to have been completed to the satisfaction of all parties involved. The supposedly approved script was penned by Jeff Nathanson (Rush Hour, Catch Me if You Can) with a final polish by David Koepp.

And while we don't know anything about the film's storyline, Marshall has revealed that the film will take place roughly a decade after the events of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. "It is going to be 10 or 12 years later," said Marshall. By our calculations, that would place it roughly around 1948-50.

George Lucas Says Indiana's Next Crack Of The Whip Will Be Tamer
Writer/producer says he's finished writing script to sequel.
Source: MTV

NEW YORK — George Lucas is looking for a lot more than just fortune and glory these days.

Contrary to how Hollywood usually hypes its blockbusters, the writer/producer says Indiana Jones' next adventure actually won't be any louder, bigger or faster than his last one. In fact, if Lucas gets his way (hint: he usually does), the Jones sequel will prize dialogue over decibels.

"I think Tom Cruise proved that people are getting bored with that kind of stuff," Lucas said Monday at a Jazz at Lincoln Center dinner celebrating Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people. "What they want to see is something different. And 'Indiana Jones,' if nothing else, is always different."

And Lucas is, if nothing else, reliably vague. He's not yet ready to give up the treasure trove of what lurks in the plot for the first "Indiana Jones" movie since 1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," except to say the script is finally done and the flick will "probably" start shooting next year.

"We're working on it, we're working on it," Lucas said. "We've been working on it for 10 years. I think it'll be a great film, but it's completely different. It's still got a lot of action, and it's still very funny. I think it works like crazy."

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 11, 2006, 03:16:43 PM
George Lucas Says Indiana's Next Crack Of The Whip Will Be TLamer

I'll give you 5 bucks if you change your avatar.

for 5 bucks his avatar will do a lot more than change!

:] Nice.

Calling Sean Connery -- You're Needed in Indy 4

Sean Connery supposedly retired from the movie business last year because he can't take the "idiots" working in Hollywoood, but now he's being called back into action. George Lucas told Access Hollywood that Connery is needed to reprise his role of Henry Jones in Indiana Jones 4. "We are writing him in whether he wants to do it or not," said Lucas, who serves as executive producer on the franchise. The two were united Thursday night, along with Harrison Ford, at AFI's Lifetime Achievement Award ceremony, where Connery was honored.

Indiana Summer
A release date is announced but will it hold?

The Licensing 2006 International trade show takes place this week in New York City, with Hollywood and various entertainment companies peddling their stories and characters to merchandise companies of all stripes.

LucasFilm is among the film companies in attendance, says The Hollywood Reporter, and they've announced their current plans for Indiana Jones IV in order to arrange merchandising partners.

Summer 2008 is the rough date chosen for Indy's final adventure — and that date is probably the studio's last crack at the whip if they want to make it before Harrison Ford is too old. That probably also means production will happen in early 2007.

In addition, a new Indiana Jones video game is set for release in 2007 by LucasArts. Expect numerous tie-ins with that as well, as the hype for the movie begins to build.

Final Indiana Script Soon
Spielberg's man still polishing story.

Spielberg's writer and collaborator on War of the Worlds, David Koepp, is still polishing off the screenplay for Indiana Jones IV to the director's satisfaction, if an industry report at The Hollywood Reporter is accurate.

Although producers George Lucas and Frank Marshall have both claimed to have a satisfactory script in-hand, the tinkering continues. A final draft is expected in two or three months. Although Sean Connery is apparently being written into the story as Indy's father again, there's no confirmation of him joining the production yet.

The next and final Indiana Jones adventure, starring Harrison Ford in his familiar role, is expected to bow in the summer of 2008. To keep that schedule, production should commence in early 2007. Lucas, Spielberg, and Marshall have been mum so far as to the story and potential shooting locales.

Quote from: MacGuffin on June 23, 2006, 11:03:23 PM
David Koepp

Since when was this motherfucker writing the script?  Haven't people learned from the massive quality difference between Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 to never hire David Koepp?  The only thing I've liked that he's written is the first Jurassic Park... and maybe Death Becomes Her.  But those were early works, and he's lost whatever little spark that he might have ever had.

This movie will suck; just remember that I called it 2 years in advance and specifically cited a major reason why.  That and also neither Harrison Ford, George Lucas, nor Sean Connery have been involved in a good movie in a long time.  Spielberg is still great, even if his movies aren't perfect--he's way the hell more advanced than the rest of these guys, and they'll just be dragging him down when he should go off and do something better.

Eh fuck it.

Quote from: matt35mm on June 24, 2006, 03:34:32 AM

Quote from: MacGuffin on June 23, 2006, 11:03:23 PM
David Koepp

Since when was this motherfucker writing the script?

Page 5:

Quote from: modage on March 06, 2006, 06:11:03 PM"I have David Koepp on it now, and he's my 'closer,'" Spielberg said, using a baseball reference to the pitcher who comes in during the 9th inning and finishes up a winning ball game.

"He wrote 'Spider-Man' and 'War of the Worlds,'" Spielberg added, "so he'll get it done."

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 20, 2006, 12:41:06 AM
We've heard a lot of things about the Indiana Jones IV script lately. Lucas suggested that a draft by Jeff Nathanson (Rush Hour, Catch Me if You Can) had been approved and was ready to shoot, while director Steven Spielberg said he was having War of the Worlds collaborator David Koepp work on it some more.

Quote from: MacGuffin on April 03, 2006, 07:54:35 PMAt last report, the much-delayed script for the film now appears to have been completed to the satisfaction of all parties involved. The supposedly approved script was penned by Jeff Nathanson (Rush Hour, Catch Me if You Can) with a final polish by David Koepp.

I think I read those and blocked it out, but thanks.

I dunno, the most brilliant part about the indiana jone series is how the action sequences are handled, with equal parts of tension and humor, a mix between what seems familiar and fresh twists.  I've also never heard lucas and speilberg taking this long writing their scripts before.  they don't need a polished script, they need one with energy and childlike excitement.  does koepp have that?  the action scenes in all of his previous stuff all seem pretty standard dramatic stuff.  close calls and whatnot.

Portman Lands Role in Indy 4???
by Erik Davis; Cinematical

I knew I wanted to go to the movies Friday night, but I wasn't sure what to see. There was no way I would be fighting the crowds at Dead Man's Chest and, while I almost went to see Wassup Rockers at the Angelika, I decided to go a different route. After reading Chris' post on the Raiders of the Lost Ark screening here in NYC, the thought of seeing Indy back up on the big screen was just too tempting. Besides, Karen Allen was doing a Q & A afterward and that's a pretty nifty bonus.

Long story short, the film was awesome, as expected. However, when it came time for the Q & A, I sat patiently and waited as I knew one of the first questions asked would be, "So, will you be involved in Indiana Jones 4?" And what do you know, it was the third question. Now, here's where things get interesting. Allen begins to talk about Indy 4 in a very "I have no idea what's going on" kind of way, however, you could tell she knew more then she was letting on.

She did say there were whispers the script was calling for both Allen's character and Kate Capshaw's character from Temple of Doom to reunite with Indiana Jones in the fourth installment. Though nothing was certain, the way she said it made the rumor seem to be much more than just a rumor. And then she dropped the bomb folks. As she delves into this next bit of info, for a brief moment, she hesitates before saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Oh, and I just heard Natalie Portman was cast as Indy's daughter." Now, I seem to recall way back in the day, the Portman rumors were out there -- what with George Lucas having just shot three films with the girl. But is it now a done deal? Immediately after the Portman line, Allen switched topics, reverting back to an earlier question. As if she knew she shouldn't have said anything. Of course, this is all still part of one giant rumor, but if I were a betting man, something big will be announced soon.

I'm not sure if I really see that working.  But I loves me some Indy and I really really loves me some Portman.  So...

Spielberg, Ford and Lucas on Indy IV
Exclusive: Dream team talk sequel
Source: Empire Online

Getting one of the Indiana Jones triumvirate to talk about the fourth sequel is a rare opportunity, but getting George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford to spill at the same time is as infrequent as finding a needle in a haystack under some hen's teeth on a blue moony night at the end of a month of Sundays.

But Empire was lucky enough to speak with the trio as part of our massive Indiana Jones 25th anniversary celebrations and it seems that Indy IV is going to be a tad controversial.

"We're basically going to do The Phantom Menace", says Lucas (stay with him here, he's making a point). "People's expectations are way higher than you can deliver. You could just get killed for the whole thing...We would do it for fun and just take the hit with the critics and the fans...But nobody wants to get into it unless they are really happy with it".

The 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation has freed up an idea for a plot that was originally deemed too incendiary.

"I discovered a McGuffin," continues Lucas, still reluctant to name said McGuffin. "I told the guys about it and they were a little dubious about it, but it's the best one we've ever found... Unfortunately, it was a little too 'connected' for the others. They were afraid of what the critics would think. They said, "Can't we do it with a different McGuffin? Can't we do this?" and I said "No". So we pottered around with that for a couple of years. And then Harrison really wanted to do it and Steve said, "Okay". I said, "We'll have to go back to that original McGuffin and take out the offending parts of it and we'll still use that area of the supernatural to deal with it".

"Hopefully it will be different in all the right ways and the same in all the familiar ways," adds Spielberg.

As for timing, Lucas says that filming is scheduled for mid-2007, for a 2008 release but getting the gang back together is a tricky proposition. "Before I was just working with Steven and Harrison. Now everybody's a superstar, so it's a little bit more difficult than it was then". "But there's a good chance it will happen," assures Ford. "There are things left for this character to do".


The Empire special tribute issue to Indiana Jones will be available on newsstands this Friday, while "Indiana Jones 4" will be in a theater near you in 2008 if all goes well!

Is it too late for Indy?
Another "Raiders of the Lost Ark" movie seems to be finally in the works, but will fans still care?
Source: Los Angeles Times

Twenty-five years ago three great and mighty gods of entertainment came together to create the best B-movie the world had ever seen. Their names were Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford, and what they bestowed upon the world, in June 1981, was "Raiders of the Lost Ark" — the first of three films starring a brave and vulnerable whip-cracking adventure seeker named Indiana Jones.

After "Raiders," the gods delivered "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," which was followed by "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Even though there was that telling word "last" in the final film, Indiana Jones' fans cried out for more. The three great gods said they might make a fourth film, and then didn't and then said they might, and then didn't and so it has been ever since.

Now, Empire magazine tells us that the almighty triumvirate is planning to make a fourth installment of the Indiana Jones franchise for release sometime in 2008. But can the Indiana Jones fanatics trust this prophecy? And does anybody even care about Indiana Jones anymore?

Brandon Gray, the super smart brains behind Box Office Mojo was hesitant to speak definitively about whether the current cinema market could sustain a fourth Indiana Jones movie — but that didn't stop him from speaking.

"It's hard to say," he said. "The Indiana Jones trilogy is a beloved movie series, so it depends on what Mr. Lucas and Mr. Ford have cooked up for the fourth picture. It depends on the story and how they plan to resurrect Indiana Jones, but audiences are always game for a fun adventure picture, and with the success of 'Pirates of the Caribbean' there may be room for another one."

Gray does not think that Harrison Ford's age is a problem (the actor turned 64 in July).

"That's not a huge issue," he said. 'It is more are they going to have a story worth resurrecting Indiana Jones for."

As for whether die-hard Indiana Jones fans are excited about a fourth installment of Indy, it doesn't seem clear. Aaron Grant, the 19-year-old creator and webmaster of TheIndyExperience.com said he could go either way.

"I certainly wouldn't mind it. I can imagine one day if I'm sitting in a theater about to watch it I'll be 'giddy as a schoolboy,' to quote Indiana Jones himself. But if they don't do it in the next three years it will probably be too late."

Grant's site is one of the few Indiana Jones fan sites that continue to be updated regularly, and if he's not jumping out of his skin in anticipation of another Indy movie, it doesn't seem like the best idea to do an expensive remake.

On the other hand, Grant may just be jaded by what the three gods have promised in the past.

"We've all been down the path of it's going to happen, then nothing gets done, it's going to happen, and now we'll just have to wait and see," he said. "There has been a lot of ups and downs and I think people get frustrated. But I assure you everybody keeps it in perspective. We have our three films, we have the Young Indy series and all these video games. There is a substantial Indy world. We would have loved it if they could have made it like James Bond and kept putting movies out, but it's sort of like an alignment of the planets...it never happened."

Cast and Crew of Indy 4 talk
Source: Moviehole

In their special 'Indiana Jones' themed issue this month, Empire Magazine Australia caught up with team players Harrison Ford, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Karen Allen, John Rhys-Davies, Vic Armstrong and Producer Frank Marshall to get the latest – and once again, nothing very special at the update they give – on the sluggishly-moving fourth "Indy" adventure.

Lucas says he never wanted to do a fourth one, because it's too hard to come up with a MacGuffin, but Spielberg and Ford were dead keen.

Spielberg does state, however, that it still isn't a sure thing. "Indy has made his mark. It will be said if there is never another Indy Jones movie. But at the same time, if there is, it will be wonderful. If there isn't, I'm happy with he memories of the last three".

There is a script though, says Lucas. "I discovered a MacGuffin. So I told the guys and they were a little dubious about it, but it's the best one we've ever found".

Spielberg and Ford liked Lucas's idea, but thought it was a bit "too connected", so it's been tweaked since. In fact, Spielberg asked Lucas to change the 'MacGuffin' at one point, but the former held his ground and won.

The compromise?

"I said, 'We'll have to go back to that original MacGuffin, but I'll take out the offending parts of it and we'll still use that area of the supernatural".

Producer Frank Marshall says they're not going to infest the film – despite it being a supernatural film – with special effects.

"We're going to shoot them like we did the last three, not jazz up the effects or make them more unbelievable than they were", he says, adding that Ford will be doing his own stunts in the movie.

Not that there will be a lot of stunts, because Indy will be aged in the movie. "It's going to be at least 10 years after the last one. I mean, he's not going to try and play what he was in Last Crusade".

Vic Armstrong, captain stunts himself, says he's been contacted about doing "three fantastic stunt sequences" in the film.

Karen Allen, rumoured to be reprising her role as Marion (from "Raiders of the Lost Ark") for the film, says she thinks there might be something to rumours that Natalie Portman has been asked to play Indy's daughter in the film. "When my character wakes up on the Pirate ship [in Raiders], it occurred to me they had their wonderful thing in bed...I was thinking, Hmm, she's dark haired....".

Rhys-Davies, expected to reprise his role as Sallah, says, "Spielberg, Lucas and Ford are no longer in it just to make money, they're in it to write another chapter in the history of film. If you hear that the new Indiana Jones is being made, it will because those three men are absolutely committed to the greatest Indiana Jones film of all."

"Indy 4" – should it happen – will film in 2007, and be released the following year.

Indiana Jones 4 Update
Source: Variety

Variety talked to "Star Wars" creator George Lucas, who says that Lucasfilm is getting out of the movie business. "We don't want to make movies. We're about to get into television. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned, we've moved away from the feature film thing, because it's too expensive and it's too risky. I think the secret to the future is quantity. Because that's where it's going to end up."

Having said that, Lucasfilm's exit from feature films is not instant or absolute. Indiana Jones 4 is still in development. "Steve (Spielberg) and I are still working away, trying to come up with something we're happy with. Hopefully in a short time we will come to an agreement. Or something," Lucas said.

He is also working on a film about the Tuskegee airmen of World War II called Red Tails. "I've been working on that for about 15 years," he said, adding he's also been working on "Indy 4" for 15 years.

And Lucas Animation does plan to start making feature films -- eventually. "Right now we're doing television, which looks great. I'm very very happy with it," he said of his animation division. "And out of doing the animation, we're getting the skill set and the people and putting the studio in place so we can do a feature. But it's probably going to be another year before we have the people and the systems in place to do a feature film."

Lucas calls himself "semi-retired" but reiterated his plans to direct, "small movies, esoteric in nature," after his other projects are launched. He expects to serve as executive producer on the two features and the TV shows, including the live-action "Star Wars" series.

Quote from: MacGuffin on October 05, 2006, 02:45:41 AM
"I think the secret to the future is quantity."

wow, way to imply that TV sucks! 

Harrison Ford: I'm still 'fit' to play Indiana Jones

ROME, Italy (AP) -- Harrison Ford says he feels "fit to continue" to play Indiana Jones despite growing older.

Ford, 64, said at the inaugural Rome Film Festival on Friday that he was delighted to team up again with directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas for the film. Lucas co-wrote and executive produced the earlier films, which Spielberg directed.

"We did three films that stay within the same block of time. We need to move on for artistic reasons and obvious physical reasons," Ford said at a news conference. "I feel fit to continue and bring the same physical action."

"Indiana Jones 4" has been in development for over a decade, but the production has recently gained momentum. Lucas has said he and Spielberg, who would direct, are working on a script, though no details have been disclosed.

Ford played Indiana Jones in 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark," 1984's "Temple of Doom" and 1989's "The Last Crusade." In the last film, Jones' father was played by Sean Connery, who Ford said might also appear in the planned fourth feature.

"He's part of the emotional fabric of these films. I think there may be an opportunity, I believe that Sean is still willing and I'd be delighted if he joined us," said Ford.

Connery, who attended the Rome event last week, has said that no offer had been made.

Ford declined to provide details about a shooting schedule or film locations, adding that the directors were not yet finished with the script.

"I think it's a real opportunity to make a film as successful ... as the ones we've made before," he said.

INDIANA JONES AND THE WASTED SCREENPLAY
Source: CHUD

This evening I got on the phone with Frank Darabont to talk about next week's special edition 2 disc set of The Green Mile. I made sure to ask him about his upcoming projects, but I couldn't help asking him about his participation in Indiana Jones IV. Darabont had spent a lot of time working on that script, which supposedly dealt with Indy investigating UFOs in the 50s, but his version was eventually scrapped. After that, Darabont announced he wouldn't be working as a screenwriter anymore but would be directing full time. I had to get the inside scoop.

Q: How difficult is it when someone takes a script of yours and then never makes it? I'm thinking of the whole Indiana Jones thing.

Darabont: That was the most frustrating of all, and that was the straw that broke the back of me wanting to continue in that line of work. That was terrifically frustrating. I worked for over a year on that; I worked very close with Steven Spielberg. He was ecstatic with the result and was ready to shoot it two years ago. He was very, very happy with the script and said it was the best draft of anything since Raiders of the Lost Ark. That's really high praise and gave me a real sense of accomplishment, especially when you love the material you're working on as much as I love the Indiana Jones films.

And then you have George Lucas read it and say, 'Yeah, I don't think so, I don't like it.' And then he resets it to zero when Spielberg is ready to shoot it that coming year, [which] is a real kick to the nuts. You can only waste so much time and so many years of your life on experiences like that, you can only get so emotionally invested and have the rug pulled out from under you before you say enough of that.

Q: Coming from an insider's perspective on that whole thing, do you think that movie's ever going to happen?

Darabont: I don't think so. I don't think so. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. I just think it's fantastically bizarre that for a project that people have been trying to crack for ten years and have a writer come in and finally crack it and have a director who happens to be Steven Spielberg, one of the greatest directors of all time, and then say, 'No, I don't think so...' It's just bizarre to me. I can't get into George's head.

I'm a bit frusterated with him, george, all he seems to be doing lately is saying no, you wonder whether or not he actually wants to have this movie be done.

This is the first good thing Lucas' megalomania has yielded.  No offense to Frank Darabont, of course, but this movie should not be made.

'Indiana Jones' to Be Filmed Next Year

George Lucas said Friday that filming of the long-awaited "Indiana Jones" movie will begin next year. Harrison Ford, who appeared in the three earlier flicks, the last one coming in 1989, is set to star again. Lucas said he and Steven Spielberg recently finalized the script for the film.

"It's going to be fantastic. It's going to be the best one yet," the 62-year-old filmmaker said during a break from preparing for his duties as grand marshal of Monday's Rose Parade.

Exact film locations have not been decided yet, but Lucas said part of the movie will be shot in Los Angeles.

The fourth chapter of the "Indiana Jones" saga, which will hit theaters in May 2008, has been in development for over a decade with several screenwriters taking a crack at the script, but it only recently gained momentum.

Lucas kept mum about the plot, but said that the latest action flick will be a "character piece" that will include "very interesting mysteries."

"I think it's going to be really cool," Lucas said.

At the inaugural Rome Film Festival in October, the 64-year-old Ford said he was excited to team up with Lucas and Spielberg again for the fourth "Indiana Jones" installment. Ford said he was "fit to continue" to play the title role despite his age.

Ford played Indiana Jones in 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark," 1984's "Temple of Doom" and 1989's "The Last Crusade."

Lucas praised Ford for breathing life into his character.

"Mostly it's the charm of Harrison that makes it work," he said.

David Koepp and the Press Blockade
Koepp is under strict orders not to blow Indiana Jones' cover. But as someone who was inspired to become a screenwriter by Raiders of the Lost Ark, writing Episode 4 definitely ranks as a sweet gig.
Source: FilmStew
 
Although screenwriter David Koepp jokes that the Dreamworks secret police will track him down if he reveals anything about the upcoming sequel Indiana Jones 4, he was able during a recent interview with FilmStew to drop a few pebble-sized hints.

"I spent about a year on it, first doing drafts with Steven and then doing drafts with Steven and George," he explains. "It was a lot of fun. The first thing is that you realize this is a beloved character, probably one of the most in film history, and a lot of people are going to be angry no matter what I do."

"I'm going to get my *ss handed to me on some level, even by my fellow filmmakers or the audience," Koepp continues. "So you just accept all that and go and do the best thing you can with as much love as you can. I worked with Steven a number of times but never with both of them. They're big guys with big opinions and it's definitely a challenge, but a challenge worth stepping up to."

Koepp agrees that it would be crazy not to take into account star Harrison Ford's real age for this next installment. In fact, he suggests that if it were not in the script, Ford would likely insist on references to this being added. Koepp himself was 18-years-old when Raiders of the Lost Ark first hit theaters back in 1981 and, ironically enough, says that's the movie that made him want to become a screenwriter.
 
"This one was hard, because there's the wait of expectation which I felt also on Spider-Man," Koepp reveals. "At the time, that had been a comic for 35 years, so there's a big audience out there for it and it's beloved."

"People have a lot of preconceptions about what it ought to be and that's the same kind of pressure you feel with Indiana Jones," he continues. "It's hard to write when you feel the audience looking over your shoulder, but you just try and put it out of your mind."

As much as he is a fan of Indy lore, Koepp says it's essential to discard that point of view when tapping out further adventures. "You can't write a fan script," he insists. "You have to pretend that this movie exists without the other one."

"The worst thing to do would be to have him make reference to things he said in the first movie, like to pun on lines of dialogue," he argues. "That's tempting, because you've seen the movie a hundred times and you know all the dialogue, but no human being remembers exactly what they said 25 years ago word for word, much less make reference to it. So you try to put aside the other movies and yet be in the spirit of them."

If you're going to work as a screenwriter in independent film, this is pretty much the best way to go. As Koepp points out, because Lucasfilm is underwriting Indiana Jones 4, the project is technically an indie (or is that "Indy?"). And pray tell, will this indie start with a gigantic set piece?

"Now, how would that not be telling you what happened in the movie?" Koepp teases. "I'm not going to tell you what happens. But with set pieces, sometimes it's common sense and sometimes it's a bad idea."

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 17, 2007, 02:18:42 PMKoepp himself was 18-years-old when Raiders of the Lost Ark first hit theaters back in 1981 and, ironically enough, says that's the movie that made him want to become a screenwriter.

Coincidentally, you son of a bitch.

Quote from: Mavis on January 19, 2007, 04:37:26 PM

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 17, 2007, 02:18:42 PMKoepp himself was 18-years-old when Raiders of the Lost Ark first hit theaters back in 1981 and, ironically enough, says that's the movie that made him want to become a screenwriter.

Coincidentally, you son of a bitch.

Give it time... if this movie ends his career, then it will be irony.

Sean Connery Considering Indiana Jones 4
Source: ComingSoon

Sean Connery has told Scotland on Sunday that he is considering returning as Dr. Henry Jones in the highly-anticipated Indiana Jones 4. He previously played Indiana Jones' father in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade back in 1989:

The new Indiana Jones film is due to shoot this summer, and after being approached by Lucas, Connery admits he is seriously considering it.

Asked directly if he thought he would be back in front of the cameras this summer as Dr Jones, he answered: "Perhaps."

Choosing his words carefully, Connery then added: "At the moment there's nothing decided. I haven't got the script. Everything depends on the script."

Filming is expected to start in June for a May, 2008 release

Kaminski confirms DP post on 'Indy 4'
Source: Spielberg Films

British cinematographer Douglas Slocombe casts quite a large and well-lit shadow through Steven Spielberg's filmography. From his work lensing the legendary India sequence in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," to his beautiful and varied vistas on display throughout the "Indiana Jones" films, the Oscar-nominated Slocombe's cinematography stands amongst some of the richest visual work in a Spielberg picture (and that obviously says volumes).

Slocombe retired from his nearly five decade long career in a blaze of glory with 1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," and so, it's been on many a fan's mind who would be taking up the viewfinder for the fourth "Indiana Jones" film. Considering that Steven Spielberg has said he will not shoot a film now without cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, it's been a pretty obvious fact that Kaminski would be the man for the job.

Presumptions were confirmed this week by Kaminski himself as he told Polish publication Gazeta Wyborcza that his next project as director of photography is indeed "Indiana Jones 4." The film will begin shooting this June, and Kaminski fires fans' imagination with news that he will be lensing the film "all over the world," specifically in jungle locales and the previously mentioned Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles specifics are still unclear publicly. Will it be on soundstages or in actual locales in and around L.A.? The revelation that the film will be shot in jungle terrain is incredibly inspiring, especially when one thinks of the beautiful photography and exciting jungle sequences captured for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom."

A small puzzle piece, perhaps, but an exciting one, none-the-less.

The yet untitled "Indiana Jones 4," featuring cinematography by two-time Oscar-winner Janusz Kaminski, will hit theatres in May 2008.

Indiana Jones 4 Set for May 22, '08!
Source: ComingSoon

Box Office Mojo reports that Paramount Pictures has set Thursday, May 22, 2008 as the release for the fourth "Indiana Jones" movie, which the studio is now officially referring to as the Fourth Installment of the Indiana Jones Adventures.

The picture maintains the Memorial Day weekend release strategy of the last two "Indiana Jones" movies, and it mirrors the last two "Star Wars" movies and The Matrix Reloaded with its Thursday launch.

