I've tried not to read too much of this because I am seeing the film tomorrow. But for those of you who think that realism was never a huge factor in the Indy films, is something I disagree with.

I think though that the reason it worked in the Indy films though, is that they were presented in a realistic way. I mean of course you've got the braindead action scenes, but everything is realistic to the point that you don't think that whatever he's searching for will exist, because it seems like it isn't 'that kind of movie'. In Raiders, up until the end the whole idea is that you don't think the ark will actually exists, or if it does it will probably not do anything. From what I hear about this movie it's conspiracies and alien fucking skulls right from the start which would kind of ruin that entire feeling.

Yeah so I saw it yesterday. It wasn't a particularly bad movie, but I agree with everyone that the pacing was off, and it was way over the top, the plot and dialogue was pretty much retarded (lol the power of family). I'm golad I went to see it in the theatre. My favourite shot of the whole film was the valley exploding at the end with all the shit whizzing everywhere , because the effect of it all with Indy in the foreground was just reminiscent of the opening scene of Raiders with him standing in front of the mountain.

Watching this film actually made me realize how much the actual compostion of editing and cinematography has changed over the past twenty years, and not altogether for the better. From what I saw, there were very few still shots, few long takes. The constant motion, cutting, action, does heighten the pace of the movie but at the loss of a huge artistic blow by essentially eliminating the chance of a composition of a shot to reveal something more about the scene. A popcorn movie even ten years ago (like Independence Day) held up against something like Transformers and Crystal Skull shows the difference. While ID4 was just as silly a film, you can't deny that it was a pretty well made piece of pulp, but compared to it the over-reliance on CG, the campy winking humour, and what feels like a general lack of good storytelling falls short.

Yeah, the mystery and atmosphere of the other Indy films is completely absent from this movie. The first 15-20 minutes should have been dropped entirely, and all the period stuff everywhere, all the wink wink nod nod to the old films and then to the period (yeah I get it Spielberg its the 50s thanks for the heads up) was ridiculous. I stayed after for the credits and saw that the Dr. Pepper items were donated courtesy of the Dr. Pepper Museum. That was pretty nifty.

Really?  I never knew!  Is that supposed to be common knowledge?  When I watched it, it seemed sort of cheap how they made him fall in love when whoever that woman was in the first one, and then just threw some other chick at him just out of nowhere like a fucking Bond movie.

Yeah, Temple of Doom is technically the first adventure but it's not common knowledge unless you're a super dork or read other material.  Lucas actually wrote the entire "Indiana Story" which chronicles his adventures from life to death.  A lot of tertiary material was covered in the original comic books, the Fate of Atlantis video game, Young Indiana Jones, and the upcoming comic series.

To me this film doesn't exist. I have so many gripes with it. In my eyes there are three Star Wars films and three Indiana Jones films, George Lucas should stay the f*ck away from things and leave them the way they should be remembered.

Yeah, everything is Lucas fault. Spielberg, Ford and Koepp didn't have anything to say at all. Lucas is credited for the story. It's most likely David Koepp's fault for writing the script. It's one thing to blame Lucas for the new Star Wars film since he wrote and directed them himself but in this case he was simply a producer who said "yeah, I like this script, let's do it".

I personally think that Frank Darabont's script would have been worse since he added a brother to Indiana Jones (the alien part was already in there).

important to note that the producer often calls the shots especially when its George Lucas in charge. Spielberg apparently said he wasn't too happy with the script, but went along with it becuase he was working for George Lucas. So yes, George lucas would be the first person to blame, but not completely his fault.

Yeah, everything is Lucas fault. Spielberg, Ford and Koepp didn't have anything to say at all. Lucas is credited for the story. It's most likely David Koepp's fault for writing the script. It's one thing to blame Lucas for the new Star Wars film since he wrote and directed them himself but in this case he was simply a producer who said "yeah, I like this script, let's do it".

I personally think that Frank Darabont's script would have been worse since he added a brother to Indiana Jones (the alien part was already in there).

This isn't right at all. Lucas co-wrote the story, Koepp changed his ramblings into a script actors could sort of follow.

