Indy 4: No Trek Trailer But Possible Trek Reference May 24, 2008
by John Tenuto , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM), Sci-Fi, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Even though a couple months ago TrekMovie.com debunked the rumor, apparently some still thought there would be a new trailer for Star Trek with Paramount’s release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull this week…well there isn’t. However, there may yet be a subtle reference, consciously or unconsciously to Star Trek in the new Indy film.
[INDY 4 SPOILERS BELOW]
Indiana Kirk and the Kingdom of the Crystal Khan
The narrative of Star Trek II is of an ex-girlfriend Carol Marcus who needs the help of Captain Kirk against a wrathful Khan. During the adventure, Kirk, whose character faces the personal dilemma of aging, meets his son, David. Because the son does not share the same name (David Marcus) it is a surprise when it is revealed that David is Kirk’s son. The story ends with their reconciliation and Kirk realizes he has many adventures in his future. In the Genesis cave scene, David asks about Kirk’s past relationship with Khan, to which Kirk responds “Oh, it’s a long story.” David quips,”We appear to have plenty of time.”
This father/son relationship is also the basic narrative of Indiana Jones 4. Indy goes on a mission to rescues his old friend Ox, and it also happens, his ex-girlfriend Marion Ravenwood who needs Indy’s help against a wrathful Spalko. During the adventure, Indy, whose character faces the personal dilemma of aging, meets his son Mutt. Because the son does not share the same name (Mutt Williams) it is surprise of sorts when it is revealed that Mutt is Indy’s son. The story ends with their reconciliation and Indy realizes he has many adventures in his future. In Nazca, Peru, Mutt asks about Indy’s past relationship with Ponco Villa (a nice reference to the Young Indiana Jones television show) to which Indy responds “Long story, kid.” Mutt quips, “I got time.”
Fathers and sons
Indy Trek
It would not be ridiculous to think that director Steven Spielberg or screenwriter David Koepp might have slipped in such a reference. There are many “six degrees of separation” examples between the worlds of Star Trek and the adventures of Indiana Jones. Steven Spielberg has labeled himself a Star Trek fan, and visited the sets of the latest Star Trek film, as did Harrison Ford. And it goes both ways as the new Kirk as well as the Star Trek screenwriters have expressed their appreciate for the professor adventurer. There are more connections as well, such as Ford’s whip advisor being none other than Maj Cullah himself, Anthony DeLongis.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is in theaters now, and in my opinion it is a great film and highly recommended. It is in this author’s opinion it may be the best of the four films and fun time. I also recommend Star Trek II, but really, you should have seen that already.
Loading ...
Comments»
Anyone have the faintest clue when the
first teaser might be and with what film?
I would say ‘first’ … but I won’t… : )
Love the nod, intentional or otherwise, to STII. I haven’t seen the new Indy film yet but look forward to it!
Obviously, because I’m a Star Trek fan, I was recently comparing the heroic qualities of James Kirk and Indiana Jones. They are very similar in their character.
ACTIVIST: I think the movie that stands out the most in this respect is Temple of Doom. Indy is basically behaving as Kirk would, coming across a population in distress and seeking answers to the mystery of their troubles. So, as you all know, Dr. Jones finds a village where all the children were taken by an evil cult. Upon hearing this, Indiana Jones decides that he will act to help these people. Kirk has done the same thing many times over.
EXPLORER: As with the original Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, Indiana Jones is seeking knowledge. He is an explorer, not a treasure-hunter. Jones can’t sit still either, he is always traveling to the most distant reaches of the world. Kirk’s wanderlust is shared here.
AMBASSADOR: I don’t remember where I read/saw this one line about Kirk, but someone said that Kirk looks at an alien and sees what he has in common with it before he ever notices any differences. Indiana Jones is the same way. He is obviously well-versed in the customs and cultures of many people, but what’s behind that curiosity? His fascination with different people, I think. Kirk and Jones, both able to interpret and appreciate those who are different from them.
So, there you have my mini-thesis. Have a great holiday weekend, folks!
I think Indy 4 sucks. It’s the Episode I Phantom Menace for the Indy saga.
The thing to look for is how the alien with the missing head is sitting in his chair… very curious. But no, I saw Indy 4 and it was… not Indiana. Like Live Free or Die Hard wasn’t Die Hard. Lots of elements were similar but it felt off. It lacked the sense of adventure that Raiders had, the intensity of Temple, the grandiose feel of Crusade. It was not the worst, which belongs to Temple of Doom, but it is nowhere close to Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade in terms of quality. Sorry, Indy fans. You have a bonafide critical displeaser on your hands. And as an avid George Lucas disliker I couldn’t be happier. Can’t wait for Quantum of Solace to teach the world how a true adventurer does things. Long live James Bond!
5 – “Sorry, Indy fans. You have a bonafide critical displeaser on your hands.”
That’s strange. I’m a pretty big Indy fan and I really liked the new movie. I must be wrong about my opinion, because you seem to know so much about it. My bad.
I just saw the new Indiana Jones movie and I liked it. It didn’t blow me away, but it was a pleasant way to spend two hours.
As a may have mentioned a few months ago, I was present when they shot the Starfleet Academy scene. (See my blog for an exclusive photo of the assembled Starfleet Cadets.) The idea of academia is very much present in both the new Star Trek movie and in IJ:KCS.
One should also remember that Spock was also an instructor at the Academy — just as Indy is, in addition to a man of adventure, a professor.
By the way, the photo is at http://www.hatricksblog.blogspot.com. Please feel free to leave a comment there.
I wanted to say that there’s a certain pleasant weirdness in Henry Williams’ naming himself Mutt, since Indiana Jones, who Mutt hadn’t known as his father, was given his moniker after the family dog. I think that this connection was probably intentional and an indication of some archetypal or subliminal connection between the two Henrys.
Have to say, I loved Indy IV. It was great to see Marion again, and seeing Indy and Marion end up together was a nice way to wrap up the story.
And Mutt was actually pretty fun. Reminded me a bit of young Indy, which I presume was the intent. :)
Yeah… my source was wrong. Guess I’ll have to take “absolutely, 100% positive, for sure” tips with a grain of salt from here on out.
Vic
I personally loved Indy 4, despite what all the nay-sayers around the Internet have been saying. I also appreciated that Spielberg/Lucas made nods to both the late Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody) and to Sean Connery (Henry Jones Sr). Only thing I would’ve liked to have seen differently, is including Sean Connery in the movie, and possibly John Rhys-Davies (Sallah). But obviously, since the movie doesnt take place in or around Egypt, it makes sense not to include John Rhys-Davies character. If they decide to make an Indy 5, they better make it sooner rather than later, and I hope we’ll see the return of Sallah to the franchise, one more time.
It’s obvious after watching the movie, that they were grooming Shia LeBouf to take over as a new, younger Indiana Jones should they decide to make more movies.
