Indy 4: No Trek Trailer But Possible Trek Reference

Even though a couple months ago 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.

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.

Inline Feedbacks
View all 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 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.


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.


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:


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 …


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!!!!



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… 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… Read more »

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.”


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

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


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 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…»