TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones Trilogy
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-08-2015, 02:22 AM   #1
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Was Harrison too old?

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.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2015, 03:06 AM   #2
Mickiana
IndyFan
 
Mickiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,187
I remember Deborah Nadoolman talking about how she was surprised that they had hired someone nearly 40yo to play IJ in Raiders. But it turned out really well. Harrison played the role convincingly.

Everything is questionable to some degree in hindsight. But 'movies is magic' and the OT had no problems for Harrison's age and the age of the character.

In CS, Harrison looked sort of haggard in the opening scenes, but he had just been driven for a long time in the boot of a car. A bit of a stretch on my part there, but its a viable unwritten part of the story. In the rest of CS he looked fine for the 58yo character. I've seen plenty of people that look older who are not as old.

It's possible that a younger actor would have been able to better match the characters' age, but that all depends in which years the movies were set. Script writers will obviously take into account age gaps between actors and their characters. As it is, Harrison did the job pretty well.

The answer for continuity now would be to find a new younger actor and set the movies back in suitable years. The character's timeline is established. They could explore making more movies set in the 20s and early 30s.
Mickiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2015, 03:38 AM   #3
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiana
I remember Deborah Nadoolman talking about how she was surprised that they had hired someone nearly 40yo to play IJ in Raiders. But it turned out really well. Harrison played the role convincingly.

Everything is questionable to some degree in hindsight. But 'movies is magic' and the OT had no problems for Harrison's age and the age of the character.

In CS, Harrison looked sort of haggard in the opening scenes, but he had just been driven for a long time in the boot of a car. A bit of a stretch on my part there, but its a viable unwritten part of the story. In the rest of CS he looked fine for the 58yo character. I've seen plenty of people that look older who are not as old.

It's possible that a younger actor would have been able to better match the characters' age, but that all depends in which years the movies were set. Script writers will obviously take into account age gaps between actors and their characters. As it is, Harrison did the job pretty well.

The answer for continuity now would be to find a new younger actor and set the movies back in suitable years. The character's timeline is established. They could explore making more movies set in the 20s and early 30s.

To be honest, I think he looked really haggard in LC. Especially considering that the character is only supposed to be in his late 30s. I think his age was definately starting to show:



Especially when you consider that (in-universe) there's only a two year gap between Raiders and LC.


I know some don't like Tom Selleck, but I think given he's a few years younger, and (in hindsight), given the fact that he's aged better, he might've been a better long-term pick. I mean, this was Tom in 2008:


He's only 3 years younger than Harrison, but he could've pulled off just by appearance alone an Indy in his late 30s or early 40s - thus not having to stretch the timelime to the '50s - in 2008.

Even now, he's 70, but you'd think he's 50 at most, and much sharper in interviews then Harrison is at this point:
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2015, 04:01 AM   #4
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Also, when he had to, he could fit in a '30s era movie:


Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2015, 10:36 AM   #5
Drones33
IndyFan
 
Drones33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: England
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.

No disrespect mate but I think that's a load of rubbish. I'm guessing that you are younger than 40? Because a man in his late 40's can...and should...be every bit as fit and active as he was in his 30's.

Indy is meant to have been around a bit, he's a seasoned adventurer and this should be reflected in his appearance.( remember the comment about years and mileage?)
So, no. Harrison Ford was not too old. Obviously.
Drones33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2015, 11:39 AM   #6
doppelganger
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 98
I agree with drone33, the only way you can be as good and well rounded as Indy is to have been around long enough to have had the experiences to learn from. Having just turned 40 myself I can hand on heart say I am fitter and stronger now than I was at 25 (mostly due to abusing my younger self with bad food and beer) plus I know alot more than I did then. As for too old for action look at stalone. I still wouldnt want to get in a ring with him.
doppelganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2015, 02:09 PM   #7
Glenville86
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 220
To be honest, I never even paid any attention to how old Indy was supposed to be in the movies or in real life for the first 3-movies. For CS, he did appear almost too old to do the role from an action perspective but that is just my opinion.
Glenville86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2015, 05:43 PM   #8
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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),...
No! Each movie came out before Ford's birthday so those numbers are wrong. Don't consider this detail as nitpicking because you should be talking about his age when they were filming (and not a couple of months after release).

The correct numbers:
37-38 in "Raiders"
40-41 in "Doom"
45-46 in "Crusade"

When "Raiders" started rolling, Harrison was 37. Is that "stretching it for an action hero", too? At what point do you propose a man to be past his due date for an action movie?

In 1989, nobody complained about Harry being too old for the part because he wasn't. Only by reading the "Crusade" novelization could Indy's age be narrowed down…and how many people do you think did that? Plus, the character's specific birthdate wasn't revealed until the premiere of the TV show so the majority of audiences had no idea about Indy's precise age and it didn't matter. Harrison Ford was Indiana Jones and that was that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.
Did the series really need to be "higher in action"? I don't think so and don't understand how Harry's age relates in any way. Cripes, when "Doom" came out, one of the criticisms it faced back then was for having TOO MUCH action!

In another thread, you said that you "don't like ageists" even though you come across as one of 'em!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drones33
No disrespect mate but I think that's a load of rubbish. I'm guessing that you are younger than 40?
Hello, Drones. His username holds a clue...so a bit of math will give you the answer. Anyway, this topic in nothing new because Raiders112390 has a longtime concern with Harrison's ripening:

Did Harry age a lot between 1981 and 1989?
Stubble in LC/Aging
Is Harrison balding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenville86
To be honest, I never even paid any attention to how old Indy was supposed to be in the movies or in real life for the first 3-movies.
Good! A prime example of why Indy's years VS. Harry's years doesn't matter.
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 12:57 AM   #9
Joosse
IndyFan
 
Joosse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Uithoorn, the Netherlands
Posts: 387
It's not the years honey, it's the mileage...
Joosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 09:45 AM   #10
Joosse
IndyFan
 
Joosse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Uithoorn, the Netherlands
Posts: 387
All kidding aside though. Indy is a professor and it is obvious hé has been doing some other things than just studying. So it is quite realistic for him to have a certainly age.

