But, we may never see Indy 5 if it takes another 19 years to get a fifth installment into theatres.

So far as i'm concerned Spielberg, Lucas and Ford can go on making Indy films til they drop. A subpar Indy film is 99% better than the Hack Pack shit we've been shovelled since around 1996.

INDY tb's are like buses, you wait ages for one then two come at once.

'Shia LaBeouf claims...' or 'Frank Marshall updates...'?

Place your bets ladies and gents. Place your bets....

Looks like I'm getting me some Indy 5, and that's all that matters.

See you in hell! Good day.

I must hear that story.

Bale be praised. A zero bullshit tb'er.

Seriously, that's bizarre. She's a Jew, her son makes a movie about the Holocaust... and she calls people "kikes"?

Amazing if that's what she actually said.

That's bogus and convenient.

The Indy sequels have never been perfect and I think they can still salvage the saga, but they've got to put their foot down as far as Lucas's involvement is concerned.

If the flick is made at all, it's likely years and years away, so let's not have updates whenever a writer's brain cell's are firing. We get it; it's in development. Let us know when it's ready to roll.

I know you want the JJ Star Trek2 POS instead or the TDK more bland boring over hyped POS emotionless bor-a-thon.

Sure you will get those straight to DVD productions which now replace the lowered expectations of the sheep who flock to them as worthy cinema.

But to people of higher intelligence/expectation who can still remember what it felt like to actually be excited & entertained at the movies Indy5 will be an oasis in the desert of mediocrity.

Lucas and Spielberg however didn't even have the decency to give me a reach around..they just rammed bad acting, shitty script, and cheap looking CGI into my various sensory orifices while taking the money out of my wallet.

the only sin indy 4 has is that it was pointless--as in it didnt need to be made...lucas and fors and speilberg FINALLY relented and gave YOU what YOU WANTED...a sequel.

it didnt need to be, they wrapped up everything perfectly in CRUSADE..

i would compare this to the final moments of TREK 6 (nice ending for OG crew) and then in 2000, they said they were coming back for an encore. POINTLESS.

stop your whining and move on.

1) The nuked fridge.

2) The dropped theme of "we're at the age when life stops giving you things and starts taking them away."

3) Indy saying in 1957 that he could decipher that bullshit lost language by "running it through Mayan." NOBODY could decipher SHIT through MAYAN in 1957 'cause NO ONE (including Henry Jones, Jr.) had deciphered Mayan at that time.

4) Swinging through the trees with fucking monkeys!

5) Those same monkeys then attacking (?!?!?) ONLY the Commie Russians!

6) Marion's ridiculous "tree" stunt at the river.

7) The constant use of green screen ad motherfuckin' nauseum. It was like they decided to film this p.o.s. in Lucas's backyard with some green screen material 'cause the greatest distance anybody could be convinced to travel was 82 feet from their sofas!

8) Marion's absolute shitting on as anything other than a cardboard cut-out. Don't believe me? Go watch KOTCS then go back and just watch the scene in ROTLA when she's having dinner in the tent with Belloq. That's the difference between being a squealing cardboard cut-out with a couple of mediocre lines (at best) and being a great character!

And I'm ONLY to the beginning of the last temple scene.

Only sin was that it was "pointless," my ass! That motherfucker had a MULTITUDE of sins, but one of them ISN'T that it didn't HAVE to be made.

No movie HAS to be made and that includes ROTLA, TOD, TLC, and KOTCS. Most of us just expect certain things especially in an Indiana Jones movie and that movie let us all down (and NOT 'cause it was POINTLESS).

All that having been said, I'm watching it again right now because the worst Indy movie (KOTCS)(hey, ever noticed "KOTCSucker"?), the worst Indy movie is way better than most shit.

Only sin?!?! Fucking puh-leeze!

Look, I'm not on the Lucas is great bandwagon, but for pity's sake, he's the idea man and the money on these. Spielberg is in charge of the production 100%. He has script approval. He is involved in all preproduction (where 90% of the crap should've been taken care of). He shot the film and worked with the actors. And he delivered the first cut of the film BEFORE Lucas got to touch it.

Yeah, yeah...they work together closely and Spielberg knows that Indy is Lucas' creation, but he's more to blame in my eyes than Lucas. If they do make another one, Spielberg needs to rewatch Raiders...and take notes.

Empire, which liked the first one, says the second is more of the same. However, even they can't get too excited about it.

Once again, Temple of Doom is an action masterpiece. It is so much better than anything Michael Bay can dream of.

People got a thrill out of seeing Indy again. General audiences are not that discriminating when it comes to the summer blockbuster movies (which is why crap like Wolverine and KOTCS make tons of money). That doesn't make them bad people, or stupid, but it doesn't make the movies they like good either.

Go ask your girlfriend which dick she prefers - 8" or 6.5".

You back? What'd she say? See, told you.

KOTCS sucks, but it's still an Indy cartoon which makes it better than most shit out there, just not as good as a 94, 84, or 89.

take the leap of faith with one, you must take them all. im not saying it was the greatest film, but it was entertaining as you watched it.

yes i agree with you that none "needed" to be made, but they were. thats fine. each told their own little story and ADDED something to the main arc...even KOTCS...the "im getting to old for this" angle was its fresh look.

