Official Indy trailer!!!

I’m going to have to buck the trend here and offer a qualified “meh”. Even in the trailer there is too much (fake looking) CGI, too many self-referential lines, and too many action sequences that appear (admittedly without knowing anything about the plot) to exist merely for the purpose of having an action sequence. I’m seeing signs of the same thing that made Temple of Doom such a tiresome and ill-conceived story, albeit with a handful of good individual action set-pieces.

I have to admit, however, to having unreasonably high standards. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the best pure adventure films ever made, and moves so quickly and engagingly that it never really allows you to sit and question the absurdities (like why Indy doesn’t just drop down the open shaft over the pit in the opening sequence rather than go through this whole business with the spiders and rolling ball, or why the German army is conducting a massive archeological dig in the desert of British-controlled Egypt), a quality that its immediate successor and imitators lacked. Raiders had an immediacy, and at least in-cinema plausibility that the back-projection and green screen effects of Temple of Doom took away. (To be fair, The Last Crusade also had some charitably unconvincing green screening, but made up for it in other areas and the inclusion of Sean Connery.)

And it has been well established that Indiana Jones films without Nazis don’t work. Commies just aren’t as comically menacing. An Indiana Jones film without a Nazi is like a Die Hard film without Alan Rickman.

So while I not might wait until it comes out on DVD, but I’ll at least give it a few weeks until the crowds thin out and catch it on a sparse Sunday matinee.

Stranger

IMDB seems to think he is…

Wow, Stranger. Lot’s of opinion on a extremely short teaser trailer!

:slight_smile:

Well, it’s certainly I’m possible that I’m all wet and the film is the fastest thing since a flat-12 Ferrari. But nothing I see in the trailer lends itself to that interpretation; what I see are so-so CGI effects, self-referential corny dialogue, and no indication of a cohesive story. Like I said, I have exceptional and possibly unreasonably high standards, owing to the fact that Raiders is such a classic. I’m just not excited, at least not from this trailer.

Stranger

Indy as a 60 year old Spider-Man apparently.

Speaking of which, I’d like to see Mythbusters try to bust some bullwhip myths, with Kari as the official whip wielder.

I’m eager to see the movie but the trailer worries me. I don’t mind it being to self-referential or some outlandish and unnecessary action sequences, but what will ruin it for me is if they turn Indy into a comic book action hero. That looks like it might be the case, with the overly acrobatic whip swing and one-punch knockouts, and it becomes especially tedious when you remember that Indy is 60+ years old.

Goddamn it you stole my comment. When he was in that truck and knocked out 2 guys with light elbows to the head and then did some sort of (what appeared to be) one armed whip lifthisassoutofthetruck manuever I was like meh…

I really liked all of the IJ movies so I’ll see this but the trailer doesn’t look awesome.

Have you guys never seen the other Indiana Jones films? What’s wrong with you all? This is exactly like all the others, they’ve all been over-the-top action extravaganzas with lots of special effects.

I am totally confident that this will equal the others, as far as I’m concerned.

Your problem is you’ve all grown up, and think the movies should grow up along with you.

This I know. However, from what I’ve read on other fan sites there’s been no proof of him being Abner. Ravenwood was supposed to be dead in Raiders 20 years earlier. Some people believe he is supposed to be

a guy named Ox. This was gotten out of a children’s book for the movie.

Don’t know if it’s true or not but that’s what’s been floating around.

There’s “over the top” action, and then “absurdly, ridiculously, visual effects enhanced” action. Much of what appears in the trailer is the latter. Except for the animation sequence in the end, essentially all of the action setpieces in Raiders of the Lost Ark were done with on-set special effects, and it shows; the framing puts you right into the action. In Temple of Doom the filmmakers made the mistake of trying to expand the scope of the action to epic scale, but using a lot of back-projection, greenscreening, et cetera, and it shows badly, as it does with the less effective bits of The Last Crusade; the best sequences in that film–that didn’t pull you out of the action–were those that were purely on-set, i.e. the intro, the motorcycle chase, and the tank chase. Compare the action sequences of the recent Casino Royale to some of the older Bond movies and you’ll see what I mean.

That is an absurd criticism. First of all, I still think that Raiders is one of the best adventure films ever made, even moreso for being able to deconstruct the logical flaws in the plot and appreciate how the film overcomes them anyway. Second, I expect a movie to be, for lack of a better term, necessary; to provide entertainment on its own terms and by its own merits rather than simply trying to evoke the sensation of watching a predecessor. This is why many sequels are so mediocre even if they’re not actually bad films themselves; they essentially try to recreate the original film rather than tell their own story. The Bourne Ultimatum for instance, came off as just a pastiche of the previous two films, making it less interesting and predictable to a fault.

And third, it is wrong to argue that a pure action film should be given a pass from criticism about logic or plausibility (within the fiction of the film) just because it is only superficial entertainment; indeed, not having to carry around the burden of bearing some message or deep theme should leave filmmakers more time to focus on making it absorbing, to make it “work” without causing the audience to roll eyes. When Indy is chasing after the truck containing the Ark (“Truck? What truck?”) he’s not cracking jokes or lightly leaping from tree to tree like a cartoon superhero; he’s fearful, desperately trying to stay alive, and taking a lot of punishment. What sets Jones apart from his Nazi adversaries is that he’s not a characture. An action film doesn’t need to be so plausible that I could go outside and recreate the same stunts with no equipment, but it should be close enough to reality that I don’t leave the film doubting that even that character could, within his own reality, do such a thing.

Like I said, I have high critical standards for the film; I think it was ill-advised to make it with an aging Harrison Ford (who looked absurd even taking punches in Firewall); and what I see in the teaser suggests that my worst fears about it have come to pass, that instead of making an Indiana Jones film, they’re making a Tomb Raider film with Indiana Jones standing in for Lara Croft. Maybe the film will be better than I think, and regardless it will rake in big piles of cash for Lucasfilm even it is total dreck, but I’m not all that excited about what I see in the teaser.

Stranger

Most of the films I look forward to turn out to be crap… Still, hope is eternal! I can’t wait. I just hope they don’t go over the top with his brawling and whip work. The best fights were always the ones where he used his brains instead of his fists. Indy vs the master swordsman comes to mind.

I used to hate CGI but honestly, I think it’s come to the point where I hardly recognise it any more, unless it’s completely over the top and unrealistic.

Yeah, I know, but George Lucas is the master of revisionist history, so he could have been disguised as Sallah in the third one… :rolleyes:

Wait, he could have been Sallah the whole time! :eek:

:dubious: Kind of the point of the thread.

-FrL-

Yup, that’s what scared me. “Not as easy as it used to be”? Lame. “I thought that was closer”? absolutely unnecessary for the humor of the situation portrayed, and also lame.

-FrL-

In some articles about the movie, I read that whereas the other Indy flicks are meant to pay tribute to 30’s serials, this fourth one is meant to pay tribute to 50’s B movies.

Anyone know what that claim is supposed to amount to?

-FrL-

Aliens.

Yeah! Indiana Jones movies have never done referential humor. Oh wait…

Aliens. Why’d it have to be aliens?

And if I heard correctly they will be the same aliens from Close Encounters, No joke.