INDY 4: GOOD, CERTAINLY NOT GREAT. (No spoilers)
Have to respectfully, wholeheartedly disagree with John Tenuto… there is NO WAY on God’s green Earth that CRYSTAL SKULL is the best of the series–if anything, it makes me appreciate TEMPLE OF DOOM that much more.
The crowd seemed to enjoy it (it was actually the kids in the audience that applauded the most at the end), but the vibe wasn’t overwhelming positive. There are a good 3 or 4 scenes that are 50 times sillier than ANYTHING in TEMPLE OF DOOM; there’s about 300 pages of exposition crammed into the 2 hr. running time; and the rich characterization of the first 3 films is sadly absent here. There’s too much time & talk spent on the Crystal Skulls and not enough time spent on the relationships between Indy, Marion and Mutt.
It’s NOT horrible, but it is strangely inert. I enjoyed it to a degree, but I have no plans to rush out and see it a second time.
One of a few things that struck me as unbelievable even within the fantastically and wonderfully implausible Indiana Jones universe:
(SPOILERS)
Near the end of the movie, the scene with Indy standing right next to the maelstrom of house-sized boulders spinning ’round and ’round struck me as uncharacteristic of him. Indy isn’t one to take foolhardy risks. Extreme risks, yes, but not foolhardy ones. Given the likelihood that one of those boulders could have gone flying off in a direction with Indy in its path, the Indy I think I know would have taken cover. Instead, he was horribly exposed and any one of those rocks could have easily crushed him had the saucer’s power caused it to do so.
Yes, the saucer was fascinating, but a man of Indy’s prudence would have peered out safely from well out of the way.
Methinks, at any rate.
I’m a teen of the 80’s, grew up on Zemekis, Lucas, Speilberg, Dante … and I hated Indy 4. Trek II on the other hand …
4,
It could not POSSIBLY be the “Phantom Menace” simply because it lacks Jar Jar Binks. Now, if it had a character resembling or alluding to Jar Jar, then yes, it would be “that horrible.” But since it doesn’t, it isn’t.
Jar Jar is the destroyer of movies. Him and Hayden Kristensan. I don’t care how many times we get to see him with his shirt off, in bed, lying there dreaming, and panting….
Where was I? Ah, right. He sucked at acting, end of story. The Dark Side clouds everything, but I think that modeling could be in his future. It’s either that or he’s about to die in an unfortunate pond fishing incident. I can’t really tell, I get the two mixed up sometimes.
INDY 4 is NOT “The Phantom Menace”…
I have issues with THE CRYSTAL SKULL (too many to get into without resorting to spoilers), and it’s easily the lesser of all the INDY films, but there’s no way it even begins to approach the sheer awfulness of EPISODE I (or the other Prequels, for that matter–yes, that includes REVENGE OF THE SITH).
MENACE is simply bad. SKULL is just… stagnant.
RETREAD!!! This ranks fourth of the Indy movies. Did anyone else notice that it ended the SAME way the first X Files movie and Predator 2 ended??
How many Lucas films have to have the ‘duel’ between trucks/land speeders trying to push the other into a tree, off a cliff..etc. It’s cliche, George, come on already!!
Did I miss something? Were the aliens friendly or evil?? I still don’t know!!!
Man I hope this is the end. Word!!!!
17,
(SPOILER)
Didja notice how that recombinant alien (the thirteen-in-one) seemed to take sadistic pleasure at vaporizing Gen. Spalko? Maybe that was meant to convey righteous anger, but somehow I doubt it.
I think they’re supposed to be evil.
Then again, if they were, why did they teach the Mayans all that good stuff?
And why were they stuck in that pyramid all those thousands of years, anyway? Did they do that only to fly off into interdimensional space? Or did the Spanish explorer’s theft of one of their skulls throw a monkeywrench into their plans? (How did the Spanish explorer do that, anyway? Did the aliens forget to pay their Brinks Home Security bill?
But — minor quibbles, really. I had fun.
Ahhhhhhhhh….look at all the armchair critics………too bad the net wasn’t around in 1939 so people could have bitched about the horrid movie called “Wizard of Oz”. Did you see the flying monkeys? How unbelievable!!!!! Buddy Epson is the only TRUE TinMan!!!!!!!!
Buddy Ebsen can bite my shiny metal ass.
I just saw it, too and my opinion was that it was great. I think too many people were waiting for a movie that was going to change cinema, and that’s not what they were intending to do. They were making the fourth installment of an Indiana Jones movie that happens to take place 20 years after the first three. Maybe everyone’s expectations were too high. Harrison Ford once again inhabits the role of Indiana Jones. It’s pretty obvious that Shia is being groomed to be Indy’s successor, but that all involved aren’t exactly ready to turn over the keys. I like this one far more than the too dark Temple of Doom with the Kate Capshaw character that was just obnoxious and ridiculous. I’d say it’s no Raiders, but that movie was pitch-perfect. Skulls is more on a par with Last Crusade, which I enjoyed thoroughly as well.
We live in an age of internet negativity where you’re only cool if you have a superior attitude to things that you would normally enjoy. The talkback section of AICN is testament to that. I find it sad that people can’t just let themselves enjoy the neat treat like an Indy movie we never thought would happen. It ‘aint supposed to be Citizen Kane, folks. It’s supposed to be a popcorn muncher like Raiders was. No pretensions, no agendas, no great moral message for mankind to debate. Just a fun flick to enjoy this summer.
Best of the series?!?!?!!? The film was a disappointment, but because I am a huge Indy fan I can’t help myself.
I got a kick out of the movie because I went to Nazca, Peru in January and saw the Nazca lines, an excavation site of a lost pyramid, and mummies and dead bodies in the middle of the desert.
No aliens or crystal skulls, but my adventure was much better than this Indy movie.
I agree #21. I liked Indy 4. It wasn’t perfect, but I went in with lower expectations and came out not unhappy I saw it. It was fun to see Indy again. These movies don’t come out every day. Citizen Kane- wow now there was a good movie. We studied it in college.
BTW, i am just curious, Didnt Indy’s father drink from the holy grail? From what i understood from that movie was that once you drink from the grail, you would become immortal. Why is it then that Henry Jones the first died?
I’m a huge Indy fan myself and an aspiring novelist/screewriter. From that standpoint, I have to say that the problem with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull lies in its writing.
To me, Raiders and Last Crusade are the best of the two. I’d probably have to watch Crystal Skull several more times to decide whether I like it or Temple of Doom better. I think the biggest problem with Crystal Skull was that it didn’t maintain a sense of danger. Indy seemed far too in control of every situation that presented itself. With the other three movies, even Temple of Doom, the challenges that befall Indy pile on to each other going from bad to worse to worst. I didn’t feel like Crystal Skull had that sense of danger or impending doom.
