Comments on: Skulls... why'd it have to be Skulls?

Skulls... why'd it have to be Skulls?

crossoverman — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:49:43 -0800

Indiana Jones and... the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls? Actor Shia LaBeouf announced the title of the new Indiana Jones movie at the MTV Video Music Awards. But what was George Lucas' inspiration? Where did these Crystal Skulls come from? These ancient objects have been referenced in many places, including an episode of StarGate SG-1, imaginatively titled "Crystal Skull". There is also a Festival and a not-for-profit Foundation dedicated to researching these artifacts.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:55 -0800

An aged, over-confident Lucas is going to fuck up another beloved movie franchise with his rotten taste, his cloudy eye and his tin ear? Awesome.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:56:55 -0800

The island is Manhattan, and the crystal meth heads are everywhere. SCARY!!!

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:59:35 -0800

Oh God, Lucas, please just sit down and smoke a Mendocino fatty and let Speilberg or someone else drive, for fuck's sake!

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:03:51 -0800

Certain characters fit into certain ages and times. Sherlock Holmes belongs in the Victorian era. He should travel around London in a Hansom cab. Indiana Jones belongs in the Depression. That's his era. But among many, many things wrong with this new film conceptually, the biggest is that they're going to put it in the 1950's, maybe even the 1960's. Indiana Jones doesn't fit in that place and time, any more than Sherlock Holmes would. It seems like it must have been 30 years since the last time Lucas had a good, original idea for a film.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:05:20 -0800

Oh God, Lucas, please just sit down and smoke a Mendocino fatty and let Speilberg or someone else drive, for fuck's sake! Speilberg is listed as the director.

By: crossoverman

crossoverman — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:09:41 -0800

But among many, many things wrong with this new film conceptually, the biggest is that they're going to put it in the 1950's, maybe even the 1960's. It's been 20 years since "The Last Crusade". Harrison Ford aint no spring chicken and would have been unconvincing if they'd tried to make it the 1930s again...

By: davejay

davejay — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:17:53 -0800

An aged, over-confident Lucas is going to fuck up another beloved movie franchise with his rotten taste, his cloudy eye and his tin ear? Awesome. That's better than when an aged, over-confident Lucas fucks up a couple of race cars.

By: davejay

davejay — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:19:16 -0800

better link

By: Tullius

Tullius — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:24:09 -0800

I think that they could have set it in the late 40's and gotten away with it. Harrison Ford looks good for his age. Besides, Indy lives a rough life, and wouldn't be in the best shape anyway. Oh, and fuck George Lucas.

By: felix betachat

felix betachat — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:24:35 -0800

Where did these Crystal Skulls come from? From Mastodon, of course.

By: DU

DU — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:26:23 -0800

It's been 20 years since "The Last Crusade". What? WHAT? WHAT??? I think *I* better sit down and smoke a Mendocino fatty. Whatever that is. Get off my lawn.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:33:01 -0800

It's about fucking ALIENS. WTF Lucas??

By: edgeways

edgeways — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:38:27 -0800

Indy is working for the proto DHS and tracking illegal aliens? Man...

By: DU

DU — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:39:26 -0800

OK, after committing suicide 47 different ways, I thought to look this up: It's actually "only" 18 years. Still way longer than I was imagining.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:42:13 -0800

Regardless of any unearthly properties the crystal skulls may or may not possess, the question remains: where did they come from? There are countless hypotheses that they are the legacy of some higher intelligence. Many believe they were created by extraterrestrials or beings in Atlantis or Lemuria. One elaborate theory maintains that the skulls were left behind by a sophisticated Inner Earth society which lives at the hollow center of our planet, and there are thirteen "master skulls" which contain the history of these people. The most obvious answer to the mystery is that native artisans in Latin America or elsewhere crafted the skulls themselves. Indeed. Occam's Razor is a much-underrated tool.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:44:31 -0800

It's about fucking ALIENS. What, Nazis unleashing the Ark of the Covenant and melting like wax was easier for you to suspend your disbelief over? Falling out of an airplane on a raft? Punching into a human chest and removing a beating heart? With one hand? Intricate stone clockworks that somehow still work after thousands of years? A bow-tie wearing Poindexter of an archeologist that single-handedly confronts a crack SS platoon with no more than a bullwhip and a single-action six-shooter archaic even by 1930 standards - and still never loses his hat?