Also currently scheduled for Memorial Day weekend 2008 is Warner Bros.' Speed Racer.

Rumor Of The Week: Have They Cast Indiana Jones Jr?!
Source: AICN

Normally, I would stay out of this.

I'm not excited about the prospect of INDIANA JONES AND THE FOURTH ADVENTURE or whatever ridiculous awkward temporary title Paramount is using for the film at the moment. To be honest, I never saw the point in continuing to make Indy movies. Sure, I know... it's all about the money. But even though I'm not a huge LAST CRUSADE fan, I do love the last shot, and I thought it was a fitting end to the series.

In the years since, we've heard so many rumors about this movie that it's become easier just to tune them out. One of the more persistent kinds of rumor is "Guess who will be playing Indy's brother/sister/son/daughter/random family member," something that's always made me nervous. It's such a desperate move to start inventing family members for Indy, something that smacks of "Cousin Oliver" syndrome. When you're in trouble and trying to reinvigorate something, just add some cute kids to the family!

Or don't. Please.

I've read one of the recent version of INDY 4, and there were no new family members added. That pleased me greatly. However, they've thrown that version out now, and whatever David Koepp's done, he's made the people over at Dreamworks very, very happy. And now that they're getting close to production, I've heard a persistent rumor, a new version of that old familiar. The thing is, I'm hearing this from some pretty reliable places.

So here we go again.

Shia La Beouf will play the son of Indiana Jones.

The thing is, we know Spielberg loves La Beouf right now. DISTURBIA became a pet project for The Beard, and it evidently came out well. TRANSFORMERS is a big deal for the company, and a lot of the weight of that falls squarely on the shoulders of Shia. So as much as I pray that there's no Indy Jr., I'm starting to think that this may in fact be true.

I know adventure has a name. But does it really have to have a son? Really?

Only time will tell.

Rising son shines on 'Indy'
LaBeouf may become Ford's kin
Source: Variety

Indy, you're a dad.

Shia LaBeouf is in final talks to star in Steven Spielberg's "Indiana Jones 4" as the son of the adventuresome archaeologist to be played once again by Harrison Ford.

Spielberg and George Lucas' Lucasfilm, which is producing "Indiana 4" for Paramount, are keeping the storyline under tight wraps. David Koepp ("Spider-Man") penned the script.

Neither Par nor Lucasfilm would confirm that talks are under way with LaBeouf.

Spielberg is set to begin lensing "Indiana Jones 4" in June. Pic, which resurrects the lucrative franchise after nearly 20 years, is set to unspool May 22, 2008, taking advantage of the Memorial Day holiday.

LaBeouf stars in two upcoming DreamWorks pics, "Disturbia" and summer tentpole "Transformers." Thesp also provides the lead voice in Sony's upcoming toon "Surf's Up!"

Shia says he hasn't been cast in Indy...

http://www.joblo.com/shia-says-no-indy

Start date is only two months away, so I suppose we'll know for sure soon.

Blanchett on crusade to 'Indiana Jones 4'
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Cate Blanchett has signed on to star in the fourth installment of the "Indiana Jones" adventures.

Harrison Ford already has boarded the project, which will be produced by Lucasfilm and directed by Steven Spielberg.

With David Koepp's screenplay shrouded in secrecy, it is unclear what character Blanchett will play. However, sources said the Oscar-winning actress has landed a starring role.

Shooting will begin in June in Los Angeles and at undisclosed locations around the world. Paramount Pictures will release "Indy 4" day-and-date around the world on May 22, 2008, with a handful of territories opening the following day.

Frank Marshall is producing, with George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy executive producing.

The two last posts in this thread are its best.

Indy IV Title Buzz
Has the sequel's name been revealed?

With Indiana Jones IV slated to go before cameras this June for a summer 2008 release, the other big question besides casting -- i.e., is Shia LeBeouf going to play Indy's son or not? -- is what the long-in-development sequel will be called.

A slew of titles have been rumored over the years, depending on what tale the project's then-screenwriter had concocted. Now EmpireOnline.com claims it has heard what the filmmakers -- including director Steven Spielberg, exec producer George Lucas and Paramount Pictures -- have in mind for the final title.

And that new rumored title is ... Indiana Jones And The City Of Gods.

The site had no explanation for the title's significance, but it certainly has the same pulp flavor of the franchise's past installments.

is indiana jones immortal? since he drank from the holy grail?

Quote from: A Matter Of Chance on March 19, 2007, 04:57:07 PM
is indiana jones immortal? since he drank from the holy grail?

Once he passed The Great Seal, the power was lost.

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 19, 2007, 03:44:58 PM
And that new rumored title is ... Indiana Jones And The City Of Gods.

quick someone do a mash up of indy chasing that chicken.

Quote from: Pubrick on March 21, 2007, 04:22:48 AM

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 19, 2007, 03:44:58 PM
And that new rumored title is ... Indiana Jones And The City Of Gods.

quick someone do a mash up of indy chasing that chicken.

This'll have to do for now...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Findychicken-1.jpg&hash=979baec1225bd25e7d69abca674b4b5d1470f4d7)

"Throw me the idol, I'll throw you the chick."

Winstone digging in for 'Indy 4'
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Ray Winstone is joining the expedition for the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones adventures.

The actor, who stars as the title character in Robert Zemeckis' upcoming "Beowulf," has signed on for a major role in the untitled film being referred to as "Indy 4."

Although the film's plot is being closely guarded, sources said Winstone will play star Harrison Ford's sidekick.

Cate Blanchett already has boarded the project -- to be produced by Lucasfilm and directed by Steven Spielberg -- in an undisclosed starring role.

David Koepp penned the screenplay for "Indy 4," which is scheduled to begin filming in June in Los Angeles and at top-secret locations around the world.

Paramount Pictures will release the film day-and-date worldwide May 22, 2008, with a handful of territories opening the following day.

Frank Marshall is producing, with George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy executive producing.

London-born Winstone, who played Jack Nicholson's partner in crime in the best picture Oscar winner "The Departed," most recently appeared in Anthony Minghella's "Breaking and Entering." His credits also include "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," "Cold Mountain" and "Sexy Beast."

George Lucas on Indiana Jones 4!
Source: USA Today

Indiana Jones 4 producer George Lucas talked to USA Today about the highly-anticipated film, to be directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett.

Lucas told the newspaper that shooting begins in Los Angeles this June and then it's on to several top-secret global destinations. Lucas teased that one will include a waterfall.

Lucas said that Ford's age (64) won't be a problem. "He's not running in any of the movies. He's either on a horse or driving a car or a motorcycle. And he'll play his age in this movie with what's appropriate. The chases are more suspenseful than speedy. Like the rolling ball in the first film — it's not that he's running that fast, it's that there's a giant ball coming at him. And he will get beat up, which is a tradition for us."

Lucas, who also is in pre-production on a "bare-bones, action-heavy" "Star Wars" live-action TV series, said there'll still be plenty of action in "Indy 4," the official title of which he hopes to keep under wraps until the first trailer hits theaters around Thanksgiving.

Sean Connery has yet to sign on as Indiana's father, Dr. Henry Jones, but Lucas said, "We're still trying."

It wasn't his idea to cast Blanchett as Ford's new leading lady, he added. "That's who my director wanted, and I always bow to the wishes of my director," Lucas said of Spielberg. "I approved it because she seemed like a good idea. When I met her at the Academy Awards, I told her, 'Hey, you work for me now!'"

Quote from: MacGuffin on April 05, 2007, 01:09:20 AM
It wasn't his idea to cast Blanchett as Ford's new leading lady, he added. "That's who my director wanted, and I always bow to the wishes of my director," Lucas said of Spielberg. "I approved it because she seemed like a good idea. When I met her at the Academy Awards, I told her, 'Hey, you work for me now!'"

Good lord, George Lucas is an ass.

Quote from: polkablues on April 05, 2007, 02:00:18 AM
Good lord, George Lucas is an ass.

yes but in an unintentional, nervous, sad and low self-esteem kind of way. not ego-driven.

CONFIRMED.

Shia LaBeouf tapped for 'Indy 4' role
Source: USA Today

Shia LaBeouf, the 20-year-old actor who stars in this summer's Transformers action thriller, has signed to co-star alongside Harrison Ford in the fourth Indiana Jones movie.

LaBeouf, whose Rear Window-style thriller Disturbia opens Friday is perhaps best known for his boyhood roles in Holes and the TV comedy Even Stevens. He has been the subject of speculation as an addition to the sequel's cast but was forbidden by director Steven Spielberg and producer George Lucas from revealing it until now.

"Up until about two weeks ago, it was little more than a rumor," he says. "Literally, when I was saying, 'I don't know anything,' I didn't know anything. It was an act of faith. I have not read a script. I don't think anybody has."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Shiite | Steven Spielberg | George Lucas | Harrison Ford | Indiana Jones | Indiana Jones series | Disturbia

Spielberg said in an e-mailed statement: "Shia has extraordinary range. I think of him as 'the young man for all seasons."

Online fans are guessing Indiana Jones will have a son for this go-round, but LaBeouf says he can't confirm such plot points. Even the time-setting for the movie is a secret. "I can tell you I'm sort of the sidekick character, obviously," he says. "I'm sure there are a lot of laughs at my expense, and some kind of creature crawling on me."

LaBeouf adds, "It's not going to be Short Round, all grown up," a reference to the fast-talking little kid from 1984's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

The actor, who was born in 1986, says he first saw the films when he was a little kid in the early '90s after his father bought them on VHS. "We sat down and ran through them in a day."

Between this film and Transformers, LaBeouf knows he is taking on some icons of 1980s childhood. LaBeouf is hosting this weekend's Saturday Night Live, and they're considering a sketch making fun of "how I've stolen the thirtysomethings' kid dreams."

The long-planned fourth movie starts shooting this summer and is set for release May 22, 2008. Updates will post periodically on IndianaJones.com.

When he met Lucas recently at Spielberg's offices on the Universal lot, LaBeouf says he brimmed with questions but hit a wall of secrecy, even about the relic Jones will be pursuing.

"Lucas looks at you and says simply, 'I can't tell you that,' " LaBeouf says. "Then when he thinks he is supposed to tell you something but isn't sure, he gets up and leaves the room, goes in to talk with Spielberg and comes back and says, 'Nope. Sorry.' "

Quote from: modage on April 13, 2007, 09:12:22 AM
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Shiite | Steven Spielberg | George Lucas

hahaha. the only ray of light in an otherwise grim update.

I'm not as mortified as everyone else about Shia LeBeouf doing Indiana Jones. When I watch the old Indiana Jones movies, the only thing not campy in those movies is Harrison Ford himself. Everyone else was on caricature auto drive.

The problem I have is why even introduce a son to the Indiana Jones. The off shoot of this character is that he will eventually fill his shoes because the studios won't be able to resist doing another sequel. They have been protective of the series for Speilberg's sake, but pressure could come in our current sequel frenzy and Speilberg could allow the series to go on with LeBeouf considering he was able to allow the Jurassic Park series to go on without him. I just can't think of anyone, especially not Shia LeBeouf, who could have the same intangibles that Harrison Ford had in the role.

even if we assume that shia is not terrible, its that he's already done the wisecracking kid sidekick part in Constantine AND I, Robot.

i am interested in seeing the new spielberg merge with the old spielberg for this film, but its been so long it almost has to be a Phantom Menace.  is there any way this could actually be really good?

Sallah Not In "Indiana Jones IV"
Source: Dark Horizons

'deciph3r' had the chance to talk to Johnathan Rhys-Davies at the Armageddon Pulp Expo in Christchurch, New Zealand over the weekend and confirmed his "Indiana Jones IV" non-status:

"Seems he has not been asked to be in Indy 4 or even approached about it.

From the little information he had about the film he had been told through a third party that the character of Salah had been written out of Indy 4 in favour of a younger cast."

^thats a shame, although if the story doesn't go there, it could be awkward writing him in. i thought it was awkward in last crusade, but his character was likeable enough that it didn't really matter to me.

Indiana Jones 4 Script Includes Sean Connery
Source: Reuters

The San Francisco Film Society honored George Lucas on Thursday and the "Star Wars" creator talked to Reuters about starting Indiana Jones 4 and whether Sean Connery would be back:

Lucas said he is ready to begin work as a producer next month on the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones film franchise.

In a brief interview, he said veteran actor Sean Connery had yet to agree to reprise his role as Indiana Jones' father.

"We have a script with him in it," he said. "If he doesn't do it, we'll do a quick rewrite."

The fourth installment is targeted for a May 22, 2008 release.

Part of Chapel St. to become scene of car chase in the 1950s
Source: New Haven Register
 
-NEW HAVEN — Indiana Jones will be racing up Chapel Street next month, a spokesman for director Steven Spielberg confirmed Monday.

The fourth installment of the hugely popular series, arriving in theaters almost 20 years after the third, will include some kind of car chase on Chapel between College and High streets. A pre-production crew was in the city last week and Monday talking to shop owners on the block.

"I really have no details on it at all, except to say that there will be some filming there," said Marvin Levy, a spokesman for Spielberg, who did confirm the film will be the next in the series starring Harrison Ford and Sean Connery, set to open May 22, 2008.

"Indiana Jones" began with a script by George Lucas, whose hits include the "Star Wars" franchise. The collaboration with Spielberg, now a three-time Oscar winner, certified Harrison Ford, the lead in both series, as a superstar.

Levy said the filming dates are not set, but one merchant said she was told it would happen June 28 and 30.

Barbara J. Lamb, director of the city's Office of Cultural Affairs, said the production would close down parts of College and Elm streets and possibly other downtown streets as well.

"We are working with them on a plan to minimize those disruptions on the community," Lamb said. "We will ensure the smoothest flow of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic in downtown New Haven."

"Indiana Jones IV" (a working title) will also feature two new stars, Cate Blanchett and Shia LeBeouf, who is starring in "Disturbia." LeBeouf was 3 years old when the third Indy movie, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," came out in 1989.

The first three movies featuring Professor Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr., soft-spoken archeologist-turned-swaggering adventurer, were set in the 1930s and were made in the style of cliffhanger serials of that era.

This one will be set in the 1950s, according to several merchants who were approached by crew members. Savitt Jewelers will become a pharmacy, according to owner Mike Rosenthal. And Enson's men's clothing store will become ... Enson's.

"They wanted to make it look more like the 1950s, and I actually showed them pictures of what it looked like in the '50s, since we've been here for 55 years," said owner Jim Civitello.

Next door, Rob Muller of Merwin's Art Shop said he was asked to make his storefront look appropriate to the era. That shouldn't be a problem. "We've got stuff that's probably been here since the '50s," he joked.

Lamb said New Haven was chosen because "they like the look of Yale" and added, "I think a lot of it has to do with the film incentives that are now in place ... and New Haven has been an extremely attractive location for filmmakers."

"We've been working with them for several months now on identifying various locations in the city ... and we expect it to have a major (positive) economic impact in New Haven," Lamb said.

Spielberg received an honorary degree from Yale in 2002, but Lamb said she didn't think that played a role.

The last Hollywood visit to the Elm City was in September, when Uma Thurman filmed a scene for the thriller "In Bloom," planned for release later this year. That also was shot on Chapel Street.

This time, the crew members talking to Chapel Street merchants were coy about the title.

"They told me it was a major motion picture, that we know people in it, but they couldn't divulge that yet," said Civitello.

Other shop owners said the crew talked about compensating them for any business loss. "They just wanted rough numbers, like how much it would cost for a couple of days," said Muller.

"It's a plus for New Haven, probably a negative for the business for a day, but one day does not a year make," said Paul Indorf, co-owner of Peter Indorf Jewelers. "We're not a business that depends on traffic. We're more a destination business."

The Board of Aldermen, which must approve the street closings and other details, will be briefed about the plans at 11 a.m. today, said Alderman Nicholas Shalek, D-1, who represents downtown. But he hadn't heard the names Spielberg, Lucas and Ford in connection with the project.

"The e-mail I got today just said 'a big movie,' " he said. "Generally, I think it's a terrific thing for the city."

Indiana Jones' visit to New Haven may have been foreshadowed at that 2002 Yale commencement. According to the Yale Alumni Magazine, when Spielberg received his honorary degree, the band played John Williams' "Indiana Jones" theme. At the end of the ceremony, it played the theme from "Star Wars."

*READ AT OWN RISK*


Indy 4 Opening Revealed?
The rumor mill starts grinding.

Indiana Jones IV, the fourth and long-overdue film in the legendary action-adventure series, is mere weeks from production, and already scuttlebutt is hitting online.

It must be taken with salt, of course, but the CHUD.com website has a report that claims to shed light on the opening scene of the movie, as well as its supposed premise and shooting locations. If true — and it's mostly speculation at this point — Indy 4 will be based on the "Chariots of the Gods" theory that for thousands of years, extraterrestrials have visited the civilizations of Earth, wowing the primitive natives with their technology and being worshipped as deities. It's certainly a fringe theory, but there's no denying the various ancient statues and cave drawings — particularly in South America — that bear an uncanny resemblance to modern spacemen and UFOs. At any rate, it sounds like a pretty interesting basis for another expedition by Indiana Jones.

The film, the report continues, would open with an action scene pitting Dr. Jones against Soviet agents at the US's secret Area 51 base, long connected with alien and UFO research. Perhaps the government is holding onto some kind of alien-related artifacts or Roswell debris that the Russians are desperate to acquire. Whatever it is, it launches Indy on his last great mission.

In addition to recently-announced New Haven, Los Angeles, New Mexico, and Hawaii are mentioned as possible shooting locales.

Shia LaBeouf's character is described as a jeans and leather-clad biker type, thrown into the adventure with Indy before learning the two are related.

Remember, this is all just rumor for now, however interesting or plausible. We'll let you know more as we learn it.

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 21, 2007, 11:21:48 AM
It's certainly a fringe theory, but there's no denying the various ancient statues and cave drawings — particularly in South America — that bear an uncanny resemblance to modern spacemen and UFOs.

this guy's an idiot.

i really hope it's not about that.

Quote from: Pubrick on May 21, 2007, 11:38:24 AM

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 21, 2007, 11:21:48 AM
It's certainly a fringe theory, but there's no denying the various ancient statues and cave drawings — particularly in South America — that bear an uncanny resemblance to modern spacemen and UFOs.

this guy's an idiot.

i really hope it's not about that.

sadly, i think it's the story. it's george lucas producing it so it had to be ufo's and shit. just for him to ruin another movie with poorly made cgi and jar jar binks characters.

from dlisted.com:
When it was announced that Cate Blanchett would be in Indiana Jones 4, it was expected that she would play his love interest. Cate will instead play a Russian villian in cahoots with the Ruskies. The working title is "Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods."  The film will take place in the 50s. Shooting begins in New Haven, CT very soon.

Hurt Joins Indiana Jones 4, Connery Not Returning
Source: Paramount Pictures

John Hurt has joined the previously-announced Cate Blanchett and Ray Winstone in Indiana Jones 4, while Sean Connery has made it official that he won't be returning. Here's the official press release:

Several stars have thrown their hats into the ring to join Harrison Ford and Shia LeBeouf in Indiana Jones' latest whip-cracking adventure. Next year, when the new Indiana Jones movie opens worldwide on May 22, Indy will share the screen with Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone and John Hurt.

Academy Award® winner Cate Blanchett has established herself as one of the preeminent leading actresses in film today, earning her first Best Actress nomination for her title role in Elizabeth, for which she received a BAFTA and Golden Globe Award. She continued to draw acclaim for significant roles in The Talented Mr. Ripley, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Notes on a Scandal and Babel. In 2005, she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role as Katherine Hepburn in The Aviator, and this year was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World. Cate is currently filming The Curious Case of Benjamin Button costarring Brad Pitt and directed by David Fincher.

Known for his layered and nuanced performances of tough guys, Ray Winstone drew international praise for his role as Gal Dove in Jonathan Glazer's Sexy Beast. His recent screen credits include Martin Scorsese's The Departed, Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur, and Anthony Minghella's Breaking & Entering. Winstone's voice can be heard as Mr. Beaver in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Ray will next be seen in the title role of Beowulf opening November 16, 2007 directed by Robert Zemeckis.

Academy Award nominee John Hurt, whose career in film spans more than 40 years, has played memorable roles in movies both big and small. His impressive body of work includes such films as V for Vendetta, Elephant Man, 1984, Midnight Express, Contact, and Alien. On television, he won world-wide acclaim for his role of Caligula in "I, Claudius" and Quentin Crisp, in "The Naked Civil Servant".

While the man with the hat is back, this time he's not bringing his Dad. Sean Connery, who retired from acting in 2005, said:

"I get asked the question so often, I thought it best to make an announcement. I thought long and hard about it and if anything could have pulled me out of retirement it would have been an Indiana Jones film. I love working with Steven and George, and it goes without saying that it is an honor to have Harrison as my son. But in the end, retirement is just too damned much fun. I, do however, have one bit of advice for Junior: Demand that the critters be digital, the cliffs be low, and for goodness sake keep that whip by your side at all times in case you need to escape from the stunt coordinator! This is a remarkable cast, and I can only say, 'Break a leg, everyone.' I'll see you on May 22, 2008 at the theater!"

Sean Connery-ised.

Quote from: MacGuffin on June 07, 2007, 12:08:44 PM
While the man with the hat is back, this time he's not bringing his Dad. Sean Connery, who retired from acting in 2005, said:

"I get ashked the question sho often, I thought it besht to make an announchement. I thought long and hard about it and if anything could have pulled me out of retirement it would have been an Indiana Jonesh film. I love working with Shteven and George, and it goesh without shaying that it is an honor to have Harrishon as my shon. But in the end, retirement is just too damned much fun. I, do however, have one bit of advice for Junior: Demand that the crittersh be digital, the cliffsh be low, and for goodnessh shake keep that whip by your shide at all times in cashe you need to eshcape from the shtunt coordinator! This is a remarkable cast, and I can only shay, 'Break a leg, everyone.' I'll see you on May 22, 2008 at the theater!"[/i]

...sorry. It helped me.

I'm just waiting for the day they announce that Spielberg will need heart surgery and Ratner will be his back-up director.

Broadbent Co-Stars in `Indiana Jones'

Jim Broadbent is joining Indiana Jones on his latest adventure.

The Academy Award-winning actor has joined the cast of the fourth installment in the "Indiana Jones" series, according to an announcement posted Wednesday on Lucasfilm Ltd.'s Indiana Jones Web site.

Production began Monday on the not-yet-titled film, which reunites director Steven Spielberg, executive producer George Lucas and Harrison Ford as the archaeologist-adventurer who made his first appearance in 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

The movie is due out May 22, 2008.

Broadbent, 57, won a supporting-actor Oscar for 2001's "Iris." He joins previously announced co-stars Cate Blanchett, Shia LaBeouf, John Hurt and Ray Winstone. Broadbent's other films include "Moulin Rouge," "The Crying Game," "Bridget Jones's Diary" and "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."

Lucasfilm recently announced that Sean Connery who played Indiana Jones' bookish father in the franchise's third installment, 1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" will not reprise the role in the new movie.

besides le'boof, im really liking this cast...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indianajones.com%2Fcommunity%2Fnews%2Fimg%2F20070621.jpg&hash=8c43261345bd68781e6e1b9ef2a9233e8785da1e)

http://www.indianajones.com/community/news/firstday.html

that's right lucas, you sit shotgun...

"here's lookin' at you, kids..."

hahaha, spielberg is such a dork.
looks like classic indy fun there. they haven't shot the shia labeouf stuff yet, have they? cuz, i mean, there's still time for rewrites.

Ford Can Still Fit Into Indy's Trousers

He may be 65, but Harrison Ford still fits into Indiana Jones' tight trousers.

Many fans are curious to see if, 18 years after "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," Ford can live up to the physical rigors of the globe-trotting archaeologist in the long-awaited fourth installment of the epic series. The actor's 65th birthday was Friday.

Producers of the adventure, currently being filmed on Hawaii's Big Island, say there's no need to worry. Ford is as fit as ever.

"I have to say, he looks amazing," said Kathleen Kennedy, the film's co-executive producer, along with George Lucas. "He looks fantastic in the outfit."

Actually, Ford knew the hat would still fit but wondered if he could still squeeze into the pants. He did.

The action star, who first introduced the fedora-wearing, bullwhip-cracking Indiana Jones in the 1981 classic "Raiders of the Lost Ark," is actually doing many of his own stunts in the latest film.

"He's doing them, he just has a few more ice packs and a few more massages," Kennedy said.

"And a lot of Celebrex," producer Frank Marshall added.

The movie just completed the first of three weeks of filming in Hawaii, after spending a week each in New Mexico and Connecticut. The lush areas surrounding Hilo are filling in as a South American rain forest.

Lucas and director Steven Spielberg have not released the title of the film, scheduled for release May 22, 2008.

The filming has created a buzz on this normally sleepy island, known for macadamia nuts and premium Kona coffee. It's the most action since nearby Kilauea volcano rumbled to life in 1983.

The film's biggest action sequences are being filmed in Hawaii. Marshall compared one scene to the thrilling, white-knuckled truck chase in the desert in "Raiders."

"It's that level," he said.

Hawaii will be featured in about 20 percent of the film. About half will be from sets in Los Angeles. The Aloha State was also the backdrop for portions of "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Ford, Lucas, Spielberg, Kennedy and Marshall all worked together on the first three films, so this latest is a homecoming of sorts.

"We're having a great time. It's so much fun being together," said Marshall, who has produced more than 50 films, including "Poltergeist," "Gremlins," "The Goonies," "The Color Purple," "Back to the Future" trilogy, "The Sixth Sense" and the "Bourne" trilogy.

"Nobody's worried about their careers any more," he said.

The latest Indy adventure is set in the 1950s and, in addition to Ford, stars Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone and Jim Broadbent. One popular character not in the lineup is Sean Connery, who played Indy's father.

"We would've loved to have Sean do a cameo-type part in this but he's very much enjoying retirement," Kennedy said.

She promised movie fans, who have patiently waited since the 1989 "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," would get the same level of excitement as the previous three films.

"The cleverness, the humor and the tone of Indiana Jones is very much alive and well in this movie," Kennedy said.

The producers are being very tightlipped about the movie, and the remote sets are well guarded, leading to rampant rumors on blogs and chat sites.

It took some time to get to the fourth film, partly because of the schedules of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford. Plus, they knew they had to deliver another hit.

"The bar was pretty high," Kennedy said.

Many More Indy Adventures on Their Way!       
Source: IESB

There have been rumors flying left and right about the new Indiana Jones adventure from the title to the plot.

