Story does not equal SFX, which is something I'm afraid Lucas understands a lot less than someone like Spielberg. The reason Star Wars and Jaws (and Raiders to a lesser extent) are so good is that the filmmakers weren't comfortable, things were constantly going wrong and they were forced to improvise. Lucas was in a position of great influence and wealth when the Prequels were made, so there wasn't that voice in his head going, "I can't do this, it's going to cost too much," which is never a bad thing.
Proof of my theory? What does the majority prefer - Star Wars with Jabba or Star Wars sans Jabba?
What I'm getting to is that this is why all of this nonsense about Indiana Jones IV and the Potential of Suck is unfounded.
I know I'm not well liked around these parts, I can deal with it - just hear me out and consider what I'm about to say before blacklisting me again.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present my case on why Indiana Jones IV and the Prequels could not be more dissimilar.
1) Lucas is the bank and the story "author," and not in a position of putting his clever wit all over the script.
2) Spielberg is the Director, a man Lucas calls, "My Director," which means he will back off when it comes to major creative decisions.
3) The editing of the Prequels, by Ben Burtt and George Lucas sucked. Michael Kahn is editing Indiana Jones IV.
4) The cinematography, Kaminski, shot Saving Private Ryan and many other spectacular looking films. Just imagine that!
5) David Koepp wrote what matters - the script. The dialogue, the pacing, the character arcs...EVERYTHING that matters comes from him.
6) Shia "Son of Indy" LeBouef has been seen as controversial. Indy has a son? What? Now go and watch War of the Worlds and see what a touching Father and Son relationship Koepp crafted in the middle of all those SFX and explosions. The potential for a really touching story that matters is there. Honestly.
I have high optimistic hope for this film and I at least hope that some of my points are impressed upon one person. Thanks.