...an already existing ride.

Hope just flew out the window for me on this one.


-RW

how the fuck did you figure that out?

He must have gotten a few hours access to the CC2K International Spy Satellite.

Hold on a sec! We have an International Spy Satellite?!? Why aren't we using it for really important things? Like obtaining close-up, hi-res images of Hollywood starlets sunbathing topless in their back yards?

Oh, and about the Indy IV based on a ride thing, I know it's terribly cliche, but I just can't help myself.

I have a bad feeling about this.

Oi...You just had to say that.

Still, looking at the website I can say that I'd much rather go to that park and on the ride than actually watch the debacle that will be the Indy 4: "I'm not too old for this shit!" movie.

Hey guys!

Well, one of the operatives at Ain't It Cool News wrote back about this one:

They have similar names.

The film is not based on the ride in any way. Anyone who's been on either of the Disney INDY rides knows that they're basically just generic thrill rides with no real story.

The film is something altogether different.

I imagine he or one of the AICN guys has had a look at the script. He sounds plenty confident.

I hope he's right. We've already had George Lucas ruin one beloved franchise with his corrosive influence, and we've already seen movies based on rides -- the similarity instills me with dread.

But I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

I for one can't wait to see 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'. I think people who trash this movie's worth based on the title or Harrison Ford's age, are alarmingly shortsighted. When has Spielberg ever made an event-movie, let alone an Indy movie that wasn't entertaining? Come on, folks! Stop throwing hate on a story that hasn't even been told yet. As far as the title goes, we won't truly be able to discern it's merit, or lack there of, until we know the plot details and can put it in the proper context. Secondly, and most important, the main character is an Archeology professor. Not only is it believable that he'd be working this job at 65, it actually lends more realism and credibility to the character. The famous tagline reads...If adventure has a name it must be Indiana Jones, not action. Indy is first and foremost a thinker. He uses his wits more than his fists. So, it's not like he's some 65-year-old prizefighter or something. And even if he was, who can say what a man can or cannot achieve? It's the intensity of the flame, not the age of the kindle that truly matters.

Indiana Jones is one of the greatest cinematic heroes of all time. To everyone who's dreamed of seeing him in another adventure, I say I'm right there with you. To those who want to cut the movie down before they even see one _frame_, I say, with all sincerity, walk away from your keyboard and shut the hell up.

Indiana Jones is back, baby!!!

Teague, welcome aboard, and thanks for the passionate response!

I hear where you're coming from. Elsewhere on these boards, I've defended the prospect of a fourth Indy movie, arguing that if the filmmakers play the reality of Indy's age, they could have a good movie. Furthermore, if the rumors about John Hurt playing Abner Ravenwood are right, I'd love to see a storyline about Indy mending fences with Marian (who we know is in it) and her family. If they did that, I think we might have an unlikely classic on our hands.

But I'd still like to respond to two of your points:

When has Spielberg ever made an event-movie, let alone an Indy movie that wasn't entertaining?

Well, virtually every Spielberg movie is an event, and while I can't dismiss any of his movies as being wholly un-entertaining, some of his movies have certainly disappointed: Hook, Always and A.I. are all wildly uneven, though I concede I'm taking a cheap shot at A.I.

I would, however, also note that Last Crusade fell prey to a lot of cheesy, summer-movie one-liners and cheap storytelling shortcuts. I go into all this in nauseating detail in an essay I wrote about Indy for this site.

Why do a few summer-movie one-liners worry me? Because George Lucas is in the mix. He's proven himself a petulant, irrational filmmaker, and he apparently threw out an excellent script by Frank Darabont after Spielberg and Ford had both enthusiastically endorsed it. A script -- any script -- bearing Lucas' seal of approval doesn't sit well with me.

I hear where you're coming from, Teague -- but I remain worried.

Post edited by: Tony, at: 2007/09/28 21:27

I think Captain Teague meant that both Spileberg's event movies and his Indy movies have been wildly entertaining.

Right. Did you read my response?

Well, virtually every Spielberg movie is an event, and while I can't dismiss any of his movies as being wholly un-entertaining, some of his movies have certainly disappointed: Hook, Always and A.I. are all wildly uneven, though I concede I'm taking a cheap shot at A.I.

Sugarland Express and Duel weren't event movies when they came out, but that was because Spielberg hadn't made his name yet. Since Jaws, I'd wager that every Spielberg movie has been an event movie, and not all of them have been successful. I also call into question the success of Last Crusade, which I consider the weakest of the Indy movies.