But what about it's future? The IESB got some really interesting information today from very well respected Paramount studio source that we thought we would share.

Shia LaBeouf, a break out star this year with a few small films under his belt like Disturbia, Surf's Up and Transformers, has signed a four picture deal as the archeologist's offspring. That's right, he has signed on for 3 more Indiana Jones movies after this one!

Does this mean Harrison Ford is done with this franchise after this film? Apparently not! He signed a three picture deal, his final stint as the whip wielding adventurer will be a trilogy. This means they better crank out these films pretty quickly before it becomes Indiana Jones and the Hunt for His Prune Juice. He is getting on in years after all.

How solid is this intel? Not to be cheesy, but solid as a rock!

Now, I know everyone is very anxious about the current production and you are saying to yourself, but guys, don't you have any information on this one? As a matter of fact we do...not much, but it's something (if you get that Star Wars quote then you are a geek).

The aliens are being referred to as "the gods." We know Area 51 is making an appearance in the film so aliens must be abound, but in any case, the aliens are being referred to a "gods." Hence, further indication that the working title of Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods could be accurate after all. There you go, your bone for the day.

Stay tuned for further updates from the IESB!

Allen Confirmed In Indy 4
Source: SciFi Wire

Steven Spielberg, who is directing the upcoming fourth Indiana Jones movie, revealed that Karen Allen will reprise the role of Marion Ravenwood in the movie via a live video remote appearance at Comic-Con International in San Diego on July 26.

"It's great to be on the set of this next Indiana Jones," a beaming Allen said via video conference from Hawaii, where the movie is shooting. "Comic-Con is getting the first peek at us all together as a ... family."

Joining Spielberg and Allen were Harrison Ford in costume as Indy, Shia LaBeouf as Indy's sidekick and co-star Ray Winstone.

Spielberg said that the film has already completed 25 days of shooting. "This picture, I promise I'm making for you guys and girls," Spielberg said.

Ford added: "It's a great pleasure to be back with Steven in ... the sweaty, dirty clothes that Indy always wears ... and to be making a dynamite movie."

Ravenwood's character was first introduced in the original Indy film Raiders of the Lost Ark. The fourth Indiana Jones movie opens Memorial Day 2008.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashfilm.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fimages%2Findy4poster.jpg&hash=d6c145a81e5d6b26af5811735496a3ed0fe18b92)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspielbergfilms.com%2Fimages%2FIndiana%2520Jones%25204%2Findy4marionlg.jpg&hash=8ea689ce4db45840a697b33b4aa520be772483c6)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Findianajones.com%2Fsite%2Fmedia%2Fphotos%2Flarge%2F070727-photo.jpg&hash=e31639066d6363d44655544772493bc7fa1c0745)

The Indiana Jones Panel (http://www.g4tv.com/pile_player.aspx?video_key=17186)

Shia looked like a greaser.

Better watch out for those soc's.

he looks like he belongs in Scorpio Rising.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_uqbifoYYiK0/RreHae9GefI/AAAAAAAAB2I/4WVcT_iObcA/s1600-h/property_of_dr_jones.jpg

Indy IV Video Update!
Spielberg and the gang on reuniting the family.

The Official Indiana Jones Site has been updated with a new video segment for Indiana Jones IV. The piece, titled "Reuniting the Family," includes new interviews with director Steven Spielberg, star Harrison Ford, creator-exec producer George Lucas and producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSKNrjRxkA

Indiana Jones Returns! If It's Got A Press Kit, It Must Be Real
Source: MTV

It takes so little to make me happy really. Write the words "Indiana Jones Returns!" for instance on a press kit that reveals absolutely nothing new and I'm still as giddy as Mola Ram after he's pulled a heart out of a Thuggee follower.

This morning we did in fact receive a new press kit hyping the return of Indiana Jones next summer. Nope, there's no title that's been revealed. No new photos of Shia or Cate Blanchett in character. Really, not much of anything besides some a spiffy illustration of Dr. Jones on horseback, the aforementioned "Indiana Jones Returns!" announcement on the backcover, and a few puzzles and trivia questions. What do you want anyway? The movie is still eight months away!

Check out the Indy press kit cover and back. Hold on to your potatoes!

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesblog.mtv.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F09%2F090607_indypresskit1.jpg&hash=8da0e51ecd1b9f62b7aa55f35d98c81d36103997)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesblog.mtv.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F09%2F090607_indypresskit2.jpg&hash=4c71e96f479e5db3ca433ca83c3a15fd659bbb0a)

Shia LeBeouf Leaks 'Indiana Jones' Fourth Title At VMAs
'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' is the name we've all been waiting for.

"If adventure has a name ... it must be Indiana Jones," a publicity campaign announced in 1984. Now we know that the fourth installment in the Indiana Jones series has a name, and it will be "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

Shia LaBeouf, one of the franchise's new castmembers, announced the title of the much-hyped, long-awaited flick in dramatic fashion at MTV's Video Music Awards. For months, if not years, the name of this latest Indy adventure has been debated. Last month, it seemed that the field of contenders had been narrowed when it was discovered that Lucasfilm had registered six names the with the Motion Picture Association of America, in addition to the winning name, there was "Indiana Jones and the City of Gods," "Indiana Jones and the Destroyer of Worlds," "Indiana Jones and the Fourth Corner of the Earth," "Indiana Jones and the Lost City of Gold," and "Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Covenant."

Ever since the last Indiana Jones adventure, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," was released in 1989, rumors of a fourth film have run wild. Several high-profile Hollywood writers, including Frank Darabont ("The Shawshank Redemption") and M. Night Shyamalan ("The Sixth Sense") were signed on to pen the sequel in the last few years. In the end, it was a polished script by David Koepp ("War of the Worlds") that convinced Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford to break out the famed fedora one more time. The film has been shooting since June in locations ranging from Connecticut to Hawaii.

The story line is being kept under wraps for now. But we do know that several new cast members are part of the adventure. The aforementioned LaBeouf has been rumored to be playing Jones' long-lost son. And his mother could be none other than Marion Ravenwood from "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Spielberg announced that Karen Allen would reprise her role as Ravenwood during a dramatic Comic-Con presentation in July.

Ford introduced actor Ray Winstone ("Beowulf") in that same presentation, describing him as his "sidekick." Also in the cast are Oscar winner Cate Blanchett and John Hurt. The most pervasive rumors have them pegged as a villain and the long-lost Abner Ravenwood (Marion's father) respectively. Sean Connery will not reprise his role as Indiana Jones' father, saying he finds retirement "too damned much fun" (see " 'Indiana Jones 4' Loses Sean Connery As Indy's Dad, Picks Up John Hurt").

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is set for release May 22.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Findylogosmall.jpg&hash=ea4a3b41fc89ed99127d93652a26d2c211e485a5)

that is a horrible title.  its the Phantom Menace of titles.

Indiana Jones and Somebody Stop George Lucas

Quote from: modage on September 10, 2007, 09:31:09 AM
its the Phantom Menace of titles.

I wouldn't go that far.  Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is just as good of a title as (if not better than) Temple of Doom.  The problem is that the movie is going to be the Phantom Menace of Indy and no title will make that any more or less true.

So they are looking for these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull) things?

anyone else gets the feeling that ray winstone's gonna play a traitor, and that's gonna be the biggest twist in this movie?

i like the title, though.

Quote from: modage on September 10, 2007, 09:31:09 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Findylogosmall.jpg&hash=ea4a3b41fc89ed99127d93652a26d2c211e485a5)

that is a horrible title.  its the Phantom Menace of titles.

i think one of george lucas' illagitimate children came up w/the title

Quote from: edison on September 10, 2007, 05:41:09 PM
So they are looking for these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull) things?

first thing i thought of was:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Ffor-the-love-of-god.jpg&hash=c7449f00b3e7a6ec9442c18e018608540cb2df6d)

Quote from: just sparrow on September 10, 2007, 04:01:56 PM

Quote from: modage on September 10, 2007, 09:31:09 AM
its the Phantom Menace of titles.

I wouldn't go that far.  Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is just as good of a title as (if not better than) Temple of Doom. 

i completely disagree, i would defintely go that far.

Temple of Doom is a good title, along with Last Crusuade, they don't overwhelm the "Indiana Jones" part so as to become separate titles of their own. The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull has twice as many phrases as the previous examples! Indiana Jones and the  "X Y" or at most "X of Y" where X/Y= ONE WORD. the only way this title could be worse is if it was "The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull That Has Magic Powers And When You Get It You Can Use The Powers and The Skull Itself Is Probably Worth Something Too"

temple of doom/last crusade roll of the tongue and also evoke appropriate moods for each film, grandiose fare either ominous or legendary (whether they deliver or not). this new title offers very little of either.

So by that logic, if this movie was called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Skulls, that would be a better title?  No.  And three pages back on this thread, everyone was already talking smack about Indiana Jones and the City of Gods. 

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull may not roll off the tongue as well as the other titles but it most definitely evokes the mood of the adventure stories that Lucas grew up on.  The problem isn't the title in and of itself.  It's that the title promises a shitty movie.  Like who's taking bets on the crystal skull in question shattering to save Shia from being eaten by Nazis?

Besides, in the same way that we refer to Raiders, Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade, this will get abbreviated to Crystal Skull.

i think you just repeated what i said:

Quote from: just sparrow on September 11, 2007, 07:46:56 AM
So by that logic, if this movie was called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Skulls, that would be a better title? 

YES and NO. i was making two separate points about why the title sucked: phonetically and semantically. so yes it would at least SOUND slightly better, the series of [k] sounds in Kingdom of Crystal Skulls would be less jarring and repetitive, which is good in children's books but not in titles, it's just too much.

Quote from: just sparrow on September 11, 2007, 07:46:56 AMAnd three pages back on this thread, everyone was already talking smack about Indiana Jones and the City of Gods. 

that title is also shit. at least due to the existence of City of God (a great title), as illustrated by the brilliant mock-up made by polky.

Quote from: just sparrow on September 11, 2007, 07:46:56 AMKingdom of the Crystal Skull may not roll off the tongue as well as the other titles but it most definitely evokes the mood of the adventure stories that Lucas grew up on. 

Lucas needs to shut the hell up.

Quote from: just sparrow on September 11, 2007, 07:46:56 AMThe problem isn't the title in and of itself.  It's that the title promises a shitty movie. 

i went on to say that what you just repeated is exactly the problem too. not only does it SOUND bad, it promises a shitty movie. i want this to be fun as much as the next guy, but george's idea of fun as shown by the star wars prequels is completely out of touch with whoever the hell he was in his youth --- the person who actually had some idea of what made a movie good.

it's interesting to see the progress of Lucas versus that of Coppola, and to a lesser extent Spielberg. right now all three seem concerned with recapturing the zenith of their relevance, coppola has even made this explicit. i think Spielberg is a less extreme case because he's appealing to the popular majority without having really lost touch with it. he's as crafty and audience-savvy as ever. he's doing his best work without actually remaking his best work. he's doing minor work too, but the spirit of what he's doing has not changed compared to the 70s. he's aware of both the essence of his work and the surface appeal.

Lucas has lost all touch, he had amazing ideas in the 70s and instead of appealing to the spirit of those ideas, he's working from the surface outwards. it's hard to find heart in what he does. Coppola however is the opposite, he is starting RIGHT AT THE HEART and not really thinking about the surface, which he realises is transitory anyway. so i do have hope for this movie, it's just covered in a thick lucas layer which i'm gonna have to swallow.

indiana jones and the cristal bitches.

i don't get it.

just thought it was funny title.

what happened to Indiana Jones and the City of Gods?  way better.

i've actually forgotten the title thrice.

i'd like to reference The Return of the Curse of the Creature's Ghost.

san fernando jones and the temple of poon

hehe

Quote from: Pubrick on September 11, 2007, 03:47:27 AM
temple of doom/last crusade roll of the tongue and also evoke appropriate moods for each film, grandiose fare either ominous or legendary (whether they deliver or not). this new title offers very little of either.

I agree. What concerns me (like you say) is the implication of the title. Raiders and Crusade benefit greatly from the depth lent to them purely by having an established religious artifact at their centre. The Temple of Doom is a lot of fun and a great ride but ultimately feels most like the "saturday morning serials" that Lucas and Spielberg were inspired by. With that in mind the new title makes me think: "Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Shankara Stones".

Maybe I'm just easily won over by the edginess that the biblical elements bring.  "You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do."

edit: I haven't heard of the mythology surrounding "Crystal Skulls" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull

'INDIANA' BLABBER FACES DOOM
Source: New York Post

A BIG-mouthed extra working on the new "Indiana Jones" flick has blown his fledgling movie career to smithereens by spilling the film's major plot points.

Director Steven Spielberg and producer George Lucas made the entire cast and crew of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" sign nondisclosure agreements. But Tyler Nelson - cast as a "dancing Russian soldier" - gave an interview to his hometown newspaper, the Edmond Sun in Oklahoma, in which he revealed that:

* Indy, played once again by Harrison Ford, and the Soviet army are both searching for a priceless skull made of crystal in the jungles of South America.

* The Russians take Indy hostage and then blackmail him by threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend and mother of his son, Marion Ravenwood, portrayed by Karen Allen. Cast as the son is Shia LaBeouf.

* Cate Blanchett plays an evil Russian who grills Indy. "I saw Harrison Ford strapped to a chair and being interrogated," Nelson told the paper.

Nelson's own big scene comes when he celebrates Indy's capture by dancing to balalaika folk music.  But it's doubtful the footage of the 24-year-old actor - a professionally trained ballet dancer who studied at the Bolshoi Academy in Moscow - will make it into the final cut. Spielberg, furious Nelson blabbed, has reportedly snipped his scene.

Spielberg's spokesman, Marvin Levy, wouldn't say whether any of Nelson's spoilers are accurate, but noted: "Who knows whether that particular person will ever work in this town again?"

Reached by Page Six yesterday, Nelson told us, "No comment. I'm not supposed to talk about it." But his rep at the Thomas Talent Agency said, "He's in trouble. He's got to know that he can't do that."

Meanwhile, there have been behind-the-scenes machinations to get the story squashed. Nelson got the Edmond Sun to yank the story from its Web site, with an employee there telling us: "We removed it out of respect to a hometown boy." And plot-spoilers posted on Harry Knowles' influential Ain't It Cool News site also vanished. Knowles didn't return our call.

The movie, fourth in the "Indiana Jones" series, is set to hit theaters in May.

Honestly, unless Cate Blanchett's character is portrayed as good before she turns on Indy, which would be a shitty rehash of the blonde Nazi in Last Crusade, these spoilers aren't really that spoilery.  I can only imagine that Spielberg is pissed because this guy confirmed too soon that this movie is indeed as bad as we feared.

'Indiana Jones' stash stolen
Thieves raid Paramount production
Source: Variety

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" endured another hit this week when computers, photographs and proprietary information were stolen from the production.

A spokesman for director Steven Spielberg confirmed the theft but could not comment on when or where the alleged crime occurred because "a law enforcement investigation is ongoing."

The security breach comes on the heels of last week's confidentiality breach when "Indy" extra Tyler Nelson revealed plot details during an interview with his hometown newspaper, Oklahoma's Edmond Sun. That story was removed from the Sun's website.

I don't believe in signs.

But just because I don't believe in them doesn't mean that these aren't signs.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Breaches

that's what happens when you "stage" a confidentiality breach in the form of shia going against spielberg's wishes and announcing the title at the mtv awards. this is all staged too, probably. in fact this recent theft sounds suspiciously like Coppola's in argentina.


(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Fsimps%2F03242002103405.jpg&hash=ff553adb526ca3a7dd98488bd6f8dabd72874ab6)
kent: When cat burglaries start, can mass murders be far behind?
         This reporter isn't saying that the burglar is an inhuman
         monster like the Wolfman, but he very well could be. 
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Fsimps%2F03242002103412.jpg&hash=c1696253c4970823303ae27aa0cb19a4f53f44bb)
kent (cont'): So, professor: would you say it's time for everyone to panic?
Professor: Yes I would, Kent.

Breaking Story: Indiana Jones and the Secret of the Stolen Set Photos!       
Source: IESB

Steven Spielberg has another reason to be pissed off. Over 2000 production stills, production budget breakdown and other sensitive materials from Indiana Jones 4 were stolen from his office.

This is a story that we are going to be hearing much more of in the upcoming days but here is the skinny.

Over 2000 production stills, plenty of sensitive paperwork including a complete production budget breakdown, possibly the script from Indiana Jones 4 and multiple computers were stolen from Spielberg's Universal Studio office.

The thief started contacting multiple entertainment websites including TMZ.com and offering the stolen goods for a sum of $2000.00.

The IESB has been informed that TMZ.com may had obtained some of stolen property and were on the verge of running the story on its TV division until Paramount lawyers stepped in.

TMZ.com went as far as promoting their upcoming story but we have been informed that they have scrapped their original plans.

The good news for Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and the fine folks over at Paramount, the alleged thief was apprehended today at the Standard Hotel in Los Angeles, CA. around 4:00pm PST.

We have been told that the thief was apprehended by LAPD and the FBI with the help of a member of the online press that had been offered the stolen property. Sources tell us that an undercover sting operation was set in motion late last night with the help of the unnamed member of the online press.

A meeting between the alleged thief and the unnamed online reporter was set up for 4:00pm at the Standard Hotel on Sunset Blvd. The sting went as planned and the arrest was made. The IESB has been told that the alleged thief was in possession of the stolen property.

We are waiting for Paramount Studios to issue an official comment at this time.

Charges to be filed against the individual are unknown at this time.

brett ratner, you should be ashamed of yourself.

'Indy 4' Will Be As Good As 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark,' Promises George Lucas
Director says the mythology of the 'Crystal Skull' is 'up there with the Ark of the Covenant.'
Source: MTV

Ever since Shia LaBeouf announced the title of the next "Indiana Jones" adventure at the MTV Video Music Awards, everyone from ordinary movie fans to Harvard archeologists have obsessed themselves with the meaning behind crystal skulls, the legendary artifacts Indy will search for in his fourth big-screen journey.

But that's nothing compared to how long George Lucas himself has been obsessed with these antique crystals, the legendary director admitted to MTV News.

"We did 'The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles' [TV show in 1992], and in the process of that, one of the scripts we were working on was about a crystal skull. I became fascinated with it there," Lucas revealed on the red carpet for the American Film Institute's 40th anniversary. "We've been through lots of different versions [of 'Indy 4'] the last 14 years, with five different writers. [But with crystal skulls] there's just a lot of aspects that seem to fit into our kind of a movie."

While Indy's Holy Grail "Crusade" gave him a taste of immortality, and his "Temple" quest for Sankara Stones brought him a glimpse of "fortune and glory," those relics are stuffy museum pieces compared to the power of the crystal skulls, Lucas asserted.

"I think this is actually better, it's up there with the Ark of the Covenant," he declared of the fourth film's "McGuffin" (a term coined by Alfred Hitchcock to describe an object which drives a film's plot). "Sankara Stones and the Holy Grail were a little tough, but I think this time we've really got a great one.

"The skulls themselves are real and a lot of the stuff in the movie is real, just like in the other movies," Lucas continued. "We don't base it on a lot of phony-baloney stuff. It's all based on at least true mythology that exists today that ... a certain amount of the population actually believes in."

Lucas emphasized that "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is shaping up to be the best Indy flick since the first one, even going so far as to call "Skulls" tonally most like "Raiders." But whereas the Ark of the Covenant has very few historically ascribed powers, true believers attribute all sorts of abilities to the crystal skulls, ranging from the skulls being psychic amplifiers to tools of death to repositories of ancient knowledge (something like an Atlantian supercomputer).

So which theory will be in the film?

"There's several different kinds of skulls, several different kinds of theories, several myths that are surrounding them," Lucas said, clearly delighted by his secret knowledge. "So, you just have to put all the pieces together, look it up and figure out which one it is. Or just wait until the movie comes out, which is so much easier."

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" opens May 22, 2008.

Spielberg Talks Indy 4, Transformers & Tintin!
Source: ComingSoon

Earlier today, ComingSoon.net had a chance to talk to director Steven Spielberg about next summer's highly-anticipated Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, starring Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, Karen Allen, John Hurt and Jim Broadbent, as well as his other projects in the works like Tintin and the Transformers sequel.

Before we met the remarkable and legendary director at the Amblin offices on the Universal Studios lot, we were shuttled to craft services near the set for lunch. While we weren't allowed on-set, which was somewhat disappointing but understandable, we did catch a glimpse of Harrison Ford in full costume grabbing a bite to eat as we left the area and that made not seeing the set quite alright. He appeared to be amazingly fit in his Indy outfit and we couldn't believe how great the 64-year-old looked as he quickly flashed his award-winning grin.

A few minutes later, we met Spielberg in a private screening room where he enthusiastically greeted us sporting his usual dressed-down-with-ball-cap look. Spielberg was gracious with his time and while he talked with us a few minutes, he was upfront about not wanting to answer any questions about the movie. Of course as journalists, we had to try and this is what we got:

Production is two days away from wrapping and the director raved about how great it was to have Ford back and how amazed he was that he did the majority of his own stunts. He said, looking back to the last film, which was 18 years ago, he couldn't tell the difference between the action star from then to now because he's still that good. He also told us that the Russians are the villains in the film and he hired Russian actors to ensure accuracy with their accents.

He went on to say that the fourth installment of the "Indiana Jones" franchise is shot on film and not digital, despite Lucas' encouragements of doing so because he is old-fashioned, and he added that if the people before him, who he considered great directors, did it on film then that's good enough for him.

Spielberg then talked about what a great addition Shia LaBeouf has been and how he's been doing all of his own stunts, too. Speaking of LaBeouf, Spielberg told us there are going to be multiple "Transformers" films that the hot young actor is signed on to do and that there's already a story for the second one, but production depends on the pending writer's strike.

In addition to Transformers and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the industrious director talked about Tintin, a project he's working on with Peter Jackson, based on the popular graphic novels by Belgian artist Hergé. He said that as of now there are only two directors with Jackson directing the first installment, himself directing the second movie, and if they don't hire another director, the two would co-direct the third. Jackson will shoot his movie in New Zealand and Spielberg will shoot in the States, and Spielberg said the two are very collaborative and that the film will be using motion-capture, which is still new to him.

As if meeting Spielberg in person and listening to him talk wasn't enough, he also signed limited edition "Indy 4" posters for all of us. It was a great afternoon for everyone, to say the least.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Findyskull1.jpg&hash=fa6983189dbd5772df10f1268ae51e84f2f463ef)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Findyskull2.jpg&hash=e7c1d8ce850cacd7b1b48b0c1403416a84e182f5)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Findyskull3.jpg&hash=b1d85aedd3eb98a10dbac6de128a669ab1dadc72)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Pants Tent

god indy quit holding stuff.

I'm still certain there'll be a scene where LaBeouf snorts some meth, hops on a motorcycle and has lots and lots of gay sex to the tune of Little Peggy March's "I Will Follow Him"

Quote from: squints on November 28, 2007, 11:39:58 PM
I'm still certain they're be a scene where LaBeouf snorts some meth, hops on a motorcycle and has lots and lots of gay sex to the tune of Little Peggy March's "I Will Follow Him"

we can only hope......j/k...

Source: ComingSoon

The first trailer for Steven Spielberg's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is now planned for a debut in February. While we don't know for sure with which movie it will show, Paramount's biggest film that month is The Spiderwick Chronicles, so keep your eye on that one. Of course, it's possible Paramount will decide to debut footage earlier during the Super Bowl, but we're not sure.

'Indiana Jones' Roles For Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone Revealed Exclusively To MTV News
Blanchett 'makes a great villain. She had a really fun time,' film's producer says.
By Shawn Adler; MTV

From the very moment he struck an iconic pose onscreen nearly 30 years ago, Indiana Jones became one of the most beloved movie characters of all time. So when word went around town that Harrison Ford was once again itching to whip it up as the intrepid archaeologist, you would think that the actors fortunate enough to hear from Steven Spielberg or George Lucas would instantly jump at the opportunity to star in the series' fourth installment, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

"Well, no," "Indy" producer Frank Marshall laughed. "I think it's an opportunity that doesn't come along very often — to do these kinds of big movies — but they talk to Steven and he pitches the role. [Before they commit], they want to know, rightfully, what the part is."

The actors' roles are a secret Marshall is finally ready to share with the world, explaining exclusively to MTV News just who exactly some new castmembers will be playing.

"Well, Cate [Blanchett] is just spectacular, one of the finest actresses working today. She went from '[The Curious Case of] Benjamin Button' to playing the villainess in 'Indiana Jones,' so she's up for anything," Marshall enthused, confirming speculation that the Oscar winner joined the cast as Indy's main adversary. "She makes a great villain. She had a really fun time.

"Ray Winstone, he came from 'Beowulf' to this," Marshall continued, describing Winstone's character, Mac, as a sort of cross between villain Belloq and friend Sallah. "He plays an archaeologist competitor to Indy. Friend and competitor."

And Jim Broadbent? He plays a Yale colleague of Dr. Jones' that "sort of replaces Marcus Brody," Marshall said.

All three, along with Shia LaBeouf, Karen Allen, Harrison Ford, Spielberg, Lucas and Marshall himself, face a particularly "huge expectation" with "Indy 4," the producer said — a pressure to succeed that led screenwriter David Koepp to recently tell MTV News that his biggest hope for the film was "just [to not] screw up."

It's a pressure they've faced and successfully surpassed, Marshall insisted.

"I think the best thing I can say about it is it looks like an Indiana Jones movie in all the best ways. It's the look, it's the way that Steven designs all the shots, it's the style, it's the lighting, it's the way Indy is — all of those things. We haven't strayed," he giddily explained. "It sounds trite, but there's no other way to describe it. You go, 'Oh — Indy.' There's sort of a language that Steven developed for this character and for these movies. And you're going to get exactly what you got in the other three movies, which is really kind of thrilling when you see it."

Well, not exactly what you got in the first three movies, Marshall admitted, considering it's now been 19 years since the last Indy adventure, and, while not a doddering old man, star Harrison Ford is 65 years old.

"It's not the years, it's the mileage," Marshall joked, parroting the famous line from "Raiders of the Lost Ark." "What'll be interesting is you're seeing him in a different decade, so there's all kinds of new, interesting things that he has to deal with. Indy seems to be a little smarter [as an older man] — wiser, let's say."

Part of that wisdom is knowing when to let go, Marshall claimed, vehemently denying rumors that "Crystal Skull" would be the start of another series — either with Ford as the main character or with LaBeouf.

