I know they did an Atlantis video game, and I think a book as well. Not the same as a movie, of course, but at least someone else dealing with the property made the effort. I was on Flickchart last night and had to choose between Temple of Doom and Zombieland, and I decided that if they do another Indy movie, and they're determined to keep up with their 50s sci-fi B-movies theme, I want to see Indy vs. Zombies. The best part will be when Harrison Ford is interviewed about it, and we all get to speculate on whether or not he is, in fact, now a zombie.

At least you made the effort. A lot of fans hated it the first time, and refuse to go back to it. It's become simply too popular to hate on the movie, so I try to provoke some discussion about it when I see an opportunity.

This is where I run into the problem with the auteur theory, that a movie expresses the director's singular vision. The darkness of the story originated with George Lucas going through a divorce; he decided to take it out on Indy. The script went through a lot of changes, and while Spielberg agreed to shoot the final version and he obviously had pretty wide range to decide how to execute what was written, it's inaccurate to think of the movie as an expression of him, or a statement he was trying to make.

Awesome analysis. Always an underrated movie in my book, and I love the idea of Indy going up against truly different antagonists (like mummies or zombies).

I really liked Kate Capshaw... she was by far the best looking of the Indy girls... the material she was given was rank, not her performance IMO