2519 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

No, its that George Lucas had this idea of what Indy IV just HAD to be. There are pictures of the nuked fridge and the rocket sled dating back to 1993.

Good thing, too. The Doomtown scene and rocket sled are great ideas (at any rate, the "nuked the fridge" scene was actually Spielberg's, and he's been looking to get it into a film since it was dropped from BACK TO THE FUTURE).

Oh that's right ! The time machine was a fridge activated by nuclear power in the first draft.

I used to like it alot but now I find it pretty much crap. Everyone is made into a buffoon at one point or another, even Indy. It's Raiders but it sucks.

sad face

No sad faces ! Here watch this:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[JimmyBond]

Like GS up above, my opinion also lowered a bit seeing this again on video, though unlike him I wouldnt call it a D, more like a C: there are a few bright spots here and there, some things that really shine, but for the most part it's prtty average. Some thoughts:

-The opening sequence just takes too long to get going, it feels like Indy and Spalko talk for an eternity before they enter the hanger, even then things arent all that interesting. What happend to the punchy openings from the last few films? this one just takes way too long to get to the pay-off.

-Way too many characters near the end. Mac should have been killed off earlier, there were other ways to get the Russians into the temple. Mac wasnt even a classic "turns good at the end only to die" character. He was a bastard up till the very end, I'm not even sure why Indy was trying to save him.

-Thinking it over, Professor Oxley was really not needed at all. He just crowded things up near the end (my above complaint) and his purpose in the story made Indy seem weak. Rather than searching for clues himself (like he did in the other films) here Indy is simply following in the footsteps of Oxley, it really goes against basic narrative ideals which state your lead character should be the one driving the story forward.

I really enjoy the film up till the end of the jungle chase. I can forgive the CGI action scenes because it's still Ford in there being Indy, and he makes (most of) it work. What I can't get past, and who knows maybe more viewings will help, I can't get past the sequence of events once they get to the Temple. Too many characters, and it just feels rushed, there's no reason for them to run into Natives, and if there was, there's no reason to rush past that scene quickly, what's the point of having them in there if it's only going to be a few minutes of screentime? What a waste.

[marktmurphy]

Watched the opening of Temple of Doom earlier. I know this is gonna be controversial, but Temple of Doom opening > Any of the 21 Bond openings. Spielberg at his finest and most magical, really.

I don't disagree with that, actually. It is superbly directed, full of wit and imagination. The shot where the camera is underneath Indy's fist as he punches a guy out is always great and I always laugh when he punches the waitress. It's a fantastic opening: the Bond ones all feel a little scrappy in comparison.

[Judo chop]

Watched the opening of Temple of Doom earlier. I know this is gonna be controversial, but Temple of Doom opening > Any of the 21 Bond openings. Spielberg at his finest and most magical, really.

I don't disagree with that, actually. It is superbly directed, full of wit and imagination. The shot where the camera is underneath Indy's fist as he punches a guy out is always great and I always laugh when he punches the waitress. It's a fantastic opening: the Bond ones all feel a little scrappy in comparison.

I love the brawl in the bar, but I think once they escape and hit the streets the freshness of the excitement flatlines, until Indy's charming smirk when he boards the enemy's plane.

I suppose an argument can be made that it's 'better' than any of the Bond 'action' PTSes (CR is something different altogether), but it's nowhere near as iconic/cinematically memorable as GF or TSWLM.

[Shot Your Bolt]

^GF/TSWLM doesnt have cameos by Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Frank Marshall, and Dan Ankroyd though

[Judo chop]

^GF/TSWLM doesnt have cameos by Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Frank Marshall, and Dan Ankroyd though

I didn't realize TEMPLE had cameos from the first three. I guess that goes to show just how iconic and memorable the film's intro is.

[dodge]

I read in TV Guide that a recent episode of SouthPark had Spielberg and Lucas mugging poor ole Indy. Sorry I missed the show. But glad to know some of us are not alone in thinking S & L really dropped the ball.

[marktmurphy]

Watched the opening of Temple of Doom earlier. I know this is gonna be controversial, but Temple of Doom opening > Any of the 21 Bond openings. Spielberg at his finest and most magical, really.

I don't disagree with that, actually. It is superbly directed, full of wit and imagination. The shot where the camera is underneath Indy's fist as he punches a guy out is always great and I always laugh when he punches the waitress. It's a fantastic opening: the Bond ones all feel a little scrappy in comparison.

I love the brawl in the bar, but I think once they escape and hit the streets the freshness of the excitement flatlines, until Indy's charming smirk when he boards the enemy's plane.