"I don't think so. We're all getting too old," Marshall playfully reported. "We have to hand the [adventure] torch to somebody else. I don't know who that's going to be."

Perhaps, given that one of its supposed powers is the ability to see the future, Marshall could borrow Indy's crystal skull to divine the answer.

"Well, I did actually meet one," Marshall said of his onetime audience with the fabled artifact. "I've been in the presence of Max, the one from Texas. I went and visited him. The thing is, when you see it you go, 'How is that possible? Why isn't it just breaking apart?' So that's one of the elements of all the Indiana Jones movies: this kind of supernatural-plus-archaeological element that is present in all of the four movies now."

But, alas, laughed Marshall, if the crystal skull has any power at all, they're saving the big reveal for Indy.

"No," Marshall chuckled. "I don't feel any wiser after being in its presence."

Maybe the world will. We'll get our chance to find out when "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is released May 22.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg145.imageshack.us%2Fimg145%2F1674%2Findy1shttsrdrew72dpijo4.jpg&hash=700623aa847f730221a4c9a6d49a78f283068d16) (http://imageshack.us)

nostalgia-riffic.

i really really hope they keep Struzan for the final one-sheet.

I hate this poster because it gives me too much hope.  Can't go wrong with Drew Struzan but I just feel like it's the equivalent of your ex promising you that things will be different this time.

Quote from: IN SPAR_ROWS on December 10, 2007, 11:22:25 AM
I hate this poster because it gives me too much hope.  Can't go wrong with Drew Struzan but I just feel like it's the equivalent of your ex promising you that things will be different this time.

Hahahaha. This made me laugh very hard.

First look: Whip cracks over new 'Indiana Jones' movie
By Anthony Breznican, USA TODAY

Now that the poster for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has been revealed, some details from the super-secret plot also can be officially exposed.

Indiana Jones co-producer Frank Marshall is authorized to confirm some rumors and detail some of the story, about a quest for South American relics with supernatural powers.

When last we saw Indy, he was riding off into the sunset in 1989's The Last Crusade, set in 1938 near the start of World War II. The new movie, due this spring, is set at the height of the Cold War in 1957, so the character has aged in real time — 19 years.

"He's teaching and having kind of a quiet life," the producer says. Once the archaeologist is thrust back into danger, the signature Indiana Jones red line tracing across the map will take him to New Mexico, Connecticut, Mexico City and the jungles of Peru.

Despite all the gray-hair jokes (Harrison Ford is 65), Indy is still swinging from dangerous precipices and absorbing punches.

"Indy's a fallible character. He makes mistakes and gets hurt. He has a few more aches and pains now," Marshall says. "That's the other thing people like: He's a real character, not a character with superpowers."

The Nazis are no longer Indy's chief foe — he's racing for the Crystal Skull against operatives from the Soviet Union, including Oscar winner Cate Blanchett as the seductive Agent Spalko. "Indy always has a love-hate relationship with every woman he ever comes in contact with," Marshall says.

Ray Winstone, currently the star of Beowulf, co-stars as an unethical rival archaeologist. Transformers star Shia LaBeouf sports greaser hair and rides a motorcycle as the hero's sidekick.

The Last Crusade concluded without a cliffhanger, but Crystal Skull will revisit bits from other films, including Karen Allen's feisty Marion Ravenwood from 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The artifact of the title is inspired by real quartz sculptures of disputed origins that are carved in a way that defies the natural structure of the crystal.

"The theory is they are shaped by higher powers or alien powers or came from another world, or an ancient Mayan civilization had the powers," Marshall says.

If is wasn't going to have any WW II influences, then it makes sense it would have Alien or outer space beings influences.

That Spielberg and his World War II and extraterestial insterests! I can't wait till he makes a movie combining the two.

Quote from: MacGuffin on December 10, 2007, 11:59:42 AM
Frank Marshall says. "That's the other thing people like: He's a real character, not a character with superpowers."

ppl like characters with superpowers too, maybe even moreso.

Quote from: ddiggler on December 10, 2007, 08:43:51 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg145.imageshack.us%2Fimg145%2F1674%2Findy1shttsrdrew72dpijo4.jpg&hash=700623aa847f730221a4c9a6d49a78f283068d16) (http://imageshack.us)

I really like it. But yeah, hope they keep the final posters in the same style as the old ones too. I was really worried we were going to see some awful headshot, or something that just jarred horribly with the rest of the series. Gotta be honest, after all the crap news we've been hearing about this film, it seemed more and more likely that I was going to be extremely disappointed by this movie. But now I've seen this poster, my faith has been restored, although I'm not going to let my expectations get too carried away.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2F2008%2F02%2Fcuar01w_indianajones0802.jpg&hash=a8f438c6fa1b33595f954897ceb40db9e6bac351)

Keys to the Kingdom
Between them, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have made 13 of the 100 top-grossing movies of all time. Yet they struggled for more than a decade with the upcoming fourth installment of their billion-dollar Indiana Jones franchise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Annie Leibovitz gets exclusive access to the set, while Lucas, Spielberg, and their star, Harrison Ford, tell Jim Windolf about the long standoff over the plot, why critics and fans will be upset, and how they've updated Indy.
by Jim Windolf; Vanity Fair

When we last saw him, nearly 19 years ago, everybody's favorite archaeologist was literally riding off into the sunset after having found the Holy Grail. This seemed as though it had to be the end of the adventure series that had gotten its start with Raiders of the Lost Ark, the big summertime blockbuster of 1981. But then, on the morning of June 18, 2007, Steven Spielberg, the director of the Indiana Jones movies, and George Lucas, who came up with the idea for the franchise, found themselves facing cast and crew on an empty piece of land in Deming, New Mexico. "How time flies," Spielberg said, raising a flute of champagne, in a moment captured on video, which ended up on YouTube. "No one's changed, we all look the same. I just want to say: Break a leg, have a good shoot, do your best work, and here's looking at you, kids."

Before the day was out, the temperature had reached 97 degrees. Probably no one felt the heat more than the star, Harrison Ford, who, at age 65, was back in his distinctive costume. "It's a very bizarre costume, when you think about it," Ford says. "It's this guy sporting a whip, who's off usually for someplace really hot in his leather jacket." He says he got right back into the role once he suited up. "There's something about the character that I guess is a good fit for me, because the minute I put the costume on, I recognize the tone that we need, and I feel confident and clear about the character."

After 79 first-unit filming days, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a wrap. Like the earlier movies, it is a Lucasfilm Ltd. production distributed by Paramount Pictures. Aside from the New Mexico location, the film was shot in New Haven, Connecticut; Fresno, California; and Hawaii, with significant work taking place on lots built at Downey Studios, in southeast Los Angeles.

On May 22, the movie will hit approximately 4,000 U.S. theaters. The story is set in 1957, and this time Dr. Jones goes up against cold-blooded, Cold War Russkies—led by Cate Blanchett in dominatrix mode—instead of the Nazis he squashed like bugs in previous installments. Making a return alongside Ford is Karen Allen, as Marion Ravenwood, Indy's pugnacious true love, last seen in the first film (since retitled, rather inelegantly, Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Rising star Shia LaBeouf joins the cast in a role that no one connected with the film will confirm is the love child of Indy and Marion.

Once the final cut is locked, it will be dubbed into some 25 languages for an ambitious international release. The masses—lately thrilling to the lethally blank Jason Bourne, the totally out-to-lunch Jack Sparrow, and that earnest wand waver Harry Potter—will be asked once more to embrace a fedora-wearing hero of the 1980s with roots in the jungle serials of the 1930s.

It's not a bad bet. Lucas, 63, and Spielberg, 61, have made 13 of the all-time 100 highest-grossing movies, in terms of worldwide box office, either separately or as a producer-director duo. They are big-time spellbinders in a league with P. T. Barnum, Walt Disney, and the Wizard of Oz. The Indiana Jones series alone has grossed more than $1.18 billion worldwide—and that's before you add in the comic books, young-adult novels, and figurines.

But once upon a time, in the faraway 1960s, Lucas and Spielberg were upstarts banging at the palace doors. Hollywood was run by men who were the age they are now, tough guys who weren't going to give way without a fight. At age 18, Spielberg sneaked away from the tram route of the Universal Pictures tour and stepped onto a soundstage. He was a movie-crazed kid who had already made a full-length feature, Firelight, an 8-mm. sci-fi extravaganza starring his sisters, and he wanted in.

The next day he showed up on the lot wearing a suit, his dad's briefcase in hand. It was a disguise good enough to get him past the guards. He settled into an empty office and "worked" at Universal all through that summer of 1965, making himself known to the cinematographers and directors, creating for himself an unofficial, on-the-fly internship. While attending California State University, Long Beach, Spielberg continued to visit the lot. On weekends he shot a 23-minute 35-mm. movie about two young hitchhikers, called Amblin'. He won a real job on the strength of it, as a director in Universal's television wing. So there he was, a boy wonder among grizzled veterans, turning out episodes of Night Gallery, Columbo, and Marcus Welby, M.D., honing the craft he would put to use in a career spanning everything from The Sugarland Express (1974) to Munich (2005).

Lucas was more of an accidental filmmaker. As a skinny diabetic kid growing up in the dusty Northern California town of Modesto, he wanted to be a racecar driver—in those days driving fast and fixing cars were his chief talents—but his dream died soon before his high-school graduation, when he flipped over in his own Fiat Bianchina. The wreck almost killed him. After two years of community college, he applied to the University of Southern California's film school. He moved downstate against the wishes of his strict father (who considered the film industry vile), and soon made a name for himself with a series of prizewinning experimental shorts. His U.S.C. films earned him a paid Warner Bros. internship that led him to the set of Finian's Rainbow, a musical being shot by just about the only young director back then, 28-year-old Francis Ford Coppola, who pushed Lucas to learn how to write scripts and create accessible movies. Lucas went on to do just that on a grand scale, and he pulled it off largely outside the system. With his considerable winnings he built Lucasfilm, his very own, leaner version of Hollywood, now based in San Francisco's Presidio and on a large property in rural Marin County.

In 1967, Spielberg had seen a Lucas short, Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB, at a student film festival held at U.C.L.A.'s Royce Hall. "I met George backstage," Spielberg recalls. "I was blown away by his short film, and Francis Coppola introduced us." They met again in the early 1970s, when Lucas was in L.A. to cast his second feature, American Graffiti. A gang of young cinéastes was gathering at a Benedict Canyon hovel that had been Lucas's home in his U.S.C. days, and where he was staying again while in town. Among the group was Spielberg, who was working on his script for The Sugarland Express. "I'd come in at night after casting all day," Lucas says, "and that's when we became friends." As the decade rolled along, blockbusters by Spielberg (Jaws) and Lucas (Star Wars—now called Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope) changed the industry.

Lucas left Los Angeles the day Star Wars opened in 1977 to hide out at Hawaii's Mauna Kea resort, on the Big Island. Spielberg soon joined him, and they talked over their plans. "I told him that I wanted to, for the second time, approach [film producer] Cubby Broccoli, who had turned me down the first time, to see if he would change his mind and hire me to do a James Bond movie," Spielberg says. "And George said, 'I've got something better than that. It's called Raiders of the Lost Ark.' He pitched me the story, and I committed on the beach."

Lucas had first conjured the bullwhip-happy archaeologist in the early 1970s, when he was living on almost nothing in Mill Valley, north of San Francisco. It was right around the time he dreamed up Star Wars and was honing the American Graffiti idea. "I have a tendency, when I'm working on one thing, to doodle around and work on other things, to avoid what I'm doing," he says. Just prior to that, he had been working, with brawny writer-director John Milius, on a script for Apocalypse Now (which Lucas was going to direct, before the project wound up in Coppola's hands). "We started to prepare it," Lucas recalls, "and there was no studio that would go near it. The army wouldn't cooperate at all. It was kind of a hopeless exercise."

That's when he had a vision of Indiana Smith (as he originally named him). Here was a film hero who might be able to bring back the cheesy excitement of the 1930s-vintage Republic Pictures serials Lucas had seen on TV as a kid. "Saturday matinee serial—that was the initial thought," he says. With a little more care, better production values, and a dash of irony, this type of thing could be transformed into something of interest for a 1980s audience.

Loaded with comedy and hairsbreadth escapes, Raiders of the Lost Ark was the highest-grossing film of 1981. Ford, who had played the cocksure, cynical Han Solo in Star Wars, made a perfect professor of archaeology who's not so mild-mannered when he goes off campus. The movie spawned two sequels: the dark, over-the-top Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), made while Lucas was going through a painful divorce, and the more tender and slapstick father-son picture, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989), in which Indy wins the respect of his dad, a withholding grump played by Sean Connery.

But it wasn't quite the last crusade. From 1992 to 1996, Lucas supervised The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, a TV series which ran first on ABC, then on the USA Network, and won 10 Emmys. While filming a 1993 episode in which Ford made a cameo appearance, Lucas happened on something that gave him the idea for a fourth movie installment. He mentioned it to the actor, who wasn't too impressed. Lucas later told Spielberg about his new concept, only to find that the director wasn't so hot on the idea, either, although generally warm to the notion of a fourth film.

But Lucas was adamant. It was this idea or nothing.

Tucked into a corner of the Universal Studios lot is a cluster of two-story, Southwestern-style buildings. This is the Amblin Entertainment production house, the place where Spielberg works when he's not shooting a movie. The little campus is populated with union carpenters, development girls in funky hats, and nervous Hollywood courtiers who wait their turns in a clay-tiled foyer. When Spielberg meets you in his homey conference room, he looks you in the eye and asks interested questions. He's affable, cheerful, engaged—"present," in L.A. parlance. It's easy to picture him running a sane, happy movie set. At the time of our interview, he's between sessions of editing the new Indy.

"I'm in my second cut, which means I've put the movie together and I've seen it," he says. "I usually do about five cuts as a director. The best news is that, when I saw the movie myself the first time, there was nothing I wanted to go back and shoot, nothing I wanted to reshoot, and nothing I wanted to add."

My glance strays to a side table, where headshots of actors under consideration for his likely next directing project, Chicago 7—about the conspiracy trial that grew out of protests at the 1968 Democratic convention—lie on the surface. Among them I spy Will Smith, Taye Diggs, Adam Arkin, and Kevin Spacey; Sacha Baron Cohen (as Abbie Hoffman) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (as William Kunstler) are also linked to the project, which has a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. (It should be noted here that Chicago 7 will be partly based on Chicago 10, a new documentary produced by Graydon Carter, Vanity Fair's editor, and Brett Morgen, the film's director.) After Chicago 7, Spielberg will probably go on to direct Lincoln, with Liam Neeson in the title role.

A lot has changed since the last Indiana Jones movie. For one thing, Spielberg, known in the 70s and early 80s as a director of hugely popular but lightweight pictures, brought his famously fluid camerawork to the darker Schindler's List (1993), Amistad (1997), and Saving Private Ryan (1998). With Artificial Intelligence: A.I. (2001), Minority Report (2002), and War of the Worlds (2005), he made science fiction that hit harder than E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) or Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). At the same time, action movies went through a major evolution. A bald monk flew. So did Keanu. Jackie Chan chopped necks while moving like Astaire. Travolta wiped blood off a windshield. Spidey killed baddies between bouts of emo-boy angst. Batman got the Christian Bale treatment (thin, dark, intense), and a computer-generated Yoda battled Palpatine. Jason Bourne crunched the bones of his pursuers in films that came out great despite looking as if they had been edited in a Cuisinart. In this atmosphere, can Indy compete?

Rather than update the franchise to match current styles, Lucas and Spielberg decided to stay true to the prior films' look, tone, and pace. During pre-production, Spielberg watched the first three Indiana Jones movies at an Amblin screening room with Janusz Kaminski, who has shot the director's last 10 films. He replaces Douglas Slocombe, who shot the first three Indy movies (and is now retired at age 94), as the man mainly responsible for the film's look. "I needed to show them to Janusz," Spielberg says, "because I didn't want Janusz to modernize and bring us into the 21st century. I still wanted the film to have a lighting style not dissimilar to the work Doug Slocombe had achieved, which meant that both Janusz and I had to swallow our pride. Janusz had to approximate another cinematographer's look, and I had to approximate this younger director's look that I thought I had moved away from after almost two decades."

Spielberg promises no tricky editing for the new one, saying, "I go for geography. I want the audience to know not only which side the good guy's on and the bad guy's on, but which side of the screen they're in, and I want the audience to be able to edit as quickly as they want in a shot that I am loath to cut away from. And that's been my style with all four of these Indiana Jones pictures. Quick-cutting is very effective in some movies, like the Bourne pictures, but you sacrifice geography when you go for quick-cutting. Which is fine, because audiences get a huge adrenaline rush from a cut every second and a half on The Bourne Ultimatum, and there's just enough geography for the audience never to be lost, especially in the last Bourne film, which I thought was the best of the three. But, by the same token, Indy is a little more old-fashioned than the modern-day action adventure."

The script, Spielberg says, can provide the blockbuster pace. "Part of the speed is the story," he says. "If you build a fast engine, you don't need fast cutting, because the story's being told fluidly, and the pages are just turning very quickly. You first of all need a script that's written in the express lane, and if it's not, there's nothing you can do in the editing room to make it move faster. You need room for character, you need room for relationships, for personal conflict, you need room for comedy, but that all has to happen on a moving sidewalk."

When it came to the actual shoot, Spielberg reports, he and his star were able to get their Indy legs back a day or two into filming. "I mean, we're both older," he says, "and we both look a bit older, I think, certainly, but at the same time Harrison needed to recapture the caustic, laconic spirit of Dr. Jones, and certainly he was going to have to manage the action, and he did both of those things amazingly well, certainly far beyond what I expected."

In a separate interview, Ford says he was just glad to come through filming unscathed. "In the first one, I tore the A.C.L. in my left leg," he says, "and then, in the second one, I ended up with a bad back injury and had to have surgery in the middle of filming. But in this one, I was pretty much uninjured." That's not an easy feat, especially since Ford was doing many of his own stunts, and part of Indy's appeal is his tendency to get the crap beaten out of him. "I always wanted to make sure the audience understood the pain," Ford says, "so that they could participate and enjoy the triumph. That was always a very big part of my ambition for the character, to allow the audience to see his fear, allow the audience to have a chance to see him work his way through the problem, not to be one of those characters that you know is going to succeed. I guess you know that Indiana Jones is finally going to succeed, but I think you don't know how many bumps he's going to take before it happens."

While Spielberg feels at home in Hollywood, Lucas is more of a loner. Because of his distaste for L.A., his suspicion of its guilds and executives, he works 400 miles to the north, on his 4,000-acre Skywalker Ranch, where olive trees grow in neat lines atop a ridge and grapevines cover hillsides. The main house, an idealized version of an American family home circa 1930, stands off by itself. Lucas occupies an upstairs corner office, which has the feeling of a master bedroom but with a large desk taking the place of a bed.

At nine a.m. he is holding a can of Diet Coke. He looks like an undersize bear. When he starts talking about Indiana Jones, a character he acknowledges is not dissimilar to Han Solo, his enthusiasm rises, breaking through his natural reserve. "It's a classic movie archetype," he says. "Clark Gable played that role forever, the same role, which is the freelance cynic who eventually comes around, whether he's a newspaper reporter or a pirate. Humphrey Bogart would play it with a little bit more of an edge. Harrison plays that part really well and can play it with a certain amount of humor, which makes it really charming. And the idea originally for both Han Solo and Indiana Jones is he's in over his head all the time and kind of treading water. In Solo, he's got a lot more bravado and he's actually better at what he does. He can actually handle it. Indiana Jones gets in over his head and he can't handle it. It's only by sheer, last-second skill, or luck, or whatever, that he actually gets himself out of it. You can't create a character like that without knowing that someone like Harrison can have the right, befuddled, oh-my-God-I'm-gonna-die look. And you're right there with him. He's Everyman. He's us. 'That's exactly what I would look like if I were in that situation.' And it's an honest look. It's not contrived. A lot of those guys now try to copy that, the better-looking movie-star types who try to do it. In the end, Harrison is a movie star because he's a character actor. He is like Clark Gable, who was also a character actor, and Humphrey Bogart, who was a character actor. Those people were not Adonis, superhero guys. But that's why they're so endearing. That's why everybody loves them. That's why they're so much fun to watch on-screen, because they're vulnerable."

The Bourne movies, the last two of which were directed by United 93 virtuoso Paul Greengrass, have made an impression on Lucas also. The series seems to have become the new action-movie gold standard, or at least a widely admired point of reference in filmmaking circles. Lucas says he appreciates the Bourne movies for their relative believability. "The thing about Bourne," Lucas says, "I would put that on the credible side, because he's trained in martial arts and all that kind of stuff, and we know that people in martial arts, even little old ladies, can break somebody's leg. So you kind of say, O.K., that's possible. But when you get to the next level, whether it's Tomb Raider or the Die Hard series, where you've got one guy with one pistol going up against 50 guys with machine guns, or he jumps in a jet and starts chasing a car down a freeway, you say, I'm not sure I can really buy this. Mission: Impossible's like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it."

The first building block of any Indiana Jones movie, according to Lucas, is something called the MacGuffin. The term, popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, refers to an object or goal that kicks the story into action and drives it to the third act. Hitchcock held that the less specific the MacGuffin the better. In his 1959 suspense classic, North by Northwest, the men chasing Cary Grant are after microfilm containing "government secrets"—that's all the audience learns about why the film's villains cause the hero so much trouble—and Hitchcock considered that to be a perfect MacGuffin, because it was so wonderfully vague. While Lucas agrees with his predecessor on the importance of the MacGuffin, his conception of the device differs significantly from Hitchcock's. Rather than seeing it as a gimmick with the function of getting things rolling, Lucas believes that the MacGuffin should be powerful and that the audience should care about it almost as much as the dueling heroes and villains on-screen.

He feels he had an excellent one in Raiders of the Lost Ark. The much-sought-after Ark of the Covenant not only held the Ten Commandments but also functioned as "a radio to God" and possessed enough Old Testament power to smite those who looked on its treasures. If the Nazis were to gain control of it, instead of good old Indy, well, you can imagine the consequences. But a first-rate MacGuffin is hard to find, and Lucas says he was not completely satisfied with those he had for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (the sacred Shankara Stones, which, for reasons no audience can keep straight, must be retrieved in order to save kidnapped village children from an Indian death cult) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (the life-giving Holy Grail, which comes in handy when Indy's dad is dying).

"I'm the one that has to come up with the story, and the MacGuffin, the supernatural object that everyone's going after ... " Lucas's voice trails off. He is seated in a favorite chair, its cushions lumpy and dented. "The Ark of the Covenant was perfect. The Shankara Stones were way too esoteric. The Holy Grail was sort of feeble—but, at the same time, we put the father in there to cover for it. I mean, the whole reason it became a dad movie was because I was scared to hell that there wasn't enough power behind the Holy Grail to carry a movie. So we kept pushing to have it function on some level—and to make it function for a father and a son. To make it that kind of a movie was the big risk and the big challenge, but also the thing that pulled it out of the fire. So, at the end of it, I was like, No more of these, baby. We're done. I can't think of anything else. We barely got by on the last one!

"At that point I had kind of retired," he continues. "I was raising my kids, I was running my companies. The last thing I wanted to do was go off and do another one of these things. And it stayed there for quite a while, until I was doing Young Indiana Jones, and I was actually with Harrison, shooting a little piece for it, and I was up in Wyoming, where he lives, and I came up with this MacGuffin, which was sitting there right in front of me, and I said, 'Well, why didn't I ever see this before?'"

When Ford and Spielberg both rejected the idea, Lucas dug in. He hired screenwriter after screenwriter to make his MacGuffin the linchpin of a new Indy story. "So this went on for 15 years," he says. "And finally we got to a point where everybody said, 'Look, we're not doing that movie.' And I said, 'Well, look, I can't think of another MacGuffin. This is it. This works. I know this works.' And then we stopped. I just said, 'O.K.,' and that's about the time I started Star Wars again. But then Harrison was kind of interested. And I said, 'I won't do it unless we can have that MacGuffin. Without the MacGuffin, I will not go near this thing.'"

Ford can laugh about Lucas's obstinacy now. "He's a stubborn sucker," the actor says, "and he had an idea that he kept pushing into script form, and then they'd run it by me, and I'd usually rebel, and, finally, you know, one script came along that really struck me as being smart, not working too hard to give reference to the other films, but that carried on the stories we had told so far in a logical way. The character was allowed to age, and we found ourselves in a different period of time, and what I read was a great script, so I said, 'Let's go, let's make this one.'"

The eventual shooting script bore the name David Koepp, a writer-director whose screenplay credits include War of the Worlds, Spider-Man, and the first two Jurassic Park movies, which were directed by Spielberg and leaned heavily on Lucas's Industrial Light & Magic special-effects shop. An earlier pass, which Spielberg loved and Lucas didn't, was written by Frank Darabont, the writer-director of The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and The Mist. I ask Lucas if each version had made use of the prize MacGuffin.

"Mmm-hmmm," he says. "They're all the same."

And then (spoiler warning) Lucas gets a little more (spoiler alert) specific: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will apparently nudge our hero away from his usual milieu of spooky archaeology and into the realm of (spoiler Code Red) science fiction. "What it is that made it perfect was the fact that the MacGuffin I wanted to use and the idea that Harrison would be 20 years older would fit," Lucas says. "So that put it in the mid-50s, and the MacGuffin I was looking at was perfect for the mid-50s. I looked around and I said, 'Well, maybe we shouldn't do a 30s serial, because now we're in the 50s. What is the same kind of cheesy-entertainment action movie, what was the secret B movie, of the 50s?' So instead of doing a 30s Republic serial, we're doing a B science-fiction movie from the 50s. The ones I'm talking about are, like, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Blob, The Thing. So by putting it in that context, it gave me a way of approaching the whole thing."

As New Age devotees already know, fossilized skulls made of quartz crystal actually do exist. But are they truly, as those who believe in their powers claim, pre-Columbian objects of Mayan or Aztecan origin? And do they really harbor supernatural properties, like the "skull of doom," supposedly dug up by early-20th-century archaeologist F. A. Mitchell-Hedges? This is a matter of some dispute, right up there with the existence of Big Foot or Atlantis. In the world of Indiana Jones, however, as with the Holy Grail and the Ark, one goes with the legend.

