The quick-cut super slickness of the fonts, colors, and graphics has me a bit worried, though. I hope they keep the film itself free (as much as possible) of this stuff.

Forrestal!!

And be careful what you wish for, as monkeys/apes will soon rule the world. You don't want them taking away our cinema too, do you?

I think the reason they haven't released full-length trailers for this is because they know many of us, myself included, would spooge our pants embarrassingly. So instead they give us these short but stimulating little "handjob" sneak peeks. Hey works for me.

You CAN NOT judge a movie, and especially a performance based on minimal trailer footage. There's not as much dialog in an Indy trailer because the emphasis for marketing is the adventure aspect.

And as far as your question as to why not have a scene as a whole, and why resort to trick editing? Where have you been? That is precisely what nearly every release trailer is and has been since the 80s and even before.

This should be good of course.

Spielberg is a stubborn (thankfully) supporter of shooting on film. Which I commend. People saying this new movie looks too digital (it's shot on film people) are disregarding the fact that they had watched the Indy films on shitty VHS for years. In the theaters, the Indy films looked crisp and clear, unless you were in some shitty dive theater. On DVD they are even clearer.

Thus, don't let your memory confuse you. Spielberg and co. were adamant that they wanted this new film to have the same look and feel of the original. Complaints about the "overuse" of CG are ridiculous right now as well because thus far we've seen just a couple CG shots. But in the context of a minute long trailer.

CG in essence will replace the terrible blue screen matting that both Temple and Crusade especially had.