Hanselation
New member
Harrison is like Indy, he still is fit enough. Look here: A Indiana Jones Dance
Anybody who still thinks Harrisons age is an issue...
- Thread starter Kernunnos
- Start date
The Drifter
New member
replican't said:
Why do people pretend that the Indy movies are so artsy-fartsy and that they reside on some high echelon of sophisticated taste?
Raiders was released as a summer blockbuster in the same fasion as the movies you described. That's what the Indy movies are, popcorn summer movies, IMO.
And, yes, I love them dearly.
IndyJones5183
New member
No,I don't think Harrison Ford is too old yet to play Indy,but if they wait too long he will be.
You folks are acting as though blockbuster success and some actual content are mutually exclusive.
The beauty of popular art is that it can reach a broad audience, both turning a profit and being some combination of morally, emotionally, and intellectually expressive.
The beauty of popular art is that it can reach a broad audience, both turning a profit and being some combination of morally, emotionally, and intellectually expressive.
Last edited:
Montana Smith
Active member
The Drifter said:
For many of us here, Indy's character and world has captured something special. When you're inspired by a work of art (as all movies are - for good or for bad - since art calls on the emotions), you look deeper at it.
I don't think it's so much pretending that they're "artsy-fartsy and that they reside on some high echelon of sophisticated taste", but that we invest something of ourselves in the films that move us. When we look deeper we dissect, and find convergence and divergence between them. We each have a notion of the character, his surroundings, and his history. And therefore we each have our own idea of where he should be going.
When you get closer to a movie, even the popcorn ones (and ROTLA was top-class popcorn), it's possible to wrest something more meaningful from them.
Essentially this,
Attila the Professor said:
It's possible to watch movies on a surface level (for their visual and aural appeal). For those that feel inclined, it's also possible to delve beneath the surface to examine the sub-structure of ideas going on. Which is much the same way as people choose to live their lives.
On topic, Harrison's age is an important factor, as it will dictate the ideas that will work, and the direction the series will take.
Darth Vile
New member
The Drifter said:
Montana Smith said:
I'd agree with both of you in that Indiana Jones, even at its best, is only a big, daft, well made crowd pleaser. I say "only", but there is of course an art in creating something with such panache that it has the ability to stand the test of time.
However, I've always been a firm believer in that people will often see what they want to see; they'll often make emotional connections to a movie, piece of music, fine painting because of external factors that have no relation to the actual piece of art itself - other than it being viewed at the right place, right time etc... Still, it helps if there is a modicum of talent invested in producing the art... The more talent is negated, the more it relies on subjective opinion to join the dots.
Indy's brother
New member
Henry W Jones
New member
Indy's brother said:
Looks like he could do another to me. I don't think that will last too much longer though. (Get on Pt. 5 Steven and George.
The fans want more Indy)Great photo. Ford still has enough in the tank to pull off another Indy- even if it remains a few years off. They could always go the Allan Quatermain route- that of the old, bearded adventurer itching for one last quest.
There's also the fact that the audience has grown older along with Ford. No one balked when Nimoy returned to the role of Spock or Eastwood was (erroneously) linked to a sixth Dirty Harry film in recent years- even though both men were pushing 80 at the time. Such ideas would've been laughable 30 years ago, but our obsession with nostalgia allows them to seem perfectly acceptable today.
There's also the fact that the audience has grown older along with Ford. No one balked when Nimoy returned to the role of Spock or Eastwood was (erroneously) linked to a sixth Dirty Harry film in recent years- even though both men were pushing 80 at the time. Such ideas would've been laughable 30 years ago, but our obsession with nostalgia allows them to seem perfectly acceptable today.
Indy's brother
New member
I'm still all butthurt over having to wait for almost 20 years for KOTCS. If they can't squeeze out at least one more while the ever-shrinking window of opportunity is still available, and everyone still wants to do it...I think the words to best describe my opinion on it will be "Hella Pissed".
Darth Vile
New member
James said:
I hear what you're saying James... but playing the devils advocate; Nimoy wasn't the lead in the last Star Trek movie (or indeed any)... if anything they used him as a transitional character to pass the torch from one generation to the next (much as they did with Shatner in Generations). As for Dirty Harry, I think the quality of the movies declined with each successive one. The last one (was it The Dead Pool?) wasn't really believable with the older character of 'Dirty Harry' (IMHO). As far as I'm concerned, the better movies that best reflect his passing of years are movies like Unforgiven, Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby etc...