Raiders introduced the character.

DOOM showed us a rollicking good time and showed us a time when Indy was only afer fortune and glory and he was humbled.

CRUSADE, he finally reconciled his relationship with his estranged father. them riding off into the sunset was the perfect ending to the arc IMO. hence pointless.

you can name implausibilities in all of them...they arent really based in reality.

people griped about the aliens at the end, saying they werent "believable", yet they accep the ark, holy rocks, and the holy grail.

you didnt like it thats fine. iaccept that. but compared to other "blockbusters" these days, i will happily watch in a darkened theater INDY 4 with a nostalgic smile on my face.

1.Indy won't be married (which is boring and will keep him tied down; plus it allows you to introduce a new & exciting love interest).

2. You can potentially bring back Sean Connery if you throw enough money at him (though after seeing the turd Indy 4, he probably wants to stay as far away from the series as possible...there's a reason why he said no). 3. You don't necessarily have to use Mutt and Marion if they don't organically fit into the story.

4. Best of all, WW2 can be the backdrop to the story. Very exciting! You have a fucking war going on, and Indy is trying to find whatever archaelogical thing the Nazis could use to turn the tide of the war! Maybe there's wartime espionage, battles, that kind of thing mixed in with the archaeology. Indy 4 established that he was in the army, but the war was long, so it can always be before or after Indy served.

1.Indy won't be married (which is boring and will keep him tied down; plus it allows you to introduce a new & exciting love interest).

2. You can potentially bring back Sean Connery if you throw enough money at him (though after seeing the turd Indy 4, he probably wants to stay as far away from the series as possible...there's a reason why he said no). 3. You don't necessarily have to use Mutt and Marion if they don't organically fit into the story.

4. Best of all, WW2 can be the backdrop to the story. Very exciting! You have a fucking war going on, and Indy is trying to find whatever archaelogical thing the Nazis could use to turn the tide of the war! Maybe there's wartime espionage, battles, that kind of thing mixed in with the archaeology. Indy 4 established that he was in the army, but the war was long, so it can always be before or after Indy served.

This is a testament to how badly the filmmakers failed (especially scriptwriter Koepp and alien obsessed fool Lucas). I remember that in the months before Indy 4 came out, I was beside myself with excitement. I couldn't wait. Now I don't hold out any hope for a great film, and wasn't even interested in watchng Indy 4 again when it came out on DVD.

All three SW prequels are better than KOTCS. Revenge of the Sith is actually pretty good (not great, but my complaints about Episode III have more to do with the mis-handling of Episodes I and II)

I must have missed ALL the green screen in TLC, TOD, and ROTLA, but, having missed it, I now wish that the flaming fucktards that made KOTCS had learned to use green screen as well 'cause that market scene in Raiders looked real - the one in KOTCS looked like it was filmed in downtown LA.

And, if you think that liking ROTLA, TOD, and TLC means like that you must "take the leap of faith with them all," then, you, sir, have to discernment or intelligence. Even Rotten Tomatoes presents the vast differences in quality.

Let me ask you a question: ever eaten a hamburger before? Enjoyed it, did you? Liked that hamburger? Well, I've got a half-eaten one laying in my back yard right now. The dog shit on it, it's been baking in the sun, and there are some sort of bug larvae growing there, but you dig in 'cause "take the leap of faith with one (hamburger), you must take them all.. even the dog-shit encrusted, maggot filled, rotting ones, right?!?! Right?

Hey, I got one. In the next one, Indy goes on a mission to explore the poo-poo that he makes in his own diaper and, being the accomplished and curious professor that he is, decides that his mission wouldn't be complete if he didn't eat the poop. Now, because of Indy's contact with both the Ark, the Grail, and the Mothership, his own poop has the power to 'cause him to switch bodies with Mutt and he decides that he'd like to fuck Marion again in a younger body. Of course, hilarity ensues because Marion thinks that her own son wants to stick it in her ass?!?!? Jeepers!

That sound good to you? Gonna rush right out and see that one 'cause "take the leap of faith with one, you must take them all," right? Indiana Jones and the Poop-Eating Motherfuckers of Doom! Cannot wait to see you there.

KOTCS did not have an "I'm getting too old for this" fresh angle. In point of fact, KOTCS actually dropped this (much to its detriment) immediately after the scene in Indy's house. Completely dropped it and that's one of my complaints. How can you use that as it's "fresh angle" when it dropped it and did not mention it again? I should remind you that I am RIGHT NOW rewatching the movie as I type this.

Sure, I can "name implausibilities in all of them [because] they aren't really based in reality," but True Lies and Dumb and Dumber II aren't "really based in reality" either and I'd sure as shit not like to see the retarded shit from Dumb and Dumber II in True Lies.

I never mentioned the aliens and, truth be told, don't have a big problem with them. Why? 'Cause ROTLA featured Jewish religion, TOD featured Hindu religion, TLC featured Christian religion, and KOTCS featured Lucas's New Age religion. I got no problem with that, but I didn't mention that at all.

