Now there has to be good movie with Soviets as the bad guys, made in the last 19 years, as opposed to at all? Well, if we’re looking at the last 19 years, Hunt for Red October was released in 1990, so that would count. If we’re looking at the 18 years since that film was released, then I think Thirteen Days would count.

Whether or not Red Dawn blows, isn’t really the point. For myself, I thought it was…o.k. But the fact remains, the soviets made effective baddies in the film, contrary to your original point.

The iron curtain wasn’t ironish? What was it? A fluffy bunny curtain?

So now it’s not enough that Cate Blanchett was in fact in a big budget crowd pleaser, now she needs to hit a particular screen time mark for it to count. So what’s the mark? 35.9 minutes? 42.3 minutes?

The Lord of the Rings trilogy wasn’t dependent on a happy audience? The fans of those books span the globe in a variety of different languages, over the course of roughly half a century before the first film ever came out. I remember reading that the trilogy was the most widely read book in the world, second only to the bible. But the film didn’t depend on making these folks happy? Come on.

George Lucas movies do tend to suck. There’s no doubt about that. But I think it means a bit less, when he’s in the producer role, and Spielberg is in the director’s seat.

Actually, Spielburg is the one who said he wanted to go old school, and avoid CGI usage as much as possible. And at one point Ford said he’d walk on the film, because of some really dumb law that wouldn’t allow him to use a real whip, and would have to have it replaced with CGI.

Lucasfilm is not above releasing a Special Edition. No doubt there.

I’m not saying your wrong. There’s a better than even chance that the movie will indeed suck.

I’m just saying that your basing your opinion on incorrect assumptions.

One of you goofy ass-bags mentioned THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, which is funny, because that’s the last time the Soviets were decent bad guys. Being as the movie came out as the wall fell and we found out the Iron Curtain wasn’t really all that Ironish. If you can name a good movie that had the Soviets as bad guys as the NINETEEN YEARS since then? And oh yeah, RED DAWN blows.

Cate Blanchett in LOTR, huh? What’s that? Twenty minutes of screentime over the span of a trio of three and a half hour movies? Forgive me if I don’t think that counts. You might as well say Judi Dench deserved her Oscar for her eight minutes in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. And as good as the SHORT PEOPLE TRILOGY was, they were Costume Dramas at heart. Not exactly as dependent on a happy audience as INDIANA JONES is now is it?

And name one good movie that has had George Lucas’ name on it in the past five years. How ’bout ten? Fifteen? No, George Lucas hasn’t had his name on a good movie since 1989. He was bitten by the Midlife Crisis Monster and immediately made RADIOLAND MURDERS. And it’s all been downhill from there.

And we’re trusting Lucasfilm for our information now? The anti-CGI stance could mean what you think it means, or it could mean “Well, we’re not filming entirely in front of a blue screen this time.” That doesn’t necessarily mean we won’t be introduced to SOME OTHER monstrosity that won’t look right in an INDY film and make Lucas release a “Special Edition” of the first three on DVD. Now tell me Lucasfilm is above that.

I’m not saying definitely that the movie will be bad. I’m just saying all the signs point that way. I wrote this to point out the potential flaws so you’ll know where to look. It is just a movie. And if I’m right and it does turn out to be another PHANTOM MENACE, you can’t blame Spielberg, Koepp and Lucas entirely. Some of that blame you’ll have to place on yourself for believing the hype after countless examples of things like this not panning out.

Indy IV won’t be CGI ridden because it was the stated goal of Spielburg to use the more traditional methods of filmmaking to maintain that serial feel. In fact to go even further, a story was just released that the film won’t even be shown on digital projectors, only on film projectors.

But there’s a few things you have wrong.

First, commies make great villains. Never saw a classic James Bond flick? Red Dawn? Hunt for Red October? Firefox? And frankly, I can’t remember the Soviet Union sharing anything with us, or anyone else, during the Cold War.

This is Cate Blanchett’s first big budget crowd pleaser? What about the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

While the Star Wars prequels did indeed suck, George Lucas was executive producer of the original 3 Indiana Jones movies as well. Did they suck too?

Not a very well thought out article.

As for his hired gun work, he did a little movie called Spider-man as a hired gun and for the most part, I think (along with the rest of the world) that it was pretty good.

I’m going to ruffle some feathers out there. I do not like seeing one of my all time favorite heroes old and weak. It is kind of like when your Dad or your favorite uncle gets old it is sad and pitiful. From the trailer we see that Indy is going to be struggling through the film. I understand he is older, his Dad was older in the last film and he didn’t have that worn out look and feel. I know the reason is to show some humor, but I don’t like it.

I hope Mutt is Indy’s son, and I hope Indy dies in this film. A good way to end the film would have Indy trapped and bleeding with no way out i.e. water rising, spikes coming, or a rock about to crush him…. He takes his hat off puts it on Mutt and says “we lost today, but it doesn’t mean we have to like it… now go save your mother…son.” Then he goes off and saves his mother and the world. A new Indy is born.

I would rather he die, than wither away before my eyes. I never saw Indy in a nursing home or dying on a hospital bed. I’m all for drowning or squishing at least with theses deaths they have some dignity. I will go and see the film I just know I will be disappointed.

As always peace out!!!!! MajorXero

http://fusedfilmblog.com/

The Cate Blanchett Equation: Guess you haven’t heard of those “Lord of the Rings” movies she was in.

Shia Leboeuf: Yeah, you’re right. Disturbia wasn’t a HUGE success, and his charisma and humor definitely didn’t entertain a large (and all the female) Transformers audience….

A Chance Of Relapse: Wait, what? This doesn’t make sense. A step backwards was the movies you just listed… And War of the Worlds wasn’t that bad at all, it was still a good movie compared to the sh*t that comes out these days…

David Koepp: Panic Room, Lost World, War of the Worlds, all well written. And yeah, you’re right about his other movies being well written too- I don’t see the problem.

High On Money, Short On Charm: Every official source has said this movie will be like the old ones, same charisma and charm. And now, instead of shit*y bluescreen and cheap effects, it will look better, even if CGI. The NEEDED effects shots back then, and they looked bad, so if they are going to do them again, why not make them look at least better.

The State Of Indiana Is Old And Gray: Guy destroyed people in Firewall. He was still old looking ten years ago too. Watch AFO again. And for being 64 or whatever he is, he definitely still looks good. Hes stayed in shape and that doesn’t add any credibility to your argument.

Obey The Beard!: George Lucas is the executive producer- just like he was back then!