On the other hand, Temple of Doom is the one movie of the four in which Indy has no real character development. Indy has an arc of change in Crystal Skull as he begins to assume the role of a father and as he realizes that maybe there’s more fight left in him than he had thought. Temple of Doom really doesn’t do that. Sure, he gives up the Shankara Stones to help the people of the village, but he had agreed to help them in the first place.
I enjoyed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull very much. I don’t think it was as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, but I liked it despite it’s story flaws and some of its sillier sequences (Vines and monkeys is all I have to say).
24. Tanner Waterbury – May 24, 2008
BTW, i am just curious, Didnt Indy’s father drink from the holy grail? From what i understood from that movie was that once you drink from the grail, you would become immortal. Why is it then that Henry Jones the first died?
No. You had to drink from the Grail regularly. Henry only drank once.
THX…..you and I are usually on the same page, but not this time.
I agree with #13…….there were a dozen other plot bits that were really stupid, like the prolonged jeep chase through the jungle! Once Mutt had the Skull why keep sword fighting with Blanchett’s character???
I smell Lucas all over the screenplay of this rather forced entry!
I wouldn’t say it was the best of the Indy’s, but it was good none the less. The movie would have had a bit more of an Indy feel would they have kept the Sci-Fi aspect of it a mystery until the end, but ah-well. It was still an entertaining movie, and like any movie, there will be people that like it, and people that don’t.
I was actually a bit surprised with Labeouf’s performance. He was better than I was giving him credit for. If they decided to continue the series with him in the “Mutt Jones” slot, it would work, especially if they were to use Ford as his father in future movies. It would be very cyclical, Indy and his dad, Mutt and his dad… Although in retrospect, “Mutt Jones and the Dig for a Booger” or whatever they call the next one just doesn’t ring like “Indiana Jones” does.
I thought an even bigger Trek “reference” was the use of the words “collective consciousness” and “hive mind”, and the aliens being physically separate, but linked in their thoughts. Borg anyone?
I saw Indy. It’s good, not the best, but in my eyes Indy can do no wrong! :)
I hope there will indeed be an Indy 5, as per the rumors I’m hearing. That prospect is exciting, so I’ll be watching headlines for news on filming and release dates.
Number 29: Agreed, when they said that I immeditely thought of the borg.
I’m curious, Harry. Where would you put this in the order of the three previous films? I certainly don’t have to try to talk anyone into liking this movie just because I have an opinion. But I found flaws with Temple of Doom and Last Crusade, too. What in the world was Indy doing with the kid in ToD? And where did the kid end up? In LC, what happened to the knight? Did they just leave him in the collapsing Grail chamber to die alone? That sucks. Even Raiders had a flaw in plausability. Where the hell did Indy ride on the submarine? Did it never go underwater? It would seem to be a long trip to ride on the top of a sub exposed to the elements.
Please don’t take this to be an argument, friend Harry. I am just speaking on behalf of the suspension of disbelief. But then again, most of the genre flicks I seem attracted to require a healthy dose of it.
And #28–I think if they want to continue on with the franchise and eventually put Mutt in as the hero (I liked Shia. I think he is a pretty decent actor.) they should have one or two more with Harrison as the lead.
I saw the movie today and if you look very closely, especially during the diner scene, you can see a KLINGON icon pin on the boy’s jacket, turned on its side. It’s teeny tiny, but the 3 triangles, claws, whatnots are clearly recognizable if you know what you’re looking at.
The movie was big, adventurous, and dumb! It was a laugh. The main story makes NO sense other than to serve as a backdrop for a fun adventure. The real story is the Henry Jones, Jr. meets Henry Jones, III. It’s a family story.
If you want fun, you got it.
If you want pretentious drama, I’m sure there’s something on PBS
Not really a Trek reference. I’m sure you could find that in dozens of movies and books.
Not once did I see any connection to Star Trek…. X_Files yes, not Star Trek and certainly not ST2.
(Gimma a break).
I think that’s a thin shallow point to base a thread on.
Sounds like Anthony just wanted to rub his debunk in Vic’s face.
I’m surprised TrekMovie wouldn’t be more upset that there wasn’t a Star Trek trailer with Indy 4.
Sheesh with everyone seeing the Indy film this weekend I think Paramount blew a huge opportunity.
I have a huge problems with Indy4, and it’s about the mythology. Part 1 was about the Ark, i.e. ancient Jewish myth. Part 2 was about the Sankara stones, and although I don’t know much about Hindu religions, it feels like it is some ancient religious myth (Shiva etc.). Part 3 was about the holy grail: the grail legend was invented in the early Middle Ages, but it benefitted from the ancient legend of the crucifxion, the blood of Christ, the apocryphal centurio Longinus etc. etc. So all these myths in Indy 1-3 are more or less ancient, and no matter the wonderful pulp that Spielberg/Lucas turned them into, they are part of the world’s mythological-cultural heritage, i.e. really really great stuff, OLD stuff, BIG stuff, closely connected to three of the ancient religions (Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity). In all three films the mythological undercurrent was just right (especially in parts 1 & 3).
But now we have CRYSTAL SKULLS. Huh??!! Everyone with a bit of a brain knows they were invented by 19th century neo-pagan, anti-enlightenment, neo-mysticist, German wannabes… you know, the guys who (together with the theosophical society and other weirdos) cooked the primordial soup for German Nazism?! And all those modern-day NewAge-afficionados, who after WorldWar2 have so much dwelled on and enhanced this völkisch attitude into neo-hippie-yoga-crystal-pyramid-buddhist-UFO-schnickschnack-BS (like George Lucas) just love that modern “myth”, but don’t realize the deceitfulness and dark, brutal history and malicious scam behind the “crystal skulls” and their creation.
This stuff happened JUST YESTERDAY, not 2000 or more years ago. And now the Indy4-filmmakers combine it with extraterrestrials (Von Daeniken anyone? Hello??!!), and Lucas & Spielberg tell us that it’s only logical, because UFOs and E.T.s were very prominent in the 1950s popular culture, because all they want to do is to basically rehash the 1950s B-picture films. At least so they say. (It’s a cop-out, if you ask me. In several ways… see below…) But no matter what they do, the underlying “myth” that they use is still a scam from the 19th century.
Sure, any atheist or anti-mythologist would say that the Ark, the Sankara Stones and the Grail are also nothing but false make-believe… and they may even be right (especially concerning the Holy Grail). But they forget one important thing: these examples of religious “make-believe” were allowed to linger and evolve inside the cultural weltgeist over a very long period of time. And even today, in times where we have become so technocratic, pragmatic, rational, anti-religious, unnatural and sober, we still see the Ark, the Grail etc. as GENUINE myths and legends, even if we reject them at second glance (the *rational modern glance*).