Basically, these idiots got lazy because they can do "anything" with green screen (monkeys, ridiculous fights, gophers, fridges, etc.) and tried to out-visual us when they needed to stick with real action (i.e., ROTLA-style chases that they REALLY had to film, NOT plop an idiot on a soundstage and TELL what was happening).

Again, don't get ME wrong. This was an Indy cartoon and as such is way better than most shit out there, but that still doesn't mean that I have to gulp down every shitty nugget in my Wopcorn with a smile on my face. Sometimes the Wopcorn really is cat doody.

they were green screens in CRUSADE, namely the flying. and yes i think a little of the charm of the first three is that they looked real. the stunts. the locations. i felt ford's (or his stunt double) pain hen he was dragged under the truck in RAIDERS. you really dont get these kind of films anymore. they arent viable. technology has moved on and stunts are done "safer" in front of a green screen. it is what it is. when ENTIRE FILMS can be filmed in front of one green screen (SIN CITY, 300), are filmmakers willing to go back--they are always wanting to move forward and not get bored. a perfect reason NOT to make another sequel to INDY. leave weel enough alone.

thanks for your time. next time you dont have to be so rude to get your pooint across. we're civilized adults, right? enjoy the ending.

if thats the case, as some have argued, whats the point of the film? hes not "doing anything"...he's not getting what hes after either? whats the point?

We'll pick it up at...

9)The random natives hanging around in walls and shit just to chase Indy and the gang at the end for no good reason. I mean, seriously, who the FUCK were THOSE guys, WHY were they there, and did they all just fucking DIE when their entire valley raised into the sky, got dropped giant boulders on, then drowned in a river? I mean, in any other Indy flick, those motherfuckers would be explained.. temple guardians/natives who still worship the Old Ones or whatever. And they sure as shit wouldn't have been wiped out as they obviously were at the end of the movie.

10) How sad is it that Indy spends half the movie going "Ox, how do I do this?" or "Ox, how did you do this?" Seriously, in any other movie, INDY would figure out the clues and what to do. But here? Nah, let's defer to the crazy dude who's ALREADY DONE ALL THIS SHIT! Literally, Ox had done everything in that movie (except replace the head) BEFORE INDY!?!?! W-T-F!

i was responding to that...take any scene from any film out of context and yes, they dont belong thats all im saying.

the NO SMOKING SIGN was a joke..naturally. the knight was NOT the entire point of CRUSADE is MY point. Indy doesnt even want to find it, he justs wants to save his dad. the ONLY reason he drinks from the cup of a carpenter, is to save his father. The point of CRUSADE is a son mending a relationship with his father. Spielberg has mentioned this time and time again, that he made INDY3 because he was in the midst of fatherhood and reconciling with his father.

Say what you will about it. Say I'm and idiot, misguided, or a spineless shill with no conviction, but I merely see this as a situation in which I have no option.

No matter what they do to it. No matter what sacrilege they commit with the Indy name. I will be there in that theater to see it at least once. To give it the one fair shot it may or may not deserve any longer.

not everything need be spoonfed for you.

yes they probably did die when the aliens took off.

12) Was some shit about the villain's fatal flaw and how Indy survives this being explained in all the others, but not this one (see Belloq, Mola Ram, Dr. Elsa Schneider, and Walter Donovan in the previous efforts).

13) Was like some shit about Ox saying "life is lost in waiting" at Indy's wedding at the end for absolutely no apparent reason whatsoever considering how neither one of them had "waited" for shit. I then spent several paragraphs explaining how a few lines of dialogue from Indy throughout the middle of the story could have "fixed" the problems with Dean Stanforth's theme ("life taking things away") and Indy and Marion's reunion. I think that I said some shit about how Marion wants to talk about something from her past and Indy says:

INDY

Knowing ain't important, Marion. All that matters is that we're together now and I'm never gonna let you go.

(looks at Mutt, smiles, continues)

Either of you.

This leads us to the wedding, links to the theme on life "taking things" and shows that Indy, unlike crazy Russian bitch, doesn't need to know (her fatal flaw in the end). Voila! Three lines of dialogue.

Okay, think that was all.

When you said Indy "never attains the things he's questing for", did you really mean he "never gets to keep them for himself"?

Because Indy DOES attain the Ark in Raiders. He gives it to the government after doing so, exactly as he was hired to do.

Indy DOES attain the Sankara stone in Temple of Doom. And then gives it back to the people of the village who asked him to go looking for it in the first place.

Indy DOES attain the Holy Grail in Last Crusade. He then uses it to heal his dead before that bitch Elsa drops it down a crevice.

Indy DOES attain the skull in Crystal Skull, too. He then returns it to the temple it had been stolen from.

So he's gotten everything he was questing for in all 4 movies.

Maybe you didn't mean to use the word "attains"? Maybe we're arguing semantics? (Or maybe that should be "some antics"?)

"Well, gee, Bike Sharer, if you take the water out of anything, you dehydrate it." Bwahahahaha! The DEFINITION of "dehydrate" is "take the water out." Removing "context" takes the "weaving together" out.