By: felix betachat

felix betachat — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:47:18 -0800

And undergrad girls that write love notes to professors on their eyelids?!

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:56:17 -0800

Sophisticated Inner Earth society which lives at the hollow center of our planet, and there are thirteen "master skulls" which contain the history of these people? Why does it always have to be sophisticated Inner Earth societies which live at the hollow center of our planet, and there are thirteen "master skulls" which contain the history of these people?!! I hate sophisticated Inner Earth societies which live at the hollow center of our planet, and there are thirteen "master skulls" which contain the history of these people!!!

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:10:32 -0800

And undergrad girls that write love notes to professors on their eyelids?! That's not so strange, although in my case they normally have the notes tattooed, rather than written.

By: mygothlaundry

mygothlaundry — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:13:09 -0800

Yeah, noone ever makes movies about the unsophisticated Inner Earth societies. They're down there, living in trailers, drinking cheap beer, watching bad movies and shopping at the Inner Earth Wal Mart and noone makes movies about them. No, it's the sophisticated, martini drinking, foreign film watching, designer clad Inner Earth societies who get all the cred. Rise up, proletariat from the bowels of the earth! Rise up and get your due! So what if your mystic skulls are plastic and there are only 9 left of them because weird Uncle Thaddeus hocked a couple back in his meth days and then shot the others up in a fit of drunken rage? They still count!

By: HeroZero

HeroZero — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:18:33 -0800

I suppose it's a slightly better title than "The Phantom Menace," but it still gives me a creeping sense of dread. I'm a total sucker for all of Spielberg's 21st-century work, including AI. This could get ugly.

By: gsteff

gsteff — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:05 -0800

Part of the reason that the first and 3rd films were so much better than the second, I think, was their use of Judeo-christian mythology. The simple fact that those traditions are still a big part of modern life made those films seem more serious and reverential than Temple- more like archeology. For understandable financial reasons, Hollywood still doesn't like to make films about religion, and non-epithetical uses of the word "Christ" are pretty much non-existent. Big budget films dealing with the actual substance of those religions in a (semi-)serious way would be unthinkable today... witness the god-awful Indy-knockoff National Treasure (several scenes are stolen directly), which couldn't discuss the even-better-known Declaration of Independence without inaccuracies a third grader would notice. Using those traditions as a base also let Raiders and Crusades use more interesting sets, like Cairo and Petra (its use in Crusades is still probably my favorite movie set ever), with massive instant context. It seems ridiculous to suggest that the Indiana Jones films are too intellectual for modern mainstream audiences, but it might be true. Also, the use of the Nazis as the villains in the first and third films seems cartoony and cliche today, but those are probably the films that turned them into cartoons. Memories of the holocaust were fresher in 1981, and the use of Nazis then likely gave the films an extra weight that we don't notice as much watching them today, one that Temple lacked. For all these reasons, plus the disappearance of George Lucas's marbles, I'm worried that this one will be most similar to Temple, and will suffer for it.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:29 -0800

What, Nazis unleashing the Ark of the Covenant and melting like wax was easier for you to suspend your disbelief over It's about consistency-- you have Aliens or the Ark of the Covenant, but you don't have both.

By: unregistered_animagus

unregistered_animagus — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:22:29 -0800

Well, see, "Deathly Hallows" was already taken. But look on the bright side: so was "Attack of the Clones". Still and all, I subscribe to Patton Oswalt's school of thought: given the ability to travel through time, my first and most prudent action would be to go back to 1993 and kill George Lucas wiith a shovel.

By: wfc123

wfc123 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:33:30 -0800

"Shia LaBeouf"? Good one. Really, what's his real name?

By: anazgnos

anazgnos — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:34:44 -0800

It's weird for sure, primarily because the title seems to have been drawn from a pre-existing Disney theme park ride...

By: sien

sien — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:36:17 -0800

gsteff: Surely The Passion shows that a film about religion can be a huge financial success. Why there haven't been others is a good question, but surely it isn't financial grounds.

By: metabrilliant

metabrilliant — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:47:47 -0800

This is simply the reverse of the Star Trek curse: for Indy, all of the even numbered films will suck.

