next.

How about Indy fights the Japanese or the Russians?

Blanchett’s character is Russian, I think. And the movie’s MacGuffin sounds like a big change from the first 3.

;) I’m not exactly holding my breath.

I LOVE that movie.

The Wrath of Khan is the single most overrated Star Trek film; there’s nothing truly remarkable about it.

WHAT!!! *faints*

There are only four Trek films that are truly awful: II, III, V, and VIII.
Jockolantern on May 7, 2008 at 11:35 PM

I’ll agree on V. “First Contact” had so much potential. How do the creators sleep at night knowing they destroyed a great villain like the Borg! (A Borg Queen, are you kidding?) The Data/Picard Show that TNG became did finally ruin the entire idea for me. Turned me into a die-hard TOS fan.

I don’t really care if the new Indiana Jones picture is derivative, I’m looking forward to it for the pure, great, escapism these movies provide.

Plus, wasn’t the original developed to be the epitome of the old adventure-style serials they used to show? Wouldn’t that pretty much require it to be somewhat derivative?

P.S. I thought Iron Man was pretty darned good, although the next “New” Hulk looks like its going to bomb just like the last “New” Hulk did – making the American Military the “bad” guys just isn’t something that’s going to be appealing to me, and I am betting it won’t go over very well with a lot of other people either.

Sacrilege.

Insurrection as 2nd best?
First Contact awful?
II and III afwul?

I may just swoon. Especially when you add that The Motion Picture is “brilliant”. Are we talking the same Motion Picture that gives us a full 10 minute fly around of the exterior of the Enterprise? E-gads. It’s about the slowest and most boring movie ever produced.

thomashton on May 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM

YES. I know it’s off topic, but you hit the nail on the head. First Contact is the BEST. MP has what seems to be endless hours traversing Vejur’s entire structure. Yawn.

Probably “Saving Private Ryan” for Spielberg…and frankly, the cinematography was the what made that one, not the script or direction. Spielberg gets partial credit at best.

George Lucas, meanwhile, has never made a good movie.

Blacklake on May 7, 2008 at 11:12 PM

I agree, I wanted to burst my own ear drumbs listening to nine (?) guys whine about going on a mission the VOLUNTEERED for. I know it’s cliche but I think Spielberg’s last good movie was Schindler’s List.

Gotta’ agree with the former analysis here. The Wrath of Khan is the single most overrated Star Trek film. . . Jockolantern on May 7, 2008 at 11:35 PM

I disagree, I think they’re all equally overrated . . . but then I hate all things Star Trek.

Anyone wanna correct me if I’m wrong?

Still cute, too, after all these years.

The villain, the macguffin, the love interest, anything.

Oooo! and AP FAILS THE READING COMPREHENSION TEST!

Hey AP; How about, his non-love interest sidekick is FEMALE, he’s fighting the COMMIES, (First time since the end of the 80’s that the commies are portrayed BADLY in a main stream movie? Might be.) he’s dealing with issues of aging, and oh yeah, he’s got a SON.

Yes, the formula is still: Indiana Jones fights bad guys with the help of a sidekick and a spunky broad and rescues a priceless treasure from the hands of evil cretins.

But DUDE that IS Indiana Jones. That’s the formula. You change that, and you don’t have Indiana Jones anymore. You’ve got something else that, while possibly cool, isn’t Indiana Jones.

The best you can hope for with a formula like that is variations on the theme, and exploring other issues within the framework of the formula. LKet’s see how this works out here:

Raiders of The Lost Ark: Basic formula set up as I stated above in this movie. Bad guys are Nazis, treasure is the Ark of the Covenant. Sidekick is Masalla (the fat guy) love interest is the dark-haired woman.

Temple of Doom: Basic formula again, wth the variation that the bad guys are a religious cult. Discusses issues regarding the exploitation of children, and cults. Treasure is a magic rock with a diamond in it. Sidekick is the famous “Short Round” and the Love Interest is the Blonde Singer.

Last Crusade: Expansion on the basic formula. Bay guys are Nazis again, with a short inclusion of the religious cult (Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword), who turn out to be not bad guys at all. Treasure is none other than the Holy Grail. Love Interest is the Blonde woman, Sidekicks include Masalla, and Indy’s own father. Explores issues of loyalty, betrayal, faith, and father-son relations. Easily the deepest of the Indy movies.

Crystal Skull: Further expansion on the formula. Treasure is a crystal skull, bad guys are the Communists. Side Kick is the character played by Sheila LaBouf, and Indy’s son. Love Interest: Unknown. Will likely deal with issues of Aging, a reversal of the Father-Son issues of the previous movie, and possibly 50’s geo-politics.

Sounds like Crystal Skull will be an excellent addition to the Indy series. I am looking forward to seeing it.

Jockolantern on May 7, 2008 at 11:35 PM

Sacrilege.

Insurrection as 2nd best?
First Contact awful?
II and III afwul?

I may just swoon. Especially when you add that The Motion Picture is “brilliant”. Are we talking the same Motion Picture that gives us a full 10 minute fly around of the exterior of the Enterprise? E-gads. It’s about the slowest and most boring movie ever produced.

Dunno. I’ll be watching “Sex and the City” anyway.

Dude, I’d watch In the Valley of Ellah, or any number of these sub moronic anti war shovel-flicks before I watched that cr*p. Good grief, I hate that show.

I’m not sure why so many on this thread are griping about the Jones franchise being similar to previous iterations..I mean, it’s been..oh…19 years since the last one. I’d say the palate is a bit clean. I thought the whole thing was a hoax when I heard they were making one.
It could be worse. You know, Hollywood has 2 modes when ‘rediscovering’ a franchise. They simply go formula, which thankfully they did this time. Or they murder it with asinity. Indiana Jones Battles Global Warming kind of crap. For all I know, there probably is a crack or two in the movie about destroying the environment; thankfully though it should be all car chases and commies getting shot, run over, and beaten up. Gotta learn to enjoy the simple things.

Shia Lebeouf is about as rebllious looking as a bowl of Rice Crispies.

Karen

Allen

Prepare yourself for a whole slew of Raiders prequels if this film does even modestly good business at the box office.

I did see Karen Allen in there, didn’t I? Sorry, have to go stand on line at the theatre.

HarryStar on May 8, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Schyeah! Her character made the first movie. Her plus David Koepp on screenplay = FTW. With him on board it’s a sure bet there’ll be lots of great action and funny bits but no “funny” liberal anti-US stuff. So looking forward to this.

I guess it’s another fifty-one years until that will be available from Hollywood due to the Lucas-Spielberg time table of PC history? This is like living in 1945 and the only action movies being released are about San Juan Hill.

Am so not excited to see this one — and I want to be!

I’ve found their collaborations terrific, and I for one am looking forward to this movie. With all the regurgitated garbage out there these days (and all the anti-american drivel we’re subjected to), isn’t it good to have a true hero, an icon we can all identify with, come back and treat us to some good popcorn-munching summer movie fun?

I have faith, and I haven’t seen anything yet to erode that.