I understand that your no smoking sign is a joke, but I gave very definite lists explaining the problems with KOTCS. You seem to be saying that I've taken those scenes "out of context" and, thusly, removed their meaning and necessity to the plot. You yourself, however, spent some time explaining that any SET piece of Indy could be removed without effecting the story.

Please explain to me the contextual significance of SET pieces that can be removed without effecting the story.

Then please explain to me the non-contextual insignificance of SET pieces that cannot be removed while effecting the story.

Finally, I really like to know your theory on the contextual significance of green screen monkeys swinging with Mutt AND attacking ONLY the Russian Commies as it relates to the melting of Nazi (and non-Nazi) faces in Raiders.

Time begins on my mark. You have forty-five minutes. And...

Go!

Look, RAIDERS was an old movie serial. TEMPLE O' DOOM was a pulp magazine brought to life. LAST CRUSADE was a Saturday morning TV serial. CRYSTAL SKULL was supposed to be a 50s B movie (I'm guessing THEM, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and maybe THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON).

It's not like fucking Indy gets encased in carbonite for transportation to Berlin while Marion and Short Round get cut off in mid-sentence...

This is EXACTLY like your "never gets what he's questing for" argument, right? By "gets," you must mean "takes home and puts on mantle to show to bowling league."

By "happing ending/closure," you mean "when Six Demon Bag 'thinks' there doesn't NEED to be anymore," right?

On that topic, are there any UNHAPPY endings that you'd consider "closure?" How 'bout the death of Terri Schiavo? Shooting of Kennedy? End of the Holocaust?

Maybe the reason Indy needs the Grail is that it will enable him to speed up his internet in 1938 'cause that slow internet in 1938 was a real bitch. I mean, who needs research. Make something up.

I remember watching cartoons when I was a kid and George Lucas sure made 'em a lot cooler by using his "state of the art" effects.

I remember, one time, Scooby and Scrappy Doo totally had to solve this bitchin' mystery in an African village and, at one point, Scooby, Scrappy, and Shaggy were swinging through the trees and I thought "if only Shia LeBeouf was there and the monkeys were photorealistic..."

Wow! You have totally convinced me of the lack of need of research.

You wanna read my story about the 12th century Japanese farm girl who uses bubble gum and her love of Luke Perry to create cold fusion and stop time so that she can rescue Jesus and win the Crusades?

I took that scene as a sort of joke from Lucas aimed at all the rabid fanboys who were convinced that he was going to have Indy "pass the torch" to Mutt.

The hat, the very symbol that defines Indiana Jones, is just about to make it onto Mutt's head, effectively being "passed on", when it's snatched out of his hands. I've always thought Lucas was thinking "Got ya! You guys almost thought I was gonna make Mutt the next Indiana Jones!"

So anybody who wants to pay me top dollar - I'll be holding Nostalgia for ransom.

Wait, Nostalgia? That is the transvestite hooker from Sunset, right?

Eh, zfisk?

I took a screenwriting class once at UCLA extension in the late '80s. Everybody in the class started telling me that vampires would never do the things that would happen in my story and all this crap. Finally, this dude whom I'll swear grew up to be Quentin Tarantino said, "His fucking vampires can do any fucking thing he wants because vampires are not fucking real."

Could you cite a passage that clearly states that Luke Perry love can't create cold fusion? Do you really need to look that up? Is this one of those Wikipedia things?

Learning is so much fun.

See, it's called literary world building and consistency, right? Logic? It's why that even if you "took a screenwriting class at UCLA with Quentin Tarantino" that his vampires don't on page 37 become shining airplanes that fornicate with dinosaurs on page 49 to create a master race of tiny Thumb Men who invade Martian ears and require the healing power of 12th century Jazz musicians from Indonesia to heal.

The concept "are not real" is not the same as "shouldn't be logical" OR "shouldn't relate to what's come before" or "doesn't need to research."

Perhaps YOU should do a little "research [into] pulp action and serial cliffhangers?" Or maybe not. Remember who needs to research? I seem to remember a real genius saying that "research" was unimportant, implying that since it "ain't real" anything, anything at all, could happen.

I don't have to "research" to make up my own language and speak it, but it's not ever gonna make sense to anyone else and, then, what's the fucking point?

But my world sounds pretty cool the way you describe it even with your whole lack of irony and over seriousness thing. It's working for you so don't you go changing.

Sorry if I offended you. It's okay with me if they research Indiana Jones if they feel they need. I don't think I'd need to myself but that's just me if you see what I'm sayin'.

Huh, huh? Whatcha think? Good, huh? See, I felt no need to research the English language or any sort of definitions or concepts at all 'cause I made it all up. It "ain't real," therefore, who gives a shit if it makes sense or not, right? Hell, yeah! Hope you enjoyed it.

I was hoping to go to one of those party schools this time around and not a commuter college. Let's do some shots!

Funny thing is, though, that breathing is an AUTONOMIC response and not a LEARNED language.