By: misha

misha — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:54:53 -0800

Okay, Aztec temple with crystal skulls isn't so bad. I like Aztecs. And I don't mind the fountain of youth aspect, either, though that was Ponce de Leon, not Cortez, and he looked in Florida, not Mexico, but whatever. What really bothers me is that in the descirption of the Disney Tokyo Crystal Skull ride, the call letters for the wrecked plane outside read, "C3PO". That's what passes for subtlety and cleverness these days?

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:11:14 -0800

that BELONGS in a MUSEU - oh The British Crystal Skull It is currently residing in the British Museum of Man in London, England, and has been there since 1898.

By: humannaire

humannaire — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:15:49 -0800

I'm a total sucker for all of Spielberg's 21st-century work, including AI. This could get ugly. You mean uglier I'm sure.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:22:19 -0800

Also, the use of the Nazis as the villains in the first and third films seems cartoony and cliche today, but those are probably the films that turned them into cartoons. Memories I refute it thus (and thus and thus). Falling out of an airplane on a raft? Punching into a human chest and removing a beating heart? With one hand? Intricate stone clockworks that somehow still work after thousands of years? All those are from the same sucky movie.

By: papakwanz

papakwanz — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:34:58 -0800

Indiana Jones and the Cave Of the Crystal Killers!

By: crossoverman

crossoverman — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:39:16 -0800

It's weird for sure, primarily because the title seems to have been drawn from a pre-existing Disney theme park ride... Yes. That never happens.

By: Sailormom

Sailormom — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:48:26 -0800

"[The] crystal stimulates an unknown part of the brain, opening a psychic door to the absolute." And there you have it. Lucas had no choice. That unknown part of his brain has been stimulated. His door is open to the absolute.

By: cmonkey

cmonkey — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:54:03 -0800

Even leaving it as "The Untitled Genre Project" would be better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls. oh god I'm complaining about a movie title on the internet. now i have to grow a neckbeard or something :-(

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:58:28 -0800

a hair donut is better than a neckbeard. start with a sideways mohawk from ear to ear, then grow a similar line below your ears. you'll get plenty of nicknames in pickup basketball games ("hey, i got donut head!") and, of course, the ladies love it

By: blacklite

blacklite — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:01:19 -0800

this is going to suuuck

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:01:19 -0800

Indy films are roller coaster rides. So this film being named after a roller coaster ride makes perfect sense. It's all full circle. I'm just more concerned they'll have to call it Indiana Jones and the Social Security Office. Ford's sixty-five for crying out loud. They better get to work on the dang thing fast before it's Raiders of the Limosine Procession to the Cemetery. "Nazis as the villains in the first and third films seems cartoony and cliche today, but those are probably the films that turned them into cartoons" I have always seen Nazis as cartoony and cliche. I was not brought up jewish, but even at an early age I recall being practically inundated with all the Never Again Always Remember bullcrap. "Okay okay never again I get it already! Leave me alone! I'm only seven!" In fact I think one of my sisters read The Diary of Anne Frank and went through that phase that's associated with preteen girls as they read that book. Nowadays they call it going goth, I think. Where everything becomes melodramatic and fated and doom-n-gloom and she acts like she's fated to die in the near future if she doesn't get out of wherever she is. ...what? You never had older sisters acting like that? I have always laughed at the sight of Nazis. I can't take them seriously, and the reality that they killed millions of people (not just jews but ANYONE they disagreed with) is terrible I know, but I still can't help but laugh at them because they're so insipidly stupid. Hitler did not have blonde hair and blue eyes. Am I the only one who STILL finds that funny? Okay, I decree the master race to be phosphorescent and pomegrantate. All the rest of you must die. I'll hide behind my moustache. Nyah nyah can't catch me. Oh. And Indy 4 will make lots of money and will probably suck. So? Even though Temple of Doom is a bad film, it's still pretty good. As long as they don't make a film WORSE than Temple of Doom, I think we're okay.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:02:37 -0800

I was mildly excited reading this post, but nearly barfed with the name 'Lucas' came up. Oh, and Harrison Ford is, like, a fucking *robot*.