I suppose an argument can be made that it's 'better' than any of the Bond 'action' PTSes (CR is something different altogether), but it's nowhere near as iconic/cinematically memorable as GF or TSWLM.

True enough- it doesn't have a single defining moment like those two, but I think in concept it's just as, if not more, witty and it's certainly better directed.
I'd also agree that once it hits the streets the best bit is over. You've got to love the 'better luck next time Lao Che' reveal, though

[Judo chop]

You've got to love the 'better luck next time Lao Che' reveal, though

Oh, absolutely. It's perfect. Every once in a while TEMPLE will flash some evidence that it is related to RAIDERS. That scene is one of them.

[marktmurphy]

I didn't feel the opening was too long, but the grave robbing sequence in Peru went on for at least 20 minutes; that's simply too much exposition for an audience to sit through. And, you know, as I was sitting through the supplemental materials on the second disc today, it occured to me why 'Ark' and 'Crusade' work for me (and even to a lesser extent 'Doom') but 'Skull' does not: people were familiar with the basic story of the Ark of the Covenant or The Holy Grail; they didn't need a combined 30 minutes of expository dialogue to explain what the Crystal Skulls were, what Akator was, who the explorers from the 1500s were, etc....So much time in 'Skulls' is wasted by having the characters telegraph every single bit of information about the legend of the skulls because the audience really has no previous knowledge coming in; the glass isn't half full for the viewers; it's completely empty, so Spielberg and company have to spend an inordinate amount of time fleshing out this backstory.

But that's because it's a different story- Indy isn't sure what the Skull is or where it comes from: it's a mystery story. In Raiders he tells us that it's a magic box from God- a pure MacGuffin (as Lucas never stops saying): it doesn't really matter what it does or is. In Skull there's just a bit more intrigue as to what the thing is. To say that the films have to handle all of the elements in exactly the same way is to miss the point of sequels somewhat. I also didn't see anyone leaving the cinema at the point where the Skull was explained, so I think audiences are pretty able to cope with a bit of conversation.

Furthermore, the kind of subtext found in 'Ark' (Indiana finding his faith and belief in God while at the same time finding the Ark of the Covenant)

I think you've imagined that. The film says nothing about Indy's view of christianity. It's a magic box that he takes seriously; that's all. It's a pure adventure story.

In 'Crusade' you knew from within the first 10 minutes who Connery was playing, what the kind of relationship he had with his son would be, and how it would play out later in the film. Not so with Mutt and Indiana. Indy doesn't get this important piece of information until an hour and 15 minutes into a 2 hour film, leaving roughly only the last third of the film to try and bring the two together. Same with Indy's reintroduction to Marion; there's only an hour left to try and cram 25 years of history and unstated feelings into their dialogue exchanges. Marion has absolutely zero to do in this film; the character's sole purpose is to tie up a loose end that viewers gave up on in 1984....and 1989.

True enough- could have been better, could have been worse.

It's almost best not to have viewed any of the previous three films recently before seeing 'Skulls', because if you do it'll remind you of how vibrant, sarcastic, athletic, adventurous, and exciting the 80's Indiana Jones was....and how much older and tired this one seems. I've long stated that Ford was replaceable as is almost any actor, but it appears that Spielberg and Lucas won't bother trying to recast the role as long as they can either keep making movies with a feeble, aged Harrison Ford, or spin-off the series into a Mutt Williams franchise.

Harrison's great in it- I don't see any reason to ditch him at all. The film's not as sparkly or as fresh as the first three, no- but I don't associate that with Ford; he's giving it his all.
There's also no danger of a Mutt series.

'Skulls' doesn't have the same wit or adrenaline as the previous films do. Kate Blanchett gives it a good try, but ultimately she pales in comparison to more authoritarian females of a similar mold such as Xenia Onatopp or Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. The movie just lacks the same spirit as the previous films.

Yes, I don't disagree. It's just the way with older filmmakers- they're never as good as when they're young. They're far from bad, though. And I think Spalko is one of the best Indy villains- I'd probably rank her just after those from Raiders, in fact.

I mentioned before that there wasn't much location work. I still stand by that. Yeah, they went to New Mexico and Connecticut and Hawaii...but Tunisia, Venice, and India don't exactly pale in comparison to Dover, Connecticut.

Well you were acting as if there was none at all. But I don't disagree- my biggest complaint with the thing, actually. Imagine a shot of Indy at Macchu Picchu or something- would have felt more epic. Something tells me Spielberg doesn't want to travel anymore.