But crystal skulls are not even THAT. They are simply FALSE. And I’ve read the interview with George Lucas, where he states that the skulls are just a McGuffin. Well, George, YOU – - don’t know ANYthing about a good McGuffin! The McG in Indy4 just doesn’t seem right. The first three parts were about myths, sure, but these myths were earthbound, they were part of our mundane (but still religious and honest) culture on THIS planet. But the crystal skulls on the other hand surfaced, when humans became aware of the “great beyond”, when modern science began, when they began to realize that our planet is simply a tiny drop in the big ocean. The skulls are not about religious-cultural integrity, like the Ark and the Grail, i.e. legends produced by nescient but still animated people, eventually meant for the whole planet as universal dreams and inspiration… no… the skulls all about ANTI-civilization, about fighting modern pragmatic thought (and with it the old myths), about creating a new fake mythology when all the old myths are supposedly eroding. So naturally this fake myth has to seek completion in the “great beyond”, the otherworldy (i.e. in Hollywood-terms “extraterrestrial”) and unworldly realm, which is by definition farthest from our earthly-mythological experiences and collective memories, but which has nothing to do with the “otherworld” of ancient times.
The ancient “otherworld” was different. Old myths were based on something physical, on a spirit, which meant LIFE, because it was *breathing* (spiritus = breath). The soul and soulfulness, that these old myths still have today, is because of their physicalness. They are “real myths”, not “fake myths”. The “crystal skulls” are the latter… they are nothing but 19th century Las Vegas. And it was the greatest GREATEST mistake of Lucas & Spielberg to even consider them in the first place!!! (And by the way… it also clearly shows us that neither Lucas or Spielberg are particularly religious people!)
Sometimes I really think that the world has lost touch with what really matters. (Not necessarily religions, but at least old and great stories and vibes.)
And this is also the problem that I could MAYBE have with the new STAR TREK film in a few months. In today’s societies (especially western societies) we have a strong tendency to discard all of our old myths, to trample on religion, or at least on the kitsch and schmaltz of past times, and on the legends that actually define us. I’ve seen this in JJ Abram’s “Cloverfield”: it was kinetic, thrilling, modern and “real” (in other words: a magnificent blockbuster), but eventually it was a hollow world in which you could touch the sky, because it blasted away the romance and the SPIRIT of Godzilla. This would be okay, as long as a new legend and myth had been established. But there was nothing in “Cloverfield” in this respect. It was all YouTube miniature fireworks. We must keep in mind that CINEMA has its own temporality, meaning that real-life-myths, which need thousands of years to gestate, are foiled by cinematic myths, which only need a few decades. But it doesn’t mean that those “ancient cinematic legends” are worth less!! They are not! They only gestate faster! Lucas himself proved that it’s very easy to smash an “old cinematic myth” (Episode 1). We can sense something very similar in Indy4, where they even coupled the annihilation of a tried and tested cinematic-mythological universe with neo-apocryphal thinking.
I just hope that JJ Abrams is no George Lucas. Rejuvenate the Star Trek franchise? No problem! Violate the canon? No problem! Paraphrase Roddenberry? No problem! But if “Star Trek” also spits on our dreams and memories and emotions and myths, if “Star Trek” doesn’t get the fundamentals right (i.e. the fundamentals BEYOND Roddenberry), I will have finally grown up (which I don’t want btw!! Although my girl has another opininon. ^_^). Hollywood has stolen so many of my dreams in the past 10 to 15 years. Aaaaah, stolen? Destroyed! Damned! Denigrated! Marginalized! I pray for Star Trek to remain my last resort. It has been the only thing that kept me from becoming a total cynic. So please, JJ… I hope you know what to do.
Ah, well… sorry, guys & gals. It’s Saturday (Sunday) and I’m bombed… but I just HAD to write this… it sorta took on a life of its own. ;)
I really really hope the new Star Trek film isn’t as bady as Indy 4. That movie sucked. It had a very lame story line. They should rename it Indiana Jones and the Curse of George Lucas!
“I think that’s a thin shallow point to base a thread on.”
Agreed.
Really enjoyed the movie too.
I thought that you could only be immortal (after drinking from the grail) as long as you didnt cross the seal.
Depends on what your drinking. ;) Sobering up. Good night.
Yes and its just a movie.
I wonder why Spielberg himself never directed a Star Trek film since he is a fan. Im sure the action in such a film would be mind blowing. Not all his movies are perfected, but the man knows his craft and I have to respect him for such.
The tone of some of the comments would lead one to believe that George Lucas held a gun to Spielberg’s head during shooting. I thought they were both involved collaboratively in the making of the Indy films.
Schultz-Those are some well thought out and and obviously intelligent observations about the mythos fueling the quartet of films. My only question is: why did you think so hard on such a simple subject? It’s only a movie. A diversion. God does not use his powers to shoot Nazis through the eyes via religious artifacts. At least, I don’t think so. There are no temples in India situated over active lava flows where cultists enslave children and tear still beating hearts from their victims. And some dude wrote that the Holy Grail is actually not a cup but a reference to Jesus’ wife. But I’m still not sure about that one. I’ll have to check with my local order of Knights Templar. Anyway, I think you are assigning too much importance to a summer movie, and perhaps less importance to the significance of your own dreams. I certainly hope it was the booze talking when you said that Hollywood had destroyed and marginilized your childhood dreams. From the tone of your writing, I suspect your dreams in your childhood were far more grand than summer popcorn movies. Or maybe it’s just hyperbole. Maybe Hollywood has just been a bit disappointing as of late. But what do I know. I’ve been drinking as well. And just wait and see. I’m sure Trek will be just fine. And if it’s not, I’m certain that nobody has to pitch their old DVD’s and tapes into the rubbish bin.
Oh well. Sorry that some couldn’t have found a more satisfying way to spend their time and money. How was the popcorn and sodas?
Stephen, Harrison and George worked as we know quite a long time on coming up with a story they all agreed to. So I guess that George really wanted to make an “Indy and the Rocket Man from Mars” 50s flick, but Stephen toned it down to the final 5 minutes. For me Indy 4 is a B+, and I expect JJ and company to do MUCH better…
As films go I thought that Indy 4 was a very entertaining film providing two hours of blissful escapism in the company of Indy and co.There are bound to be comparisons to the previous three movies ,good and bad, but wasn’t it simply great to see Indy one more time and the various nods to the previous movies—–the inclusion of the Ark of the Covenant was fun.
I read an article (not a review) in the NY Times which referred to Speilberg’s having “phoned in” his direction, and Lucas personally “dumbing down” the script.
Lucas is the master of shattering expectations, and should not have been let anywhere near this. I have re-watched the “prequels” several times, and the writing was atrocious. He is the master of merchandise tie-ins, so we get Jar-Jar, Wattie, pod races and the clones.
Anakin and Padme are written as if they dropped their sperm and egg off at Photomart rather than as passionate lovers. Darth Vader went from iconic villain to a crying little mama’s boy.