But I guess someone who doesn't research wouldn't know their kwqpvmwlmvigxxfokpyyln*, right?

However, I'd also like to marry it to:

Indy goes on a mission to explore the poo-poo that he makes in his own diaper and, being the accomplished and curious professor that he is, decides that his mission wouldn't be complete if he didn't eat the poop. Now, because of Indy's contact with both the Ark, the Grail, and the Mothership, his own poop has the power to 'cause him to switch bodies with Mutt and he decides that he'd like to fuck Marion again in a younger body. Of course, hilarity ensues because Marion thinks that her own son wants to stick it in her ass?

Whatcha think, Lucas?!?! Gold?!?!? We're gonna make some bank, right?

Strange new things happen here.

I salute you all. You've got fire & brimstone in your nutsacks, I'll tell ya that.

Seeing some old object infused with the power of a supreme being melting the faces off Nazis is bad ass; Sci-fi Aliens fucking with a not very mean and nasty, somewhat fuckable commie girl...not so much.

Oh..and Sasha Grey is the finest little actress in America today! Bar None.

I'd much rather have more unseen mysterious force and alot less sci-fi mumbo jumbo 'splaining' in my Indy movies. It is like Lucas didn't get all badly placed Sci-Fi BS out of his system with the entire TPM Midichlorians debacle and decided to shove some in Indy too.

It really seems to be transparent, that its all about demographics. Its all about those aged between 25-40 (myself included), who now have the dollars and want to spend it and are taking their kids to movies, so lets give them something they will connect with.

The originality, the spirit and the energy of the movies makers when we were kids doesn't seem to be around these days. To that point hope Jim Cameron's Avatar is good and importantly gets the box office dollars, so we can get some more studios prepared to take chances and perhaps get some new movies and ideas to enjoy.

Temple of Doom - Stones (Hinduism)

Last Crusade - Holy Grail (Christian)

Crystal Skull - New Age with hints of Xenu.

What's next? Muhammad's saber?

Hate the film... or like the film if you want, but make a valuable contribution to the talkback - all of that rape stuff makes people sound like hyperbolic fools.

yes i do know what CONTEXT means jackass. im just telling you that yes, its true that generally any scene (usually a set piece) can be taken out of an action film (thats all they are--money shots)

what was the point of indy "fighting" the sherpa in Raiders, when he shot him? was it absolutely necessary? NO. it was cute ans unexpected. same goes with the vine swinging. does it completely take you out of the film? no. you're still in the moment. you had a problem with this? but not the swinging around the warehouse..BTW, what was the point to that scene? or any opening scene to an Indy film? it didnt further the plot in any of them? thats my point?

im here all day, sweetie, so sleep off your hangover.

ohhhh this is too rich

Now if they just reboot Howard the Duck their failure will be complete!

now the last one even had a closing that seemed that they were done.

Keep in mind, all the Indy films have stretches of logic. In the first film, after Satipo leaves Indy behind, that door seems to take forever to close while Indy is hanging on the vine.

Doom has the flying raft.

Crusade has that shot of the plane flying down the tunnel right next to Indy and his dad in their car.

They all have their cartoony moments. KOTCS had just a bit too many.

Then, after he read the script, he released a statement claiming that he was enjoying retirement too much. C'mon; if it was a retirement issue, he would have said that to begin with. It's because he read the script and couldn't publicly say, "Yeah, the script was disjointed nonsense with too much absurdity in it." Besides, his part was minor, he didn't even show up in South America, just a bit at the beginning. A week of filming at most...do you think he wouldn't have gone for it if he loved the script? Please. Connery knew this was a turkey and wanted no part of it.

2. Making Connery Indy's dad is a stroke of genius. It made things a lot more personal, made us care about their relationship, and gave us some terrific scenes. Narrative depends on tension and character, and the Connery-Ford interplay gave us that in spades. There are plenty of memorable scenes from that dynamic: the discussions about both of them sleeping with Elsa, the conversation they have in the motorcycle-sidecar about their past, Indy's motivation to get the grail at the end, the way Indy looks at his father with admiration after he brings down the plane with the birds, etc. It provides the adventure movie with some measure of depth, or at least the illusion of depth through emotion. Hell, it's the heart of the movie...a son's search for his father, and how they reconnect. Otherwise, if they have no real bond to each other what you get is....stupid fucking Oxley. Tell me, did Indy helping Oxley make the film seem more "heroic"? No, you just had this pointless, bumbling sidekick character who muttered crazy shit and solved everything for Indy. Sean Connery as Henry Sr, on the other hand, was an actual CHARACTER, not a stupid unnecessary sidekick. So you're dead wrong, sorry.

Go cry about it on your super controversial Cheney Discussion Forum!

Does she like "CHILI DOGS"?

And Indy isn't a hero as such. You're confusing the character...he's not meant to be Superman here. It's more about CHARACTER, and real, rounded out, complex characters have motivations that transcend the simple-minded bullshit notions of, "oh, I must save everybody and be noble!". It's like saying that having Marion in the mix in Raiders lessens Indy's supposedly necessary "heroism" because he "shouldn't be doing it for the girl! He doesn't need the girl in peril to act! He should just act because it's needed." The logic is flawed and the meaning murky. High-minded ideals are nonsense if you don't give the character something emotional to attach himself to...hell, even at the end of Raiders, he says that all he wants is the girl, screw the Ark. That's interesting, that show emotion.