And I was right about a lot of the CGI work. Watch 'Raiders' again. Ford and stuntman have to actually outrun a giant bolder. Fast forward to today: Ford and rest of cast have to pretend to outrun two CGI waterwheels that are supposed to smash into a pathway that they are running on. I don't get why they couldn't have built the two waterwheels and have crashed them into the set like previous films.

I thought they actually did, to be honest. I really couldn't tell. I suppose it's like that bit in Temple where they're really running from that massive water tower (miniature) or the water that spills from it (superimposed).
Raiders won an Oscar for its Special Effects- these films aren't and never have been all for real.

Even 'Doom', which I had previous rated as the worst because of its dark, violent nature, is faster, funnier, and has better action scenes, pep, zest, and spirit than does 'Skulls'. And while it doesn't have the same time of narrative as 'Ark' or 'Crusade', I did like Short Round. When I was a kid I remember wanting to be Short Round and going on adventures like him. I look at 'Skulls' today and wonder if any youngster in the audience will look at Mutt Williams or Indiana Jones and wish to be like them.

Again, I don't disagree- Temple is possibly Spielberg's best directed film ever: he's on fire in every shot. But I don't think that saying that there are better films automatically makes this one bad. It's not. It's the least of the Indys, yes, but it's still a fun film. All you're saying is why other films are better- not why this one is a bad film.
And why wouldn't a kid want to be Indy?

[Harmsway]

Well, it's up to the eye of the beholder.

Is it? I tend to think that any interpretation of a work of art has to be suggested by the work itself. Otherwise films are really just Rorschach blots.

Now Spielberg seems to be as big a hack as Lucas is

I don't really think so. Some of his most interesting work, if nothing else, has been from recent years. And no matter how you might construe KINGDOM, it's hardly as if Spielberg has dropped below his previous low points (ala HOOK or THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK). Let's face it, the guy was never perfect, and he was clearly going through this one more for the experience of making it than for the film itself.

Apparently early on neither one of them thought that the crystal skull aspect would be a plot winner, and I agree.

Not quite. Ford/Spielberg didn't like the alien storyline, but the alien storyline initially came without crystal skulls attached (see Jeb Stuart's INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN script). It was the inclusion of the crystal skulls that then brought Ford and Spielberg to a point of acceptance regarding the story.

It's also true that at one point, the story was shaping up to be more interesting and infinitely less convoluted than it ended up. Frank Darabont's CITY OF THE GODS screenplay reveals that much.

[JimmyBond]

It's also true that at one point, the story was shaping up to be more interesting and infinitely less convoluted than it ended up. Frank Darabont's CITY OF THE GODS screenplay reveals that much.

I have yet to read that script, but I would have taken Saucer Men over what we got. That script had a more interesting storyline, and the action sequences sounded more interesting than what we got in Skull.

[Harmsway]

I have yet to read that script, but I would have taken Saucer Men over what we got. That script had a more interesting storyline, and the action sequences sounded more interesting than what we got in Skull.

I don't really know that the story's more interesting. It's kind of your generic alien flick in pretty much every respect, and the characters and situations aren't very interesting, either. But the set-pieces were better, and it did have a sense of weight that the final film didn't have. It's not a concept that would have worked for a 2008 revival of the franchise (by the time 2008 rolled around, INDY IV really did need to be something of a book-end for the franchise), but it might have made a really interesting INDY IV had it come out in '93 or '95.

I really do think CITY OF THE GODS is the best INDY IV draft. Flawed, sure (it's a little too dependent on RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK), but there are great moments and some outright crackling action scenes. And given that Spielberg was actually excited about it, I imagine he would have turned in more inspired direction than he did on KINGDOM.

[marktmurphy]

Well, it's up to the eye of the beholder. I initially saw the film as a straight up action adventure flick as you did, but an article I read about the movie several years back (I think Zencat may have written it) changed my perspective somewhat. Just like Bryan Singer's X-MEN movies are an allegory for gay rights and acceptance, or H.G. Wells' WAR OF THE WORLDS was an allegory for what he predicted would be the decline of the British empire, or the 2005 verison of WAR OF THE WORLDS where the aliens represented the U.S. occupation of Iraq, or how ALIENS represented the failed U.S. mission in Vietnam, a movie can often have deep subtext and I believe LOST ARK is one of those films.

Those are all fine and those subtexts are pretty obvious, but there's nothing at all in the film to suggest that Christianity is unimportant to Indy at the beginning or more important to him at the end. Which lines/scenes give you that impression?

