The Raven - Anybody who still thinks Harrisons age is an issue...

The Raven (http://raven.theraider.net/index.php)

- Indiana Jones 5 (http://raven.theraider.net/forumdisplay.php?f=38)

- - Anybody who still thinks Harrisons age is an issue... (http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=11699)

I can't remember where I heard or read this... I seem to remember hearing somewhere someone saying that Ford was relieved that he could still "fit into the pants" and it was meant literally. Perhaps they didn't change the specs on the costume to give it that realistic "I haven't worn this in years" look? Does anyone remember reading or hearing that phrase somewhere?

"to give it that realistic "I haven't worn this in years" look?"
Except that he's still wearing brand new costumes (Broken down as they might be)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClintonHammond

"who can be offended by what you say"
Their responses, their emotions, are THEIR responsibility, not mine.

I see. So if I call you a dirty lowlife pr*ck, then its your fault you're offended is it?

Hey, I'm a dirty lowlife *****, not him!

http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20...ENT03/11070332

Quote:

I went to buy some beer the other day and got carded! I said I'm 68 years old. And he said, “Young people complain about being singled out, so we ask everyone to show proof.” I said, “Take a look at me, are you kidding?” But he still wanted to see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matinee Idyll

Subtle? I woulda said 'wooden'... but y'know, in a charming, Bogart, Grant kinda way.

I know this is an old post, but how is Harrison's acting ''wooden''?
I'm not really an expert on acting techniques or anything but still....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders112390

I know this is an old post, but how is Harrison's acting ''wooden''?
I'm not really an expert on acting techniques or anything but still....

I suppose the primary thing that would lead to that being said is that he doesn't go in for a lot of histrionics, or funny voices, or latex noses. Sure, his voice is a little monotone sometimes, the lack of those first three is definitely an advantage. (Of course, it works for some, but I feel that's the exception rather than the rule.)

This essay comes to mind, by Manny Farber, the bits on termite acting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Farber

Movies have always been suspiciously addicted to termite-art tendencies. Good work usually arises where the creators (Laurel and Hardy, the team of Howard Hawks and William Faulkner operating on the first half of Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep) seem to have no ambitions towards gilt culture but are involved in a kind of squandering-beaverish endeavor that isn't anywhere or for anything. A peculiar fact about termite-tapeworm-fungus-moss art is that it goes always forward eating its own boundaries, and, likely as not, leaves nothing in its path other than the signs of eager, industrious, unkempt activity.

The most inclusive description of the art is that, termite-like, it feels its way through walls of particularization, with no sign that the artist has any object in mind other than eating away the immediate boundaries of his art, and turning these boundaries into conditions of the next achievement. Laurel and Hardy, in fact, in some of their most dyspeptic and funniest movies, like Hog Wild, contributed some fine parody of men who had read every "How to Succeed" book available; but, when it came to applying their knowledge, reverted instinctively to termite behavior.

One of the good termite performances (John Wayne's bemused cowboy in an unreal stage town inhabited by pallid repetitious actors whose chief trait is a powdered make-up) occurs in John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Better Ford films have been marred by a phlegmatically solemn Irish personality that goes for rounded declamatory acting, silhouetted riders along the rim of a mountain with golden sunset behind them, and repetitions in which big bodies are scrambled together in a rhythmically curving Rosa Bonheurish composition. Wayne's acting is infected by a kind of hoboish spirit, sitting back on its haunches doing a bitter-amused counterpoint to the pale, neutral film life around him. In an Arizona town that is too placid, where the cactus was planted last night and nostalgically casted actors do a generalized drunkenness, cowardness, voraciousness, Wayne is the termite actor focusing only on a tiny present area, nibbling at it with engaging professionalism and a hipster sense of how to sit in a chair leaned against a wall, eye a flogging overactor (Lee Marvin). As he moves along at the pace of a tapeworm, Wayne leaves a path that is only bits of shrewd intramural acting -- a craggy face filled with bitterness, jealousy, a big body that idles luxuriantly, having long grown tired with roughhouse games played by old wrangler types like John Ford.

i thought this was applicable and BADASS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caats

i thought this was applicable and BADASS.