By: rifflesby

rifflesby — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:10:52 -0800

Yeah, you definitely can't give Indiana Jones sole blame for turning Nazis into cartoons.

By: fungible

fungible — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:47:07 -0800

Whatever. Can I just say that the "return of Britney" was one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen?

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:47:52 -0800

I've got a bad feeling about this.

By: fuzzypantalones

fuzzypantalones — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:51:50 -0800

is he trying to buy an island or a billion dollar house? or maybe just cash in some retirement money before harrison ford really gets to old to be indiana. POOP!

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:09:45 -0800

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:13:00 -0800

I'm not sure what all the complaints are about. The Indy series was always conceived as a throwback to the great action-adventure pulp films of Hollywood's Golden Age. These Crystal Skulls and their associated myths are a perfect fit for the genre if pulled off correctly. I don't know if anyone watched The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (an excellent show if you haven't), but the series featured glimpses of Indiana Jones as a much older man and pulled it off well. I really think there's potential for a great story about an aging Indy going on one last hurrah. Again, though, it all comes down to how it is pulled off, since a bad execution can ruin even the most brilliant concept, but since Lucas has Spielberg and other influences around him to possibly temper some of his crazier ideas, I think there's hope.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:37:01 -0800

EPISODE IV, OR IS IT EPISODE MINUS III?: ATTACK OF THE BONES

By: darksasami

darksasami — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:27:55 -0800

Indy films are roller coaster rides. Well, yes, but this is a big-budget Lucas/Spielberg film, what does that have to do with -- oh. Right. Never mind.

By: w0mbat

w0mbat — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:03:17 -0800

Actually the movie is called "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", ie it's "skull" singular. The first link confirms this.

By: Kadin2048

Kadin2048 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:06:37 -0800

I feel like Lucas is purposely taking a humongous dump on America, maybe as part of some giant artistic project that's just too subtle for all of us to notice. Some day, he's going to complete it, cackle manically, and then fall over dead.

By: mecran01

mecran01 — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:02:15 -0800

The skulls are kinda interesting in their own right: The Mitchell-Hedges family loaned the skull to Hewlett-Packard Laboratories for extensive study in 1970. Art restorer Frank Dorland oversaw the testing at the Santa Clara, California, computer equipment manufacturer, a leading facility for crystal research. The HP examinations yielded some startling results. Researchers found that the skull had been carved against the natural axis of the crystal. Modern crystal sculptors always take into account the axis, or orientation of the crystal's molecular symmetry, because if they carve "against the grain," the piece is bound to shatter -- even with the use of lasers and other high-tech cutting methods. To compound the strangeness, HP could find no microscopic scratches on the crystal which would indicate it had been carved with metal instruments. Dorland's best hypothesis for the skull's construction is that it was roughly hewn out with diamonds, and then the detail work was meticulously done with a gentle solution of silicon sand and water. The exhausting job -- assuming it could possibly be done in this way -- would have required man-hours adding up to 300 years to complete. Under these circumstances, experts believe that successfully crafting a shape as complex as the Mitchell-Hedges skull is impossible; as one HP researcher is said to have remarked, "The damned thing simply shouldn't be."

By: dgbellak

dgbellak — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:48:05 -0800

Part of the reason that the first and 3rd films were so much better than the second... Oh, no. I challenge that statement to a duel. I absolutely love the second film's breakneck pace and eagerness to entertain. It was the "thrill ride" installment of the series, more so than the others. I've since gone on to accept Raiders as the vastly superior flick, of course, but Temple spoke loudly and proudly to the kid I was in the 80's. Of course, my view of the second film is probably helped by my distaste for the third. Connery was stunt casting and we all know it. The pacing and plotting were deliberately lifted from the first film and while More Of The Same is normally a great thing when making a sequel to a classic like Raiders, doing so was at the expense of the much of the imagination and fearlessness that made Temple so likable. Likewise the return of Marcus and Sallah, but while they were serious characters in Raiders, Crusade made them nothing more than a drunk and a buffoon, Crusade's most egregious error, imho. Plus, c'mon, the dinner scene alone makes Temple the perfect one to watch with your girlfriend.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:02:43 -0800