You know, I can't remember the names of any of the bad guys from RAIDERS, but I remember that the guy whose hand got burned holding the hot medallion was far more menancing that Spalko. I think Entertainment Weekly called Spalko "bloodless", which basically means that Blanchett was somewhat interesting, but the role overall is hardly menacing. As far as femme fatales go, Alison Doody was by far the more interesting of the two; Spalko doesn't really compare when placed side by side with Dr. Elsa Schneider.

Heck, even Mola Ram from DOOM was scarier and more menacing that Spalko. There was a performance there just waiting to bust out, but Spielberg actually keeps it somewhat restrained.

Hmm.. I think Elsa is played as utterly vacant- charisma free zone. The character is nearly interesting but ultimately there's nothing to her. Wears a hat nicely.
I'd agree that Spalko is slightly lacking in the menace factor, but that's another problem with the film over all- not quite enough danger or tension. Spalko has amore interesting concept and is played better than Elsa any day. Mola Ram is scarier, though, yes- but that's pretty natural. He's an evil mad priest who rips people's hearts out and wears a skull on his head- how could you get a much scarier than that? Again, you're comparing against a superlative, which doesn't actually make that which you are comparing bad.

And some effects have been better than others, and given time, some of the effects from RAIDERS and DOOM look dated. But at the time they looked pretty good. But my point, to, is that with all the money this film had at its disposal, and Spielberg's pre-filming mantra that they would not use much CGI and it would be mostly all old-school stunt work and film making, I find the results very disappointing.

I don't know why he said that- I never believed it as traditionally Indy films are effects heavy. Much heavier on effects and faked stunts than Bond films, for example, and then you have the fanatsy element of that on top.
There still are a lot of impressive stunts in there, though- the warehouse scene is full of them (a surprising amount of swinging and jumping performed by Ford himself) and the Jungle chase is also a lot of real stuntwork. They're not really on a clifftop, no. As I couldn't tell which were CGI (are the cog wheels CGI? I don't know. The tower of steps is real) and also could tell which were faked in the originals even at the time, I'm not disappointed in the look of the effects at all. There's even some crappy modelwork at the opening of the grave scene if that's really what you're into.

It doesn't come up to the standard of the first three in terms of wit, direction or location work, but in terms of effects and stunts I don't think there's a case to say that it's somehow destroying the series or betraying it's values. For every effect you think looks fake or stunts not done for real or over the top in concept it's easy to name two from the other films.

I really do think CITY OF THE GODS is the best INDY IV draft. Flawed, sure (it's a little too dependent on RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK), but there are great moments and some outright crackling action scenes. And given that Spielberg was actually excited about it, I imagine he would have turned in more inspired direction than he did on KINGDOM.

Yeah- it needed more work and certainly some elements from Kingdom are superior, but overall I think I preferred it. There's certainly more danger for Indy in that one. A combination of Gods and Kingdom (maybe 70% or so Gods) would have been a better Indy 4 I think.

[Navy007Fan]

Forgive me if this has been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know when all 4 films will be availalbe on blu-ray?

[DamnCoffee]

WOW! I just found this on youtube...

The Jungle Chase - Film Version.
Looks like we are gonna get a complete score for KOTCS!

[Harmsway]

Karen Allen comments on INDY V:

I think possibly there will be another one but the challenge is how to make it good," she said in Sydney yesterday. "George and Steven and Harrison want everything to be perfect and worthy of the films that have gone before. The biggest obstacle is that they are so sincere in their efforts to make a good script, to not just make a film to make a film."

It does sound as if there's nothing to her comments other than her own speculation, but hey, there ya go. And as for as Lucas/Spielberg/Ford's sincerity in developing a good script, TEMPLE, CRUSADE, and KINGDOM indicate the exact opposite.

[Judo chop]

Karen Allen comments on INDY V:

I think possibly there will be another one but the challenge is how to make it good," she said in Sydney yesterday. "George and Steven and Harrison want everything to be perfect and worthy of the films that have gone before. The biggest obstacle is that they are so sincere in their efforts to make a good script, to not just make a film to make a film."

It does sound as if there's nothing to her comments other than her own speculation, but hey, there ya go. And as for as Lucas/Spielberg/Ford's sincerity in developing a good script, TEMPLE, CRUSADE, and KINGDOM indicate the exact opposite.

Yes. I have no problem with "Perfect" being a goal, but "worthy of the films that have gone before" leaves quite a bit of room for failure.