Sorry some of you guys seem incapable of enjoying yourselves or a good movie, or grasping the concept of physics but the shockwave COULD have knocked the fridge safely away from the fireball. You just choose not to accept it because it might make you seem uncool in some way.

Oh Yeah, and CHILI DOGS!

Anyway, by focusing exclusively on heroics and selflessness, you're missing the point of Indiana Jones as a character. It isn't his job to be heroic...sometimes he does heroic things, but there's more to him than that, and his personal quest to find his father or save Marion, etc, in no way diminishes him as a character because it doesn't run counter to his core.

If you found the Sean Connery bits annoying and interpret them as "daddy this, daddy that", then you're in the minority, because that's the dynamic that fueled the film in spite of its flaws. You're inserting your own subjectivities on heroism and projecting them onto the film. Maybe Indy for you needs to be a larger than life figure free of attachments who acts for the benefit of strangers...when in reality, the whole point of Indy versus other heroes is that you could see his vulnerability, his humanity. He got hurt, dragged, dirty, and had personal attachments. This counts for a lot in terms of narrative, storytelling, tension, and character....and any screenwriter worth his salt knows this.

Still, good discussing with you, mate - cheers.

Indy's entire appeal comes from his humanity. Not his ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound. He cries. He bleeds. He feels.

Also, your idea that Indy somehow is motivated by the goodness of his heart or something is ridiculous. In Raiders he goes to rescue Marion (personal interest). In TOD he goes back for fortune and glory. Saving those kids wasn't his main goal. It was just something that happened along the way. In LC he eventually has to save his dad. It's ALWAYS been personal for Indy.

You obviously have some major psychological issues to work out with your own family, but don't let it affect your enjoyment of a film.

But answer something: Did you like 'Die Hard'?

Quite frankly, this is the problem with Indy 4. If it had just been fun and a rousing piece of flawed entertainment, hey, fine. I would have given it a pass 100%. If the film had had more stuff along the lines of the motorcycle chase in the college or the Indy/Mutt fight in the caves with the grave guards. That's passable fun and would have been totally fine if the story had a larger point to it.

So when we say we want the filmmakers to do better, we're not being nitpicky. All I want is to not have to cringe when I see something. I don't want to feel embarassed to be there. I don't want to raise my palms to my face, "oh, man, this is awful!". That's all I ask, and yet thi sis where Indy 4 failed miserably. They could have delivered a mildly amusing adventure that didn't quite measure up but was fun, or okay. Instead, they deliverd so many cringeworthy scenes that you felt bad as a viewer.

2) Bashing the fuck out of people with "daddy issues" says volumes about your psyche, whether you like it or not.

You claim that what you deem "daddy issues" take away from Indy's character. You can't spin it now. We all read it.

There was a clear story to LC. Maybe you're too daft to grip the extreme complexities of the film. It's really hard to follow.

Although I can understand loving a film franchise, the hatred against individuals like Lucas, Spielberg, Shia.... it's really disturbing. These are just normal people living their lives trying to make entertainment. Sometimes it works, sometimes it falls flat, but to take a personal hatred in these people, to actually dislike them for the creative choices they make, and then wish upon them death or physical pain, it sad, pathetic, and makes me wonder if the posters here actually enjoy movies or just like to hate stuff. Seriously.

Now to the topic at hand, I thought the beginning of KOTTC was great, funny, fast-paced, and had tons of potential. I think they did a great job of passing the baton to Shia. And I had no problem with the UFO concept, because in the 50s that was a big deal. Makes total sense that an adventure, B-style movie set in the 50s would be about commies and UFOs... it is cinematically correct. The execution just wasn't that great, and for that, I blame the over-use of CG affects, and Lucas' unfortunate 180 on what he used to be about: character over spectacle. It was long, and a bit tedious.... but it was still Indiana Jones, and was better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

I for one, think there is ENORMOUS potential with a "Mutt Jones" type trilogy, with Indy as the wise teacher ala Obi-Wan in ANH. It could be great to see this new character change with the times, and although it isn't Indiana Jones, it is still of that Universe and people should have a bit of an imagination and not close themselves off to change. No one has seen Indy5 and therefore no one can judge it..

And once more to the people who have a genuine hatred for Shia, Lucas, Spielberg, or any other entertainer out there who is actually doing something with their lives, please realize the enormous amount of personal time you are wasting, and how you are getting older every day. Just like Harrison said "Ain't getting any younger". Get a genuine life, and let the people who love film and imagination discuss this stuff with the grownups. Lates.

However, that being said, INDY 4 was truly a piece of shit.

Mr. Nice Gaius: Congrats on taking your first steps towards becoming "the most stupid creature in all creation", as told by a guy who thinks Indy loving his father makes him "much less heroic". Well played, sir.