Crystal skulls have already appeared in four Indiana Jones young-adult novels and as part of an Indiana Jones ride at Tokyo's DisneySea theme park. In an episode of the TV series Stargate SG-1, they had alien origin. In Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it would seem, based on the above hints, that here, too, the crystal skulls are somehow tied into things, or beings, not of this world. What Lucas says—and he won't say more—seems to support earlier Internet speculation that the scenes filmed in New Mexico may be set at Area 51, the Nevada military base which, according to conspiracy buffs and the creators of The X-Files, has been the site of U.F.O. and alien research.

No one outside of the filmmakers will know for sure until May 22, but it would be pretty cool if it turns out that Emperor Palpatine had dropped a crystal skull on Earth. Or maybe one was left behind by the skinny dudes from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Or maybe it's, like, E.T.'s cell phone.

Whatever, Lucas is convinced he won't please everyone. "I know the critics are going to hate it," he says. "They already hate it. So there's nothing we can do about that. They hate the idea that we're making another one. They've already made up their minds."

At least the legions of Indy geeks will be pleased, right?

"The fans are all upset," Lucas says. "They're always going to be upset. 'Why did he do it like this? And why didn't he do it like this?' They write their own movie, and then, if you don't do their movie, they get upset about it. So you just have to stand by for the bricks and the custard pies, because they're going to come flying your way."

Spielberg and Lucas both have Norman Rockwell originals hanging in their workplaces, among them The Peach Crop (Lucas) and a sketch of Triple Self-Portrait (Spielberg). That affinity makes sense. Rockwell, the popular American artist, was loved in his own time by millions of Saturday Evening Post readers and dismissed by serious critics. But in 1999, 21 years after the artist's death, New Yorker art critic Peter Schjeldahl was quoted thus in ArtNews: "Rockwell is terrific. It's become too tedious to pretend he isn't." Collectors too are taking notice: a Rockwell canvas, Breaking Home Ties, sold for $15.4 million at a 2006 Sotheby's auction.

Spielberg and Lucas, similarly, have been slammed. Like Rockwell, they take everyday moments and blow them up into the stuff of myth. Also, as with Rockwell, it looks like their reputations will only rise. If you check out the American Film Institute's 2007 list of the all-time 100 greatest American movies, you'll see Spielberg represented with Schindler's List (No. 8 ), E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (No. 24), Jaws (No. 56), and Saving Private Ryan (No. 71), and Lucas making the grade with Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope (No. 13) and American Graffiti (No. 62). The first movie to combine their sensibilities, Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, checks in at No. 66. Movie-lovers can argue, but there it is: a reasonable take on the American films that will make posterity's cut.

Although Lucas is sometimes accused of forcing actors to mouth wooden dialogue between the fantastic bouts of action that fill his movie's frames, he certainly has a penchant for populating his huge stories with domineering fathers, virtuous mothers who die, the most villainous villains imaginable, and naïve heroes who are not quite equipped to win the day. Neither he nor Spielberg is sly or subtle, and neither one shies away from the big moment—a necessary quality in making blockbusters.

Ford, who has a closer working relationship with both men than probably any other actor, has special insight into how they do it: "First of all, they both have incredible chops as directors," he says. "They both are wonderfully capable film directors, and I think they have an ambition to communicate their ideas. Strange as it seems, that's not always the case with directors. I think it derives from a kind of empathy and an understanding of how the world works and how people behave. And I think they also understand the culture so well that they are able to satisfy their own ambitions for a film and at the same time include the audience in the process. Neither of them is ashamed of making audience films."

The Indy series has succeeded, Lucas believes, largely because of its reliance on well-made stories. "There's a difference between throwing a puppy on a freeway and watching what happens and constructing a story," he says. "You don't just put your main character in jeopardy and then that becomes entertainment. That's why so many people have failed at this. Even though they may make some money, it doesn't get to the level that the Indiana Jones films do. They're a lot more complex than that. They're like little watches that have a lot of pieces in them." And if you don't like the key piece at the center of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull—the MacGuffin—you'll know who to blame.


(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2F2008%2F02%2Fcuar02w_indianajones0802.jpg&hash=2a4937077ab2fa06225448d39dd758c37576b986)
Shia LaBeouf and Karen Allen on set in Downey, California. Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood, Indy's spunky girlfriend from the first film, while LaBeouf joins in—or so rumor has it—as Indy and Marion's love child.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2F2008%2F02%2Fcuar03w_indianajones0802.jpg&hash=0a7fb4a08c0caf3fa1313eb1f1e90b507bcd75d5)
Set in 1957, the new film pits Indy against Russian Cold Warriors, including Cate Blanchett, whose character, Agent Spalko, looks like the toughest Soviet customer since Lotte Lenya's Rosa Klebb took on Sean Connery in From Russia with Love.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/indianajones200802?currentPage=1

Lucas comes off as even more of a dick than usual in this one.

yeah no one seems to care. he's the one paying for it after all.

good article, would've been GREAT if lucas hadn't skirted the darabont question. i like their spoiler warning system, but there's nothing i didn't know before. it's sci fi, big woop. "updated" to the style of a 50s b-movie, which i don't think is a good thing,

lucas is mighty defensive about how critics and audience will react. i always had the impression, which ford kinda confirms in the article, that the final approved script was not the BEST they saw, just the best they could agree on.

highlights include the tales of early spielberg on the lot, and two young dudes chilling in hawaii coming up with billion dollar franchises.

I'm as much a critic of recent George Lucas product as anyone but it's a positive to know that he had some real conviction for this story, regardless of who wrote the screenplay. He comes off as his usual, bitter self but I think he's right - we should remember that its not actually common to find entertainment of the calibre of his early work, today. Both men pay their respects to arguably the best action-hero creation since Indy: Bourne, and at the same time sound like they're about to show the kids how its really done. I love that.

With Lucas sounding like he has something to re-prove, what then matters most to me is that Spielberg is taking it to heart. I love the idea of him revisiting the originals with Janusz Kaminski and taking notes on the old Spielberg.

I think the science-fiction can be as compelling as the religion if treated with the same reverence as the Ark of The Covenant was. As long as Indy doesn't say "little green men" in the first trailer I don't think anything else can sour my optimism.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F01%2Findycomic.jpg&hash=5c77d2f33ee59c4177df2e148b8450a865b99e1d)

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.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogsmithmedia.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F01%2Findy4-%282%29.jpg&hash=6560fd928d315a6ba4e9fe95e5ac76698d1ddc73)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Fnews%2Ftemp%2Findynewsopener.jpg&hash=284a6f034df173034d75ed144bee4f2495bd599f)


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.

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 30, 2008, 10:35:33 AM
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?

Quote from: polkablues on January 30, 2008, 11:22:23 AM

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 30, 2008, 10:35:33 AM
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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Quote from: polkablues on January 30, 2008, 10:06:56 PM
"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.

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.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on January 30, 2008, 08:05:27 PM
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.

Quote from: H.(sparro)W. on January 31, 2008, 10:03:42 AM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on January 30, 2008, 08:05:27 PM
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. 

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogsmithmedia.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F01%2Findy4.jpg&hash=68002da062250c19eebbd0f8b588bcac9d950c3c)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesblog.mtv.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F02%2F020108_indianajones2.jpg&hash=2ec298000381f2172242060e4e18478c3326f0cf)

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

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."

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.

QuoteI 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.

Teaser here (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/indianajones.html?showVideo=1)

So far so 'Live Free Or Die Hard.'

Yep.  That's about what I was expecting.   :yabbse-undecided:

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

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.

Quote from: Redlum on February 14, 2008, 05:06:03 AM
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.

QuoteI 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.

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.

Quote from: Stefen on February 14, 2008, 10:17:40 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: B.C. Long on February 15, 2008, 12:07:56 AM

Quote from: Stefen on February 14, 2008, 10:17:40 AM
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.

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

Removal of guns and insertion of the American Flag.

And a link to the international version:

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

if they'd cut "damn, i thought that was closer." and "not as easy as it used to be" i could've been excited for this. WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD HE SAY "DAMN, I THOUGHT THAT WAS CLOSER"? George Lucas. but why couldn't Spielberg just cut that in editing? while George wasn't looking. from what i've seen, that is perhaps the worst moment of Harrison Ford's career. Indianna Jones should've been killed in the middle of that sentence. including the new, godawful, sense-defying ending for Return of the Jedi, i've never felt the urge to punch Lucas in the mouth. i feel it now. how could that line have been written, much less approved, then said, then edited into the trailer. i fear for what isn't in that trailer. i bet lots more moments where Jones fails to do something because he's gotten older and then says "damn, i thought i did that!" and the bad guys wait for him to successfully do it.

I wonder how many times Indy will say "I'm getting too old for this"

Avatar bet anyone?

Over/under is set at 17.

I'm going over. Any suckers wanna take that bet?

you people are fucking out of your minds.

this trailer is great! i've watched it a bunch of times already and i ate those "not as easy at it used to be" and "i thought that was closer lines" right up! that shit is fucking gold! this movie looks fun, fuck y'all.

also, you're all wrong. temple of doom is the best indy movie.

so blow it out your asses.

i swear on my mother's life there is not a trace of irony in this post.

Quote from: Redlum on February 14, 2008, 12:43:22 PM
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.

First off, the meaning of the main characters are more important in The Last Crusade than in Raiders. In Raiders we understand Indiana Jones is a cocky somewhat irreverent treasure hunter. In the Last Crusade we understand his search for treasures is driven by his need to impress his father. We also understand Indiana's father a great deal. Your idea of drama and meaning has to do with the supporting characters, but they didn't even have dramatic purposes in Raiders anyways. They were cardboard cut outs of an action serial molding. If the original purpose was dramatic then their characters would have had emotional baggage. They don't. Straight laced characterization isn't necessarily dramatic.

I'm sorry, but I think a lot of you are becoming kind of jaded snobs... this trailer was fun and it got me excited to see the movie.

Can't you just let go? 

Is it going to be as good as any of the first three?  Hell no... is it going to be a fun time with Indiana Jones?  YES!

exactly.  you guys would give a cold shoulder to Indy shooting the Samurai dude wouldnt you, you sick sons of bitches?!

I liked Jones growing up but don't have a soft spot for him the way most people my age seem to. Coming at it from a totally unattached standpoint that trailer was put together horribly! Seriously, the trailer for Jumper was cut together better than this...That being said, this will obviously be 100 times better than Jumper...unless of course Lucas co-wrote that too. Would someone please just lock that guy in his Scrooge McDuck money vault and not let him out?

Say what you will about the one-liners and the trailer, but that shot of the fedora then panning up to the iconic silhouette of Indy in shadow is beautiful.

I'm waiting to see the trailer and movie on the big screen before I make any real judgements. I want to have fun, I swear that I do.

They turned one of the iconic figures of my childhood into a snarky, overly-self-conscious video game.  The first time I watched the trailer, I thought I might have been overreacting, but no.  Subsequent viewings have just been more salt in the wound.  The pain is just too much to bear anymore.  Fuck you, George Lucas.  Fuck you, Steven Spielberg.  I'm out.  I wash my hands of it.  Wake me when Tintin comes out.

I thought it looked like every other Indiana Jones movie.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 19, 2008, 02:00:49 AM
I thought it looked like every other Indiana Jones movie.

I think the "Live Free or Die Hard" analogy is an apt one.  Granted, it resembled the previous movies in that it had Bruce Willis and action sequences, but the actual content of the film was a betrayal of the qualities that made the previous iterations special and memorable.  Again, I know I'm basing this entirely on an early trailer, but until I get some new information that allays these fears of mine, they're not going to go away on their own.

Quote from: polkablues on February 19, 2008, 03:15:22 AM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 19, 2008, 02:00:49 AM
I thought it looked like every other Indiana Jones movie.

I think the "Live Free or Die Hard" analogy is an apt one.  Granted, it resembled the previous movies in that it had Bruce Willis and action sequences, but the actual content of the film was a betrayal of the qualities that made the previous iterations special and memorable.  Again, I know I'm basing this entirely on an early trailer, but until I get some new information that allays these fears of mine, they're not going to go away on their own.

I really don't see how you come to this conclusion. There is no new gross exaggerated action sequence that is the equivalent of Bruce Willis taking on a fighter jet. In fact, compared to Temple of Doom, this sequel looks pretty tame. Also considering no Indiana Jones movie escapes corny dialogue, I thought the cheap age references were to be expected. Every Indiana Jones movie, if forced to be rolled out in a similar 40 second teaser trailer, would look pretty much like this film.

I don't know what to conclude about the movie itself...but it has to be better than that shitty trailer. As a trailer it's an amateurish piece of shit. It's obviously trying to sell Indy to the preteens or something. The one liners may suck here but work within the movie. One sure thing is that Spielberg's never been too good with comedy.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 19, 2008, 05:46:22 AM
I really don't see how you come to this conclusion. There is no new gross exaggerated action sequence that is the equivalent of Bruce Willis taking on a fighter jet. In fact, compared to Temple of Doom, this sequel looks pretty tame. Also considering no Indiana Jones movie escapes corny dialogue, I thought the cheap age references were to be expected. Every Indiana Jones movie, if forced to be rolled out in a similar 40 second teaser trailer, would look pretty much like this film.

The corny dialogue I'm fine with.  I actually think the whole "Part time!" thing is a great bit of Indy dialogue.  I take issue with the action scenes that are so CGI-heavy they might as well have made an animated film.  Between the swinging on and off of cars, and that bit with the jeeps on the edge of the cliff, this looks to be a movie that makes Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow look realistic by comparison.

Harrison Ford is 65 years old.  His character should not be performing feats more wildly improbably than what he was doing 25 years ago.  Indiana Jones is a character who knows his limitations, who will pull out his gun and shoot a dude when he's too tired to have a sword fight.  But what this trailer shows is a character without limitations.  A superhero.  He seems completely unfazed by the fact that he's just been thrown spine-first through the windshield of a speeding truck, or that he's being yanked around by that whip hard enough to dislocate both shoulders.

What about in the beginning of Temple of Doom where Indy falls out of a plane and uses an inflatable raft to catch the force of the wind and fall safely into a river?

Video Game logic? Yup.

Too CGIish? If they had it back then it would have.

"he's being yanked around by that whip hard enough to dislocate both shoulders."

"Indy falls out of a plane and uses an inflatable raft to catch the force of the wind and fall safely into a river"

It seems the Indy series is sticking pretty closely to it's continuity in regards to physics.

Believe me, had I been paying attention back then, I would have been saying the same things about Temple of Doom.

See, that's the point, the series never was perfect. Speilberg used standard techniques to make each film. Temple of Doom is dominated by bad green screen shots during the huge chase sequence at the end of the film. People don't want the new Indiana Jones to just be well made, but to look exactly like the films did from the 1980s, problems and all. This film will strike some people wrong simply because modern cameras are used. They want exact recreations of the originals.

The complaints about Ford's age are valid. Yea, I wondered if him slamming into a jeep was too much for someone of his age. I hope the film takes his character's age a little more realistically, but I can't say that the little bit of evidence in the trailer means the series will take a huge plunge into the abyss of Live Free and Die Hard territory.

You're more optimistic than I am.  I would love to be optimistic about this movie; maybe the next trailer will be better for me.

Quote from: polkablues on February 21, 2008, 01:15:28 AM
You're more optimistic than I am.  I would love to be optimistic about this movie; maybe the next trailer will be better for me.

I think it's because I just enjoy the series. I don't romanticize any thoughts of it being great.

But it is great! All those reasons that people seem to have with the trailer is why I love it. It wouldn't be Indy without them. I mean, I don't want Tarantino's Indiana Jones. I want Steven Spielberg's and if that means it's going to have a shitty ending then so be it!

Quote from: B.C. Long on February 22, 2008, 07:32:42 PM
But it is great! All those reasons that people seem to have with the trailer is why I love it. It wouldn't be Indy without them. I mean, I don't want Tarantino's Indiana Jones. I want Steven Spielberg's and if that means it's going to have a shitty ending then so be it!

None of the movies are great. They are just beloved.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 23, 2008, 02:28:41 AM
None of the movies are great. They are just beloved.

how is the first one not "great"? what does that mean, gt? i counter you. the first one is beloved because it's great. hence, the beloving. (and no. not saying beloving = great)

Quote from: picolas on February 23, 2008, 03:49:39 AM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 23, 2008, 02:28:41 AM
None of the movies are great. They are just beloved.

how is the first one not "great"? what does that mean, gt? i counter you. the first one is beloved because it's great. hence, the beloving. (and no. not saying beloving = great)

Hah, my post was to point out that B.C. Long offered nothing more than a disagreement so I could say what I said and it would still be valid. I would have liked to argue him but there was nothing to say.

But yes, you are associating beloved with greatness. You don't say one creates the other, but you do offer a different premise in that because you believe the films are great (I disagree) they are also beloved. I don't think they are great so I can not agree with your argument of what beloved is (at least in this case).

I put the question to you and everyone else though. What are the most over used words to describe to a film? I talked to a girl about this a few days ago and gave her the argument it was to always to call a film "great" or a "masterpiece" or something similar. Saying masterpiece all the times is ridiculous because it forces the person to say one film by that artist is their best even though they've likely also said it about another film of theirs. Great is the generic description of an excellence, but its too become null and void because it has been used so often by different people for different reasons.

I'd love to hear someone give an aesthetic argument of why Indiana Jones is great. I've never heard a good one. Film critics like Roger Ebert have put Raiders of the Lost Ark in their top films of the 1980s, but Ebert committed a considerable sin when he admitted in a documentary he was totally subjective about the films he reviewed. Why not a combination of subjective and objective like an appropriate critic? Indiana Jones can be great to individual people but I think the reasons are mainly subjective. People like to recount fond memories when talking about the films so it goes hand in hand with subjective.

Masterpiece as in 'the best work of an artist' is another debate.  Great as in being important/significant...

GT, you seem inclined to always take the broadest view of film possible which is an important part of your enjoyment and appreciation of the medium. This allows for films and film-watching to be conceptualised more easily. I am inclined to work from the inside out by qualifying my assessments of a film within sub-categories of artistry and craft. I think as someone interested more in film-making; the teamwork and the numerous cogs in the machine that come together to make the whole. You like the idea of film? I like the illusion of film.

I require some boundries when accessing the appropriate label of  greatness to a film like I do when appreciating the elements that combine to make it.  Objectively, I think Raiders is the pinnacle of the action-adventure genre and therefore a great film (as in significant and important to that genre). Including a genre qualification makes certain allowances which perhaps shouldn't be made when making a pure judgement of film but I don't think I could make an objective assessment of the film without it in this case. Honestly, I'd be wasting my time trying to justify Raiders in a meaningful way because it's a pursuit I have no interest or skill in doing and I lack the perspective that you have.

I don't mean to make presumptions on how or why you enjoy film but I'd thought I'd try and make some distinction in my (and possibly other members) angle on film, because I think its important to the question you're asking.

Quote from: Redlum on February 23, 2008, 02:25:55 PM
GT, you seem inclined to always take the broadest view of film possible which is an important part of your enjoyment and appreciation of the medium. This allows for films and film-watching to be conceptualised more easily. I am inclined to work from the inside out by qualifying my assessments of a film within sub-categories of artistry and craft. I think as someone interested more in film-making; the teamwork and the numerous cogs in the machine that come together to make the whole. You like the idea of film? I like the illusion of film.

An excellent summation. The difficulty with arguing film is that everyone has their own idea of cinema. Nobody is right or wrong. Everybody is just different. I think what argument brings is the ability for people to better express their ideas and concerns about a given film. People are rarely convinced to change sides in arguments, but many times they can understand their own thoughts and feelings better. It's why I just consider calling a film great to be a cop out.

Quote from: Redlum on February 23, 2008, 02:25:55 PM
I require some boundries when accessing the appropriate label of  greatness to a film like I do when appreciating the elements that combine to make it.  Objectively, I think Raiders is the pinnacle of the action-adventure genre and therefore a great film (as in significant and important to that genre). Including a genre qualification makes certain allowances which perhaps shouldn't be made when making a pure judgement of film but I don't think I could make an objective assessment of the film without it in this case. Honestly, I'd be wasting my time trying to justify Raiders in a meaningful way because it's a pursuit I have no interest or skill in doing and I lack the perspective that you have.

Usually, for me, genre tastes better when re-imagined to fit new molds. Films like Princess Mononoke take great exception to standard rules of the action-adventure genre. Raiders of the Lost Ark seems to be a recreation of the old those standards. You may not be able make a distinction in aesthetics to why Raiders of the Lost Ark is great, but also for your purposes, it may not be important anyways. Some films are truly subjective. I endear myself to those films too, but I diassociate them with what I consider to be a great film. A great film for me challenges both my mind and emotions.

Quote from: Redlum on February 23, 2008, 02:25:55 PM
I don't mean to make presumptions on how or why you enjoy film but I'd thought I'd try and make some distinction in my (and possibly other members) angle on film, because I think its important to the question you're asking.

Always had the greatest respect for your opinion so I should thank you. My theory up above is proved correct as a well thought out argument here is able to allow me to better align my viewpoint on the issue.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 23, 2008, 11:06:48 AMI don't think they are great so I can not agree with your argument of what beloved is (at least in this case).

you can't agree with the idea that some things that are great are beloved for that reason?

yesterday i used 'classic' way too much at work when recommending stuff.

Quote from: picolas on February 23, 2008, 04:45:43 PM

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on February 23, 2008, 11:06:48 AMI don't think they are great so I can not agree with your argument of what beloved is (at least in this case).

you can't agree with the idea that some things that are great are beloved for that reason?

yesterday i used 'classic' way too much at work when recommending stuff.

No, all I was saying is that I don't believe the film is beloved because it is great.

just stop.

This is far headier than I thought a thread about a movie with the words Crystal & Skull could possibly be. Kudos.

Quote from: pozer on February 24, 2008, 12:46:20 PM
just stop.

I just saw this and just laughed.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogsmithmedia.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F02%2Findy4-26feb-shia-poster.jpg&hash=75175b014c3be9ef8b567fb167a838f1daabf5c0)

Quote from: modage on April 18, 2006, 07:34:34 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bagophily.com%2Fimages%2Fbarfsmiley.gif&hash=2245cf51cfc482605cd814e5ed4b27ede3718246)

If that was a Choose Your Own Adventure book, and I was nine years old, I would totally ask my mom to buy it for me.

it just looks boring without the crystall skull.

last december i went to guatemala, to this awesome place called lake atitlan. it's one big enormous lake sorrounded and enclosed by three volcanoes and a bunch of mountains. insanely cool. the place is full of travellers from all over the world, a lot of them stay there for years, you know the drill. so while i was there, i met this canadian 46 year old guy staying at my hotel. we used to chit chat a little every day and sometimes at the bars and he always had some crazy stories, mostly related to his time at the sea, when he spent five years living on a boat, and how he came all the way down from canada through the pacific coast. he said he spent once seven days in a storm at sea, where not him or the other guys with him slept one moment. he said after it was over he slept for four days in a row. anyway, after weeks i finnally heard him mention to someone else that his profession was, actually, filmmaker. or not really, he just shot and edited his own videos, and had been doing so for years, as tourism products or just testaments of the places he has visited. at one point he told me that he had done videos on "the crystall skulls", he had the help of true mayan shamans and got permission to shoot at palenque, wich is pretty cool, and well, he had a lot of passion for this. he knew about the indy film and was eager to see if they "got it right". he also wondered if the spielberg team had, by any chance, looked at his videos as part of their research. his videos are en youtube is you look "crystall skull", he calls it "the second greatest story ever told"...i haven't seen them, but maybe someone's interested around here.

Quote from: Alexandro on February 26, 2008, 05:48:05 PM
he calls it "the second greatest story ever told"...

The greatest?  Flashdance!

Is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crkYCBY2PnA

part of it from what i've seen...im reading his intro on his own youtube user pager and he seems to believe he actually activated the crystall skulls that time in  palenque. that's cool, i wish i  could believe something like that.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.usatoday.net%2Flife%2F_photos%2F2008%2F03%2F10%2Findianjonesx-large.jpg&hash=b7d757f6f53999704272b61232ebad4d9b6fceac)

'Indiana Jones' could rescue a shaky summer
By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY

LAS VEGAS — When theater owners gathered here last year for the ShoWest convention, they came with the swagger of gamblers betting on a fixed fight. This year, the odds are trickier.
That's what happens when you don't begin your summer with installments of Spider-Man, Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean, the movies that jump-started May and led Hollywood to its biggest summer — and year — on record.

This summer rides on the shoulders of an aging action hero, an untested cartoon character and four women from a TV show that went off the air four years ago.

"There's no question there's more uncertainty," says Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures. "Last year we had three franchises that we knew were going to be huge. This year, we have a couple that we know will be big, and more that we hope will be big."

Among films considered probable blockbusters: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Iron Man, Sex and the City and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. But of those, only Jones is considered a favorite to crack $300 million, as Spider-Man, Shrek and Pirates all did last summer, Hollywood's most important season, when at least 40% of the industry's tickets are sold.

"We certainly come into this summer with more question marks," says Paul Dergarabedian of Media By Numbers. "I think what Hollywood hopes to do is have two really solid movies for every huge hit we had last year. But that means more movies have to perform."

And that means relying on untested films such as Speed Racer, the Will Smith action film Hancock and the animated Kung Fu Panda to fill theaters.

Dan Glickman, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, says that with 28 movies crossing the $100 million mark in 2007, summer doesn't rely on a handful of gigantic movies. "No matter what's going on in the world, there's a great desire for people to see films," he says.

Still, studios will premiere several movies this week not only to persuade theater owners to put their movies onto more screens but also to allay fears that 2008 could break the streak of three straight years of increased revenue.

"I don't know that anyone is going to guarantee we have a summer as huge as we did last year," Moore says. "But we do know some will be really big, and we're bringing movies that could be dependable franchises. So we feel pretty good."

That's a very aliens-shaped crystal skull.

That article is BS for many reasons, but the main reason is that they dont mention WALL-E. When did a Pixar film make less than 200 million? It's amazing how studios are worried for having original content for once instead of more sequel bullshit. The retarded american people would go see a shitty Spider Man sequel every week.

Quote from: Sleepless on March 10, 2008, 07:07:43 AM
That's a very aliens-shaped crystal skull.

it's the supernatural macguffin of the story.  right, MacGuffin?

Yeah, but that poster implies the suspicions were correct: Indy's gonna be chasing some ETs in this one. And then they're gonna hear Lucas' awful one-liners and decide the human race is not that smart after all and bugger off back to wherever they came from taking their crystal skulls with them. And then Indy will say another stupid one-liner.

Quote from: Sleepless on March 11, 2008, 07:56:15 PMIndy's gonna be chasing some ETs in this one.

