Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on My Cynical Heart Worries This Will Surely Suck...

1

spoiler: it will suck


have you seen the other Indy sequels, the shitty TV series, the SW movies after Empire? pretty easy call

Posted by spoiler | February 6, 2008 4:26 PM
2

Nah, it should be great. Enjoyed the Vanity Fair spread on it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 6, 2008 4:26 PM
3

meh, it will probably be better than temple of doom.

Posted by Cale | February 6, 2008 4:27 PM
4

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/indianajones200802

just read that an hour ago. creepy timing! it doesn't revea a whole lot but it's interesting nonetheless

Posted by Juris | February 6, 2008 4:27 PM
5

@3, a broken glass and turpentine enema would be more fun than temple of doom

Posted by spoiler | February 6, 2008 4:29 PM
6

It will suck, but if we get some hot shots of his seasoned chest, it will be worth it.

The good thing, the thing we already know, is it cannot possibly be worse than Temple of Doom, which is (arguably) the worst movie of all time.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 6, 2008 4:31 PM
7

You guys were obviously older than 11 or 12 when Temple Of Doom came o8ut. Indy and Shortround in the mineshaft rollercoaster scene? Incredible!

Posted by Wow | February 6, 2008 4:32 PM
8

Hell, Raiders is really the only good Indiana Jones flick. Good thing it was great.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 6, 2008 4:33 PM
9

NONE of them were any good, and a geriatric Indy will surely suck.

Posted by max solomon | February 6, 2008 4:48 PM
10

@7: I wasn't BORN when Temple of Doom came out. And it still sucks.

Posted by Gloria | February 6, 2008 4:50 PM
11

I enjoyed Temple of Doom when I first saw it, probably because I was nine years old. At that age, I thought Short Round was funny, the bugs were scary, and the pumping heart was awesome. I saw it as an adult and thought the film was: 1) terrible, and 2) one of the most offensive mainstream films I'd ever seen. What's up with George Lucas and his ethnic stereotyping?

Posted by Bub | February 6, 2008 4:51 PM
12

I think it's amusing they have to go with a full body-shot instead of a close-up, like they did with the previous posters, because otherwise we'd all realize how freakin' OLD Harrison Ford looks these days.

Should have named it, "Indiana Jones And His Visit To The Medicaid Office"

Posted by COMTE | February 6, 2008 4:57 PM
13

i just read the vanity article and apparently he was going through a rough divorce at the time, which might explain the worst female character in any movie.

although, temple of doom did yield the greatest animated gif of all time-

http://talbfij.ytmnd.com/

Posted by Cale | February 6, 2008 4:59 PM
14

Shia LaBeouf noooooooooooooooo

Posted by Horace Walpole | February 6, 2008 5:04 PM
15

@12, there were teaser posters for the previous movies that featured a full body shot similar to this, also a teaser poster. Besides, it's an illustration, not a photo - they didn't "have to" design it this way.

Brad, do *not* read that Vanity Fair article - it gives a spoilery hat tip that I wish I hadn't read (but couldn't resist).

Posted by Explorer | February 6, 2008 5:21 PM
16

@6: Mr. Poe, clearly you have not seen Manos: Hands of Fate.

Posted by Greg | February 6, 2008 5:25 PM
17

I got so excited when I scrolled and saw this that I screamed, albeit slightly, in my very silent office. When I coworker saw what I was looking at she said "Oh yeah, I got an orgasm too."

Posted by Carly D. | February 6, 2008 5:34 PM
18

Is that *Manos*...the Hands of Fate? Or, Manos...the *Hands* of Fate?

Posted by kid icarus | February 6, 2008 5:35 PM
19

Let me guess the plot line:

White male "archaeologist" steals cultural relicts from Indigenous group(s).

Posted by cw | February 6, 2008 5:46 PM
20

I'm only curious to see what kind of mountain/image on a gong/rock the Paramount logo fades into.

Posted by madamecrow | February 6, 2008 5:47 PM
21

19: Yes, because "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" were all about stealing indigenous artifacts. Oh wait, they weren't (with the exception of the Peruvian statue). Oh yeah, and "Temple of Doom" was about recovering an indigenous artifact for the people who actually owned it. So what the fuck are you talking about?

Apparently someone doesn't get the concept of pulp homage; the Indiana Jones movies are supposed to be a little hammy and, dare I say, racist and ethnocentric. Attacking Indiana Jones for racism is like attacking "The Venture Bros." It's an homage to serial 1930s pulp, what do you want? Anthropology? Besides, it's well established that the new Indiana Jones movie is about "alien" artifacts, per its 1950s pulp theme.

Posted by Jay | February 6, 2008 6:10 PM
22

#21: That was what was great about the first one was the tension that Indy was a tomb theif and had only a thin veneer of acceptability because he was working for a university. And that he and his enemy Beloch (or whatever his name was) were two sides of the same coin.
When they lost that they lost everthing that was interesting about IJ. Like he'll shoot a guy rather than have a fair fight etc.

Posted by Poster girl | February 6, 2008 7:23 PM
23

You think every fucking movie sucks, so why not this one too, Steinsucker???

Posted by DoucheyLaDouche | February 6, 2008 8:03 PM
24

Indiana Jones and the Golden Bed-Pan?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 6, 2008 10:56 PM
25

If there are no Nazis in it, it will suck.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 6, 2008 11:27 PM
26

If it doesn't have Nazis, it'll have to have Communists.

I look forward to Muedede's review.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 6, 2008 11:30 PM
27

I hear it will have no CGI.
Just wondering how the evil ghosts spirit things flying around will be done.

Posted by -B- | February 7, 2008 12:09 AM
28

Oh, fuck yes.

Posted by Greg | February 7, 2008 9:10 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).