I'm not mega hyped, just reasonably excited.

Remov e the space.

Fingers crossed

Poor american sissies are not allowed to see people with guns pointed at them. But the death sentence via poison-injection is fine...

Bring on Indy!

I'm starting to sound like a plant or a shill for Paramount but really, this is the one place I thought I could go on the internet where I could talk to people who were excited about this. Indiana FUCKING Jones, you assholes!

Yes, there is some CGI, God forbid they advance the technology 20 years so it doesn't look exactly like it did in 1981. What do you have to look forward to in the way of movies after this? The fucking Hobbit? Give me a fucking break. This is movie history, you assholes and anyone over the age of 25 should understand that and not bitch about how the pixels in frame 345 of the 3rd scene look. Goddammit I expected more from you people.

it makes me uncomfortable for a reason it don't know.

I do so hope my eyes deceive me.

So where the hell are all you guys? Or when you said "going apeshit" did you mean "quietly enjoying the online viral marketing campaign from the comfort of your home"?

Last night at Rudy's after the movie someone actually uttered the words "What's The Dark Knight?" when the conversation turned to this summer's movie schedule. Granted, I wouldn't consider this person a film or comic geek by any means, and when I politely informed them exactly who and what The Dark Knight was, they responded "Oh, riiiiight. Heath Ledger's last movie" but I still couldn't help being somewhat surprised by their initial ignorance.

Basically, yeah you'll probably see a difference now from the quality of the image from the 90s, but I wouldn't say it's worse. Digital is different than film, no doubt, but like any transition it is met with mixed responses, but eventually we'll all come to accept it.

The good news being that many filmmakers, Spielberg being one of them, don't want to abandon film because it captures light in such a unique way, but I wouldn't call it better than digital. Watch Collateral and see how beautiful digital can be.

I also liked Last Crusade the least, however, I did appreciate the humour, I hope that you, Katanga, and other talkbackers here (especially the cynics that Katanga mentioned) don't forget that Indy was always an adventure series that had charm and wit, and that jokes like "I thought that was closer" in the trailer are staple elements of the formula. I'm just afraid that once the movie hits, people are going to say "OMG IT WAS TOO SILLY, POS!" Apparently forgetting that all of the films were "silly" to a certain degree.

Also agree that there is a certain population of talkbackers here who are trying way, way too hard to be the next Roger Ebert constantly being hyper-critical of EVERYTHING whether it be a movie teaser poster, the make-up of a character, concept art, or the god damn voice-over of this trailer, some TBers feel the need to point out the most insignificant things. Being that uptight, I really do wonder how they can enjoy anything. Let alone have film be a main interest of theirs.

See, film, yeah, it can capture a lot, but thats just a film reel, you need something to project it. Projection like in a movie theatre losses quality because of the enlargement, same as the fact a projection TV isn't as sharp as an LCD. In home settings, you need something to be able to play your movie: VHSs, DVDs, Blurays. A transfer has to happen so HD is just a really good transfer, getting the least image compression, so the clearest picture, closest to the original print possible.

It is possible for film to be presented in HD, not just digital filming. Digital goes for a desired look, so it's more common to see in urban-set films/shows, which is why you'd see it in those crime dramas or Collateral (yeah I keep coming back to it). Also, the digital take-over is to encourage everyone to upgrade to LCD or Plasma screens and move up to HD receivers, leaving standard definition behind. Any doubts about how a show or movie looks will be gone when you upgrade to HD, it's beautiful.

Again, I'm not super knowledgable in it, so if anyone wants to prove me wrong, please do.

I'm suggesting they are taking a different route with the marketing to give you glimpses but nothing that really blows your mind. Notice all the CGI scenes like that object flying towards the car Indy's in is shown for seconds, never getting to the big bang.

I just said it's a possibility, and if you look around, I'm not the only one who suggested it on this talkback. Get your head out of your ass. Not everyone likes to see a movie blow its load before it even hits theatres, but for you premature losers, I guess that does the trick.