Actually Indy will join Dreyfuss in the mother ship.

New 'Indiana Jones' trailer gets a widget
Source: Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- When a second trailer for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" premieres online, it should spread as fast as the first thanks to a widget.

While Paramount plans to launch the widget this week, the studio declined to state when the new trailer will debut.

Paramount is counting on the small, portable applications that can be posted on blogs and social networks to maximize the exposure for its trailers. The first "Skull" trailer, released in March, has racked up millions of views.

Paramount turned to widget provider Clearspring for "Skull," which will include a contest with the release of the second trailer. The two fans who manage to distribute their "Skull" widgets most will win trips to the world premiere of the movie and the chance to be red-carpet correspondents in footage that will be streamed onto the "Skull" widgets following the premiere.

"I think the reason that studios are excited about widgets is that word-of-mouth and buzz is what Hollywood is after all the time," said Peggy Fry, senior vp sales and client services at Clearspring. "If you think about it, what a widget is, it's a digital version of word-of-mouth."

Clearspring also is creating widgets for Paramount's Mike Myers comedy "The Love Guru," which will include exclusive viral videos of Myers in character. The widgets, which launched Tuesday, will live on Myers' Guru Pitka MySpace page, where his character will blog about love advice, as well as on Facebook, YouTube and other social networking sites.

Amy Powell, senior vp interactive marketing at Paramount, credited Clearspring with sophisticated backend technology that allows the studio to track its widgets wherever they lived so it wouldn't have to limit its promotions to a single platform such as MySpace or Facebook.

"We pushed Clearspring to create new technological advances for us to fit our long list of requests for our out-of-the-box thinking," Powell said.

Every week Paramount will add a new viral video to the widget, for a total of about eight to 10 videos. The widgets also will include other exclusive content including a "Love Guru" trailer, clips and behind-the-scenes footage.

Paramount's first foray into the widget space with Clearspring was with J.J. Abrams' "Cloverfield," which benefited at the boxoffice from a successful online and widget campaign. The studio also has worked with Clearspring on a daily fortune cookie widget for DreamWorks Animation's upcoming "Kung Fu Panda" and a "Bee Movie" widget.

Other studios that have worked with Clearspring to promote their movies are Warner Bros. for "10,000 BC" and "Fred Claus," Sony for "Superbad," Universal for its upcoming "Leatherheads" and Fox for "Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!"

George Lucas says his new 'Indiana Jones' is 'just a movie'
Scott Bowles, USA TODAY

To hear him talk, you'd think George Lucas would have preferred to call his movie Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Don't Get Your Hopes Up.

Lucas, who co-wrote and produced the May 22 film, can sound downright sullen when it comes to his expectations of fan reaction to the year's most highly anticipated movie.

"When you do a movie like this, a sequel that's very, very anticipated, people anticipate ultimately that it's going to be the Second Coming," Lucas says. "And it's not. It's just a movie. Just like the other movies. You probably have fond memories of the other movies. But if you went back and looked at them, they might not hold up the same way your memory holds up."

The remarks appear to be part of a larger strategy to build interest yet temper expectations for the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones franchise. Only one trailer is playing, and when director Steven Spielberg shows up for talk shows, he doesn't bring footage.

Lucas says he learned his lesson about unrealistic expectations when he revived the Star Wars franchise in 1999. "When people approach the new (Indiana Jones), much like they did with Phantom Menace, they have a tendency to be a little harder on it," he says. "You're not going to get a lot of accolades doing a movie like this. All you can do is lose."

Except when it comes to money. Analysts expect it to rake in well more than double its reported budget of $125 million. But Lucas says that doesn't hold much sway for him, Spielberg and Harrison Ford.

"We came back to do (Indy) because we wanted to have fun," he says. "It's not going to make much money for us in the end. We all have some money. ... It would make a lot of money if you weren't rich. But we're not doing it for the money."

It's fan and critic reaction for which the team is bracing, but Lucas says he has quit trying to appeal to everyone. "It was really a blast" to make. "And it turned out fantastic. ... I like to watch it."

Lucas concedes that it will be impossible to water down expectations, even among fellow filmmakers.

The Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan met Lucas at the ShoWest convention this month and says he's impatient to see the competition. "Come on, he's George Lucas," Nolan says. "I felt like I should have kissed the ring."

tv spot: http://www.indianajones.com/site/?deeplink=videos/1/v33

Frank Darabont Won't Get Credit On 'Indy 4,' Won't Work With Lucas Again
Source: MTV

After a long script-writing process for "Indiana Jones 4″ that he told MTV News last spring was "a waste of a year," celebrated director Frank Darabont wondered in November whether there would be any arbitration over credit, given how many of his own ideas seemed to find a way into David Koepp's "Crystal Skulls."

So we wondered: Now that the movie has been finished, will Darabont at last get to see his name on the big screen for an Indiana Jones adventure?

"Nope. Not on this one," Darabont said when we caught up with him last week. "I know there are some common elements to what I gave Steven [Spielberg] and what was eventually shot, but I guess not enough to warrant credit. It's clearly a disappointment, especially after Steven loved my script."

In the Indy universe it's the penitent man who passes, and for his part, Darabont bows down before Spielberg, saying he "wouldn't hesitate to work with Steven again."

The same can't be said of George Lucas, however, who has probably seen the last of the "Shawshank" scripter. Would Darabont ever consider, for instance, working on the new "Star Wars" television series slated to hit airwaves in 2010?

"Honestly our storytelling sensibilities have diverged to the point where that would be a pointless exercise," he said of Mr. Lucas.

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas: The Titans Talk!
The minds behind ''Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'' share secrets and trade memories in a rare joint interview
By Steve Daly; EW

How exactly do you mediate a conversation with two of the most fertile minds in moviemaking? You hang on for dear life, that's how! When EW sat down with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for a chat about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which opens May 22), the pace was fast and furious. But Spielberg and Lucas were so voluble, so passionately steeped in film history, and so funny that we had to bring you more of their historic summit meeting, in which the pair discuss how filmmaking has changed in the past quarter-century, the impact of websites like this one on the experience of moviegoing, and the fate of Indiana Jones and the Monkey King.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Gentlemen! This is like having Superman and Batman in the same room. [Laughter]
STEVEN SPIELBERG: But wait a minute — which is which? I wanna be Superman! With the big S.
GEORGE LUCAS: We should get some clinking glasses and stuff, just to screw up your tape.

So what took so long to get to installment No. 4? It's been 19 years since Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the last of the original trilogy of films.
LUCAS: When we got to [the idea of making a fourth] one, I had already said, ''No. I can't think of another MacGuffin.''

Meaning, the mystical thingy everyone is chasing.
LUCAS: I said, ''I can't do it. It's too hard.'' We barely got through the last couple of 'em with smoke and mirrors. Sankara stones, for God's sakes?

But there's a lot of historical data about the Sankara stones!
LUCAS: There is, but nobody in the United States knows about it, so there's no resonance. The MacGuffin is the key. Before the Sankara stones [which became the focus of the second film in the trilogy, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom], we'd had ideas for all kinds of other MacGuffin things. Some of them were original ones, that were in the [proposed] stories that I did. Like a haunted castle and stuff. But then Steven went off and did Poltergeist and said, ''I don't want to do another haunted-castle movie.''

In developing the third movie, there was a Christopher Columbus script early on, Indiana Jones and the Monkey King, set partly in Africa. And that one had a preamble involving a haunted castle.
LUCAS: We wrote complete scripts on other MacGuffins [for the third film]. And finally I said, look, let's just try the Holy Grail. [Adopting another voice] ''Ohhh, it's too cerebral, we'll never make it work....'' So we turned it into a tangible magic cup with healing powers, instead of an intellectual thing. It wasn't until the idea of introducing the father came along that we kind of pulled [the third movie] out of the fire. Because it then shifted from being about the MacGuffin. But ultimately, these are supernatural mysteries. They aren't action adventures. Everybody thinks they're action-adventure films, but that's just the genre we hang them on.
SPIELBERG: There's not one that hasn't been supernatural.
LUCAS: The supernatural part has to be real. [He taps the table] Which is why they're very hard, and you run out [of options] very fast. You have to have a supernatural object that people actually believe in. People believe that there was an Ark of the Covenant, and it has these powers. Same thing with the Sankara stones, same thing with the Holy Grail. We may have exaggerated some of its powers, but basically there are people who believe there is a Holy Grail, brought back by the Knights Templar.
SPIELBERG: Of course, I was worried that people would hear ''Holy Grail,'' and they would immediately think about a white rabbit attacking Monty Python. My first reaction was to say, ''Everybody run away! Run away!''

Well to bring us into Indy 4, what kind of developmental push and pull went on once you decided to set the new film in the 1950s?
LUCAS: The idea was to take the genre of Saturday-matinee serials, which were popular in the '30s and '40s, and say, ''What kind of B movie was popular in the '50s, like those B movie serials were popular in the '40s?'' And use that as the overall uber-genre. We wouldn't do it as a Saturday-matinee serial. We'd do it as a B movie from the '50s.
SPIELBERG: The Cold War came to mind immediately, because if you're in the '50s, you have to acknowledge the Cold War.

Would it have been weird to use cartoonish Nazis as villains again, as you did in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Maybe take a Boys from Brazil tack, and follow fugitive Nazis to South America?
SPIELBERG: A lot changed for me after [1993's] Schindler's List, especially when I began working with Holocaust survivors, and being able to collect their testimonies. But I never look back with shame at Raiders or Last Crusade. We gave the Nazis the same spin that, I think, in a way, Charlie Chaplin was able to give them in The Great Dictator. There was always a bit of, We're not going to take them that seriously. It's just something I wouldn't choose to do right now. I would choose not to make them Saturday-matinee villains.
LUCAS: If you're going to make a movie about the 1930s, it's almost impossible to do it without the Nazis. And it's the same thing when we got [to the '50s] here. We have to deal with the Russians because that's where we were. It's not like we set out to make a film about Russians. It was, What was going on in the world? What were the issues? Who was doing what?
SPIELBERG: Totally.
LUCAS: You do a whole lot of research around the subject matter to try to get it as plausible as possible. We don't deal with time machines. We don't deal with phony notebooks that don't exist. We don't deal with pyramids in 10,000 B.C., because there weren't any.

So, Nazis out, Russians in. And that led you to a Russian villainess.
SPIELBERG: Well, we had a villainess last time, too [in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade].

But blonde Elsa wasn't bad from the get-go.
SPIELBERG: Right. Irina Spalko is a villain when she [first] gets out of the car.
LUCAS: She's an uber-villain.
SPIELBERG: The privilege for me was working with the great and talented Cate Blanchett. Because she is really a master of disguise.
LUCAS: She's just amazing.
SPIELBERG: She is so unrecognizable in this movie. But she's been unrecognizable in many of the choices she's made in her career, to play characters, like Bob Dylan, that are so removed from who she is as a mom and a wife in real life. She's a very threatening villain. Of all the villains I've been able to work with in the Indiana Jones movies, I can say she's my favorite. And I think Cate made her that way. We gave her a template for this, but she invented the character.

You've made Indiana much older in Crystal Skull — the character is nearly 60. And Harrison Ford turned 65 while you were making the film.
LUCAS: There was never any question about the fact that we were going to have Harrison play his age.
SPIELBERG: There's a line that was thematic for me, and it's not a line that's actually in the movie. And it illustrates why I was comfortable letting Harrison age 18, 19 years. In the first movie, he says, ''It's not the years, sweetheart, it's the mileage.'' Well, my whole theme in this movie is, It's not the mileage sweetheart, it's the years. When a guy gets to be that age and he still packs the same punch, and he still runs just as fast and climbs just as high, he's gonna be breathing a little heavier at the end of the set piece. And I felt, Let's have some fun with that. Let's not hide that.

Plus he's got a sidekick to show him up — Shia LaBeouf, who plays a young ''greaser.'' Did he even know what a greaser was?
SPIELBERG: He didn't.
LUCAS: I had to train him. Shia got sent to the American Graffiti school of greaserland. And I became the consultant on his comb.
SPIELBERG: [Looking bemused] That's right.
LUCAS: And Steve would call on me every once in a while. If I wasn't there, he'd call me up and say, ''Look, there's a leather jacket we have in this shot, and we need to know — should it be unsnapped, or snapped?''
SPIELBERG: I remember that stuff too. I remember Ed ''Kooky'' Byrnes [from the TV series 77 Sunset Strip] with his comb....

Okay, let's talk another kind of nostalgia: Movie technology nostalgia. There was virtually no computer-graphic imagery available when you started making the original Indy films in the '80s. Digital imagery wasn't really there yet.
LUCAS: It wasn't there at all.

So was there a temptation with Crystal Skull to use CG to make life easier?
SPIELBERG: Here's the difference. The [background] matte paintings that you saw, let's say, in Raiders of the Lost Ark, when the carload of Nazis went off the cliff? Or the Pan Am clipper sitting in that obviously painted dockside waterfront? Our digital paintings now look like we were there on location. We have just as many matte-painting shots in this movie as we had in the other movies. The difference is, you won't even be able to tell that there's a brushstroke. For a while, I wanted to make them look bad, so they looked exactly like they did in the other movies.

Which is to say, easily detectable — as they were in actual old movies, so it's sort of an homage to old-fashioned artistry.
SPIELBERG: But I didn't do that.

You're opening Crystal Skull in late May all over the world in one fell swoop — not territory by territory over months, like studios used to do in the 1980s.
LUCAS: Well...the growing majority of revenue from a movie comes from overseas. It used to be sort of 50-50, then it was 60-40, and now it's way beyond that. Every year it keeps growing. So the United States is becoming a much smaller market.

You guys first became filmmakers at a time when European directors were arguably the most inventive and the most artistically acclaimed in the world. Do you miss that atmosphere?
LUCAS: When Star Wars was being made, all the independent art films [still] came from Europe. There were practically no American independent films being made. Now about 30, 40 percent of American films are independent. And the films coming out of Europe, a lot of them look like American films. You can't really tell the difference. There's a globalization of entertainment, and it's good, because you still have personal art films and big audience pleasers.
SPIELBERG: You also have films being made and released on the Internet, little films, five- to six-minute shorts. They come from all over the world, and it's really interesting to see and to sense how this world has shrunk down to size of a single frame of film.... More people can pick up video cameras, and more individuals can express who they are as artists through this collective medium. That's what's so exciting. What makes me really curious to see as many short films, especially, as I possibly can, is that everybody is coming out of a different box, and is free to express themselves because budget is no longer a limiting factor. You can make a movie for no money and basically get it out there on YouTube for everybody to see.
LUCAS: Movies are now becoming like writing, like books. It's opened up to the point where anybody who has the urge or the talent to do it, there's not that many impediments to making a film. And, there are not that many impediments to having it be shown. That's where the Internet comes in. Now you can actually get it in front of people, and have them decide whether they like it or not. Before, that depended on the decisions of a very, very small group of people — executives who in a lot of cases didn't even go to the movies, and didn't even like 'em. And they were deciding what the people were and weren't going to like. It's much more democratic now. The people decide what they want.

Of course, there are downsides to the burgeoning Internet age — and one of those downsides is, when a popular movie is coming up, people sort of peck it to death before it even opens. There's been a huge amount written on the Internet about the development of Crystal Skull, including lots of spoilers on chat boards — though most of it is clearly labeled. Is it getting harder to protect the development process?
SPIELBERG: It really is important to be able to point out that the Internet is still filled with more speculation than facts. The Internet isn't really about facts. It's about people's wishful thinking, based on a scintilla of evidence that allows their imaginations to springboard. And that's fine.
LUCAS: Y'know, Steven will say, ''Oh, everything's out on the Internet [in terms of Crystal Skull details] — what this is and what that is.'' And to that I say, ''Steven, it doesn't make any difference!'' Look — Jaws was a novel before it was a movie, and anybody could see how it ended. Didn't matter.
SPIELBERG: But there's lots and lots of people who don't want to find out what happens. They want that to happen on the 22nd of May. They want to find out in a dark theater. They don't wanna find out by reading a blog.... A movie is experiential. A movie happens in a way that has always been cathartic, the personal, human catharsis of an audience in holy communion with an experience up on the screen. That's why I'm in the middle of this magic, and I always will be.

Do you think the sanctuary of the dark theater is being eroded?
LUCAS: No! Look, it's like sports —
SPIELBERG: Yes. I think it is being eroded, by too much information and too much misinformation, especially.
LUCAS: But look, it's like sports. This isn't new. When March Madness gets started with the NCAA [basketball tournament], there are thousands of blogs out there. Rampant speculation. If you follow it enough, you go crazy. [With Crystal Skull], you don't know what's actually gonna happen till you walk into that theater. I don't care if you know the whole story, I don't care if you've seen clips. I don't care how much you've seen or heard or read. The experience itself is very different, once you walk in that theater.
SPIELBERG: Well, here's my debate on that. I've always been stingy about the scenes I show in a teaser or a trailer. Because my experience has been — and my kids' experience has been, 'cause they talk out loud in theaters, like everybody else does today — that if a scene they remember from the trailer hasn't come on the screen yet, and they're three quarters of the way through the movie, they start talking. ''Oh — I know what's gonna happen! Because there was that one little scene they haven't shown yet in the movie I'm experiencing, and it's coming up!'' And it ruins everything.

What about creating deliberate disinformation, the way, say The Sopranos' producers did?
SPIELBERG: I did that, but I don't do that any more 'cause it takes too much effort.
LUCAS: We have managed to keep the fact that Will Ferrell is the main villain in Crystal Skull out of the blogosphere.
SPIELBERG: Exactly. But it did get out that it's Steve Carell, last week.
LUCAS: Except people don't know that they're a team...
SPIELBERG: [Laughs] And by the way, when you run this? There'll be people that believe it!

new bootleg trailer leaked.

http://www.nightly.net/featured/new-indy-4-trailer-leaked/

http://www.indianajones.com/site/ij4-hidef-720.php?tourPath=http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/indianajones/trlr2/Indy_KOTCS_Trailer2_720p.mov (http://www.indianajones.com/site/ij4-hidef-720.php?tourPath=http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/indianajones/trlr2/Indy_KOTCS_Trailer2_720p.mov)

That is a much better trailer than the first one. Starting to get really excited about this again, especially after seeing Indy all over Snickers, M&Ms and cornflakes!!!

Hooray for god-awful Russian accents!

Indiana Jones and the Savior of a Lost Art
By TERRENCE RAFFERTY; New York Times

"THIS is a recreational activity for me" is surely among the last things you'd expect to hear from the director of a huge, costly, dauntingly complex summer action movie as it nears completion, with its release date just a few weeks away.

But that is what Steven Spielberg said not long ago, speaking by phone from a dub stage where he was supervising the sound mixing of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (opening May 22), the first new installment in 19 years of the crowd-pleasing adventure-movie franchise that began in 1981 with "Raiders of the Lost Ark." "In 1989," Mr. Spielberg said, referring to the year "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" came out, "I thought the curtain was lowering on the series, which is why I had all the characters literally ride off into the sunset at the end. But ever since then the most common question I get asked, all over the world, is, 'When are you going to make another Indiana Jones?' "

It's a fair guess that theater operators and executives at Paramount Pictures have asked that question at least as frequently as the ticket-buying public has, and perhaps with a shade more urgency: the three Indy pictures — "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" (1984) was the one in the middle — have raked in well over a billion dollars worldwide from their theatrical releases alone. The anticipation, on the part of both the fans and the suits, falls somewhere between keen and breathless. And for most filmmakers that level of expectation might appear in their clammier dreams as a giant boulder bearing down on them and picking up speed.

"I'm having a great time," Mr. Spielberg said. And, unlikely though this may seem, you can't help believing him; he certainly sounds excited, and the secret of the Indiana Jones movies' success has always been their free-spirited inventiveness, a what-the-hell quality that can't (or shouldn't) be faked, even on a gigantic budget.

Weirdly, authenticity — not faking it — is very much on his mind when he makes one of these unabashedly preposterous movies, whose hero (still played by Harrison Ford) is a two-fisted, bullwhip-wielding academic archaeologist zipping around the globe in search of rare mystical artifacts and in the process running afoul of Nazis, creepy human-sacrifice cults and other exemplars of unambiguous, unadulterated evil.

Even by the extremely flexible standards of high-adventure pulp, the Indy pictures are a pretty stern test of the audience's willingness to suspend disbelief. (At times you feel as if it were hanging, as the hero periodically does, over a mass of writhing, fang-baring snakes, or a river full of famished crocodiles.) The authenticity Mr. Spielberg is concerned with here is something other than the historical realism of, say, "Schindler's List" or "Munich"; what he wanted to talk about was the physical integrity of the action, of which there is, in an Indiana Jones movie, plenty.

The tone and style of the films derive from the movie serials of the 1930s and '40s, which Mr. Spielberg, growing up in the '50s, used to see on Saturday mornings at a revival theater in Scottsdale, Ariz.

"They made a great impression on me, both because of how exciting they were and because of how cheesy they were," he said. "I'd kind of be involved in the stories and be ridiculing them at the same time. One week they'd give us a cliffhanger with the good guy going off the cliff, the car crashing on the rocks below and blowing up, and then the next week he's fine. They forgot to show us the cut of the guy jumping out of the car? That we weren't going to do in the Indiana Jones series."

In fact, Mr. Spielberg said, he tries to cut as little as possible in these movies' action sequences, because "every time the camera changes dynamic angles, you feel there's something wrong, that there's some cheating going on." So his goal is "to do the shots the way Chaplin or Keaton would, everything happening before the eyes of the audience, without a cut."

Warming to the subject, he went on: "The idea is, there's no illusion; what you see is what you get. My movies have never been frenetically cut, the way a lot of action is done today. That's not a put-down; some of that quick cutting, like in 'The Bourne Ultimatum,' is fantastic, just takes my breath away. But to get the comedy I want in the Indy films, you have to be old-fashioned. I've studied a lot of the old movies that made me laugh, and you've got to stage things in full shots and let the audience be the editor. It's like every shot is a circus act."

And in 1981, in "Raiders of the Lost Ark," that approach was so old-fashioned it looked new. (It's difficult to remember now just how stodgy and joyless the action genre had become; even the James Bond movies, reliably sprightly in the '60s, turned into slow-footed, campy behemoths in the '70s with entries like "Moonraker.")

In the 27 years since, practically every action filmmaker has tried to drink from the grail of Indiana Jones, to tap into the movie's quasi-mystical kinetic (and commercial) power: the pace had to be blindingly fast; the stunts insanely elaborate, the villainy extra-villainous; the hero's attitude blithe, insouciant, almost sociopathically cool. Mr. Spielberg and George Lucas — who produces the movies and who dreamed up the basic idea of the series — have a lot to answer for.

The sad truth is that the enormous influence of the Indiana Jones films has been a distinctly mixed blessing. Action movies are, over all, a good deal snappier than they were 30 years ago, but they also tend to be a good deal less intelligible. They skimp on the exposition and go straight for sensation, as if cutting to the chase were not a metaphor but literally the cardinal rule of filmmaking. And that's true not only of the most egregious Indiana Jones knockoffs — the "Mummy," "National Treasure" and "Lara Croft" movies spring, unwelcomely, to mind — but of nearly every studio picture that features more action than, say, "My Dinner With André." It's no accident that movies of this sort, ubiquitous in summertime, are so often blurbed as "thrill rides": they can be that exhausting, and that pointless.

Pointlessness is, however, in the eye of the beholder. When asked what kind of films he enjoyed most as a boy, Mr. Spielberg replied, simply, "Anything with a lot of movement," and quite a few of us would say the same. Swift, thrilling motion is the hook that pulls young imaginations into movies, and although your taste might get a tad more refined over the years, vivid, intricate, ingeniously choreographed action can still give you that Saturday-matinee charge of pleasure.

The perilously long and complicated opening sequence of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" for example — in which a song-and-dance number ("Anything Goes," sung in Mandarin) turns into a wild slapstick action scene involving a diamond, a poisoned drink and an elusive vial of antidote, and ends with Indy and his companions jumping out of a plane in a rubber raft — delivers that sort of giddy, mildly deranging stimulation. The staging and the cutting have the "can you top this?" audacity of a silent comedy, and the timing is slyly impeccable: it's about the length of a Keaton two-reeler.

It hardly matters that the "Anything Goes" set piece was originally planned for "Raiders of the Lost Ark." The big action scenes in the Indiana Jones movies are almost risibly inorganic to the narratives that contain them. This kind of randomness is risky — not to be tried at home, or by any filmmaker less prodigiously gifted than Mr. Spielberg. You need a rigorous imagination for visual comedy to make movies as exhilaratingly ridiculous as these.

"John Williams and I have a word we use when we have something we think the audience will love," Mr. Spielberg said, referring to the composer who has scored all the Indiana Jones movies. "Maybe it'll be a little over the top, and we ask each other, 'Are we being too shameless?' In a way I think we've both grown kind of proud of being shameless."

When the jokes are good, as they frequently are in the Indy pictures, there's every reason for pride. These goofy movies tell you as much about Steven Spielberg as his more serious work does. Movies truly are a form of recreation for him, and he's the kind of artist who reveals himself fully in the intensity of his play. In the Indiana Jones movies he revives the spirit of silent comedy in the adventures of an intellectual with a bullwhip. And that's a feat that, whether you think it's worth doing or not, at least deserves high marks for degree of difficulty. If only everybody else in Hollywood hadn't tried to imitate him, he'd have nothing to be ashamed of at all.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2008-05%2F38945610.jpg&hash=fdb2ed319c936588b648a568147a747c29d6ffbf)

Will Spielberg take a walk on the wild side?
The director has said he's out to challenge himself in his 50s. The results could be fascinating -- if he's really willing to take the risks.
By Peter Rainer, Special to The Times

Steven Spielberg, who at 22 was hired by Universal to a long-term contract, started out his career as the teacher's pet of the Movie Brat generation. With the unveiling of his first Indiana Jones escapade in 19 years today at Cannes, he's proffering yet another polished apple.

It's been something of a class reunion lately. Francis Coppola made his first film in 10 years, "Youth Without Youth," a muddled mood-memory fantasia that attempted to recapitulate the handmade approach of his "Rain People" days. Martin Scorsese brought out his Rolling Stones documentary "Shine a Light," which hearkened back to his apprenticeship as editor of rock documentaries such as "Woodstock." Brian De Palma made his Iraqi docu-thingamajig "Redacted," which, in its shape-shifty experimentalism, recalled his earliest, French New Wave-influenced movies such as "The Wedding Party" and "Hi, Mom."

