Oh, and the fact these warriors were hidden behind walls / panels in the temple they had to break through was just idiotic. Do they break through these things every day as they clock on / clock off, but have someone reset them? Does they play pracitcal jokes by sending out a false alarm that causes everyone to spring from their hiding place so they all can have a good laugh?

I accepted Indy IV as a pulp movie, but dear god, it had some stupid, it’s-in-the-script moments in it.

But even assuming that the whole “guarded by the living dead” thing is a clever reference to the aliens, it’s still pretty sneaky to put the line in the trailer. They knew what people would think.

It’s one thing to have a misleading prophesy in the movie. It’s another to market with one.

And it relates to how next to (but admittedly not quite) nobody can come up with an original idea anymore when making a movie. Whether it be the latest installment in a series, a remake, a new interpretation of something older than the original interpretation, based on a book or game, etc., WHATEVER. The only movie maker I can think of off the top of my head that has had multiple successes recently while being original each time is Appatow. Shyamalan, ish– while I personally like all of his movies (except “Unbreakable”), they haven’t been commercially successful. Anyhoo, the point is these producers and movie gurus lately just build off of older franchises instead of coming up with all-new ideas. In some cases, I do think there is genuine love and art in them (the “Bourne” franchise, Nolan’s interpretation of Batman, “Watchmen” looks promising, from what I’ve read as a nerdgirl); but I think more often than not, it’s more about making a buck than doing any real justice to the characters or old story (SS’s newest R&R movies, “Crystal Skull,” all of these kiddy sequels coming out in the next couple years) (and I haven’t seen the new “Mummy,” but if they’re willing to do it without Rachel…).

Mo’ money, mo’ problems.

My soul: it hurts.

His ideas aren’t the fanciest, or even really all that remarkable, but when it comes to putting them on screen, he just plain _makes it happen_.

And Spielburg is historically really great at picking what you should show and when.

As a tag-team, Spielburg picks great places and times to show things, and Lucas delivers.

The Ark in Raiders. The Death Star. The T-Rex. Heck, friggin E.T. delivered. Lucas didn’t disappoint.

But at some point Lucas and Spielburg pulled it back a level.

Now Spielberg knows what _movies_ to make an when. He has a heightened commercial sense and a sense of timing — think of _The Terminal_, which could never be made today. Think of _Catch Me If You Can_, which hit at just the right moment for Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor and for its retro-chic.

And Lucas _delivers_ . . . money. He empowers a movie with what it takes to jump from throwaway to commercially successful, while doing next to nothing to actually make it interesting.

So, yeah, I think what we’re really seeing is the tragedy of the meta.

Still somewhat on topic, I can’t help but draw a parallel between Natives and zombies. Zombies’ humanity has been stripped from them in some ways like Native culture has been stripped from Natives: both groups exist in a form that is a sad shadow of their former way of life, and their enemies constantly try to get rid of even that last bit of their history that they cling to. Native culture is, for the most part, dead, and zombies are, for the most part, dead: a Native’s culture is like a zombie’s humanity. Granted, reasons for destroying Native culture and destroying zombies are quite different, and the former much less legitimate than the latter (manifest destiny vs. “They tried to eat my arm off!”), but still, there is also that parallel of violence.

For shits and giggles:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html