Like many of us, I had high hopes, too high, for the prequel series. I saw the original SW when I was 12. Lucas and Spielberg were also much younger then. The original “Raiders and “Star Wars” seemed like products of extreme passion and a longing for high adventure to return to film. That passion is gone from them today.
We are also older. and looking to rekindle that feeling of when we were 12 in the cinema. Either it is biologically impossible over 35, or someone new will find a way to do it.
Indy 4 was slow and talky
#35, and some few others
I wrote the article, not Tony. One of the annoying things here is that everyone thinks Tony writes everything. Tony owns the site, and he edits everything. He writes many articles. Tony is a good editor and doesn’t make changes in author’s article unless he discusses them with them. Yet, there are many people who write for Trekmovie.com, and Tony acknowledges that. In this instance, Tony wasn’t trying to do anything of the sort that you mention. Before you accuse, why don’t you ask? Here is how the article was written:
I am an Indiana Jones fan. If you didn’t like the film, fine. That is a matter of opinion (yet it is odd that nearly every comment here is about people’s need to express their opinions of the film, when the article is about something else, how there is a theme shared by Star Trek 2 and Indiana Jones 4)
There are many references to previous Indiana Jones films and to Star Wars (the line “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” is a reference to the Star Wars films) with this adventure.
Watching these, I thought about some of the similarities to other films. When Spalko mentions “collective consciousness” I thought of Carl Jung and Emile Durkheim. Indiana Jones ALWAYS references history and other films. For example, the truck chase in Raiders of the Lost Ark is based on a scene from a film where stuntman Yakima Canutt performs as exactly as Indy does. This is how the article started.
We are planning big article about how Indiana Jones was merchandised in hopes of learning more about Star Trek XI. We have previously mentioned Indiana Jones many times on this site as it is the Paramount film of this year, hopefully Star Trek is the Paramount film of next year.
Then Tony asked if I noticed similiarities to Star Trek 2 in a phone and email conversation. I said yes, the themes of these two films are obviously the same. Aging. Reuniting with previous girlfriends. Fathers and sons. Accepting these concerns.
We did not talk about Star Trek XI. We did not discuss this article as showing how wrong someone was. Such comments are insulting. I have much better things to do with my time than write articles (for which I am not paid and do so only to share information with fellow fans) to make someone else feel bad.
Plus, how is discussing how the themes of famous films are similar a bad reason for an article? This article isn’t based on two lines from the films. Those scenes were shown as an example of the big themes that each film shares. Did you read this article? Disagree with the article? Great, I am glad to hear it. I want your criticism of my ideas. I enjoy listening and learning from other fans. Yet, don’t accuse me of having some kind of motivation for writing it when you don’t know a thing. Plus, don’t like the article topic? Here is a novel idea: Don’t read it.
went to see Indie last night, its a very cool film, true to Indiana Jones but takes it into a whole new world – love the trek reference and there’s an even bigger Trek/space reference within the movie too which was quite strange to see in an indie film but cool none the less! :D
John:
I’ve learned on the site not to take anything personally. But even though, you do not get paid to write these articles, you should understand that when you say “you,” as in:
“Did you read this article? Disagree with the article? Great, I am glad to hear it. I want your criticism of my ideas. I enjoy listening and learning from other fans. Yet, don’t accuse me of having some kind of motivation for writing it when you don’t know a thing. Plus, don’t like the article topic? Here is a novel idea: Don’t read it.”
I feel you are talking to me.
I liked the article.
If you have a negative comment about something one person wrote, if you cannot contact him/her directly, just don’t bother. Amazon may call Anthony tomorrow and say “why should we advertise on a site where your contributors insult our potential customers?”
Basic corporate e-mail etiquette: In an e-mail “you” refers to the person reading the article, which is everyone on the thread. Not just to post #35. If you have your name on the letterhead of the site, keep cool and allow us to debate. If you are bitter that someone referred to Tony as the author and not you, deal with it and don’t scream at all of us about it.
Back somewhat to topic, many are worried that Indy IV is a sign that Paramount may send us a turkey with STXI. It is potentially a breakthrough film as a business study. And JJ is, I am sure, extremely aware of it. We all read about the old script and the re-writes, and saw Marion at the con, and got photos and trailers. But then Lucas said something like “Don’t get your hopes up” and now we hear about previous “on set” rumors that it’s crap.
Then there was an article on MSNBC.com which eviscerates “JJ ’smell my red herrings” Abrams’ marketing style (I tried to send the link, but it was always filtered) as being the reason Cloverfield performed below potential and LOST keeps losing viewers. Who cares about Slusho?
The marketeers are getting us excited to see sucky films. Has to stop.
Ok, John, got it.
Still think its a very thin point your making, the film has WAY more of an X-Files vibe. And I think one reason your getting more reviews of the film on this post is becasue your point is weak…»
What ever!!! I’m sick of reading anymore useless news about anything to do with the new Trek film. Nothing against Anthony and his fellow writers, but in my opinion, J.J. and crew have enough now to put out another trailer. They just refuse to. I’m parking my ship somewhere that radio transmissions don’t reach. Someone send me a signal buoy when there is a new trailer. Relentless signing off!!
#49
Thank you for the response. My response was addressed to #35 and “some others.” It is clearly a response mostly to #35, with a few generic comments about how there are various authors here or why people feel the need to disparage article topics. My reference to not getting paid was merely to remind some fans that the people who write here do so because they enjoy sharing the information with others. I wasn’t being defense or taking it personally. As a teacher, I lecture in front of hundreds of people a year who all have opinions about my ideas. What I didn’t appreciate was being accused of the article having some purpose of showing how wrong someone was, as if that was the reason for me spending an hour of my time writing it. Also, there is no requirement that every article must be read. Do some fans want less context? Less articles? Less information? Less ways of appreciating Trek, even if it by talking about Indiana Jones?
Thanks!
#50,
Thank you for the response. I don’t disagree the film has X-Files themes. Of course, I also think the narratives of Star Trek 2 and Indiana Jones 4 are comparitable. I would also disagree with your response because the vast majority of comments here are critcisms of the film itself, with very few about main theme of the article itself. This article is not really about the film, it is about how the themes of Indiana Jones 4 are like Star Trek 2 and few comments talk about this.
As I provided specific examples in the article of how I think Indiana Jones 4 is themed like Star Trek 2 (both about aging, previous girlfriends needing rescue, fathers and sons, and reconcilliation between the generations), I’d genuinely enjoy hearing specific examples as to why my article is not a good intrepretation other than mere opinion. Can you help me understand specifically how or why these themes are not found in the films?
#51 – The trailers are created by the marketing division at Paramount with input from JJ Abrams and crew. Paramount decides what comes out and when… not Abrams.
If your gonna whine and complain make sure you have the right target in your sights. Material gets released when PARAMOUNT says so and not before.
#1 – The TEASER was released on the front of CLOVERFIELD. The first TRAILER will probably be released for the Chirstmas holiday season.