If one had the mind to, I think there is a single, standalone exceptional movie still to be made with Ford as Indiana Jones. Hardly original, but that would be to give the story the kind of Gran Torino, The Color Of Money, True Grit kind of treatment i.e. to seriously tackle the issues surrounding a man reflecting on what he was/who he is/what lies ahead. However, my concern would be that kind of treatment may not necessarily result in an Indy movie many would want to see... as underneath all the protestations about wanting a deeper more intelligent movie, I think most really just want Indiana Jones movies to be a darn good blast/yarn...
Indy's brother
New member
Mungi said:Where did you get that picture from? It looks great! Can't wait to see him back in action!
It was from a short article quoting SS about how after 30 years it seemed like ROTLA was only 5 years ago, and that he's still close with the original Indy cast and crew. I can't find it now, though.
Mungi
Member
Indy's brother said:
I found it. What a pity he didn't say something about making another one.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011...-lost-ark-it-does-not-seem-like-30-years-ago/
Darth Vile said:
Yes, but my point is that the very idea of a septuagenarian actor returning to a classic role is now considered perfectly normal. Nimoy may have contributed little more than a cameo, but for many, his casting was the best part of the film. (Most were upset that Shatner was not involved as well- leading Abrams to insist they would consider him for the sequel.) Meanwhile, Eastwood never even pretended to be interested in revisiting the past- it was largely a rumor fueled by a public eager to cast him back into it.
Stallone and Ford were in their sixties when they reprised Rocky, Rambo, and Indy. Schwarzenegger and Willis were in their fifties for Terminator and John McClane- and are expected to revisit them again in their sixties. Bill Murray clearly has no desire to play Peter Venkman anymore, but neither that nor age has diminished public demand for a sequel.
These are all ideas that would've seemed outrageous back in the 80s- even to the actors themselves. Today we not only accept the basic premise, but will even keep it alive long after its freshness date.
Darth Vile
New member
James said:
I totally agree that bringing back a 60/70 year old to reprise a role is not only possible, but is now highly probable (given the financial payout), but my point is that the return of your Terminator's and Die Hard's, whilst financially lucrative, doesn't necessarily make for a better movie. The reason I think bringing back aged actors to reprise roles is currently accepted is largely due to the modern (as in over the last 30 years) advent of the 'franchise'... rather than movie makers finding a way to make better movies with older actors.
I don't doubt that they can make Indy V with a 70 year old Ford... I don't doubt that Ford will, as ever, be very watchable... but what I doubt is that they can make an action movie (in terms of what 'we' want to see), that can compete with the original, and that puts a 70 year old centre stage.
Indy's brother
New member
It all depends on what your take on Indy is, I think. The basket chase in ROTLA was memorable to say the least, and I can't think of anything in it that Ford couldn't do today. It doesn't have to be all insane and unbelievable stuff that even a 20 year-old wouldn't survive, you know. Ford can still run, shoot, and duck for cover, right? I mean nobody ever expected him to be Jackie Chan, Jean Claude Van Damme, or The Terminator. He's supposed to get hurt anyway, that's part of the fun, right? I can see it working. It's all about execution.
Darth Vile said:
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest it made for better films- just that it has become such an accepted practice. So while, ideally, Indy 5 should probably happen sooner rather than later, Ford still has several years in which he can return without it raising any eyebrows.
I'm not sure the franchise aspect has more to do with it than nostalgia, though. The former was around long before the 1980s, whereas fans refusing to let go of their childhoods is a relatively new phenomenon.
When Superman and Batman initally received the live-action treatment on television, no one was surprised that the intended audience wasn't fans of the 1940s shorts/serials. The producers realized that those earlier fans had long since grown up and moved on. By the same token, no one ever expected a popular star like Johnny Weissmuller to come back and try to reprise Tarzan in his fifties or sixties.
Yet today, if an older franchise attempts to lure or acknowledge a younger audience, it generates outrage among grown men in their thirties and forties!