Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Archives
April 25, 2005 to January 25, 2007
March 17, 2007 to October 17, 2007

Frank Marshall

Producer Frank Marshall was interviewed by Comingsoon.net (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40003) with some interesting insights into many of the leading characters for IJ4. May be worth inserting into the cast section of the article. Codymr (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actuallly he revealed the information to MTV, and it's now in the article. Alientraveller (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly dubious source

This appears to confirm LaBeouf as "Mutt" and Spalko's first name. However, this source is based on a German translation of Lego toys. Would anyone else comment? Sam Horton (2007-10-14). "Details regarding Blanchett's role". IGN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Alientraveller (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are the references for it being in "development hell" and dispute over it being because of the use of a skull as a plot device? 194.72.54.162 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. The lead summary doesn't require sources. Alientraveller (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Film and television appearances

I've always felt that this line should be removed because Young Indy was conceived and created as a television series of mostly hour-long episodes deliberately aired out of order. All the "chapter" stuff happened after the series had wrapped and aired. Also, I don't think it's very appropriate to point it out in this article, as it isn't very relevant to this film; the whole "complete adventures of Indiana Jones" marketing campaign was in 1999, and Indy 4 was still on the backburner at that point. The line about the character's film and television adventures would best belong in the Indiana Jones franchise article. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit warring?

How come practically every edit I make to this article ends up reverted? It says on the official website that the film is to be released in most theatres worldwide on May 22, 2008. I find that only 1 release date mentioned in the infobox is confusing because it's not known which country the release date is for. "Worldwide" and the link to the world is just so people will know it's most of the world. Also, the links to George Lucas is to keep consistency in most links to articles. The flag, however, is not official; it's the only flag, besides the Earth flag, to describe "worldwide". Could someone please enlighten me? Tds247 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because the release date in the infobox is for "the first public, non-festival release date of the film." As for the flags and the links, someone else can take that one. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly based of Tokyo DisneySea's Indiana Jones Ride?

For those that are familiar with Japan's Tokyo DisneySea theme park, there is a ride called "Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull". There is a small possibility that this movie, or at least the title, is based off of that ride. Should this be included in a "Trivia" section?Unit0918 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AVTRIVIA about content organization. I certainly do recognize it might be worthwhile to create a box in the development section about the skulls appearing in the ride and the four Max McCoy novels. Alientraveller (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia is illegal, and it sounds like original research, unless you have a reference for a connection. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Shia LaBeouf is Indiana Jones's son!

I have many resources that all say it is official that Shia LaBeouf is Indy's son! —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Mannino (talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we know that, but those sources probably don't meet WP:RS. Save it for the movie ok? Alientraveller (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have many resources but they're not official. Harrison Ford himself said Indy is no father and I think Ford beats all of your sources.194.78.37.122 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

satisfied all three men in 2006

Who's the third man?? CapnZapp (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please just read it "The film was in development hell since the 1989 release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because Spielberg and Ford initially disagreed over Lucas's choice of the skulls as the plot device. Screenwriters Jeb Stuart, Jeffrey Boam, M. Night Shyamalan, Frank Darabont and Jeff Nathanson wrote drafts, before a script by David Koepp satisfied all three men in 2006." Alientraveller (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The three men in question are mentioned in this small, but to the point, quotation: "Spielberg and Ford initially disagreed over Lucas" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.234.80 (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sallah

Should it mention that Davies wasn't asked to reprise his role. It use to be in this article, but know it's found in Sallah's page. Your thoughts. Wildroot ([[User talk:Wildroot|Talk) 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did remove it a while ago, as I felt the article made it clear Mac is meant to be Sallah's 1950s counterpart. Alientraveller (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't explain why John Reese Davies wasn't asked to reprise his role. It seems Karen Allen is the only actor from the original trilogy appearing. In fact, apart from Denholm Elliot who's dead and thus couldn't appear, and sSean Connery who refused to appear, are any actors from the original trilogy who were asked to participate?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.206.254 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians: More stupid and paranoic each day

Oh, come on. Everytime I add something some idiot comes and deletes it with no reason or asking "for sources" when those sources are already linked, in linked articles, or in the same article but some paragraphs under.