Worthy of which films, exactly?, I would have to ask.

(There is only one good answer.)

[sharpshooter]

Indeed. I hope she doesn't think KOTCS made that grade.

[marktmurphy]

WOW! I just found this on youtube...

The Jungle Chase - Film Version.
Looks like we are gonna get a complete score for KOTCS!

No- that's from the pre-viz animations on the DVD (and isn't the film version, either- there's still a bit of the Raiders March missing at least): there's no complete KOTCS score coming.

[DamnCoffee]

I managed to get hold of a bootleg Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull expanded soundtrack last night. Some brilliant tracks... Indiiana Revealed, Spalko's Dossier and A Thought for Dad / The Train Station come to mind.

[Blonde Bond]

Oh boy, am I disagreeing with the lot of you!


I have now watched this movie 4 times. Once in the cinema and 3 times from the DVD. Unlike the majority here, I find KOTCS every bit as entertaining as the first three Indys. It's like when you're even more underwhelmed by this movie once it hit the dvd, I on the other hand , have been enjoying it even more than I did in the cinema.


Now I just need to watch it back-to-back with the other Indys and see how I react to it after that...

[Loomis]

Well, now that INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is out on DVD, I gave it a second viewing.

I remain of the view that this is one of the biggest disappointments in the history of cinema. Instead of the CASINO ROYALE or QUANTUM OF SOLACE of the Indy Jones series, what we have here is its A VIEW TO A KILL or DIE ANOTHER DAY.

This flick demanded - demanded, I say! - the most incredible spectacle and the most awesomely conceived, staged, shot and edited action the world had ever seen. Why doesn't it have it?

Why is its key action sequence, the jungle chase, so lethargic and pedestrian as to make the DMZ chase in DIE ANOTHER DAY look like the Moscow pursuit in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY?

What was Lucas' and Spielberg's excuse? Not enough money? Not enough time? Twenty years and this is all we get?

What can you say about an Indiana Jones film that lacks any kind of visual "wow" factor or sense of wonder? That is never once remotely thrilling and is rarely even vaguely involving?

It's a bizarrely talky piece of work, grinding to a halt for a long while after the Nevada opening (as usual, Spielberg comes up with a terrific start to the proceedings - throughout his career, he's almost always put together excellent "first reels".... just as his endings tend to suck), with acres of ballsaching dialogue and little else. Poorly paced, it has a lengthy, saggy midsection that's more or less simply mindnumbingly dull.

Were it not for Ford, who carries the whole thing singlehandedly with a performance that while undoubtedly phoned in still has its moments, INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL would be almost entirely worthless.

[bondrules]

If something good came out of the release of Indy 4 was the South Park spoof on it.

[Jim]

Well, now that INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is out on DVD, I gave it a second viewing.

I remain of the view that this is one of the biggest disappointments in the history of cinema. Instead of the CASINO ROYALE or QUANTUM OF SOLACE of the Indy Jones series, what we have here is its A VIEW TO A KILL or DIE ANOTHER DAY.

Yes, I saw it for the first time on Friday night. What an underwhelming little film. Makes Raiders of the Lost Ark look like Raiders of the Lost Ark.

It all seemed to be filmed in some sort of overlit shed.

[Loomis]

My friend, it's just pants, and there's no two ways about it.

[Jim]

My friend, it's just pants, and there's no two ways about it.

Pants would be amusing. This wasn't, really.

What was it all for? I quite liked the bit with the bomb and the 'fridge but everything seemed to keep stopping and then only fitfully restarting.

In the spirit of everyone around here suddenly being an expert on how to edit a film, this could have done with a good dose of shakeycam and quick edits. On and on it went, and where it went was nowhere.

A completely unnecessary experience.

[bondrules]

Indy 4 spat on the face of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the greatest movie of all time. I can't believe they are considering making a fifth. With their current MO (Lucas & Spielberg), I'm not sure that's a good idea.

[DamnCoffee]

I bought this last week and I've managed to watch it. It's still a pile of crap, and most definately the worst in the series. The movie is ruined by Marion and the latter half.

I love the movie.... right up untill the words "Get your hands off me... you rotten, resky son of a bitch!" are uttered, then... it's just bad.

[bondrules]

Harrison Ford Says Fifth 'Indiana Jones' Is In 'Primary Stages,' Though 'Crystal Skull' Wore Him Out

Nov 19 2008 8:00 AM EST
By Josh Horowitz

The leaves are falling, and the turkey is practically in the oven. Yes, according to the calendar, it's time to take stock and give thanks. So that's precisely what we're doing by talking to the actors and filmmakers that made 2008 a memorable year at the movies — a year filled with self-loathing kick- superheroes, Manolo-wearing women and the return of a very familiar man in a hat.