"...a guy who thinks Indy loving his father makes him "much less heroic"."

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

The problem with GC effects is it's too much of a good thing. Everyone can do it now. The reason the earlier films worked better is because the filmmakers were forced, by the limitations of what they could do, to focus on the acting and the script to make the films better. The original SW movies are good not because of the awesome imagery... but because the characters and the conflict they were in was interesting. The FX were secondary.

Then along comes CG and the floodgates are opened, and now they can do whatever the hell they want and in that excitement, they forget about what audiences really connect with: characters and story. Lucas used to preach this back in the day but unfortunately he got "high" on the ability his new powers gave him treated actors and story like something that was in the way of all the ships firing at each other. Maybe some of this rubbed off on Spielberg too. This is the same guy that made Minority Report.... he has the ability to make a good film with strong characters and plot even while not being distracted by CG FX, which were impressive.

To me, CG is like watching your friend's band do a tweny-minute prog-rock jam with zillions of guitar solos and drum-fills. It's self-indulgent. It's fun for the creator, but has nothing to do with what the audience actually wants, a catchy melody, something they can sing along and dance to.

It's kinda a obscure sci-fi flick with Dennis Quaid... but it also features Kate Capshaw doing rather naughty things on a train. I guarantee those melons will make you forgive Willie her incessant screaming...

dannyglovers.dickblood@gmai l.com

Memories-of-Asimov's-Unit is a massive, massive tool.

I thought Borat was from Kazakhstan and not Portugal...

That is all....

The only thing I do know is that Len Wiseman can eat a fucking dick.

Your arguments have been invalidated and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. The point being is that you're wrong in your characterization of Indy as somehow weakened by the relationship with his father.

So why don't you go ahead and stammer out your archaic, repetitive, retort. It's not going to change anything. You've shown your cards. You're a hypocrite and your understanding of film is sketchy to say the least. Give it up.

Die Hard 1&2: terrific

Die Hard 3&4: shit

Oh, and I find it insulting that you think that your English "fingerprint" is so flawless that we can't figure out that you're BladeRunnerUnit and Memories-of-Murder. Your arrogance regarding your tenuous grasp of idiomatic English is truly staggering.

Indiana Jones is a thief. In Raiders he went after the ark because they had Marion. In TOD he went back to get the stones for fortune and glory. In LC he had to rescue his father. He was never the hero you made him out to be.

If you like Die Hard, you're a hypocrite because the character of John McClane is marred with what you might call "wifey issues" or whatever the fuck your 13 year old brain can come up with.

But again, Indiana Jones is not and has never been a selfless hero. He's always had a personal stake. You claiming that he hasn't makes it seem like you didn't even watch the movies. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Indiana Jones is a thief. In Raiders he went after the ark because they had Marion. In TOD he went back to get the stones for fortune and glory. In LC he had to rescue his father. He was never the hero you made him out to be.

If you like Die Hard, you're a hypocrite because the character of John McClane is marred with what you might call "wifey issues" or whatever the fuck your 13 year old brain can come up with.

But again, Indiana Jones is not and has never been a selfless hero. He's always had a personal stake. You claiming that he hasn't makes it seem like you didn't even watch the movies. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The sooner you get banned again the better.

As for the "POWER OF BAY COMPELS YOU!" gag, do you know how many running gags there are on this website at any given time?!?!

You spend your time on AICN furiously posting masturbatory hate tracts about Bay And Abrams in non-Bay and non-Abrams talkbacks. If not that, then you're either declaring the "truth" of movies and issuing blanket personal insults to everyone who disagrees. On occasion you find someone who actually agrees with you at which point you begin a truly sickening, repellent campaign of toadying and sycophancy which puts everyone else off their lunch.

You're simply an arrogant, repulsive tool with a severe inferiority complex.

Indy certainly has an affinity for these relics and getting them to a museum, but it's just not his #1 goal. To say that Indy went after glory but not fortune is to ignore arguably one of the most famous lines in the picture. What was it again? Oh yeah: "Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune AND glory". Perhaps Indy misspoke? Surely you know him better than the people that wrote him, right?

The character of Henry being parallel to the grail is no different that Marion being parallel to the ark or the children being parallel to the shankara stones. So, really, the only time Indy has gone out of his way to be selfless was TOD. I'll give you that. All other times he's had a personal interest.

So saying caring about his father gives him daddy issues and makes him weak you'd HAVE to say caring about Marion makes him equally weak.

The ultimate point is that Indy's humanity defines him as a character. It's the defining theme of the franchise and, indeed, LC. And to even put it further, Indy didn't truly have issues with his dad. He loved his dad. But Henry is a perfect example of fathers from that time period. Stony, seemingly uncaring, and strict. It's an important film because Henry's callousness is what drove Indy to become that man he was; the man with the aforementioned drive to prevail. He wanted to please his dad. Without Henry, Indiana Jones might never have been and Henry Jones Jr. would have become a dentist or something.

Someone named Memories-of-Asimov's-Unit gets banned and then someone named Asimovlives appears. Doesn't that count as fairly damning evidence?