Fantastic shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Man

Fantastic shot.

We agree on some things. And this is one of them.

I think Cowboys and Aliens will show that Harrison Ford still has what it takes to be in Indiana Jones 5.

re chicago103, most definitely.

I think some fans are going to have to accept the fact that a old Harrison Ford is not good for the franchise. Especially when you write a Disney`s version of Indiana Jones ala KOTCS. A 70 year old Indiana Jones doing that kind of a adventure is not realistic. After the last movie, I just don`t know If I can take a #5 movie seriously. Lucas has really hurt the brand IMO.

I think it is time for the Indiana Jones franchise to find a new actor (to play Indy) and a new writer/director. I would love to see what Christopher Nolan can do with this project. It would be way better than the abortion of KOTCS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indyisreal

The problem is that mostly everything good about Indiana Jones is as a direct result of Lucas/Spielberg and Ford. They can re-boot (and I'd be up for that), but lets face it, there isn't much depth to the character (as it stands). Nolan has a lot more depth to explore with Batman. That emotional depth/complexity would need to be re-invented for any future Indy movie. Not an impossible task... but I'd have to ask the question why would anyone want to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indyisreal

I've read about every post you've made recently. I find it hilarious that you must write an KOTCS insult every 1-2 sentences. You let that film get to you so much, I love it :hat:

Out of the OT, what stunt wouldn't you buy with today's Ford? I can't think of any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy's brother

Out of the OT, what stunt wouldn't you buy with today's Ford? I can't think of any.

Being dragged behind the German truck would be a brutal thing to do to the older Harry today. It looked brutal enough for the younger version!

Maybe, but would it be any more unbelievable? I don't think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy's brother

Maybe, but would it be any more unbelievable? I don't think so.

No. Just brutal!

Harrison suffered on set during the making of the original movies, so I'd presume that his older self would be more susceptible to injury and general discomfort. The producers would be afraid of putting their star out of action, so much of the physical work would likely be handed to doubles, whether Harry wanted to do it himself or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy's brother

Out of the OT, what stunt wouldn't you buy with today's Ford? I can't think of any.

Jump from horse to tank in LC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy

Jump from horse to tank in LC.

You know, I thought that too. At first. But after the fridge, I think a stunt like that is easily fair game again. Tame in comparison, really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy's brother

Out of the OT, what stunt wouldn't you buy with today's Ford? I can't think of any.

Unfortunately nearly every one... be it hanging behind the truck, jumping through/from the window of Club Obi-Wan, jumping from the horse to the tank etc. etc. It's certainly not as a result of Harrison Ford not being physically up for it (he clearly is), rather it's the disparity between his physical appearance as Indiana Jones and what we are willing to believe a 60/70 year old man is physically capable off. I thought Spielberg actually downplayed some of the stunts in KOTCS in order for it not to look too incongruous e.g. some of the jumping between vehicles (jungle chase).

Also to consider is that the character has largely been played as a romantic adventurer. Not sure the audience is ready to see a 60/70 year old romancer...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Vile

Since Harrison was about 8 years older than Indy in KOTCS, the age difference will become more marked as time progresses. If they freeze time (and not move on in real time as they did from TLC to KOTCS) it isn't going to work. And the further they advance time, the less relevant Indy's character becomes.

Harrison can still be convincing as the character, but it will be a film unlike his previous outings. It's doubtful whether the general audience will accept that. The action will be by proxy (a younger sidekick), and I don't want to see Indy emasculated even more than he was in KOTCS.

He could still play the tough guy, but not in the manner we've become accustomed to. Smoke and mirrors, a steely determined gaze, and an unwavering gun hand could win the day. However, since I can't see the creators risking that approach, I hope they don't try to make #5. It would be like making an action filled On Golden Pond, rather than a more convincing Hitchcock style mystery, which would suit Indy's age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montana Smith

Exactly... but even if they tried to make Indy V a slower, more thoughtful character piece, I'm not sure it would constitute being an 'Indiana Jones' movie. As I stated elsewhere, if Ford has got a showpiece last hurrah performance left in him (i.e. as a tough man coming to terms with his mortality), I hope for his sake he doesn't waste it on what would be just another Indy movie.