Yeah, the whole son thing is always a dead end. When will film makers realise this? The younger viewers have some one they can relate to I presume is the thought. Not that they need a kid, when I was little I could relate to Indiana just fine. Look at The Mummy Returns: cute kid gets captured alot or whatever, then for the next film, er, what can we do with the kid? Oh, just make him a bit older and like his dad. Boring. And Superman returns? I would really like to know what they thought they could do with his son in Superman Returns Again or whatever they would have called it. No that's not true, I really wouldn't like to know. These iconic heroes (and Rick O'Connell) are enduring because they themselves are interesting. We don't need soap opera antics with their offspring to make them more exciting. The sons only make them duller.

as long as those crazy ideas don't involve aliens or crystal bloody skulls.

arg flashbacks of Shia flying through the trees with the monkeys - where are those memory flash sticks used in Men in Black - that way I will only be able to remember Indy 1-3!

As the last one demonstarted it's a way for them to pass the big stunts onto another character - Even if they were all didgy safe green screen work.

Lucas did his best work when he wasn't in total control. After "Jedi" most of his stuff has been crap. Someone needs to proofread anything he comes up with and have the balls to tell him the truth that its crap.

I can't belive that Lucas and Spielberg watched the monkey scene and thought: "Yeah this one is great!".

Here is the plot of the next Indiana film. Indy walks out of THAT fridge, only to realise that the atomic blast has sent him back in both time and space to the Thugee cave in India, just in time to witness Mola 'Also Known As George Lucas, Billionaire Hack' Ram rip the heart out of the Indiana Jones character.

Honestly I thought Shia LeBouf was one of the better parts of the terrible Indy 4, even though going in I expected to hate him. He was also the only person in the movie under 90 years old.

Lots of people seem to think that Indy 4 is shit just because it isn’t 1, 2 or 3, but it was never going to be the same unless someone invents a time machine or a rejuvenating serum. Just get over it and enjoy it for what it was, and if you give it a chance there are plenty of bits to enjoy. As for number 5, if Lucas is up for making another one then I’m going to go see it even if Harrison Ford will be 69 by then!

I don't think people thought it was shit because it wasn't 1,2 or 3. They thought it was shit because it was shit. I'm not talking about the monkeys or the fridge bits I'm talking about the poor script which isn't good in anyway. Its not very funny, it doesn't have any bookishness or well contructed mystery, it drags slowly in the middle section when they try to explain the plot and the ending is rubbish. Even not comparing it to the other films (which I think is unavoidable) it is not much fun compared to other films in general. The action's still well directed though (even with too much cgi) especially the motorcycle scene, and Ford is convincing.

My problems with this (as a big fan of the first three films)- 1. Spielberg has changed as a director since his serious work in Schindler's List. He said he did Indy 4 for the fans. However, when it comes to Spielberg, he has to want to make the film personally. Spielberg doesnt work as a "hired guy" and he shouldnt. I don't think he personally is interested in directing any more Indy films. For that reason alone, the movie shouldnt get made. 2. George Lucas is too egotistical over the series. Yes, we know, he invented the character and the general storyline of the Indiana Jones series, but without Spielberg directing those original 3 films, they wouldnt be the achievements they were. I think Lucas knows this, and is being a big hater by "jealously" guarding the storylines that get made. Lucas needs to get over himself and allow some others (Frank Darabondt, etc) to get a crack at the story/script. Look at all the stuff Indiana Jones has not looked for yet...Lost city of Atlantis, etc etc...But, Lucas is aparentlyu too proud to take others ideas- reason #2 this film shouldnt get made. 3. Shia LeBouf- Reason #3 this film shouldnt get made 4. Harrison Ford should not be put into more action scenes. We know, Harrison Ford is someone everyone looks up to, he's a cool person, Spielberg has stated on camera that if Harrison Ford had not have played this role, the first 3 films would NOT have been as successful. But, at this point, Ford should NOT be doing any more action scenes. He really does, in my opinion, need to take on more of a mentor/wise leader role. Otherwise, this film will become a live action version of Pixar's "Up". But, we know that if Harrison is in the film, they'll have him in more actions scenes. Reason #5. 5. CGI. It made Indy 4 lamer. We didn't see the real snakes, the real bugs, the real stuff that we used to see...instead, we had CGI gofers and CGI monkeys...Indiana Jones films should not have cartoon animals...But, George Lucas keeps wanting to show off fuzzy animals...Reason #6. 7. Times have changed. We who grew up in that era of the original films really have great momries of those films. If there's one thing that would mess up these films more than all the others, it's the influence of 2010 Hollywood. Spielberg does a very good job with the era of the films...he makes sure to have realistic details of whatever year his films takes place in (1936, 1957, etc...)...But, Hollywood $$$ seems to be taking precedence, and I keep thinking Hollywood exec's will be sticking their noses in, saying "You need grunge rock in the movie!" "You need to cast the Black Eyed Peas in a cameo role!" "Someone in the film needs to yell out 'Jai Ho!' " "We need to have Harrison Ford's face CGI'd onto a stuntman and drag him from a truck again...that's cool" etc etc... Hollywood is reason #7 why this film should not be made. Sad but true