The important thing is that since this will be the last Indy film, it will finally be safe to buy the complete series as a DVD boxed set. Speaking of which, I nominate myself as the only designer up to the task of producing this amazing artefact which protects the Golden Discs upon which are inscribed every Indy film ever made. If I get the job, your box-set might cost more to manufacture than the discs it stores, and you might have to risk life and limb struggling to find the secret to unlocking, opening it, and sacking its treasures, but I guarantee no other DVD box-set will be as awesome to behold! (Though really, you ought to put it in a museum. The Louvre perhaps :-)

By: monkey!knife!fight!

monkey!knife!fight! — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:22:25 -0800

Hey, harlequin, I'd grab that box set now, since you never know when Lucas will decide he has to remaster the originals and Indy will be saved by certain doom time and time again by his new sidekick Jar-Jar.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:24:20 -0800

What Sangermaine said. This kind of title is completely inline with what the Indy series has always been. Spielberg can suck sometimes, but there are certain things he's extremely good at. Indy is one of those things. As long as he doesn't the go the self-serious route of his recent films, I have high hopes.

By: monkey!knife!fight!

monkey!knife!fight! — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:24:43 -0800

(sorry) Also, need to give a shout-out to the same named band I love.

By: spec80

spec80 — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:45:11 -0800

An aged, over-confident Lucas is going to fuck up another beloved movie franchise with his rotten taste, his cloudy eye and his tin ear? Awesome. hey hey HEY. Don't forget his jowls.

By: Atreides

Atreides — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:05:18 -0800

If you research the movie, it seems Spielberg exercised control over the script and will be directing. Lucas is just a producer, which means, Spielberg will be the man with the over all guiding hand. Generally, when the two have worked together, the product has been great. Spielberg has shown himself to remain pretty much on the ball for solid movies, and Lucas almost redeemed himself with RoTS (acronym...eerie). I think both men together can produce a solid Indy film. At worse, it'll be the lesser of equals, not the crap film of a four film series.

By: Soliloquy

Soliloquy — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:39:40 -0800

Now I love Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, but maybe it's time to make like James Bond and pass the torch to another actor, so they can continue to set the films in the Depression era. Nathan Fillion would make an excellent Indy.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:54:45 -0800

oooh, hear hear.

By: quin

quin — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:46:19 -0800

loquacious : that single-handedly confronts a crack SS platoon with no more than a bullwhip and a single-action six-shooter archaic even by 1930 standards Technically, he carried a 1911 .45 as well. I've always thought that the best way to handle a fourth Indy movie would be to find some really excellent Asian martial artist and have him play a grown up Short Round, acting as Indy's assistant. Originally, I thought that Jet Li would be perfect, but he might be getting a bit old for that roll as well. I figure they could make some great jokes about how Indy is becoming more and more like his father and increasingly needing to rely on someone who is younger and faster, but not necessarily more experienced. I can see the scene perfectly: Indy wades into a bar fight, land a couple of huge punches, throws a rakish grin to the heroine, only to have a giant bruiser show up behind him and toss him through the bar. As Indy is getting up, dazed and off balance, a blur appears in the form of a grown up Shorty, he proceeds to kick ten kinds of shit out of the rest of the bar while Indy watches. As they are leaving he says "You know I could have taken care of him..." To which Short Round replys, "Sure you could have boss, but I know we are in a hurry." And maybe later in the film a similar situation arises, but as Short Round prepares to fight, Indy just shoots the guy. Indy shrugging, "What? We're in a hurry."

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:05:11 -0800

single-handedly confronts a crack SS platoon with no more than a bullwhip and a single-action six-shooter He also had an anachronous RPG. (It's not a Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, or bazooka.)

By: quin

quin — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:23:10 -0800

Even more technically, it was a double action revolver. *loves the Webley* *wants a Webley*

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:58:20 -0800

Soliloquy: "Nathan Fillion would make an excellent Indy." Absofrickinlootlee. I'd like to second that. Or third it. Or fourth it. Or whatever.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:17:32 -0800