Then Spielberg, bless his little heart, chimes in with some immediate damage control:

"Uh, he needs to speak for himself here.[Laughter all around] You need to put in parentheses 'George Lucas is totally speaking for himself.' And I absolve myself of any connection with that last statement about fans not liking it."

Is it just me, or does it sound like the respective confidence levels of these two are just a liiitle bit shaky?

Yeah, Lucas totally misjudged the rising power of fan discontent via the Internet coinciding with the SW Prequels. True, he did scale back the abomination known as "Jar Jar" in the last two prequels to appease us, but other than that he stood firm... and made himself look like the "asshole" he aforementioned. To admit that a fanbase of MILLIONS (people, not $) perhaps better understood what made the Star Wars movies great--- all those little parts adding up to a sum much greater than their whole--- would have been an irreparable loss of face.

You're right... Spielberg knows better. He never took a two-decade hiatus from directing as Lucas did. But, just from seeing the trailer in front of "Iron Man"... I fear the magic is gone. I saw "Raiders" in the theatre during its initial release, and it was flat-out astonishing. Saw the next two IJ movies as well--- both servicable sequels, if not exactly jaw-dropping. But, with that template firmly in place... "Crystal Skull" can only be measured against the preceding three. Viewing it as a stand-alone movie isn't even an option. I fear it will fall flat, or damn near.

You're dead right about Lucas and his poisoning of the Prequels. A first-grader busy with fingerpainting has better creative instincts that he did. He partially redeemed himself with ROTS, but even THAT was a tad bit cartoonish, when it should have played out like a Greek tragedy.

En joy!

Your pen pal,
Steven Spielberg

I don't care what anyone else thinks, I think this looks gret, and im still in the dark on the actual story and plot and thats awesome!

side note, watch the trailer for last crusade and between that and the finished film i think we can get a fair idea of just how dense and complex this new film will actually be.

can't wait.

Dark knight will not beat it.

I just watched Raiders again this past Friday, and I tell ya what, if I'm right in my speculation, the Crystal Skull aims to wrap up the mysteries of the Ark. It won't be a stand-alone story. I believe the idea behind Skull is "everything happens for a reason." Indy doesn't believe in superstitious nonsense or a lot of hocus pocus. There's a reason for the powers of the Ark and it’s scientific in nature - not mystical. That's what Lucas meant when he said Indy 4 will be similar to Phantom Menace. As with the Force and midichlorians, it will be revealed that there is a scientific explanation for these mystical happenings. Looks like aliens are responsible for all of these ancient artifacts and early great civilizations. Lucas has been toying with that premise for a long time, and though it will likely piss a lot of people off, I think it means we're in store for another great cinematic treat.

Watch Raiders and look for all the possible tie-ins to the new film; I guarantee your juices will get flowing for Crystal Skull. Pay special attention to the scene where the FBI agents discuss the Ark with Indy and Brody at the university, the staff of Ra and the model of Tanis on the floor, Bellock's explanation of what the Ark is, and of course Marian!

I doubt we'll see Raiders ever top itself. It's that rare successful blend of drama, action, and comedy. But I’ve no doubt Crystal Skull will be grander in scale than any of the previous three films, and full of surprises. Did anyone notice John Hurt in the trailer? Yet more great casting!

"Indy IV will kill TDK!"

Um, okay, fine. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but 1) high box office grosss does not automatically = "good movie" and 2)they aren't really in competition with each other from a moviefan perspective.

Yes, they are products of competing studios who arguably want as much box office share for their tentpoles this summer as possible. But 1) they are being released almost 2 months apart, which is practically in different seasons these days (how many films are still playing in more than 1,000 theaters these days after 8 weeks from opening?) And 2) as a consumer who's only stake int he movie is really enjoying it enough to substantiate paying to see it in the theater, what does box office gross have to do with it?

It's not like the yanks vs red Sox where they are in direct competition and only one can lose when they play each other.

But, it's one of those arguments that makes AICN, "AICN".