What would it take to make you walk out of Indy IV happy?

How do you want to feel walking out of the theatre after having watched Indy IV?
I guess you want to feel fulfilled and happy, right?
So what does the movie have to contain to get you there?

 

Laughter. Action. Mysticism. Witty banter. Bad people getting punched in the face. A rousing score.

What else is there to IJ??

 

Probably if it has a few great action scenes, (at least one of which will become iconic) and if it makes me laugh just once, and if it's got John Williams goosebump music, I'll walk out a happy fan.

 

If the movie doesn't remind me of the SW prequels or a Michael Bay film I will be fine.

 

If Harrison is his old grouchy, understated self, and Shia Laboof or whatever his name is doesn't ruin it, I'll be happy as can be.

 

An adventure unto itself. Self-contained. No lead into a sequel. No suggestion that parts of the film will be explained in future films or via other media. No franchise crap, basically.

 

It should do what the pervious three Indy movies have done, which is be a good, fun popcorn flick. Its that simple

 

Yeah, I agree with this. The IJ films have always been self-contained. If there is some kind of wink-wink hint that the Boofinator will return as Indy Jr. (Junior Junior? Henry III?) in some projected sequel, I will groan with displeasure and hang my achin' head in sorrow.

 

Oh God I hope this doesn't happen, I really don't get Spielbergs man/boy love for this kid.

 

To clarify, I wouldn't mind if a future film did materialise with Shia in an Indy-esque adventure of his own. I wouldn't necessarily want to see that film, but I would be able to divorce it entirely from the Harrison Ford Indy films... and for me that is what's so important about keeping KOTCS entirely self-contained.

 

Agreed!

 

I hope Steven or his minions are reading this!

 

Same quality as Raiders and I'll be happy

 

I want the story to have a real sense of peril for the good guys/gals. I want to really care about the characters and what happens to them. Drama!

I'd like to learn a little something as well. I knew nothing about the Ark in the first movie. It was fascinating to find out about the lore and mystery surrounding it. I just don't want it to be like Stargate, where the movie starts out really fascinating and ends up being a shoot-em-up.

A nice John Williams score is a must. I want to hear those familiar Indy themes!

No blatant CGI. Landscapes, buildings, etcetera, are fine. Stationary stuff. CGI cars or trucks or anything moving usually gives itself away.

I really want this to be the last movie as well.

 

No "Raiders" style propaganda, and absolutely no CGI!!!!

 

This is dangerous territory. It's 'lore and mystery' that allows studios to shove the inevitable franchising into films... where (as previously mentioned) stuff gets chopped up and you need to see more than the film in question to fully appreciate the story. It's done not to enhance, but to bleed dry.

 

Even though I thoroughly enjoyed the SW prequels, at least, from a storytelling and visual standpoint, I understand people's complaints about them in terms of the dialogue, certain actors, etc.

That being said, I think it is fairly safe to say that our fears can be put at ease. This movie has, at least, one major thing going for it that the SW prequels did not...

Spielberg is directing; not Lucas. Lucas is a creative storyteller which is the beginning of a good film, but Spielberg is one of the best at fine tuning and tranlating a story to the big screen. Spielberg is a finisher. He'll stain and polish the bare furniture that Lucas built. These two are almost unstoppable when together. I can only imagine what the PT would have been with them working through the entire process together.

I think we will all be happy; just in varying degrees.

Some will be content; accepting the film as a part of the story.
Others will be ecstatic; convinced that it's the best in the series.

I JUST WISH WE, AT LEAST, HAD A TRAILER ALREADY!!!

 

Last Crusade must really bother you then.

 

The whip!

Crude version of Crystal Skull>

 

I don't really consider digital compositing CGI. All it really does is prevent matte lines.

 

As long as it maintains the spirit and the themes of the original three films. A fast-paced adventure film, set in exotic locations, in the pursuit of fortune and glory, complete with a cast of colorful and interesting characters. There is a basic formula to these movies which seems to work, and I have faith in George, Steven, and Harrison together.

In contrast to the prequels, we have the returning actors, and a continuation of the story rather than a back story. For these simple reasons, I think the result will be better.

-Seldon

 

This is my major worry, actually. The franchise as a whole suddenly has a 'story', suddenly it has a need of 'continuation'. No doubt, suddenly there'll room for a 'mythology' and so on...

 

is there really a difference here? The story has continued to expand since Raiders. Obviously the introduction of Dr. Jones Sr. and several of the other concepts were continuations. It is good to introduce new characters and ideas rather than just stagnate. So I guess I'm just confused on your general meaning.

-Seldon

 

The story has continued to expand since Raiders, but that's all extraneous stuff. Irrelevant. I hate the idea of franchising everything; turning every bankable concept into a series with a backstory and a mythology and all that crap. Indy is individual tales told - opened, and closed. No need to revisit, or expand, or fill in manufactured blanks. Today it is high fashion to turn everything into an ongoing story with lots of 'cool stuff' to explore and understand and so on. All it does is dilute, and give studios excuses to churn out more material with a famous brand stamped on the side.

I will be astonished if this new Indy film escapes into cinemas as a self-contained unit - stunned if we don't get extra little bits of story here and there in the build-up and aftermath designed to help us 'better understand what went on'. It's commercial exploitation, and I hate it.

Of course it's a good idea to introduce new ideas... but some of the stuff coming in Indy IV is most certainly not new. It's bringing back old favourites. That's not new stuff. They'e not been brave enough to bring Indy back afresh. I'll tell you, I was delighted when Sean Connery ruled himself out this film. I didn't want the film to be a 'reunion special'. I loathe the return of Marion Ravenwood.

A new Indy film should feature Indy as the only returning character (perhaps Sallah, but I don't think he's onboard with this one). It should be an entirely new story, with no significant throwbacks to previous outings, and should be wholly self-contained. This will be none of those things.

Unfortunately, it will be lapped up no matter how cynically constructed the whole enterprise is.