The spirit of the trailer seemed okay, but the effects were on the extra sharp side of cheesy. Lord knows what that's about. And Shia LaBouf is an acquired taste that I have not yet acquired.

There was a full length article in Vanity Fair about the film development a couple of months back, and rather than just being an internet rumor, all three principals (Lucas, Spielberg and Ford) all state that the script was Lucas all the way, with several drafts that the other two liked (including one by Frank Darabont) getting the veto from the Flanneled One.

Anyway, outside of traumatizing me when I was younger, the Indiana Jones films occupy a surprisingly small amount of space in my geek life, so I may be able to see this in much the same way I can listen to a Led Zepplin reunion: by caring less, I may enjoy it more.

The trailer was meant to invoke an homage to the original trilogy, but, really, why tread old ground with an all-new movie? Another truck chase? Really? Marion Ravenwood is back? Seriously? But after trying to drum up some serious nostalgia, they slap that gloss of cheap-looking effects over it. Special effects have come a long way since the original trilogy--so why the high cheese factor, as you pointed out?

But none of that matters if the story or characterization aren't there. A fedora does not a fleshed-out character make. And now knowing that Lucas did indeed veto a script the other two liked--well, that's very depressing.

And you're right about something else--if the original trilogy wasn't your cup of tea back in the day, this newest entry will just be another trip to a well that ran dry decades ago. But I'm surprised you aren't more of a fan of Raiders (despite the melting, exploding heads, natch).

Tron is getting "rebooted"--whether as a sequel (Tron 2.0) or a bona fide remake, I'm not sure. Does THAT strike you as sacrilege?

The thing that's particularly odd about the lousiness of the FX is that Spielberg has always gotten the best out of ILM - better even than Lucas. The FX in AI & Minority Report are seamless wonders.

I'm not sure that the characterization won't be there. Harrison Ford is an okay actor, but his range is limited enough that he falls into the Henry Fonda school of just playing himself. But, yes, the script could suck, and all of Ford's charm can't save that (see Temple of Doom).

I'm thinking that even though Lucas has really fallen off as a storyteller, Spielberg has only gotten better, so there's a good chance it could be very, very good. But I'm more geek-pumped about X-Files 2 and Iron Man, really...

Raiders is well made, no denying - but I don't know. It just never grabbed me. The villains are lame (ooh - the evil French collaborator archaeologist - look out!) and the overall tone is maybe too serious? Lord knows, I can't defend it, but I like "Last Crusade" best of all three because it's kind of a gas-filled romp and everyone sees action, including Denholm Elliot. And, hey, the script is full of great one liners, which "Raiders" can't really claim.

Placing me totally on the other side of the fence from all other geeks: Indy works best for me when he plays the straight man to a bunch of wacky characters in a series of Rube Golbergesque action sequences. And can I say that I'm pretty happy in IJIV that no more Nazis, already?

I thought the FX in War of the Worlds were amazing--the best I'd seen up to that point. But it was also the subtle (at times) APPLICATION of those FX in WOTW that were impressive--like seeing the reflection of that first tripod in a car's windshield as it rose up from the town square--I mean, wow.

And of all the FX in Jurassic Park, 2 things that stick out in memory are the ripples in the glass of water (not even a digital effect), and the sight gag on the rearview mirror as the T-Rex chases the jeep ("Objects may appear..."). That's brilliant.

So yes, Spielberg will undoubtedly bring a deft touch to Indy 4, but I still think the whole endeavor is unnecessary. And wasn't it Ford himself who said during the making of Last Crusade (and after Empire and Jedi)--"No more #&%#@! sequels"?

Now that I'm thinking about it, the Indy 4 trailer reminded me too much of The Goonies. Maybe Sloth will cameo.

Yeah, the FX in WOTW were damn good. Even though it was Spielberg's weakest entry in his recent films, it was still astoundingly well-made, which is always the Spielberg hallmark. Plus, he made up for it with "Munich," which may be is finest film ever.

That ripple effect in JP is brilliant, and again one of those things that's so weird when you find out how they did it: Spielberg mentioned that he wanted the shot, and for the ripples to emanate from the center - but nothing was getting it. Then the tech guy - Dennis Murren, maybe?- was playing guitar at home one night, and a glass that he bumped up against rippled perfectly - so the way they got the effect in the film was to place a vibrating string under the dash and then pluck it for the shot. What a pain in the ass...

And Ford is obviously full of shit with the 'no sequels' line, because why "Clear and Present Danger?" Or even "Patriot Games," for that matter?

Really, what film is truly 'necessary?' But I definitely agree that I have no real enthusiasm for it. Still, you've written several blog posts about it, so I think you at least have something like guarded, fearful enthusiasm. Curdled by the battered hope of the teenager you once were who had his balls kicked hard by "The Phantom Menace."

P.S.: "The Goonies" - there's a decades-later sequel to that in the works as well.

A Goonies sequel? Really? Maybe I saw that trailer by mistake.

Phantom Menace? The Sad-Maker.

The Tom Clancy movies? Better as books--but only marginally.

Munich? Haven't seen it yet. But then again, I hardly go to the movies anymore--in the theatre or on DVD. The Watchmen movie, though--THAT I'd like to see on opening weekend...even if they've made Nite Owl a tad buff.

As an ex-film major, Munich will thrill you for the sheer texture of the thing. The cinematography is AWESOME.

I'm more apprehensive about Watchmen, despite the fact that the stills all look pretty good so far. Still, V for Vendetta departed pretty significantly from the comic and was the better for it, so maybe whatever changes are necessary to make Watchmen filmable - hey! no pirate comics! - could improve the flow.

Moore will hate the movie sight unseen, no matter how good it might be. I liked 300--it was a very faithful interpretation of the source material. So we'll see what happens with Watchmen.

Sin City (the movie), on the other hand--while incredibly faithful to the original material, was hamstrung by it, too.

Oh, yeah. I TOTALLY hated "Sin City," because of the fact that it followed Miller's idiotically repeated formula over and over and over. Oy.

Sin City works on the page, as a "graphic" novel. A panel-by-panel recounting does not a movie make. 300, on the other hand, retained the SPIRIT of the source material, while making the right kind of embelishments to the storytelling.

I've often described 300 as the movie Gladiator, as directed by Tarantino. With a little bit of The Matrix thrown in for good measure.

As history, it's rotten, but as an action movie, it's great fun.

Seen it yet?

D.

Nope.
If I had the choice (or the spare time), I'd pick Iron Man first.
As it stands, I probably won't be seeing either until they hit Best Buy.
But I take it YOU saw it. And....? On a scale of 1 to 10...?

I liked the first 2/3 quite a bit - in fact, both my sister and I realized yesterday that we each wanted to see it again, which is a good sign. But we were both sort of chagrinned that we wanted to see it again, which is less than a good sign.

The opening sequence is just amazing. It only loses it during a very extended jungle chase sequence in the last third, and only then because the CGI just drains the scene of any real tension. Rare FX misstep for Spielberg.

Also - and I'll elaborate on this if you ever see it - the climax should have happened somewhere else. Easter Island would have bee nice. Or Siberia.

D.

Yeah, why they staged the climax in a deli in Jersey City is totally beyond me.
And what did they gain from that CGI store clerk--couldn't they have just hired an actor to restock the shelves in the background during that pivotal fight scene???
Weird.

At least give us the review, now!

D.