And a few more words of positive vibes towards Temple of Doom by the by. Sure it's not one of the most solid of storylines. Much of it is hokey and corny and catering more towards children which is both Spielberg's and Lucas's tendency, while simultaneously dancing around "R-LITE" territory, but it's fun! Temple of Doom is stupid fun perhaps, but fun nonetheless. I never tire of watching it. Anyone who disses Temple of Doom probably doesn't like the original b/w serials upon which the whole franchise is a tip of the hat. Fantastic space operas like Flash Gordon, Commando Cody, Buck Rogers, Tom Corbett, and the more down-to-earth but twice as outlandish serials of Masked Marvel, Shazam, Lone Ranger, the early Batman and Superman serials, and so many more are the groundwork from which Lucas & Spielberg built the Indy and Star Wars franchises. When you see them as outlandish and corny and stupid and absurd and childish and all the things that critics knock these shows for -- that's paying the guys a compliment. THEY MEANT TO DO THAT! Temple of Doom is simultaneously the least liked of the three (perhaps four now) movies in the Indy franchise and guess what -- it's also the one of the four that most gets it right! Monkey's brains. Elephant rides. Creepy crawlies. Cliffhanger after cliffhanger. Crazy cult leaders pouring blood into people's mouths and pulling hearts out of chests. Jumping out of buildings and jumping out of airplanes and falling into lava and globetrotting and swashbuckling and whipcracking and wisecracks and outrageous costumes and over the top sound effects and music and the good guy being coerced by the bad guy into turning traitor only to be saved by his best friend and getting the girl and saving the day and and and--- What's NOT to love about Temple of Doom? It used to be my least favorite film of the three but I just now talked myself into it being my favorite. I wanna see it again now. Temple of Doom rocked! You're all a buncha crazy blood-drinkin' zombies for not seeing the truth. Nyeah!

By: quin

quin — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:48:10 -0800

Nathan Fillion would make an excellent Indy. Normally, I would kill a man where he stood for even suggesting that anyone else could play Indiana Jones. However, since your recommendation is Mal, I'll let it slide. And I don't disagree with your idea, though I'd rather see the franchise just fade away into history rather than trying to turn it into something like Batman or Bond. Not because I think that Fillion would be anything other that perfect for the roll, but because the person that would replace him in three movies wouldn't be as good, and eventually it would taint the entire series for me. /takes Raiders waaay too seriously.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:54:44 -0800

I had a similar argument after Buffy the Vampire Slayer was ended. People still think the only person who should ever be allowed to play Buffy is Sarah Michelle Gellar. First off, she wasn't the only person to play that role (Kristy Swanson did it before her), and secondly, there are many actresses just as capable who could breathe new life into the role. I'd love to see the series rebooted for the generation of young people that will be teenagers in the teens of this century. That'd so rock. However, some are not ready yet to let go. I just want to see more stories in that invented storyscape. I don't care who plays the parts so long as the parts get played. The STORY is the thing. So many try to pigeonhold actors and keep them in the same molds for eternity. There's still people who think only Sean Connery deserves James Bond and all others shouldn't have even tried. The show must go on. To not give another actor a crack at a contemporary role is as absurd as refusing to produce Shakespeare's Hamlet ever again because Sir Lawrence Olivier is dead. Sherlock Holmes is NOT Basil Rathbone. Joan Hickson is NOT Miss Marple, although critically they each most personified their roles. Personally I think David Suchet is the best Hercule Poirot but I also have a soft spot in my heart for Peter Ustinov. I don't think Anthony Hopkins has ever had the opportunity to play Poirot, and it's a shame. I think that he'd be a lot of fun in the part. Steve Martin proved Inspector Clouseau doesn't have to be played by only Peter Sellers. Though some questioned letting anyone try their hand at rebooting The Pink Panther, it managed to pay for itself, making about as much in domestic ticket sales as it cost to make, and so the rest of the world box office was gravy - a sequel is reportedly in development ...hell. I think the mistake made by those behind this reboot was to place Clouseau in the present day. The humor belongs in the mid 20th century. Harrison Ford doesn't own the role of Indy. For many he currently personifies it. He made the role his own of course - as any talent like him would. However, Indy belongs in World War Two, and he should be thirty-something forever. When Fillion got too old to wear the hat, he could pass it on to someone else. That's how Hamlet has survived for over four hundred years. Thank God they didn't stop with David Garrick. Tho I bet you, four hundred years ago, there were people arguing as we are now, saying no one should ever take Garrick's place. Of course, those people had never heard of Olivier. =)