In the 1930's Doogie Howser type professors were frowned upon.

Also I am fourty myself, and like doppelganger I find myself fitter than ever. Apart from my usual classes I am also teaching physical education at the moment. Something I would not have thought possible twenty years ago.

But besides all that, I truly believe that if they had cast anybody else than Ford the movies would not have been such a succes.
Joosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 03:43 PM   #11
micsteam
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Florida
Posts: 321
Totally true ! Ford made this character, it's his and that's why he likes coming back to it especially because the character can get older and grow with age. Tom Selleck would've been excellent !! No doubt but fate intervened and it went to Ford and I don't think any true Indy fan is sorry about that !!?? MHO, have you seen the Star Wars trailers with HF ?? If he can still sell that character than why is it so far fetched that he can't do another IJ movie or two ?? I mean age adjusted to be accurate.. if he can't fight with the young guys .. how about bringing back the gun play from Raiders ?? They never did another IJ movie with the gun play they had in Raiders. What's everybody think ??
micsteam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 05:00 PM   #12
Joosse
IndyFan
 
Joosse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Uithoorn, the Netherlands
Posts: 387
Well, there is gunplay and gunplay. Even shooting guns gets harder if you get really old.

Having said that I am completely on board on Indy simply outwitting the bad guys.

If you would want to combine that with gunplay, you could easily do a 'my name is Nobody' style gunfight...
Joosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2015, 05:37 PM   #13
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joosse
... 'my name is Nobody' ...


Case in point, this THIRTY SIX YEAR OLD gungslinger:

\


changing image

Last edited by Pale Horse : 11-10-2015 at 04:05 PM.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2015, 01:00 PM   #14
Randy_Flagg
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.

I don't think it's really Harrison's age that limited the longevity. He was easily fit enough in the 1990s to have done several more Indy films then. I think the premise is just pretty limiting. How many variations on "find the powerful ancient artifact before the bad guys use it for nefarious purposes" can you really do before it gets redundant?
Randy_Flagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2015, 04:10 PM   #15
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy_Flagg
How many variations on "find the powerful ancient artifact before the bad guys use it for nefarious purposes" can you really do before it gets redundant?

See item number 9 HEREIN.

Of the 36 dramatic situations, only number 9 encompasses the Indy series.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2015, 04:29 PM   #16
Z dweller
IndyFan
 
Z dweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The old colonel was right - but he never even got close...
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
See item number 9 HEREIN.

Of the 36 dramatic situations, only number 9 encompasses the Indy series.
Yep, and considering that Bond movies fall squarely in the same category, I really wouldn't worry about future Indy movies "getting redundant".
Z dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2015, 11:11 AM   #17
Joosse
IndyFan
 
Joosse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Uithoorn, the Netherlands
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
Case in point, this THIRTY SIX YEAR OLD gungslinger:

\


changing image

Actually what I meant was this sixty seven year old gunslinger...



But thanks.
Joosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2015, 03:52 PM   #18
Randy_Flagg
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
See item number 9 HEREIN.

Of the 36 dramatic situations, only number 9 encompasses the Indy series.
Exactly. So unless they branch out to some of the other 35 dramatic situations, it's going to get redundant. But, if they branch out too much, does it still feel like an Indy movie?

Last edited by Randy_Flagg : 11-12-2015 at 03:57 PM.
Randy_Flagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2015, 03:09 AM   #19
Joosse
IndyFan
 
Joosse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Uithoorn, the Netherlands
Posts: 387
But do we really want them to branch out or do we just crave more of the same?
Joosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2015, 06:19 AM   #20
JollyGreenSlugg
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 40
There's always Roger Moore to consider - 58 by the time he handed in his licence to kill!
JollyGreenSlugg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2015, 03:23 PM   #21
FordFan
IndyFan
 
FordFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
To be honest, I think he looked really haggard in LC. Especially considering that the character is only supposed to be in his late 30s. I think his age was definately starting to show:


[/IMG]

Haggard? You serious? Have you seen what an everyday 47-year-old looks like?

I hope news of Indy 5 picks up, with or without Ford. Because talking about how Tom Selleck may have been a better fit for Indy because he's younger is ridiculous. For what it's worth, I enjoy Tom Selleck's work, but he's an average actor at best.
FordFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 09:13 AM   #22
Drones33
IndyFan
 
Drones33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: England
Posts: 516
"For what it's worth, I enjoy Tom Selleck's work, but he's an average actor at best"

Agreed. He`s done some good stuff; I`m fond of Quigley Down Under and Runaway, but he`s no Ford.
Drones33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2015, 04:14 PM   #23
Dr.Sartorius
IndyFan
 
Dr.Sartorius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,991
This has got to be one of the dumbest topics I've ever seen.
Dr.Sartorius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2015, 05:37 PM   #24
Mickiana
IndyFan
 
Mickiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sartorius
This has got to be one of the dumbest topics I've ever seen.

That's why there were plenty of good responses that easily negated it.
Mickiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2015, 11:12 AM   #25
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sartorius
This has got to be one of the dumbest topics I've ever seen.

Yep. Quite possibly the dumbest thread ever posted.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 PM.