Darth declaring “I am your father, Luke” came out the year before Kirk discovered David. At the time, it felt as though Paramount was once again poaching Star Wars bits n pieces. It’s a careful balance for films to include something that will resonate with the fear of flat out stealing plot devices. In this case, In this case, Lucas/Spielberg seem to be considering turning the franchise over to Mutt’s adventures. We’ll see.
At least they didn’t give Mutt a dance leotard and tennis sweater to wear.
#55
That is a good notion. Most of the films of the 1980s were a response to the feminism. It was during this era that many films were about the redemption of the father, from Back to the Future (make the father a real man because he could fight), Indiana Jones (Indiana Jones as the father figure redeemed by his symbolic son Short Round or redeeming the relationship between Indy and Henry), Star Wars (Vader needed serious redeeming), or redemption of the masculinity of the nation, Superman II or Rambo. Indiana Jones 4 continues that tradition
I personally liked the movie. Though I’d have liked much more to see Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis on the big screen 8P
huh, I should have noticed that when I saw Indy 4 but it’s been a little while since I watched ST2 and forgot. But the comparison is right on.
#53 – John
Point taken about staying on topic, but you have to admit… INDY 4 is the Big Ticket film this weekend. How can you post any topic regarding the new INDIANA JONES and NOT expect some reviews?
And why are some people here so upset with some of the more negative opinions? I’m not fond of the mere “It sucks” posts, either, but people are entitled either way. Not so sure what the term “armchair critic” means anymore, either.
Indy 4 was ok…it all seemed very familiar yet the heart seemed to be missing. Everyone, from Lucas to Ford, seemed to just be going through the paces. Of course I’m not sure there is any way this movie could have lived up to the hype and expectations put upon it (One of the very things that concerns me with Star Trek) and it wasn’t a bad movie by any means. it just seemed to fall kind of flat. But even a flat Indy is better than a dull Narnia or juvenille Speed Racer. So far, for my money, the summer belongs to Iron Man.
THX, just got a second here as I leave on my trip……haven’t watched the old Indy movies in many years, but if memory serves……….Raiders, the BEST by far, next would be the one with Connery in it, third would be (yes) the one with the kid and LAST would be this new one………the reason? Someone else pegged it here when they pointed out that at no time did you get the sense that Indy was ever in any danger…….as #60 said, “just going through the paces”…..that’s not good enough in my book!
Ah, to each their own, my friend! See ya!
John.
What I found intriguing was the “many of the films of the 1980s were about the redemption of the father” comment as a response to feminism.
I find that Spielberg is somewhat over the top about it (”daddy issues”). For Lucas, it was a plot point for SW, and he wrote it in the ’70s, I think.
Of all the revivals of old film series, from what I hear, perhaps Rambo IV has made the best jump to 2008. I’m still awaiting my DVD (in Europe). Stallone chose crass and hideous depictions of war rather than a “response to feminism,” and moved the franchise forward to today.
Maybe they should have used the Star Trek creative team on this film. I have not been so disappointed in a film since TPM.
I’d give Indy IV 2.5 out of 5 stars.
I didn’t notice that when I watched it but now that you mention it, there’s no way that was an accident.
I loved the movie. Tied with Temple of Doom for me.
I guessed shortly after seeing Mutt that he was Indiana’s boy.
After all, a mutt is a kind of dog.
And Indiana was the dog’s name…
#62
Hello AJ,
My wife and I thought the 2007 version of Rocky was also excellent. Spocky! Maybe Sylvester Stallone could author a Star Trek film! Thanks for the suggestion
Indy 4 is not a nod to Star Trek II it’s simply coincidence.
1.The films of both Steven Spielberg and George Lucas often deal with fathers and sons as both men had somewhat strained relationships with their fathers. Also it’s a common theme in mythology going back to…I don’t know Telemachus’s quest for Odysseus.
2.Also it should come as no surprise that the film deals with aging. Everyone involved is getting older. Harrison Ford is 65, Spielberg is 62, and George Lucas is 64.
3.Bringing back Karen Allen was just a genius move as well as a subtle admission that the female leads from the other Indiana Jones movies weren’t as interesting as Marion Ravenwood.
4.Oh, yeah Star Trek II was a revenge picture bringing back a past villain. Indy 4 was a straightforward adventure with a new villain.
I dispute that Indy IV is better than Raiders.
The review in the Wall Street Journal would seem to concur with those of us who thought the new Indy movie was weak!
Wooah. That IS funny. They are kind of similar.
But Wrath of Khan is excellent, and I hated Indy 4.
John,
I’m a bit on the fence about Rocky VI. I thought it had some heart, but after IV and V, I am jaded.
I should watch it again.
I absolutely loved Indy IV. It did everything I expect an Indy movie to do, and it was also a loving tribute to the 1950’s scifi B-movies I love.
Oddly enough, th only thing I keep scratching my head over is – if Indy at 40 was still eyeballing the pretty co-eds, why would he stop at 60? Maybe it was the radiation. ;-)
#42 – the popcorn was GREAT!
I think this is kind of a stretch. Not saying it wasn’t a conscious reference, but it very well might not have been.
My favorite Trek reference in the film was near the end when Indy said, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”
That was great.
I would guess that the similarities to Star Trek II are coincidental, if only because the motivation for putting Kirk’s son into Trek II was dramatic and the motivation for putting Shia LaBouef in Indy 4 was commercial–the intent is to set up a way to continue the franchise with Mutt in the heroic role and Indy as his aging mentor.
I enjoyed parts of Indy IV but I agree the story is absolute nonsense and worse, unlike all of the previous Indy movies, this story has absolutely no bearing on Indiana Jones’ character. He has no real personal motivation to find the crystal skulls and he comes away from the finale completely unaffected by the adventure–any character affect comes out of the presence of Marion Ravenwood and Mutt Williams who are shoehorned into the story.
I don’t think any of the sequels can touch Raiders of the Lost Ark–it’s funny but that used to be the quintessential idea of a movie where you “left your brain at the door”–in other words, an escapist movie. Yet escapist movies used to be smart enough to not insult the intelligence of the viewer. That went out the door in Temple of Doom when Indy survives a fall from an airplane by holding on to an inflatable raft. That cartoon mentality gets taken even further in Indy 4. I liked Harrison Ford in it, I liked the opening sequence, but you have to do more than check your brains at the door, you need a lobotomy to ignore the plot holes in this movie. For all the tons of dialogue used to explain what was going on in terms of the plot it never made any sense, and there’s just no suspense. Remember the scene in Raiders where Ford is so beat up Karen Allen can’t even find a spot on his body to kiss him that doesn’t hurt? I don’t think Indy has one moment of discomfort in this movie, not even after surviving a nuclear explosion.