All of that good stuff aside, Indiana Jones 4 was sub par. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was, by most accounts, a perfect ending to the franchise.

So Indy has a problem with his father, so what? Who among us has a perfect relationship with their father? It is clear that Indy and his father unconditionally love each other despite their estrangement. That does not scream daddy issues to me at all. I also don't see it as diminishing the character of Indy. That is of course my opinion.

Asimov, I know you will disagree with me on this and that's fine as I always welcome different opinions, it is what makes us individuals, and I can see you have been having problems with other people in this TB. I personally don't care if you are or are not someone else who has been here before, it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I would like to point out one thing and don't get offended as that is not my intention. Your opinions have a tendency to come across as absolutes, as cold fact. I see you as strongly opinionated but I can see where other people can be rubbed the wrong way. Either way, you, I, SAG,SDB, we all present different opinions and make for some good bantering back and forth, so I welcome the debates. I may not always agree with you, in fact I think you and I disagree more than agree LOL. But that's fine, you have never bugged me enough to make an issue out of it. So I say, whatever, opinions and debates make the world go round, so carry on!

Your "What, there's only one person online in the whole of Portugal?" is a perfect example of that.

No, dipshit, it's not simply because you're Portuguese. Let's do the math again, shall we? How do you rate the odds of THREE different people sharing these exact same characteristics:

1) From Portugal.

2) Has an obsessive love for Blade Runner.

3) Likes to describe himself as a true expert on hard SF, and is particularly fond of Asimov.

4) Produces long-winded and condescending posts on the physics of nuclear explosions and supernovae.

5) Posts lengthy and repetitive rants on his hatred for Michael Bay and JJ Abrams in almost every talkback.

6) Is very condescending to Americans.

7) Has a serious hard-on for South Korean cinema.

8) "Debates" consist of declaring what's wrong and what's right, calling everyone who disagrees a moron yet refuses to counter any argument put forth by "morons" who dare to defy him.

9) Posts creepy, awkward, asexual facsimiles of what he thinks it's supposed to sound like when talkbackers talk about sexy women in films. Very creepy.

To top it all off, all the above-mentioned posts are written in THE EXACT SAME GODDAMNED STYLE OF GARBLED ENGLISH AND POOR GRASP OF IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS.

Three different people? If three different Portuguese people happened to wander into AICN and sport the exact same constellation of characteristics it would mean that virtually everyone in Portugal is the same way (God help them). Apply Occam's razor to the equation, however, and the most likely answer is: it's the same douchebag.

Simple. Fucking. Math.

Jesus, could you be more of a whiny little bitch?

I liked Zombies version, but I do agree that giving Myers a reason to murder, making him more "human" definitely makes him less of a evil murdering machine and more of a pissed off son/stepson/brother. Sure he is still a brutal killer, but giving him humanity just makes him less of a monster to me.

Ask anyone who is a professional writer, a tried and true storyteller. They will tell you the same. No one writes effectively the way you suggest. Study the craft, read some books on it and you will understand. At the level you're at, it's obviously impossible to make you understand...maybe you're just stubborn?

The idea of a "cool hero" is something out of cheap teenage fantasy. It doesn't apply to the great stories, and it certainly doesn't apply to Indy. I think part of the problem is that you're starting out from a mistaken perception of who Indy is. You've projected your own ideas onto him and this don't understand the character. He was never supposed to be a "man of mystery", a "cool hero with mystique". That's off the mark by a mile. Yes, he has swagger, yes he has attitude...but the key to Indy is that he's human. He's vulnerable. He howls in pain. He sometimes ends up looking stupid. He's petrified of snakes, for God's sake! He's a bookish professor. He certainly isn't the boring, archetypal hero you speak of. Now THAT'S banal.

As I said in the Transformers 2 thread, the term "hater" is a gross simplification - it's a bullshit way of trying to reduce your opponents' viewpoint into something you can understand & easily revile. Do you think I want to hate on Indy 4? No, I want to love the fucking thing. I want to be excited, I want to laugh at the humour, I want to feel the tension and follow the action. I don't want to put my palms up to my face in embarassment when I see Shia swinging from the vines, ok? And I don't hate Shia; he's a competent young actor with presence. He gets criticized because he's an easy target, but he's fine in my book...the blame lies solely with the two filmmakers.

Unfortunately, those who loved the film belong to the lowest common denominator: the fratboys, the undiscerning teens, and yes, the retards. This isn't about blind hatred, it's about a love of storytelling and a love for the experience of going to the movies.

So a better distinction would be:

a) People with standards & an appreciation for storytellings.

b) Retards.

Ok, ok. Maybe not retards. But definitely, "Members of America's cultural underbelly with crude, simplistic tastes and marginal complex thought." Or, "Folks who use hollow rationalizations to settle for less." Or maybe, "People who didn't read a whole lot when they were younger."

Maybe this means you, Orcus? Huh?

It was missing that 'magic' of the previous three. Yes, all of them have over-the-top stuff in them, but the others didn't have such blatant use of CGI which really took away from the movie.

I want old school Indy, which probably is impossible now due to Ford's age, but still....