And now Spielberg is set to deliver the biggest blast from the past yet. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is not exactly the movie you might expect to follow "Munich." But then again, he once shuttled between "Schindler's List" and "Jurassic Park." Of his contemporaries, Spielberg has probably undergone the greatest sea change throughout his career. The "Indiana Jones" franchise, like the "Jurassic Park" movies, are a palate cleanser for him -- a cackle in between epic kvells. For this teacher's pet, the class syllabus changed a long time ago.

The directors of Spielberg's generation who came up in the late '60s and early '70s, many of them film-school-trained, were the first in America to push their encyclopedic passion for movies right into the forefront of their work. Their rebellion against Old Hollywood was essentially a pose, since directors like John Ford, Howard Hawks and Frank Capra were mainstays of their mindscapes. Old movies functioned for these filmmakers as primary experiences -- touchstones of inspiration -- in the same way that poetry or literature might have functioned for an earlier generation of artists.

Not all of the movie references were drawn from favorite Hollywood films. De Palma had his Godard phase before he entered his Hitchcock phase; Coppola drew heavily on Visconti's "The Leopard" (for "The Godfather") and Antonioni's "Blow-Up" (for "The Conversation"). Scorsese's "Mean Streets" is blood brother to Fellini's "I Vitelloni" and owes a debt to the scruffy, free-form spirit of the John Cassavetes indies. Even George Lucas, in his chilly debut feature, "THX 1138," piled on the art-house references to Jean Cocteau ("Blood of a Poet") and Carl Theodore Dreyer ("The Passion of Joan of Arc").

Spielberg, however, came from a somewhat different place. He never officially attended a major film school. His heroes were the big-picture guys like David Lean and Stanley Kubrick or versatile old studio hands like Michael Curtiz and Victor Fleming -- directors who could be counted on to deliver reliable commercial entertainment (and sometimes more than that). While many of his '70s confederates, who also were to include such directors as Terrence Malick, Jonathan Demme and Philip Kaufman, were attempting to work outside the industry, or subvert it from within through sheer force of artistry, Spielberg was directing episodes of "Night Gallery" and "Marcus Welby, M.D." and then moving on to sharks and flying saucers.

In the more "serious" film circles, his prodigious filmmaking skills were held against him as proof that he lacked substance. Even Pauline Kael, his most ardent critical champion early on, wrote of his uncommonly touching first feature "The Sugarland Express": "Maybe Spielberg loves action and comedy and speed so much that he really doesn't care if a movie has anything else in it. . . . I can't tell if he has any mind, or even a strong personality, but then a lot of good movie-makers have got by without being profound."

Resenting Mr. Blockbuster

AND OF course, as Spielberg began to rake in the riches, this was held against him too. It has always been a truism of popular culture, no more so than in the '70s, that artistry and commercial success are mutually exclusive. And where exceptions to this rule were made, as in the case of "The Godfather" films, it was because they were recognized as gangster films in name only. They were really about the corruption of the American dream. Spielberg's early movies are rife with broken families and intimations of child abandonment, but they are glittery baubles when placed beside the dungeon-like Coppola and Scorsese pictures (especially "The Godfather" films, "Mean Streets," "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull") with their floridly Catholic sense of sin and redemption. Spielberg, by comparison, at least up through "The Color Purple," specialized in uplift, in the exaltation of the American dream. He himself became its personification.

Spielberg's "personality" does indeed come through loud and clear in those early films -- "Sugarland Express," "Jaws," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T." -- because of his delight, which we share, in how preposterously wizardly he is. Spielberg's genius was not simply to think like his audience -- any good hack can do that -- but to be his audience. His aesthetic instincts and his commercial instincts were twinned, and not in a calculating way, either -- at least not until "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which is when his large-scale entertainments, followed by the two "Indiana Jones" sequels and the "Jurassic Park" movies, turned into corporate theme parks themselves.

The career trajectory of Hollywood directors before the '70s typically followed the winding path from unpretentious to "prestigious" (i.e., Oscar-worthy). Take, for example, George Stevens, who went from "Alice Adams," "Swing Time," "Gunga Din" and "The More the Merrier" to "A Place in the Sun," "Giant," "The Diary of Anne Frank" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Most of the '70s directors did their best to avoid this syndrome or at least held out for as long as they could. Coppola's "Apocalypse Now," a deranged movie about a deranged war, could never have been mistaken for a respectable war epic. Scorsese's biblical movie was "The Last Temptation of Christ."

But Spielberg, being the most attuned of his generation to the mojo of Hollywood, was naturally the director who most wholeheartedly fell into the prestige trap. Whatever their merits, and in some cases they are considerable, films such as "The Color Purple," "Empire of the Sun," "Schindler's List," "Amistad," "Saving Private Ryan" and "Munich" are all deeply conventional in terms of how the world is comprehended. Some of these films may be better made, or, in the case of "Schindler's List," more richly felt than their Old Hollywood counterparts. But all are afflicted with a kind of transcendent Stanley Kramerism. We are made to understand that moral lessons are being imparted and that, in the end, tomorrow will somehow be a better day.

And yet, Spielberg's career trajectory is by no means simple, for in the wake of "Saving Private Ryan," he made two consecutive films, as well as a third several years later, that in many ways upend his beloved early work. "A.I," which was originally developed by Stanley Kubrick, is the dark side of "E.T." "The War of the Worlds" is the anti-"Close Encounters of the Third Kind." The Philip K. Dick-derived "Minority Report," which has no antecedent in Spielberg's career, is a scabrous freakout. None of these films are overwhelmingly successful -- they're more fascinating as psychodrama than as drama. But they demonstrate, much more so than his "prestige" entries do, how spooked Spielberg's mind-set had become in the decades since he closed "Close Encounters" with a stirring snatch of "When You Wish Upon a Star."

In "Close Encounters," aliens from outer space are benevolent emissaries who descend from the heavens in a dazzling cathedral glow and belt out boom tones of peace and love. In "War of the Worlds," the aliens are arachnoid horrors who erupt from underground. Their call to arms is a bellicose bellow. The skies may have roiled in "Close Encounters" and Richard Dreyfuss' Roy might have made too much of his mashed potatoes, but we were never in any doubt that benevolence was upon us.

In "War of the Worlds," the aliens initially are mistaken for terrorists. The film is, I suppose, Spielberg's post-9/11 movie, but even without 9/11, he might eventually have made his way to this scorched terrain. "A.I.," which was made four years earlier, is about a robot boy who yearns to be human to win back the love of the flesh-and-blood mother who abandoned him, and for most of the way it's frighteningly creepy. "Minority Report," about a future in which cops, guided by all-seeing "pre-cogs," arrest killers before their crimes are committed, is a ghastly fusion of sci-fi and noir.

Some audiences, still wishing upon a star, experienced these films as intimate betrayals. And yet they cut the closest to his psyche. "Right now I'm experimenting," Spielberg said at the time of "Minority Report." "I'm trying things that challenge me, I'm striking out in all directions trying to discover myself in my 50s."

Exploring the dark side

FOR A director of conscience who can make his camera do anything, the realization that he has it in him to inspire absolute dread must be supremely unsettling. (I'm not thinking of "Jaws," which was comic-book dread.) What surely must prey upon Spielberg as he gets older are not the bliss-outs he is uniquely capable of creating but the horrors. The Normandy Beach landing in "Saving Private Ryan" goes way beyond the usual technical exercise; it's a fury against the flesh. In "Minority Report," Tom Cruise's John Anderton, the chief of the Department of Pre-Crime in the District of Columbia, stands before a floating computer interface and, arms waving like an impresario, whisks around its midair crime scene visuals. It's a nightmare representation of the director as puppet master, and it comes with a kicker: Anderton, whose mind is a mausoleum of horrific images, is himself a murderer-to-be.

The filmmakers of Spielberg's generation wanted to take over Hollywood and change the face of an art form. And for a brief period, until the blockbuster syndrome kicked in in the mid-'70s, they did just that. Along with Lucas, Spielberg is often blamed for shutting down the renaissance, as if without "Jaws" and "Star Wars" it never would have occurred to anybody in Hollywood to come up with high concepts and saturation marketing. "I hate Spielberg," a young filmmaker told me at a movie festival recently when he heard I was going to be writing about him. "He killed the indie film." And then he added, "But I loved 'Jaws.' "

Spielberg has long been in a position to pretty much direct or produce whatever he wants. This makes him the only kind of auteur Hollywood truly understands. (Forget the Lubitsch touch -- it's the Midas touch that makes the studio chiefs slobber.) He's taken more creative chances than any other director of close to his clout. Early films such as "E.T." and "Close Encounters" were experienced by audiences all over the world as invocations to a more ecstatic life. Plus they were playful and goofy. But there was no safety net for "Schindler's List," neither was there one for "Amistad" or "A.I."

This doesn't mean Spielberg gets a free pass. Some of the cottages in his cottage industry have all the allure of McMansions. He has yet to make a movie that revels in the commonplace; for him, the ordinary is always (yawn) a springboard to magic. He has never made a movie with more than a trace of carnality. His world view is cut-rate Manichean -- darks and lights and not much gray in between. It's a pity he shelved his plans to make a movie about his childhood idol, Charles Lindbergh, the all-American aviator and Fascist sympathizer. Now there's a character who would have put Spielberg to the test. Instead, he's gearing up to make "Lincoln" with Liam Neeson, which sounds like a snooze. And "Jurassic 4" is on the radar.

Spielberg is still the teacher's pet of his class, but the difference is that now he owns the schoolhouse. Maybe for a while he should try being a truant.

Has anyone else been anticipating the Cannes response all day, looking for some relief from the anxiety of not only a let down but a rapage of prequel proportions? I suppose part of it is coming to terms with the realisation that not even the original films are ever going to affect you the way that they did when you were a kid. Despite the sensation that here might be an opportunity to experience the magic of seeing it on the big screen amidst the media frenzy and cereal box promotions - a spectacle that you missed the first time round. Not that I buy into the notion that these films are simply a childish past time - I think Raiders of the Lost Ark is pure cinema that captivates the 'inner child' (sorry) more than any other Spielberg film.

Going through the process of watching the original films again - not for the first-time in a long-time but with the change in perspective that only a move event like this can give you - it is abundantly clear that Raiders is just an unflinchingly great film. Yes it's an homage to Saturday morning serials, B-movies and all that jazz, but for me Raiders is the point of reference for every adventure film that has followed, in the same way that Sinbad and those serials were to Spielberg and Lucas. To me, calling Raiders of the Lost Ark tongue-in-cheek is like calling Jaws homage to monster movies.

What makes the sequels feel inferior is that Raiders is such an explosion of Spielberg in his sandbox that what follows can only come across as feeling self-referential. Obviously Raider's has the leisure of constructing the world of Indiana Jones whereas the sequels have the obligation and weight to provide some consistency and not simply cater to the whim of the need for new love interests, more impressive set-pieces etc like Bond does. I somehow need to reconcile these realisations and try and enjoy Crystal Skull as an all out adventure romp in the same way I enjoy The Temple of Doom. And if that doesn't work there is always this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upqiq6MUAh0

The first hour of this movie is pretty decent. From that point on it just gets embarassingly bad to ever greater degrees. Yikes.

Lucas: 'Indy 5' a Possibility
Source: Fox News

George Lucas tells me it's more than a strong possibility there will be a fifth "Indiana Jones." He says that he and director Steven Spielberg have left the door open for a sequel to "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

Lucas, looking dandy with slicked-back gray and white hair in a snappy tuxedo, was a guest Thursday night at Paramount/DreamWorks's party for "Kung Fu Panda" at the 61st Cannes Film Festival.

The swell event was set up on the pier across from the Carlton Hotel, where the studio spared no expense recreating sets and treating guests to haute Chinese cuisine. There was even one of the 40 pandas from the publicity stunt the day before, dancing in the crowd to Carl Carlton's old hit "Kung Fu Fighting."

Lucas had a lot to say about the new "Indy" and its future.

"I haven't even told Steven or Harrison this," he said. "But I have an idea to make Shia [LeBeouf] the lead character next time and have Harrison [Ford] come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie. I can see it working out.

"And it's not like Harrison is even old. I mean, he's 65 and he did everything in this movie. The old chemistry is there, and it's not like he's an old man. He's incredibly agile; he looks even better than he did 20 years ago, if you ask me."

Lucas says he's not concerned about early mixed buzz on "Crystal Skull."

"This movie is the exact same experience as the other three were. The difference is, the novelty of discovery is gone. I get worried when I hear fans say they're expecting something different that will change their lives. This is 'Indiana Jones' just as you remember him."

But that's exactly the gamble Spielberg and Lucas took with reviving their icon. Expectation grows into a frenzy and then no one in that frame of mind can be satisfied.

You already can see this with "Sex and the City: The Movie" and it hasn't even opened everywhere. Fans and even some critics want some transcendent experience. They almost seem upset that all they got was ... "Sex and the City."

Lucas has been here before, when he revived and extended the "Star Wars" series. The build-up to the release of the fourth installment (aka now Chapter 1), "Phantom Menace," was huge until it reached a fever pitch. Then, almost before it could be absorbed, "Phantom Menace" became the target of scorn from fanatics. Computer-generated character Jar Jar Binks was public enemy No. 1.

But "Star Wars" continues to thrive. In August, Lucas says, he's releasing an animated 90-minute "Star Wars" movie to theaters via Warner Bros. called "Clone Wars." It will be followed in September by an animated series on the Cartoon Network and TNT.

"No one wanted it," he told me. "Every studio rejected it, including Fox, and I'm very loyal to them. They have right of first refusal. Eventually I brought it to Warners. It's the first time that three components of the studio have acted together. It's very exciting.

"But the story is that everyone said, 'No one gets this. It's just ... 'Star Wars.'' I said, 'That's right, It's just 'Star Wars.' Just like this is ... 'Indiana Jones.''"

Oh, yes, and by the way: If "Crystal Skull" breaks records when it opens on May 22, Lucas could wind up having his name on a fourth title in the all-time box office top 10 (it would be Spielberg's second).

"But these movies — the 'Indiana Jones' ones — were never big hits right away. They were always slow starters that built up to big numbers," Lucas insisted.

I don't think that will be the case with this one. And the notion that a sequel already is playing around in his head should only fuel the heady numbers about to be posted.

it is awful.  fuck Lucas, but more so, fuck Spielberg for not having the balls to say fuck Lucas and go with Darabont's script.

p.s. i havnt seen the movie.

Quote from: Redlum on May 18, 2008, 04:41:58 PM
... Cannes response... ?

from IMDB:

Indiana Jones Triumphs At Cannes
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull has proved a huge hit at the Cannes International Film Festival on Sunday - receiving a standing ovation from critics at its world premiere. The fourth installment of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas' famous adventure franchise was one of the most eagerly awaited screenings at the French event, attracting a huge amount of hype and publicity. But weeks of speculation threatened to tarnish the premiere after rumors suggested the film had been panned by movie bosses at an exclusive initial screening in Los Angeles last month. However, the film - which sees 65-year-old Harrison Ford return to the role of Indiana Jones after a 19 year gap - was praised by the world's media, reportedly garnering a three and a half minute standing ovation by the select few who were invited to watch it, according to American industry publication Variety. Before the screening, manic crowds gathered to catch a glimpse of the movie's returning star Ford, who told awaiting reporters he didn't care if the movie received bad reviews, as long as moviegoers enjoyed the action. He said, "I expect to have the whip turned on me. I'm not really worried about it. I work for the people who pay to get in. They are my customers and my focus is on providing the best experience I can for those people." And although legendary moviemaker Lucas admitted last month he had hatched plans to revive the action hero for a fifth film, he kept tight-lipped about the plans at the Cannes premiere. He told reporters, "Harrison, Steven and I haven't talked about it. We can't do it unless I can come up with a good idea, which I haven't." The original trilogy - the last being 1989's Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade - was one of the highest-earning franchises in film history, grossing over $1 billion at the global box office

Whole lotta fun but some moments filled with cliches....

Quote from: pozer on May 19, 2008, 02:23:34 PM
fuck Spielberg for not having the balls to say fuck Lucas and go with Darabont's script.

how could he? it's not his franchise. fuck Spielberg for not having the balls to say fuck Lucas and walk away from the project and never look back.

spielberg probably made the movie in lucas' defense. to give some false validity to his pathetic delusional theory that fans of the originals aren't settling for anything less than perfect.

it's terrible. fucking terrible. the last half hour enters star wars prequels territory of jaw dropping absurdity. if you have a soft spot for the originals and are as imprudent as me, prepare to be kicked in the balls. again.

:(

*READ AT OWN RISK*


This didn't feel like any Indy flick at all. It was so uninvolving and lacked the humor that goes along with the films. Felt like it was watching people do things that we had no interest in watching, thus placing too much stress on the MacGuffin of the skulls rather than on the characters' search for them. Too many characters relegated Indy to a tag-along role, and LaBouf's sidekick was just so flat. While bringing back Karen Allen was a stroke of genius, apart from their initial bickering, she had nothing to do. There were a couple moments of interest, but when you get Indy outsmart an A-Bomb as an action sequence, it makes you realize that Indy is indeed past his time.

i haven't seen it yet but in a weird way, as a wannabe filmmaker, i find these negative reviews somewhat inspiring. now in saying that i don't mean to suggest i get enjoyment out of someone else's misfortune or misfire. there's no reason not to root for talent. and while i have no interest in how many more millions it's going to make lucasberg, i do want the movie to be great. i want every movie to be great (save those few that are directed by senior ratner, and even then...)

i'm working on a pilot for what i can only dream will be a continuing online series. we're mixing the sound now and i'm so hot/cold with it. i'll go to bed tonight thinking i did something pretty cool, especially given the nonexistent budget and 2 days we had to shoot it (see, i'm making excuses already!) and i'll wake up tomorrow and be sick to my stomach, completely depressed, not even able to look at a single frame of it, wanting to just "move to trash and yes i'm sure i want to delete this item." and then i think, well look kid, you have to stop pretending that what you or any filmmaker does, in the grand scheme of things, is really that important. and then i start to feel really self-indulgent and silly. and then i go to happy hour.

but anyway, the point remains, the fact that a cinegod like steven spielberg can make munich, a movie that blew me away on every level, and then turn around and make something that really missed the mark for whatever reason(s) is kind of comforting. it's like hey, you're never going to get to a point where everything you do is a home run, not even if your paul thomas mutherfuckin anderson. the best thing you can do is just pick yourself up and keep trying.

I would say in the end it's a mixed bag, but the balance clearly leans towards the dreadful. The positive reviews for this film when they mention the "fun", "crazy", "ride" this is supposed to be are unexplainable. It seems a lot of critics never really got these movies in the first place. Half of the jokes here are terrific in that old fashioned way Spielberg likes, very free spirited, the other half are embarrasing wannabes, extending themselves way past the point where those things work. There's a moment in which Indy stands up somewhere, looses balance as if he's fucking Goofy on some old cartoon and then falls to the ground, with John William's score pointing every little movement and hammering the joke to our heads in such a way that you just want to look away.

The worst of it all was to go in there and see from the very beggining that all that Spielberg talk about keeping it old school and going along with Janusz Kaminski to be filmmakers of the 20th century was absolute bullshit. Yes, they go for the Douglas Slocombe look, but Kaminski can't fucking help himself and it's allowed to imprint his shiny bleachy shit once again. And even that's not a big problem compared with the CGI orgy this film represents. From the very first single shot on this film it's all CGI, obvious, boring, cartoonish and horribly used CGI. Hence, ever action sequence looks like Spiderman and all the other videogames turned movies out there. And what the fuck with those fucking rodents? Not funny, not inspired, not nothing.

Blanchet, Broadbent, Winstone and even John Hurt are there to be wasted and bring some prestige to the thing. Shia is boring. Harrison Ford seems to be having fun but even he is finally knocked down by the mediocrity of it all. Karen Allen made me wanna punch her in the face. Sorry.

SPOILER
The fucking final scene is just the kind of crap Spielberg the family man has to come up with each time. So Indy finally becomes a dad, and we have the worst ending possible in what's supposed a fun series about an adventurer: he gest married. Fuck Lucas too.

minor spoilers

I knew it was going to suck the second I saw the first frame as a fucking CGI gopher pops out of the ground and smiles at the camera. Was this a parody? I mean seriously, that snake bit and the quicksand? WTF? "Grab the snake!" "Call it a rope!" I understand that all of the Indy films have had humor, but not self-parody. All the stupid little references to other Indy movies completely take you out of the film. Stop trying to freeload on the success of the original trilogy and be your own fucking movie for christ's sake. Maybe I'm too old and to cynical to enjoy movies like this anymore but this did NOT feel anything like an Indiana Jones movie.

this is episode I.  worse than it has any right to be.  the tone is completely mishandled throughout the entire film.  it's as if everyone involved had absolutely no idea what made the original films good in the first place.  spielberg should be ashamed of this. 

Quote from: modage on May 22, 2008, 11:42:06 PM
it's as if everyone involved had absolutely no idea what made the original films good in the first place. 

Same with all the critics who keep giving it good reviews.

well fuck, by no means is it an Indy film, but as just a night out at the movies... i had fun. and i liked it...

:shock:.... hey what's that over there!!! *runs like hell

Spoilers ahead....

Since when did an Indiana Jones movie start ripping off The Mummy franchise? From Ray "you'll get yours" Winstone to the imploding Mayan temple.

It's annoying how some people deflect criticism of this film by citing its supernatural or mythological elements - thinking that they somehow somehow negate it's stupidity. There's a difference between not being realistic and just being plain dumb.

Some of the visual effects were excellent but the majority didn't even need to be there, such as the homage to Caddyshack. The jungle car chase felt like the actors were on a revolving Keystone Cops backdrop.

The extra-terrestrial plot was given no gravitas despite having the potential. Nobody seemed impressed with the Crystal Skull nor when a giant spaceship takes off in front of their eyes (a scene which the X Files movie manages to pull-off perfectly and with greater awe). The Shankara stones invoked more power in one shot (see the moment when Indy swags three of them from the skull altar in Temple of Doom) than the Skull did in the entire film.

Shia LaBeouf somehow managed to be more interesting than Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Cate Blanchett and Karen Allen. And despite an inner-ear infection affecting his balance Indy exhibited far greater physical dexterity and capability with daring acrobatics than ever before. Unfortunately his enthusiasm for archaeology seemed to have detoriated; displaying little excitement at discovering the temple which he spent a year looking (and contracted typhus) for. I know he's older but if he inherited any of his fathers traits he should have been "as giddy as a schoolboy" at several moments. As he was when he discovered the second grail marker in The Last Crusade or uncovered the Arks location in the map room in Raiders.

I did enjoy the opening credits, Indy's initial reaction to seeing Marion and the waterfall sequence but I think I'd realised that these moments of relief can't even to attempt to redeem something so fundamentaly flawed by the time Mutt made friends with the monkeys.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gdeaney.co.uk%2Ftemp%2Fraiders.jpg&hash=a2e69277fc1ac71c91577ee569eeff390a55b22a)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gdeaney.co.uk%2Ftemp%2Fcrusade.jpg&hash=6aa9d5086d114b31947a14c1e37c39715084ce2f)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gdeaney.co.uk%2Ftemp%2Ftemple.jpg&hash=623de2844c2932d02ec3bf37fd8c26727389b047)

Quote from: Ghostboy on May 18, 2008, 05:06:10 PM
The first hour of this movie is pretty decent. From that point on it just gets embarassingly bad to ever greater degrees. Yikes.

Understatement of the year. There were moments where I was embarassed to be sitting in the theater. Not much more to say.....waste of talent, nosedive during the second half, horrible cgi.

I'm not going to get fired up about this like everyone else, but this movie certainly lost a lot of what made the Indy movies charming. It felt, literally, like a bunch of old guys sitting around trying to be young again. The beginning mostly just had shoddy writing (and gophers), but it went on to sink further and further, culminating in an alien and a gigantic dimension ship, both of which I think everybody could have done without.

There were only a couple of moments that I thought worked: the preps/greasers fight, Karen Allen's reappearance (her role from there on seemed a little off), and Indy snatching the hat from Shia.

Spielberg movie angers Russia's Communist Party

Members of Russia's Communist Party are calling for a nationwide boycott of the new Indiana Jones movie, saying it aims to undermine communist ideology and distort history.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" stars Harrison Ford as an archaeologist competing in 1957 with an evil KGB agent, played by Cate Blanchett, to find a skull endowed with mystic powers.

It hit Russian screens Thursday.

Communist Party members in St. Petersburg said on a web site this week that the Soviet Union in 1957 "did not send terrorists to the States," but launched a satellite, "which evoked the admiration of the whole world."

Moscow Communist lawmaker Andrei Andreyev said Saturday "it is very disturbing if talented directors want to provoke a new Cold War."

There's just no joy in this film at all. Watching it felt like a chore instead of an adventure. I can't even recommend it to diehard Indiana Jones fans. I agree with MacGuffin and his post above. Why even bother making another Indy flick without the swagger of a great filmaker?

Speilberg is better than this and he must know it.

Three words: This film sucked.

Three more: The Dark Knight.

SPOILS

I went to see this with the lowest expectation possible and still it managed to let me down, the bad rep. it has so far (here) is fair, so I fully agree with the following comments:

Quote from: brockly on May 22, 2008, 09:59:57 AM
fuck Spielberg for not having the balls to say fuck Lucas and walk away from the project and never look back.

the last half hour enters star wars prequels territory of jaw dropping absurdity.

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 22, 2008, 04:27:34 PM
This didn't feel like any Indy flick at all.

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 22, 2008, 04:27:34 PM
when you get Indy outsmart an A-Bomb as an action sequence, it makes you realize that Indy LUCAS is indeed past his time.

Quote from: Alexandro on May 22, 2008, 05:49:51 PM
The positive reviews for this film when they mention the "fun", "crazy", "ride" this is supposed to be are unexplainable.

And what the fuck with those fucking rodents? Not funny, not inspired, not nothing.

Blanchet, Broadbent, Winstone and even John Hurt are there to be wasted and bring some prestige to the thing.

Quote from: B.C. Long on May 22, 2008, 08:59:38 PM
I knew it was going to suck the second I saw the first frame as a fucking CGI gopher pops out of the ground and smiles at the camera.

Quote from: modage on May 22, 2008, 11:42:06 PM
this is episode I.  worse than it has any right to be. 

Quote from: meatwad on May 24, 2008, 09:20:40 PM
horrible cgi

Since the beginning the script had many problems so I knew the story had to be weak, so putting that aside what I can't understand is the awful CGI, like they didn't care how it looked, just terrible. I had a small hope (before the bad reviews) that Spielberg could pull it off but obviously Lucas had the final say in this ( see dumb cgi rodents (so darn funny!) ).