Sure, we all cringed a little when Shia swung through the trees like a monkey, and Ray Winstone is clearly no John Rhys-Davies, but after 19 long years away, didn't everything just seem a little better when Indiana Jones graced the big screen again? Audiences and critics may have bickered over the worth of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," but we came out in droves to watch Harrison Ford whip his young competitors at the box office one more time.

Ford joined MTV News to look back with at the summer of "Indiana Jones," and he even gave us some hope for one more triumphant adventure for Henry Jones Jr. John Williams, fire up the orchestra!

MTV: You must have gotten a kick out of seeing "Indiana Jones" at the heart of our popular culture again after all these years.

Harrison Ford: I didn't get as much of a kick as it just plum wore my out. I was on cereal boxes and soap powder! By the time it was all over, I was ready for it to be over.

MTV: You're no stranger to pandemonium surrounding your films, but the world premiere in Cannes was pretty extreme. Did it feel different from the last time you'd premiered an "Indiana Jones" film?

Ford: I don't know if it was different or I was different. There was a real sense of anticipation. We all went into the French premiere knowing that our hosts were French and that they could have gone French on us. [Laughs.] They're not shy. We were all just curious to how it would turn out.

MTV: How confident were you heading into the release?

Ford: I had confidence in it. Kids come up to me that are 7 or 8 years old and they want to talk about "Indiana Jones." They were not alive when the movies were released. I had confidence that this was deeply seeded in the culture. I thought we had a pretty good shot.

MTV: But then you actually had to deliver a product that people would enjoy.

Ford: I felt mostly confident about that.

MTV: A few months later, can you be objective about the film now?

Ford: I have two heads. I can go inside or outside the film. I think that's important for me to see it in an external way.

MTV: Does that external head think this one stands up to the other three films?

Ford: That external head has no mouth. That external head is smart enough to keep his goddamn mouth shut. [Laughs.]

MTV: There was a lot of debate online and elsewhere about certain scenes and characters. How aware were you of the debate?

Ford: I don't spend much time online.

MTV: There were a number of potential plotlines and scripts considered for this film over the years. Was this your favorite?

Ford: This was the final incarnation. I came to agree to it.

MTV: Did you have any significant moment of trepidation before or during the shoot?

Ford: Never. I knew what the experience was going to be like. I enjoy playing that character. It's fun. There's a great mix of stuff for me to do to keep my attention-deficit-plagued mind focused. It's just a good time for me.

MTV: Did you take any offense to how much was made out of you doing all this action at the ripe old age of 66?

Ford: They were talking about it when I was 45, so it didn't make any difference to me. I don't think I would have taken the part if I didn't feel physically fit for it. I wouldn't want to rob the audience of that part of the pleasure of the films.

MTV: Steven Spielberg has said that another "Indiana Jones" adventure would only happen if the audience essentially asked for more. A worldwide box-office gross of nearly $800 million would seem to say there's still an appetite. Is a fifth "Indiana Jones" film inevitable?

Ford: I don't know. If we come up with a good idea ...

MTV: Is the ball in George Lucas' court at this point?

Ford: It is. That's the process. With some general input, he goes off and searches for the MacGuffin [Ed. note: That's the plot device that propels the story, i.e. the Ark] and then stumbles into a story. And at some point, we have a chance to take a look at it and give some input.

MTV: And he hasn't found the MacGuffin yet?

Ford: No, we're still in the primary stages.

MTV: The end of the last film leaves your character in a very intriguing position. He has a wife and a kid. Can he still be that man of adventure with those commitments?

Ford: And he's seen something. Remember those are the only witnesses to what he's seen. That's kind of interesting.

MTV: James Bond is a franchise that's figured out how to ably switch between actors. If, in 50 years, they find another man to play Indiana Jones, would that sit all right with you?

Ford: The very simple addition of numbers would make it clear that in 50 years I will not give a sh-- at all. I will so not care.

MTV: Well what if you knew today that someone else would wear the hat one day?

Ford: Fifty years from now, they can do anything they want.

MTV: You were recently voted the Best Movie President on AOL Moviefone. Isn't it your responsibility to pass on what you know to President-elect Obama?

Ford: Laughs. I don't know much. But apparently [that poll shows] neither does the public. [Laughs.]

http://www.mtv.com/m...660/story.jhtml