I do agree this could have been much worse–it’s not Phantom Menace bad, mainly because Spielberg is such a good director and Ford does not phone in his performance. Expectations for this movie were impossibly high. But I wish these guys could remember what was great about Raiders of the Lost Ark–it was realism, and a realistic attitude, in the face of the fantastic. That’s what makes that movie a classic and I just wish they hadn’t decided to turn the sequels into cartoons.
“I just wish they hadn’t decided to turn the sequels into cartoons”
I wonder how much of that is due to Lucas’ writing these days. He seems to have lost his edge.
@ 74, that was a Star WARS reference, not a Star TREK reference.
Great Campbell’s ghost! I think the similarities between Indy IV and Star Trek II are mostly due to archetypal storytelling. It’s an old tale, but one that really grabs us by the collective unconscious.
Another parallel between David and Mutt is their inital disapproval of their newly-discovered fathers, which turns to respect by the end of the story.
#24 and 25
“The Grail cannot pass the great seal. That is the price for immortality.” It passed. So did he.
All in all I thought it was an enjoyable movie. Still no Raiders, but every good franchise needs their Wrath of Khans and their Final Frontiers and maybe some in between.
As for a Star Trek link, meh. I would call it more an excuse to put an Indy review on a Trek site.
BTW, I think a little Spoiler Alert might have been a good idea for the 3 people who won’t see the movie this weekend.
With principal photography finished on the Trek film, they should have enough footage to assemble a better teaser trailer that at least introduces the new crew. Remember the one they did for TMPnarrated by the late, great Orson Welles? They could have done something along those lines and more shots of the new Enterprise, if not, at least some teasers of parts of it.
As far as visual effects, again, some should be in the can, or they could recycle some from the entire Star Trek saga library using minimal frame clips to advance the teaser narrative.
If Mutt was a drop out, how’d he get a National Honor Society pin? It’s on his jacket cooler witha collection of other pins. Interesting…
Ummm, that COLLAR, sorry bout that…
#80 Maybe they should have Darth Vader ala James Earl Jones saying on the new ST trailer ” Space the Final Frontier” with the “breathing effects” on it.
Still beats the hell out of Temple of Doom.
#84
Ha! I was just about to talk about the fact that Crystal Skull makes me love TOD in a new way. At least the guy in that movie was Indiana Jones. I don’t know who Harrison Ford was playing in this, but it t’weren’t Indiana Jones.
I think what bothered me most about KOTCS was that the humor was so obvious and forced. There was none of the dry irony of the previous entries.
‘Hey, so we’re going to open the movie in that warehouse from Raiders, but you know, that’s too subtle. We should have a shot of a shattered crate with the Ark of the Covenant sticking out. Ya know, to really let the audience know we’re doing a bit of the wink-wink, nod-nod! And make sure the camera stays on it a good, long time. We don’t want anyone to miss the reference.’
I honestly felt like the movie was constantly bludgeoning over the head with hokey humor & excessive references to the previous movies. Karen Allen appears to have forgotten how to act in the last 25 years, George Lucas is far too in love with CGI animals, and don’t get me started on surviving a nuclear blast inside a refrigerator…that had to have been the single most stupid thing I have ever seen. Far-fetched, yes, that I can buy in a movie like this. But that was just absurd.
I didn’t have a problem with the MacGuffin, because I used to love watching Nimoy on In Search Of. But how about creating SOME kind of story around it? Some illusion of depth? The story felt as though it hadn’t been fleshed out enough. Oh and Mac being a double-agent? Gee, didn’t see that coming from a million miles away.
I hate to sound so bitter, but I was so very disappointed as I left the theatre today.
I to am thankful that Indi 4 did not end up like the 3 star wars prequels. It was a solid movie, but it did lack the feel of the originals. I had read that they kept use of CG to a minimum but watching it I found that hard to believe. I think had they gone back to oldschool special effects it would have felt more like a true Indi movie. At least (from what Ive heard) George originally wanted to make 5 Indi movies, so its not like this was just to milk an already finished series for more money. One part that I was thankful for was that at the end, when his hat blew towards Mutt, Indi grabbed it just in time. Had they had some popular-for-a-few-years young actor take over as Indi I would have lost all faith in remakes and such, but Harrison is Indi, the only Indi, and may it stay that way. Overall, good movie, but wouldnt call it great.
Also, why did they let the wonderful Cate Blanchett go to waste as Spilko? Her character never got off the runway as far as I was concerned. I should have cared when she died – at least been cheering about some kind of comeuppance – but I felt nothing except my popcorn giving me mild stomach pains.
John ,
Thank you for your review.
And i also appreciate your Trek II analogy ,
Clearly there are some story similarities.
I enjoyed Indy IV,
A fine film indeed.
80. They Should Have Had a Trailer w/Indy – May 25, 2008
Nope… disagree. trek is way too far in the future yet to have a teaser
It’s Indy!
Drawing a parallel between the two films is pretty desperate.
Sorry.
***WARNING – MASSIVE SPOILERS – DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU SEEN THE FILM ALREADY OR IF YOU DONT CARE ABOUT HAVING IT RUINED***
Indy 4 was great imo..yes i got the Trek II reference whilst watching as id seem the headline on an AICN very early review..(think it was the first review anywhere actually – even before Cannes)
I really love the 50s and the freaky Sci Fi films of that era so to have an Indy film set then and deal with SF was just awesome..(as Lucas said it makes sense as the previous films set in the 30s had the cliffhanger serial style of the time and this has the style of its time too)
Its my favourite of the sequels, Id say Raiders is still the best (obviosly) then Skull then Doom then Crusade (not that Crusade is bad by any means)..there were so many homages to the previous films too..music themes..The Ark..Connery (although its a shame this wasnt his film swansong instead of LXG)
The opening 20 mins or so just had like EVERYTHING that was memorable about the 50s – Elvis, teen racing, ‘nuclear’ family, A Bomb, McCarthisum, reds/commie paranioa, diners, ‘the wild one’ etc etc…That scene at the start where Indy goes into the house was like something out of The Twilight Zone (yeah i know TZ was the 60s but didnt it start in like 59?)..in fact i’m sure there was an episode just like that
The last half had me on the edge of my seat! the jungle chase..The Ants (gotta be a homage to ‘THEM!’)..then really eerie when they get to ‘the room’ and the end with it being revealed to be a spaceship..a very retro 1950s Sci Fi B movie one at that!! (see any 50s SF film – Invaders from Mars, Forbidden Planet, Day Earth Stood Still, Earth v Flying Saucers, Island Earth etc etc)….the ends of X Files: The Movie/Predator 2/Close Encounters meets Indy…very cool
It sorta had the same story as the first Alien v Predator but done like a zillion times better…
Ford was great – looked great and he had on his Han Solo sceptic hat throughout the film (also said ‘Ive a bad feeling about this’ again) ..snorting in ridicule whenever mind control or aliens were mentioned…it made it all the more believeable at the end..