This is lucas' fault, don't you fucking take my scapegoat away.

David Koepp (screenplay)

George Lucas (story) and
Jeff Nathanson (story)

Sorry, forgot that it's cool to hate George Lucas!

I don't recall Spielberg saying "I don't like the script", what I do remember is that they agreed to do this version because they were getting older and wanted to move on with other things. This script was like the last one, if they didn't do it they wouldn't do a movie at all.

Sorry, forgot that it's cool to hate George Lucas!

It's not cool to hate on filmmakers who consistently make terrible, awful films. It's just right.

The Shawshank Redemption filmmaker Frank Darabont has hit out at movie mogul George Lucas for preventing Steven Spielberg from shooting his script for the upcoming Indiana Jones sequel, claiming his efforts were "a waste of a year." Darabont wrote a screenplay for the highly-anticipated movie, which is still known by its working title of Indiana Jones 4, and insists director Spielberg was happy with it. However, producer Lucas didn't think it was good enough. Darabont tells MTV.com, "It showed me how badly things can go. I spent a year of very determined effort on something I was very excited about, working very closely with Steven Spielberg and coming up with a result that I and he felt was terrific. He wanted to direct it as his next movie, and then suddenly the whole thing goes down in flames because George Lucas doesn't like the script. I told him (Lucas) he was crazy. I said, 'You have a fantastic script. I think you're insane, George.' You can say things like that to George, and he doesn't even blink. He's one of the most stubborn men I know." He adds, "I have no idea if there's a shred of (my script) left. It was a tremendous disappointment and a waste of a year." And Darabont has no plans to reveal what his Indiana Jones script contains: "At this point, I don't give much of a damn what George thinks, but I wouldn't want to harm my friendship with Steven."

It kind of sucks, becuase I think Darabont's script would have probably been much better. Not only did he write Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile, but he also wrote quite a few young Indiana Jones episodes. I feel that it was just a bad decision on George Lucas. Sure, the story would have been the same, but at least the dialogue would have been way better.

I can't see how David Koepp's script was worth the 10 year wait or whatever. He didn't write much 'indy' dialogue for Harrison at all. The closest it came was at the end where he says "so, you're a triple agent?".

All aspects of this film were bad, not just the story and script. Like I have said above, acting, directing, visual effects, pacing etc were all really off. I am really struggling to find some redeeming features in this movie.

For all those pro-indy 4 people. Please give me some reasons why this film was any good. Becuase seriously this was worse than every single Michael Bay film I have seen. I'm half expecting Postal to be better

no-one has complained about Shia Labeouf yet? how was he? i do not like this guy

Shia LeBeouf played a greaser tough guy. Nuff said.

no-one has complained about Shia Labeouf yet? how was he? i do not like this guy

i really don't like how much the movie screams SEQUEL with that boring fucker shia labeouf. man what a waste of goddamn time he is.

yeah he is just terrible. he kinda feels like a less textured david schwimmer.

it defies logic that someone can be LESS INTERESTING than david schwimmer, but shia labeouf manages to pull it off. you'd figure someone with such a terrible, annoying, derived-from-clearly-dead-languages name would try a little fucking harder, but that's the kinda DONT HAVE AN ACTING BONE IN MY BODY vibe that shia labeouf wishes to exude.

his role in indiana jones can be summarized like this: the guy can't even convincingly comb his fucking hair. seriously. his character has to compulsively comb his hair [EVERY ][/EVERY], and each time he does this you will find yourself thinking HEH HEH LOOK THE SCREENPLAY MUST HAVE TOLD HIM FAGGOT JR. COMBS HIS HAIR AGAIN

it's really upsetting that someone with pull in the industry has decided that HEH THEY WILL LOVE SHIA LABEOUF and is thrusting him on us every month or two. pretty much the only thing you can type-cast this retard as is BOOM MIKE VISIBLE IN SCENE but i do not think there exists any filmmaker with that much common sense.

I thought David Schwimmer was really good in Band of Brothers. I was surprised.