You know, Abner Ravenwood is in this film (which died before 1935 according to his daughter Marion in the first film), his part is a rewriting of the original small scene of Henry Jones Sr. after Sean Connery refused to intervene in the film, there is always an opening scene in every Indy movie that takes place in a different location than the one of the main plot, generally years or months before it, and all the confirmed locations in this article are American (Conetticut, New Mexico, Mexico City and ?Peru? better say Yucatan because this film is about MAYAN crystal skulls not Incas) but Morocco and there was only one scene in Morocco that was filmed in a recreated Moroccan village in the New Mexico desert. Now, tell me, Sherlock, are you so stupid that you cannot unite these pieces and see that there is a flashback scene in Morocco in this film with Abner Ravenwood? Can't you go to the discussion page and ask for an explanation if your little stupid head isn't able to figure it out after you read the whole article (if you simply do it) like in the good old days, instead of deleting like a compulsive school rubber wannabe?

Well, in that case keep deleting the contributions of anonymous good-willing people like me and you will destroy Wikipedia. You have already ruined what it was intended to be at first: a free encyclopedia written by the people to the people. Remember this when you start another campaign to recruit money and you don't receive a coin.--150.244.23.247 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Until an official source or the film itself confirms this, it's still speculation. If you do have a source, put it after whatever information you have. Even if there already is a source in the article, put that same reference after your information. The Wookieepedian (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What an abusive post. Hello, have you actually seen the film? And it's spelt "paranoid". Alientraveller (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Crazy people don't think their crazy. They think everyone else is. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Warehouse from Raiders

as well as the warehouse from the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where numerous treasures including the Ark of the Covenant are kept safe by the US government.[3]

If you consult the source, this is still only speculation. I think this section needs editing. I will make some minor changes now, but please don't hesitate in reinstating the passage if you think it is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.30.118 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Length

This article is ridiculously long for a movie that no one has even seen. I'm a huge Indy fan too, but does Wikipedia really need to get bogged down in so many quotes and details on every page for a movie with a large fan-boy base? 129.252.94.183 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

True, expect that by May I and other editors will be trimming down info on marketing (I'm intending to outsource info to Indiana Jones franchise on all the merchandising companies) as well as axing the trailer (as the censorship will be forgotten in due time). Cites will be replaced and sections rewritten as we get better info on effects and music as well as the casting and creation of action sequences. Alientraveller (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Roswell?

In the preview trailer at 1:26 there is shown a crate that a pair of glasses fall onto that is labelled Roswell, New Mexico 1947. As nothing we have so far in this article mentions this, and since it is SPECIFICALLY depicted in the trailer, it is bound to have importance. Thus I ask if ANYONE has any information concerning this if they might please enlighten us IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THIS ARTICLE. There. I have worded the exact same question in such a way that should be acceptable now. Alientimetraveller, if you delete this one more time, I will go straight to the administrators. this is a valid request. Content on talk pages shouldn't be removed under ANY circumstances, anyway.98.27.212.23 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you then for getting the message: originally it was very slight. So do you think we should mention the crate's stamp? I'm unsure: we know they shot in New Mexico, but the report said it stood in for Morocco. As it's likely that the government's crate house is Roswell, then it might be redundant, although that is my own speculation, and it is now allowed. Better wait until the film is out. Alientraveller (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I ever meant to say before, I suppose I simply didn't word it properly. This issue will probably be cleared up following it's release, but if it doesn't, it might be an interesting fact to put in a trivia section or somesuch.98.27.212.23 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AVTRIVIA. If it is Roswell, it will be noted in the plot section. Alientraveller (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It could easily be an Easter egg, considering the conspiratorial background of that warehouse. If someone notes it in encyclopedic detail, we can revisit the discussion about mentioning it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's MTV's mention. Just for future reference: but I'm sure Koepp will reveal why they wanted to bring back the warehouse. Alientraveller (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CGI in US Teaser