Fuck Lucas and his stupid sense of humor.

Quote from: Fernando on May 27, 2008, 11:31:07 AM
Fuck Lucas and his stupid sense of humor.

Eh...yousa point is well seen.  Count me outta dis one.  Egads!  What mesa sayin?

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

I'd quite like to read Darabont's screenplay, and any other drafts that were turned down. Anyone know where they can be found?

Overall, I went in with low expectations... I thought it was a satisfactory film (by the standards of most contemporary summer movies), but in no way was this an Indiana Jones movie. The tone was wrong, the character was wrong, the sense of humor was wrong. Twenty years since The Last Crusade and the first shot is a fucking CGI gopher? This film is bad on so many levels, just a string of disconnected set-pieces that seem to have abandoned any sense of logic at all. Two examples which really peeved me off: the graveyard scene were they're attacked by the masked guys, and the temple scene where they're chased by the Mayans. In both cases their attackers just disappear after a simple gag, never to reappear, never to have any explanation of why they attacked in the first place. It's like they've based the movie on a computer guy, where bad guys have no motives, they're just another meaningless object to get past to complete the level. And you just know Lucas spent the whole shoot on that 50s diner set just whacking off in the corner.

As much as we're talking bad about the usual suspects here, I think the finger needs to be pointed at screenwriter David Koepp. In past Indy films the set up has always been Indy on some other adventure. I get what he was trying to do here - tie it all in. But to have Indy just reappear on the screen out of a car trunk - there's absolutely no context to it. What was he doing before they captured him? And then rather than following Indy as he goes on a quest to find the skull (which we never truly believe he actually cares about finding), he just hooks up with a random stranger (cos he'd be so quick to trust randomers after getting burned by Mac) finds the skull ("Huh, that looks kinda neat") and the rest of the film is an illogical chase with no reason or purpose. Case in point: dodgy escape from the Russians' camp all for the sake of a quick quicksand scene and an awfully misjudged snake gag, only to be recaptured instantly.

I was able to detach myself enough to take the film for what it was - not an Indy flick - the first time around. If I ever do watch it again, I don't think I'm going to be able to tolerate the terribleness of the whole ordeal.

i still cannot recover from this. i thought this could be anything except spielberg's worst film since the lost world. perhaps it's even worst than that, maybe this is the lowest he's been since 1941...maybe ever...damn it.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg529.imageshack.us%2Fimg529%2F1748%2Ffromthecrayonsofglucasbzh9.jpg&hash=d34147df8daca97da2a73b96cf316eeac8b06efc)

George Lucas needs to not be George Lucas. Too bad birth fucked that up for him.

the toon above says it all.

what a steaming pile of movie.

Not as big of an abortion as I was expecting but entirely unnecessary. It was akin to a Brady Bunch reunion in that it's nice to see old friends but you realize it just isn't the same and the magic is gone. I hated the ***SPOILERS**** wedding more than the gophers and the Shia Tarzan bit...that had to be the most tacked on wedding scene I've ever seen. Painful. I'm almost pleased that Sex & the City is taking Indy down to #2 this weekend.

Quote from: cinemanarchist on May 31, 2008, 11:58:49 AM
I'm almost pleased that Sex & the City is taking Indy down to #2 this weekend.

Me too. Although, maybe it's a peference but I really don't like to watch TV based movies on the big screen. It just feels wrong. But I hear ya and hope 'Sex' is number 1.

Quote from: SiliasRuby on May 31, 2008, 12:52:05 PM

Quote from: cinemanarchist on May 31, 2008, 11:58:49 AM
I'm almost pleased that Sex & the City is taking Indy down to #2 this weekend.

Me too. Although, maybe it's a peference but I really don't like to watch TV based movies on the big screen. It just feels wrong. But I hear ya and hope 'Sex' is number 1.

But Sex and the City is even worse than Indy  :ponder:

I had no idea what to expect. I believed the people who said it was just a bad movie, but I have to say this is the most genuine Indiana Jones movie of the series. I know I know, a contradictory comment to most reviews on here, but I really believe this is the kind of movie the series always aspired to become.

Spielberg intended for Indiana Jones and his adventures to be serial stories. He wanted to play into the stories of the 1940s comics. The adventures would be over the top and the dramatics would mix humor with heroics. The stories would be believed in because the combination of both elements wondered the basic imaginations of children. Raiders of the Lost Ark was a general adaptation of the old comic book formula. The tone was quasi serious mixed with a little humor. It made children ooh and awe and adults to return to their childhood, but Spielberg had nowhere to go after that movie but to become more comedic. To get more serious would have took the fun out of the franchise. As an adult he knew the old serial stories were basic pieces of entertainment so he developed the series to encompass more realms of entertainment and comedy. The Last Crusade may have caricature versions of the original characters, but those original character were already old stock adventure types.

The action and adventures in the new one is random and all over the place, but what Indiana Jones movie doesn't have that. The character is the American James Bond. The films aren't meant to be strict stories of adventure set in one locale, but world wide adventures that have exotic and mythical lands as common back drops. I thought one of the pluses of the series was its ability to cram numerous action sequences into any place. Last Crusade has one sequence that begins in a library, goes through tunnels and ends with a boat chase. It's also just an early adventure in the film before later, greater ones. Random has always been the description of the action sequences in the series. The best part about the action sequences in Crystal Skull is that they still have some little bits of character drama within them. In Last Crusade Henry Jones Sr. and Marcus Brody were feeling the bond of reuniting all while fighting bad guys in a tank. In Crystal Skull Indiana first learns and develops bond with his son during chase and rescue sequences. It's a continuation of an earlier development in the series.

The best development is the constant injections of 1950s culture in the movie. Old serials are important today because they are cultural markers of a different time period. Music critic David Hajdu went deep into comic book cultural lore with his new book, but most modern looks at old serial stories make sure to inject as many societal hat tips as possible. From Mutt sparking a greaser/jock fight to the injections of Alien life (and Roswell, too!) all over the story, the movie has numerous markers about the 1950s. Indiana Jones even wanders into an old desert testing town for atomic explosions. The only hat tips to the 1940s in the other movies was the Nazis and wardrobe. The stories were mainly generic adventure stories, but Crystal Skill better fits the realm of most modern serial odes with its consideration of the 1950s culture. Spielberg set up the entire film to be an ode to a by gone era. It's only fitting that he makes the film decorated with as many cultural pieces as possible.


All of this being said, I'm not the biggest fan of the series. Harrison Ford has his most appealing character with Indiana Jones, but I always have known funner films and better action characters. I re watched the series again recently and was happy I could enjoy it, but I didn't seem to enjoy this one more than the other ones. Last Crusade is still a personal favorite, but I'm at least happy with the progress Spielberg has put into the movie. I wouldn't really recommend the movie to anyone. Iron Man is still tops as far entertainment for the summer goes. This movie was just a good curiosity.

A LOT OF SPOILERS
gt i agree with pretty much everything you say, specially about how this is the kind of film the series aspires to be. i don't think the ideas these guys had for this movie are wrong, the problem lies in the execution, which at every turn is lame and gets lamer by the seconds.

on paper, everything in the film sounds ok, but the way spielberg handled this on the screen is embarrasing most of the time. i still don't understand the abuse of cgi, to me the worst part of it all. i think cgi is ruining movies. since it allows filmmakers to do the impossible, they go out of their way to show the impossible, and everything looks like a videogame or a cartoon. some of the scenes on this film would be impossible to make without cgi. when they had that limitation, they got around it creatively and were forced in a way to respect at least some basics of physicall laws. now they try to make it bigger and louder and more spectacular, as in the unfunny resolution to the nuclear bomb scene. the chemistry of bickering couple ford and karen allen had in raiders seems to be either completely gone or not even used properly. she shows up just to show up. determined to get both the father-son relationship AND the return of marion they underdevelop both storylines. the wedding at the end is so forced and like the rest of the film, it's just isn't any good.

i'm reading the darabont scrypt and it's not that different from the koepp's...the very first scene has a lizard sunbathing instead of gophers. when you think about it, both ideas are cool of they use real animals instead of cgi smiling creatures, but they fucked it up from the first moment with that.

Quote from: Alexandro on June 12, 2008, 11:40:00 AM
the very first scene has a lizard sunbathing instead of gophers. when you think about it, both ideas are cool of they use real animals instead of cgi smiling creatures, but they fucked it up from the first moment with that.

In the fantastic, new 'Complete Making of' tome, there's a production photo with a puppet gopher sticking out of the mound. I'm about a third through Darabont's script and I enjoyed the scene where Indy says goodbye to his class and the Raiders Idol being swagged from the pressure sensitive display cabinet. I doubt the script is going to be a huge revelation and agree that most of the shooting scripts problems are exacerbated by some poor directorial choices. The script certainly reads a lot less 'dumb' than the film came out.

On the subject of CGI, it's interesting to note that Raiders was shot for only $20,000,000.  Going into it the studio were very suspect of Spielbergs ability to bring a film in on time and on budget - a result of Close Encounters over-runs and the bloated 1941. Spielberg actually had something to prove with the Raiders budget. Like you say, with Crystal Skull, Spielbergs every whim could be catered to with CGI not to mention a $120,000,000 budget. It's a shame because Spielberg was the father of appropriate and effective usage of effects (practical or computer generated). You could say that in the case of Jaws, the intermittent function of the Shark caused him to show more restraint than perhaps he would have liked but even in Close Encounters (where he could have had whatever he wanted) he was careful not to blow his wad too early and (barring the Special Edition) not show too much. Similarly when pioneering CGI in Jurassic Park - still some of the best integrated effects on film - he was cautious to mix practical effects with digital.
Regardless, good Indy moments were always about the stunt work and I don't recall any great stunts in Crystall Skull (at least not any that weren't on wires or in-front of a blue screen.

Even if you merely think of Indiana Jones as an 'ode to the serials' (which it is not), Crystall Skull was still pretty lackluster.

that's precisely what astounds me. because until this film came out, i held spielberg as the god of visual effects. every time he used them before it was perfect. perfect balance, perfect timing. the only exception was his idiotic ET revisals, with a cartoonish, "cute" E.T. taking a bath and playing with a rubber duck. it still pains me to remember that. A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds, those are some amazing visual effects movies.

Quote from: Alexandro on June 12, 2008, 11:40:00 AM
on paper, everything in the film sounds ok, but the way spielberg handled this on the screen is embarrasing most of the time. i still don't understand the abuse of cgi, to me the worst part of it all. i think cgi is ruining movies. since it allows filmmakers to do the impossible, they go out of their way to show the impossible, and everything looks like a videogame or a cartoon.

I agree this film isn't that good, but I think a certain element of the pulp feel that Spielberg is going for is that the story isn't of the highest quality. People complain about the story being absurd, but of course it is. The film represents camp storytelling. Spielberg could have done more to make this movie better or more entertaining, but I think it satisifies on enough levels to what is required. It's more interesting than the other sequels.

I also think this film is intended to look like a "cartoon". When Spielberg made Raiders of the Lost Ark, he had the abilities to make a film of decent special effects that were believable. If you compare Raiders to Apocalypse Now (made two years earlier), you see Apocalypse now had excellent effects that still look realistic. Raiders has a few scenes that look just cartoonish and out of date, but Coppola didn't possess anything that Spielberg didn't have. It was an ethical decision by Spielberg to utilize effects that would remind the viewer about the fictional identity of the story.

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.

CGI also does make everything possible, but Crystal Skull gets no more ridiculous than Temple of Doom. The only difference is that the frequency of ridiculous in Crystal Skull is much more there than Temple of Doom. I think that film was transitional for Speilberg who wanted the film series to embrace its campiness more.

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.

Quote from: Alexandro on June 12, 2008, 11:40:00 AM
i'm reading the darabont scrypt and it's not that different from the koepp's...the very first scene has a lizard sunbathing instead of gophers. when you think about it, both ideas are cool of they use real animals instead of cgi smiling creatures, but they fucked it up from the first moment with that.

Link please. I'd really like to read it. Thanks!!

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.

Thanks everyone for the link!

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 12, 2008, 07:09:04 PM

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.

Quote from: Redlum on June 13, 2008, 12:40:34 PM
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.

 

Quote from: Redlum on June 13, 2008, 12:40:34 PM
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.

Quote from: Redlum on June 13, 2008, 12:40:34 PM
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.

Quote from: Redlum on June 13, 2008, 12:40:34 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: pete on June 13, 2008, 06:58:47 PM
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.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 13, 2008, 05:43:12 PM
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 (http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/June2008/CrystalSkull/page1.php), Pete.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: MacGuffin on June 17, 2008, 01:42:54 PM
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.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popsucker.net%2Fimages%2Fpopsucker%2Flucascarbon.JPG&hash=11c47f1e539674ddf835cf2f83833e5f22eb36eb)

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.

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...

Don't buy it.

South Park Rape Episode:

http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/1208/The-China-Probrem.html

Quote from: reinhold on October 12, 2008, 04:40:11 PM
South Park Rape Episode

It's a one-note joke. But I like the joke.

It's just too bad they're so sporadic with new episodes.... would have been even more enjoyable last May.

I just saw the opening action scene last night.  it's kinda like die hard 4, where all the wit in the chase is gone.  dropping a machine gun and firing it is not very witty.  indiana jones also seems more superhuman this time around - more impervious to pain and gravity.  the only thing remains is his grin, but the action set pieces are kinda shit, too effortless and unimaginative.

It wasn't that bad for the first 45 minutes. Then Shia shows up and it's the worst movie I've ever seen ever.

George Lucas has the worst sense of humor ever. Spielberg, too, but Lucas sense of humor is all over this flick. I don't know how to explain it, but you guys know what I mean about his sense of humor.

So I saw this movie because it was something to watch on Blu-Ray that would look pretty good.  And it did look pretty good.

I thought the film was pretty bad, and that's kinda what I expected, though I decided it would be worth watching anyway because the Spielberg/Kaminski team still remains one of the best at that kind of dynamic camerawork that they do.  I still have respect for Spielberg for pushing and experimenting with the look of his films, and his sensibilities regarding where to put the camera and when.  It's this strange mix of classical, over-the-top, and sometimes edgy visual style that I find fun to watch.  Nobody else really does it like Spielberg does.

That doesn't make up for the nearly everything else that's lousy about this film though.  The whole storyline was also pretty boring and uncreative.  I think the device of "Oh, at first I thought this character meant THIS, but in Mayan it has a double-meaning so it actually means THIS!" was used at least 4 times.  Anyway, blah.

I know what you're saying about their collaboration in general, but this one just felt greasy and pretty ordinary in terms of the camera work.

Actually I agree with you.  This film was a disappointment on even that level.

Cannes 2010: Shia LaBeouf: We botched the last Indiana Jones
Source: Los Angeles Times

The last time Shia LaBeouf came to Cannes, in 2008, it was to promote "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," the revival of the swashbuckling adventure franchise that went on to earn a whopping $787 million around the world. LaBeouf is back on the Croisette this weekend to flog "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps," another revival of a classic from several decades ago. But he's not willing to forget about what he says were rampant problems with Indy 4 -- and he doesn't expect fans to, either.

"I feel like I dropped the ball on the legacy that people loved and cherished," LaBeouf said, explaining that this upped the ante for him before he began shooting the "Wall Street" sequel. "If I was going to do it twice, my career was over. So this was fight-or-flight for me."

Meeting with reporters Saturday on a terrace at the Hotel du Cap, he had some strong, confessional words about his acting in the film, which he said he felt didn't convince anyone that he was the action hero the movie claimed him to be. "You get to monkey-swinging and things like that and you can blame it on the writer and you can blame it on Steven [Spielberg, who directed]. But the actor's job is to make it come alive and make it work, and I couldn't do it. So that's my fault. Simple."

LaBeouf said that he could have kept quiet, especially given the movie's blockbuster status, but didn't think the film had fooled anyone. "I think the audience is pretty intelligent. I think they know when you've made (slop). And I think if you don't acknowledge it, then why do they trust you the next time you're promoting a movie." LaBeouf went on to say he wasn't the only star on the film who felt that way. "We [Harrison Ford and LaBeouf] had major discussions. He wasn't happy with it either. Look, the movie could have been updated. There was a reason it wasn't universally accepted."

LaBeouf added, "We need to be able to satiate the appetite," he said. "I think we just misinterpreted what we were trying to satiate."

Asked whether this was difficult to say, given his deep relationship with Spielberg, LaBeouf continued with the directness.

"I'll probably get a call. But he needs to hear this. I love him. I love Steven. I have a relationship with Steven that supersedes our business work. And believe me, I talk to him often enough to know that I'm not out of line. And I would never disrespect the man. I think he's a genius, and he's given me my whole life. He's done so much great work that there's no need for him to feel vulnerable about one film. But when you drop the ball you drop the ball."

Interviewing LaBeouf is a unique experience. It's nearly impossible not to like the 23-year-old, who carries an honesty and a winning sincerity that endears him to you despite, or because of, his mispronunciation of words such as "schoolastic" and "hyperboil" (as though the word for exaggeration connotes a manic skin blemish). He's refreshingly honest, apparently engaged with subjects far beyond movies and willing to throw out whatever playbook his publicists no doubt beg him to use.

He's also relentlessly intense and unfailingly earnest, taking every question hyper-seriously. When asked whether shooting "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" gave him some insight on what was wrong with our financial system, he said this, with exactly no interruptions:

"You can make the marketplace more transparent. If people had known who was paying for the mortgages instead of having to rely on Moody's triple-A (bull) rating -- transparency would have helped. The triple A rating thing is ridiculous. That's like Oliver [Stone] paying you for a review. The people who were bundling this toxic crap were paying Moody's for the review of their crap. That's ridiculous. You can't have bank holding companies acting as hedge funds. You can't have them taking a million-dollar pension plan for Joe Schmo the bus driver and treat it with the same risk appetite that you treat George Soros' pocket money. It's fundamentally ridiculous. And it hasn't gotten better very recently, actually. They went from bundling mortgages that were crap to bundling life insurance policies and betting on people's deaths. And you can't blame it all on the Street.... People's mentality needs to change. If the Greece contagion thing takes off and it goes from Spain to Ireland to Portugal things are going to change drastically for the world. Soup kitchens, it won't be that type of change. You won't get a depression that way. But it'll be very difficult. I think, my generation, it's hard to have hope when you got a $700-trillion derivatives debt to pay and a bubble about to explode and $500 trillion worth of GDP. You took all the money in  the world and put it in a pot, you're $200 trillion short. It's scary, man. You know the average person born today owes $8,000? The average person getting out of college owes $75,000 with no job. I mean it's scary. My generation, it's a scary situation."

If only some of that energy had come through in the last Indiana Jones.

He's been saying the same thing about Transformers 2 lately. If he dies under mysterious circumstances anytime soon, I would have the police go to Spielberg first and Michael Bay second. Unless he dies in an explosion. In that case, switch it.

I actually like him. He's very honest in interviews and seems very sincere about what he is trying to do. Whether he transitions to becoming a better actor with more dramatic roles is another question.

where was this honesty two years ago? it's easy to call your film shit after the box office returns are through. the man starred in two transformers movies. two of them. he sucks.

are you guys reading this shit? what does sincere have to do with it, he's a fucking DUNCE.

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 16, 2010, 11:01:03 AM
the 23-year-old, who carries an honesty and a winning sincerity that endears him to you despite, or because of, his mispronunciation of words such as "schoolastic" and "hyperboil"

when ppl try to use big words to try to sound smart and completely butcher them it's NOT like a typo, which is invalidating on its own, it is indicative of a real lack of understanding and being insulated somehow from a world where someone will actually tell him his ideas are SHIT. the following is bullshit too:

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 16, 2010, 11:01:03 AM
"You can make the marketplace more transparent. If people had known who was paying for the mortgages instead of having to rely on Moody's triple-A (bull) rating -- transparency would have helped. The triple A rating thing is ridiculous. That's like Oliver [Stone] paying you for a review. The people who were bundling this toxic crap were paying Moody's for the review of their crap. That's ridiculous. You can't have bank holding companies acting as hedge funds. You can't have them taking a million-dollar pension plan for Joe Schmo the bus driver and treat it with the same risk appetite that you treat George Soros' pocket money. It's fundamentally ridiculous. And it hasn't gotten better very recently, actually. They went from bundling mortgages that were crap to bundling life insurance policies and betting on people's deaths. And you can't blame it all on the Street.... People's mentality needs to change. If the Greece contagion thing takes off and it goes from Spain to Ireland to Portugal things are going to change drastically for the world. Soup kitchens, it won't be that type of change. You won't get a depression that way. But it'll be very difficult. I think, my generation, it's hard to have hope when you got a $700-trillion derivatives debt to pay and a bubble about to explode and $500 trillion worth of GDP. You took all the money in  the world and put it in a pot, you're $200 trillion short. It's scary, man. You know the average person born today owes $8,000? The average person getting out of college owes $75,000 with no job. I mean it's scary. My generation, it's a scary situation."

are you kidding me? does he know what a TRILLLION dollars is? the global gross product does not even reach 100trillion. ok so he's just "mispronouncing" words again and he's just "mispronouncing" figures too, SO ADORABLE according to whoever wrote that article.. it seems like that person is just responding to his "intensity" which is worth absolutely nothing at all if it's behind idiotic statements with no substance whatsoever. it's like praising a raving lunatic on the street. his intensity or sincerity is irrelevant.

his comments on Indiana Jones are equally vapid. he comes out and confesses this bullshit statement about how HE dropped the ball, as in Shia himself takes the blame for the failure of the film, that it's his job to make the story come alive -- and then goes on to say that he and ford were talking about the film's problems and that in the end spielberg has to hear the harsh truth that apparently HE dropped the ball too. what the hell? if it's just shia who made the mistake and is taking the blame then spielberg should be fine with hearing that he hired a shit actor.

whatever, i won't even try to make sense of his logic. i'm sure he just "mispronounced" his entire life.

I'd like to listen to that Spielberg call.

Anyway, nice to hear someone trashing his own movies, for a change. He is right about Indiana Jones sucking and is cool that he says Spielberg dropped the ball too, even if initially like 2 seconds before he was saying it was his fault as an actor, because well, Spielberg fucked it up too with that one. His worst film probably. no small feat.

You know how courage and folly can be hard to distinguish? Well I think that same can be said for honesty and stupidity.

I don't know if Shia is really a dumbass, but he kinda sounds like one. It's fine that he says Indiana Jones was shit and really he can't be wrong there, but it's obvious that this statement just slipped out of his mouth. It's not like he won't play the game because he's too real or anything, he's just too stupid to shut up.

"Schoolastic" and "hyperboil" do a great job of proving that. Also, his lack of understanding of the value of 1 trillion dollars. 500 trillions is like 10 times the global GDP. I hope his 700T value for the debt is as crooked but I don't know the data.

Steven Spielberg Proud of Fourth 'Indiana Jones' Movie Criticisms
The director reveals he was never a big fan of the aliens in "Crystal Skull" but is happy "nuked the fridge" has become a pop culture phrase.
Source: THR

Steven Spielberg says he's proud that the phrase "nuked the fridge" has replaced "jumped the shark" as the shorthand for saying a film series has taken a turn for the worse.

Talking to Empire magazine about his career, the director of the upcoming Adventures of Tintin and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull says even though people blame producer George Lucas for the scene where Indy hides in a refrigerator to avoid a nuclear explosion, the idea was really his.

"Blame me. Don't blame George. That was my silly idea. People stopped saying 'jump the shark'. They now say, 'nuked the fridge'. I'm proud of that. I'm glad I was able to bring that into popular culture."

However, Spielberg is not as proud of the aliens that appear at the end of the film.

"I sympathize with people who didn't like the MacGuffin because I never liked the MacGuffin. George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin. I didn't want these things to be either aliens or inter-dimensional beings. But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in -- even if I don't believe in it -- I'm going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it. I'll add my own touches, I'll bring my own cast in, I'll shoot the way I want to shoot it, but I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that."
Spielberg says he doesn't know the status of a possible fifth Indiana Jones movie. He's waiting to hear from Lucas, who has long had the task of figuring out the story before he approaches Spielberg.

"George is in charge of breaking the stories. He's done it on all four movies. Whether I like the stories or not, George has broken all the stories. He is working on Indy V. We haven't gone to screenplay yet, but he's working on the story. I'll leave it to George to come up with a good story."

Quote from: SpielbergGeorge is in charge of breaking the stories...George has broken all the stories.

Again, maybe writing them would be better?

more like: "Quit fucking your giant pile of money on our beloved stories, you fatshit, You are breaking them!!!"

I agree, did anyone read the frank darabont indy script?

I did. From what I recall, it was very similar to the final film. Giant ants and all.

EDIT: Wow. 1000 posts.

Quote from: Sleepless on October 27, 2011, 11:49:32 AMWow. 1000 posts.

Remember to savor your current rank.

Shouldn't it be aspiring?

That's why it's funny. Long story short, a model slash aspiring actress posted on C&C saying she was a huge PTA fan (a somewhat dubious claim) and was hoping to get some work in a PTA movie. "Inspiring Actress Jacki Lynn" is what she called herself, and that was perhaps the thread title. There's more to the story, but those are the basics.

Polka, if you can pull something up, I'll be impressed.

Quote from: MacGuffin on October 11, 2003, 02:44:10 AM

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetTo get a little nostalgic, with being an active member of the old boards for its entire history, everytime i hear someone call out for local actors on any forum at all I am quickly reminded of the great thread on C & C in the forum PTA's future projects in which one girl with a name I can't remember posted a calling out PTA and announcing herself an actress and then saying something weird which I forgot.

I remember how it was one of the first threads for that forum and really said nothing but everyone replied at the fascination of ONE FEMALE actually posting at the board. Some ridiculed her and some quietly begged her to post more. I don't think she posted again. That was a great thread.

That was Jacki Lynn, and the thread was 'PTA is a soul shaker'. And she wanted PTA to cast her in one of his films because she was an "inspiring" actress.
http://www.jacki-lynn.com/index2.htm

fivehead

Hey, ill be a fivehead soon too! Crazy!

Her current IMDb profile picture is the exact same picture she used as her avatar on C&C.

Seriously, Jacki Lynn was the best in-joke this place had for a long time.

*High Five Accepted!

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mastermousepatrol.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2FHigh-Five-300x300.jpg&hash=d4b776daf7c3f7c10294f4167ae58800cdae4877)