Hanselation
New member
Harrison is like Indy, he still is fit enough. Look here: A Indiana Jones Dance
replican't said:If Indy 5 gets made, it wont be to appease the older fans, it will be to please the multiplex fodder. Return of investment is king.
Perhaps because they are essentially idiots (and self-appointed films snobs)?The Drifter said:Why do people pretend that the Indy movies are so artsy-fartsy and that they reside on some high echelon of sophisticated taste?
The Drifter 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.
Attila the Professor said: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 Drifter 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.
Montana Smith 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,
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.
Indy's brother said:
James said: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.
Indy's brother said:
Mungi said:Where did you get that picture from? It looks great! Can't wait to see him back in action!
Indy's brother said: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.
Darth Vile 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)...As for Dirty Harry, I think the quality of the movies declined with each successive one.
James 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 said: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.