I had cleaned up the section in MARKETING where the article outlines the CGI changes to the US teaser. And as usual it was reverted... I don't think I was signed in (my bad) when I made the changes, so I am user # 99.231.11.56 in the article history. Anyway, here are the problems I have with the current/reverted version: 1. The character's full name is "Indiana Jones" and not "Indiana." In a formal article the character's full name should be used wherever possible. Using "Indiana" is too familiar. 2. The original states: "A shot of Indiana and Mac was edited from the American version to exclude armed Soviet soldiers surrounding them." A) The shot was not "edited from"... the shot is still there, it was digitally altered. B) The soldiers are not "excluded" from the shot, the CGI mapping changed the direction of the soldiers weapons... they were pointed at IJ and Mac in the international teaser, in the US version they are pointed down, but all of the soldiers are still there. C) Are we absolutely 100% sure they are Soviet soldiers... they look to be wearing 50's era US army uniforms (like M*A*S*H*)? I think they probably are Soviet agents dressed to look like US servicemen, but I have no proof of that. I don't think there is any official source explicitly stating they are Soviets. 3) Although I find this section to be inaccurate as it stands... is it even necessary? Will anyone care 6 months from now... enough for an encyclopedia entry?Codymr (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly: the paragraph is going to be deleted in a few months. And yes, the bad guys are the Ruskies, so they are disguised as American soldiers. Alientraveller (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read that the Soviets are the villains from many sources too, but the shot in question has soldiers in US uniforms. Further, the preceding silhouette shot of IJ has him walking towards camera from a car with a big white star not a red star - it's an American Army MP vehicle. Likely these are Soviet agents disguised as US soldiers to infiltrate Roswell, but do we know for sure? They could be US soldiers protecting government secrets... perhaps they are US soldiers who mistakenly think IJ and Mac are Soviet spies. My point is that trailers and teasers can be misleading... intentionally or unintentionally... sometimes the viewer "sees" what they want to see. Unless there is a source that states the Soviets are undercover, I think the article should just say they are "soldiers." Codymr (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rating?

What is this movie rated?71.53.20.131 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NPOV, we never mention ratings unless it was controversial or unique. It might be worth mentioning though, as only Last Crusade was (wrongfully) rated PG-13. Alientraveller (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The official website says it's not rated yet. You should keep an eye on that website instead of here for the rating. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bearing in mind film ratings are awarded under national jurisdictions with local guidelines around the world, I suggest it would be inappropriate to mark the film with the rating awarded in just one country in this article. PG-13 or whatever is only meaningful to an American reader.Fizzackerly (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but it will be the first Indiana Jones film to receive a 12A. :-P Alientraveller (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Irina

This should clear it up!: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/tnswman/indianajones006.jpg

Check the action figure spelling on the link!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.238.94 (talk • contribs)

Thanks! Alientraveller (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Abner Ravenwood

I have found a website that has posted a very interesting screenshot of the cast information for the film. http://movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/indy_update

It appears that the people that run the official website, have accidently activated the cast page for the film earlier then intended. Once the mistake was realised, they pulled it down.

I have tried on several times to write on the indy 4 article that John Hurt is Abner Ravenwood, based on these leaked images. Now this guy called "alien man" or something of this nature keeps pulling my post down and writing that it is not a reliable source. I think that my source is pretty reliable. Not any more unreliable then any of the other links on the reference page of the site.

It is possible that this "alien man" guy that keeps pulling down this reference, is in fact an employee of the film. Maybe he is trying to stop the news that indianajones.com has had a technical error and leaked information about its own film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismj008 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Get the name right first mate, and secondly as much as I'd love to work for Spielberg or Lucasfilm, it ain't gonna happen. Please assume good faith. It is already noted Hurt will never confirm who he is playing, be it Abner, Albert Einstein or "Ox". Like I said, the website was taken down for a reason: it may be true, it may not. Go ahead if you want to count your chickens before they hatch, go ahead, I bet you would've moved the article to City of Gods if Spielberg fooled you so. Alientraveller (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, last bit was too informal. But at the end of the day, the article notes people believe he's playing Abner, but the official facts aren't saying anything. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Alientraveller comes on Wikipedia years ahead of time, starts editing completely non-Indiana Jones related articles (to keep up the front) and then swings into action at the right moment. Talk about sleeper cell. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found fairly strong evidence that John hurt is Abner Ravenwood (http://movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/indy_update)

In some ways it is official information. The screenshot comes from the official website. I doubt that people would go to the trouble of faking it. People are not that sad. Perhaps the actor has not confirmed it, but there are other ways of confirming it other then what the actor says.

