When Raiders came out in 1981, Harrison was 39 - which is kind of stretching it for an action hero. By 1984, with TOD, he was 42; by 1989 with LC, he was 47 (playing a 39 year old character), and of course in KOTCs he was 65 years old playing a 58 year old.
But was he too old to begin with?
Consider two other similar action stars:
Sean Connery was age 33 when he started off as Bond, and age 42 when he finished - and at the time, he was considered a bit long in the tooth for the role.
Brendan Fraser was 31 when he took on the role of Rick O'Connell, a similar archaeologist/action hero type, and was 40 on the head when the series ended.
Both of these men's younger ages allowed for a greater level of action then even Indy in the first three films engaged in. Ford was plagued even as early as TOD with a bad back, and he was never a natural, kinetic action star -in a role that demanded action.
In retrospect, might George and Spielberg have done better casting a younger actor? The series could've been higher in action and longer in (original continuity) longevity.
But was he too old to begin with?
Consider two other similar action stars:
Sean Connery was age 33 when he started off as Bond, and age 42 when he finished - and at the time, he was considered a bit long in the tooth for the role.
Brendan Fraser was 31 when he took on the role of Rick O'Connell, a similar archaeologist/action hero type, and was 40 on the head when the series ended.
Both of these men's younger ages allowed for a greater level of action then even Indy in the first three films engaged in. Ford was plagued even as early as TOD with a bad back, and he was never a natural, kinetic action star -in a role that demanded action.
In retrospect, might George and Spielberg have done better casting a younger actor? The series could've been higher in action and longer in (original continuity) longevity.