Hmm, not sure I really want Indy 5. 1-3 are a perfect childhood memory, which 4 started to tarnish somewhat (although I still don't think it's as bad as some people seem to think - just far too much CGI). Maybe play up the tragi-comic element of Indy aging? He really IS too old for all this. I didn't object to his son in 4 - Short Round is his son in all but name in 2, and 3 depends on the father/son relationship. But don't make Shifty Labeef the main character. Less CGI and more physical stunts. Nazis are better than Russians as bad guys, but as the story will have to be set in the 1950's then it would have to be neo-Nazis? Perhaps Nazis who escaped to South America, trying to bring about the Fourth Reich? Nazi bases at the Poles? Spear of Destiny? I'm just brainstorming here. As a last point, the skulls idea was ok but I think Christian artifacts have a bigger impact on a western audience. Thinks like the Ark and the Grail almost seem encoded into our DNA, and even if you're an avowed atheist the thought of them generates a little intrigue and excitement. A more multicultural world may make the idea less palatable to the moneymen than in the 1980's, but...Noah's Ark? Christ's tomb? I still like the thought of the Spear of Destiny & Nazis though. Am I right in remembering someone once turn in a script outline to Lucas based on that idea?

Lucas has had his day, circa 1980. Indy 4 was too PC, predictable and over CGI'd. With Lucas at the helm it will be too PC, follow the flavour of the day - like the 'cool & handsome son' son theme in 4 (hateful). Both Speileberg & Lucas are dinosaurs that need to get out of the game.

I disagree about Spielberg...I think he'll create a few more great films before he retires. George Lucas has become too egotistical. He gloats too much over his success of Star Wars. He has an attitude regarding his creation. GRANTED- Star Wars was a great achievement. Empire Strikes Back is still one of the best sci fi films ever made. "Luke, I am your father", AT AT walkers, asteroid filed, all that is great...Empire Strikes Back was a big part of my childhood. But, with Lucas releasing that Clone Wars cartoon in theaters...that (in my humble opinion) seemed like Lucas thinks he can "do no wrong" with Star Wars and that he can just release anything and slap the "Star Wars" name on it and it's ok...He didnt do that kind of slipshod work back in the day. He didnt just quickly and cheaply create THX-1138....He didn't quickly create Star Wars as a quick "throw away" film. Now, Lucas is doing this with not only Star Wars, but Indiana Jones...The fuzzy creatures turning around when the land speeder goes by are ok for Star Wars the Special Edition, but fuzzy CGI gofers are not all that cool for an Indiana Jones film... I truly don't think that Spielberg was "gung ho" to have those...Indiana Jones films were famous for bringing 5000+ snakes to the set for the well of souls...bringing thousands of disgusting bugs into the set for Temple of Doom... It just didn't fit to have CGI creatures running around in Indiana Jones films...Most people agree that it was Lucas who likely opted for that.... I don't blame Spielberg for this...Spielberg's always been pretty consistent with the vast majority of the films he has directed......Lucas has not.....Lucas has directed a few really great films......Spielberg has directed a LARGE number of really great films

Really? What's there to say beside, "I'm too old for this sh*t!"?

Eek! I meant, "besides"!