i’m so glad i managed to avoid reading too much/knowing too much about it all (very difficult to do now) so just about everything was a suprise (unlike you if your reading this without having seen it lol)..i just didnt twig before hand it was gonna be Sci Fi with aliens..i sorta knew after seeing the skull on the poster but even then i was like ‘nah it’ll be revealed to be something else..indy aint Sci Fi’
people who dont like it are just sore because they dont think indy should be Sci Fi..(yeah like angels causing nazis to explode/Melt..glowing life giving stones and people having their hearts ripped out by an evil indian dude and still being alive…everlasting life, more melting nazis etc etc are all perfectly normal in a series of action movies yeah)
shame there was no trek trailer though..what with EVERYONE going to see indy and it being Sci Fi (isnt it the biggest box office opening ever now? beating whatever held the record – Pirates 2 or Spidey or Sith?)…they could have even just had the ‘under construction’ teaser trailer again (which is one of the best teasers ever and also has a massive saucer :) just to make sure EVERYONE knows about it.
no doubt a new trek trailer will be at xmas…a second teaser not showing much again..or maybe even a full on 2 min trailer..maybe attached to Potter or 007? I dunno
now as for the possible Khan reference…i guess its not impossible that when it was being written Koepp or Lucas or Spielberg may have thought ‘hmmm didnt Kirk also have a son he didnt know about in one of the films’ and then put in those similar lines ‘Long story’..’we got time’..Every SF film buff knows Khan is one of the best SF Films..now more than ever
maybe that Lucas celebration thing where Shatner sang ‘My Way’ to the Indy trio in 2005 or thereabouts got them thinking about Trek (Lucas prob wouldve been busy writing the indy 4 script about then) not to mention paramount also making the new mega budget trek film, this indy having spaceships, it being revealed Spielberg checked out the script (the trek script no doubt having TWOK references..), Pine saying hes modelling Kirk on Ford and Spielberg/Fords Trek set visits (man wouldnt it be great if Ford had a cameo as an Admiral or Capt April or something..who knows eh? Abrams is reportedly a massive SW fan and hes gotta be putting a few little wars references in someplace..its been said theres gonna be a few A list cameos and Paramount are pulling out all the stops on this one..)
Captain Solo in star trek??…i dont care if you love trek and hate wars or vice versa you gotta admit that would be great..(it would actually be more exciting than a shatner cameo imo)
75. Jeff Bond – May 25, 2008
I always thought Indiana Jones/Harrison Ford was the movie version of James Rockford/Jim Garner or Magnum PI/Tom Selleck: normal “Joes” doing their jobs, getting bang up and just making enough to pay the bills. Sort of heroes for Everyman.
I think Indy 4 will survive the box office just fine. It’s one of those brands that sells generally, to a wide audience, good or bad, and that’s it.
The same can’t [and won't] be said for the upcoming Star trek film. Before it’s all over, folks hereabouts and back yonder are gonna wish Chris Pine really was Indiana Jones. I doubt that move will gross 50 million opening weekend; and business will fall off rapidly thereafter, unless certain steps are taken now to build up expectations.
In order to do Iron Man/Indy 4 type opening biz, you’d damned well better have 2 things, and you’d better have them big time, and ST ain’t got either in the eyes of the general public, only in the minds of the hardcore types who’d go see it even during the height of a category 5 hurricane.
The only person coming out of ST on a high note, and an even brighter future is none other than: Zachary Quinto.
Count on it.
I tend to compare Indy 4 with Die hard 4, rather than with the other 3 Indys. Since so much time had passed for both franchises since the last one, it seems to me that it would be near impossible to recapture the essence and spirit of both.
As a result, both should be compared to each other instead, because both had filmakers who shared similar goals in bringing back characters from a different era in movie making.
And in my opinion, when comparing Indy 4 to Die hard 4, Indy 4 easily comes out ahead.
Nothing like a friendly movie discussion to get people’s knickers in a twist. Yikes.
Opinion. We are expressing opinion. There is no correct response to Indiana 4 (though personally, I almost fell asleep during the jungle chase).
Debate is fun, but only if it’s conducted in a civilized manner, yes?
Indy 4 was good. I especially liked the first half of the film. There are many messages embedded in it. Indy and the Last Crusade is still my personal favorite followed closely by Raiders of the Lost Ark. The effects of Indy 4 reminded me of Terminator 3 though. You can tell there is a lot of blue/green screen effects occurring. It looks good though.
I have noticed that many people couldn’t accept the movie because there Indy didn’t do a lot of action. But did people fail to see one thing? He was not as young as he once was. His reflexes were down and he wasn’t as strong.
#77 Marlena Moreau — “@ 74, that was a Star WARS reference, not a Star TREK reference.”
Oh, wow. Really? I had no idea.
Indy meets Chariots of the Gods. It was ok, not great. I miss the tone of the originals, the real color, not this tinted washed out stuff, and the selective use of action. WAY too much action just for the sake of action..some clicked some failed…not to mention parts of the ending felt like I was watching National treasure 2 again. Not sure who stole from who on that deal. But I’ve had quite enough of elaborate booby trapped ancient ruins.
Ford was a little slow to get into character as well. Pretty much a by the numbers movie. It wasn’t bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it should have been so much more.
Indy rocks!
I saw the movie few days ago, I had to admit that was a nice movie, very entertained, full action and very funny.
If I were not a peruvian I have to admit that even been of less quality that previous Indi’s movies ( I’m his fan) I barely like it. But, the script errors (not intentional, I hopo) about peru and precolombian and Inca cultures are horribles! Pancho Villa was a mexican revolucinary, with nothing to don in Pery 6000 miles away. The Quechua language is from peruvian highlands, NAZCA is in the peruvian coast, hundred of miles of Cuzco, capitol of Ibnca empire, were lives the kind of people that the movie shows (I head people around me during the movie show laughing about those errors, because you don’t find that people in peruvian coast) and arquitecture and music (by crist sake, RANCHERAS from Mexico in PERU´s 40’s? not even now) and, of course, the jungle indians which werevery different to any perticular race of jungle people from Peru or Brazil. Sorry, I’ll never see that movie again, I was dissapointed for the poor advice that writers had, the movie is a mixture of locations, ages, cultures, etc, none of them with any documented support.
But, I also understand that, for the most of USA people, any thing south of them, is the same.
Finally, I´m still thinking that the best was hunters of the lost ark ;-)
Thanks
That´s right, I´m from Brazil, and I think what Americans would think if we made a movie in which Americans spoke English with a British accent, if we said the Capital of the USA were New York, if we showed 19th-century cowboys riding horses in modern-day Boston, if the American Army invaded Amazonia in order to “protect it” (oops, this one may actually happen!!), and if we showed that the United States bordered Ireland!!!!!!! There never were Latin Americans in Star Trek. I asked an American Trekker about it once, and he answered with the typical American arrogance: “It´s because Latinos and Chicanos will still be unemployed in the 23rd Century!”