I would also like to make the point that a reference does not have to be from an offical announcement for it to be put on wikipedia. Just as long as it is fairly solid. I think what i have discovered is fairly solid.

Just leave it there. If its wrong its wrong (and i am sure 50 000 people will all immediately change it if new evidence comes into the frame). But at the moment, it is a correct statement based on all the evidence at our disposal.

I mean, it not like you have any evidence from a source saying that its not true (as is the case with Shia being Indy's son - Spielberg has said that it is not a father son thing or words to that effect). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismj008 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It does look solid, I'll admit, but when Hurt was approached, he did not confirm anything. And again, there is not much substantial about that screenshot: it could have said anything, and again, it could have been removed for being incorrect. We should not rely on such a possibly sloppy source. Already the article notes the possibility of Hurt being Abner. So if this is about the website revealing Abner is Hurt, well no, it was taken down, and therefore unreliable. All that's needed, (and I'm sounding like a broken record, I'll admit) is that Hurt was asked by Premiere, and didn't say a thing. It sounds much more neutral in fact. Alientraveller (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorted. [1] Alientraveller (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Prove it's not true? Prove bigfoot doesn't exist. Until you have evidence that it doesn't exist, I should be allowed to post as fact that it does indeed exist. See how silly that philosophy is? And you doubt that people would fake a picture of John Hurt as Ravenwood? Obviously you don't know how fanboyish some faboys can get. There are 10,000 trailers on youtube claiming to be the OFFICIAL Indiana Jones 4 trailer. Some of them date back several years. People will claim whatever fan art they make is official. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets leave the discussion about Big Foot for another place. I do not believe that my source: (http://movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/indy_update) is a work of fan art. The way I hear it, these two cast pages were actually broadcast from the indianajones.com website. It could be found by clicking on coming soon link above the cast section. It was soon removed. The first pages shows a biography of Ian McDiarmid, and reveals he is Professore Levi (relatively new news). The second shows John Hurt, with the words Abner Ravenwood underneath. It does not show a picture of him, and does not give a bio. This suggests this page was 'work-in-progress'. It was taken down because it probably was never intended to be put up there is the first place. In a few weeks (or less), indianajones.com will put up the cast information again, and this time it will contain the completed John Hurt / Abner Ravenwood page.

If this was a fake (which I can't see it being), then it would have been faked quite recently (as it shows McDiarmid as Professor Levi). I have seen lots of fake posters /trailers for indy 4, but i have never seen a falsified indianajones.com page before. Have you? Chrismj008 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Lots of official-looking stuff appears before any major film's release (most recently Cloverfield), much of which is convincingly faked. Steve ^{T • C} 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well i have spent as much time on this as i am prepared to spend. As it appears that you will not let me get the last say on the actual Indy 4 article, at least let me have the last say on this discussion.

I believe that my reference shows a picture of part of the indianajones.com website that has not been offically opened yet. I believe that it was taken down because it was accidently put up there. I don't think it was taken down because it was incorrect. John Hurt is making no comments because he has signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

In a less then 2 months the cast page of indianajones.com will be made available to the general public and you will see the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismj008 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure of it, but Wikipedia policies mean I have to write it in an unsure manner. Cheerio. Alientraveller (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All told, it's best not to include a very questionable source. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CIA

According to Winstone, Mac worked with Indiana during World War II (when the archaeolgist worked for the Central Intelligence Agency),

Do you mean the OSS? CIA didn't exist during WWII. 69.143.132.3 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Quick Fail

Because this article is about an ongoing event (a film that has not yet been released), it cannot be given GA status. I urge you to work on it after the release and renominate at that time. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)