Did anyone feel kind of sad for Indy?

Anyone else find the last one kinda of sad? Indy older, not so "cool" and seemed out of place, out of his time, out of zone. Don't get me wrong, I liked that part of it. It's life, we get older. I am sure this Indy in CS is a lot different than the pre-CS Indy. Not just cause of age but he fought in the war, and really saw his country change from those 1930/40 days to the late 50s. Most movies will not deal with it. Like Bruce Willis in Die Hard, in the last one its years later but he is still the same guy. They really did a good job at making it like life. He is older, life is at an end, he miss those years, family,friends, the adventures. I am glad they let him 'age' and didn't act like he was the same Indy he was in the 30's.

Yes, it was sad to see Indy aged so dramatically, and to be so out of place. To me, Indy is a constant character. Regardless of the events in KOTCS which have angered some fans, Indy is still Indy. The real time aging since The Last Crusade was a brave and pretty unusual element.

It's sad like the end of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, which Peter Jackson recreated beautifully in The Return of the King. You don't want to see favourite characters go, but that they do creates a greater sense of the reality of their existence in their world.

It's one of the reasons that a reboot would lose a lot of the magic. All these years we've watched Harrison play the character. If another actor took over it be be as though we were watching an entirely new character.

FedoraHead said:

They really did a good job at making it like life. He is older, life is at an end, he miss those years, family,friends, the adventures. I am glad they let him 'age' and didn't act like he was the same Indy he was in the 30's.

Click to expand...

I (and a few others) addressed that very issue after the film came out. For me, it's what makes the film, it's what gives it depth and interest. It's not just another adventure - it's another adventure the way it would actually be for him all those years later.

http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=360140&postcount=28

I also addressed it much more in-depth in my original review of the film, but I think that thread was taken down after it was trolled to death. If I can find a copy on my back-ups, I'll post it here.

*edit*
Found it (yes, I'm very organized).

Here is an excerpt from my original review;

The interaction between Indy & Mutt really makes the film for me. Their conversation while they are walking to the sanitarium is one of my favorite Indy moments from any of the films. I thought it was very well done. I also like the scene in Indy’s house where he and Stanforth are discussing how life has changed through the years. Equally well done, I think, is the conversation Indy has with Taylor and Smith after his radiation clean-up. These are all moments where we see Indy as more of a regular guy and I really enjoyed that aspect. This time we’re seeing Indy after the years, not the mileage, and he’s a deeper character now.

Indiana Jones isn’t the 30-something adventurer he was in the first film – and I’m not the 19 year old kid I was when I first met him. A lot has happened in those 28 years. The scene at Indy’s house with Stanforth is particularly poignant. Like Stanforth, I sometimes don’t recognize my own country anymore – and like Indy, I’ve had to say goodbye to people who were important to me.
That real-time, real-life experience may be why the film resonates better with my generation than it does with the 20 year olds in the audience.

Click to expand...

Montana Smith said:

It's one of the reasons that a reboot would lose a lot of the magic. All these years we've watched Harrison play the character. If another actor took over it be be as though we were watching an entirely new character.

Click to expand...

That's one of the problems with introducing a pop culturally iconic character through film: the initial actor often gets branded as that character and the only one that could ever play the character. If Indy was introduced and first made popular via, say, comic books, it would be different, even if it was Ford who played him first.

With that said, I think this is unfortunate and often creates a prejudice towards films featuring the character in which the first actor doesn't star. While for everyone here Harrison Ford is our big screen Indy, I think it's unfair to the character to immediately discredit any future films - possibly excellent films - that won't star Ford (for whatever reason, age being the most likely). If in ten years an Indy film is made that obviously won't star Ford, I'd be stoked to take my kid to see it.

Peru1936 said:

That's one of the problems with introducing a pop culturally iconic character through film: the initial actor often gets branded as that character and the only one that could ever play the character. If Indy was introduced and first made popular via, say, comic books, it would be different, even if it was Ford who played him first.

Click to expand...

This is true, and it's the reason why I feel that the Indy series has greater depth, and why KOTCS is tinged with sadness.

Ian Fleming wrote Bond as a series of novels, and the character was then played by numerous actors on screen. I feel no connection to the character of Bond - he's a cardboard cutout on which any face will fit.

Peru1936 said:

With that said, I think this is unfortunate and often creates a prejudice towards films featuring the character in which the first actor doesn't star. While for everyone here Harrison Ford is our big screen Indy, I think it's unfair to the character to immediately discredit any future films - possibly excellent films - that won't star Ford (for whatever reason, age being the most likely). If in ten years an Indy film is made that obviously won't star Ford, I'd be stoked to take my kid to see it.

Click to expand...

Harrison was so involved in creating the character, bringing him to life from the page, that he has invested some of his own life in Indy. Harrison is a very involved actor, who does more than just turn up for a day's work. There are certain projects that he cares deeply for - this is evident in interviews and documentaries about the making of his movies.

I think a reboot without Harrison would feel like watching some other series of films - like Brendon Fraser's Mummy series, or even Tom Selleck in The High Road to China.

The stories of Indiana Jones aren't unique, they were pastiche from the start. What I find enduring is Harrison as that character, and aging in real time. When Harrison hangs up the hat, any future Indy film might as well be renamed as something else. It will have lost that quality that made it unique.

i think maybe a new Indiana could work if it takes place after the Young Indy TV show and years before Temple of Doom. If they can try to find somone that looks like a younger Indy and have that some style.

The shot of Indy silhouetted in front of the mushroom cloud perfectly symbolized this theme. Indy is (I like to say this a lot) a dynamite stick in an atomic age. He doesn't belong in this world of nukes and Soviets. I always viewed KOTCS as Indy trying to prove that he still "has it". And, damn, did he prove himself.

kongisking said:

The shot of Indy silhouetted in front of the mushroom cloud perfectly symbolized this theme. Indy is (I like to say this a lot) a dynamite stick in an atomic age. He doesn't belong in this world of nukes and Soviets. I always viewed KOTCS as Indy trying to prove that he still "has it". And, damn, did he prove himself.

Click to expand...

He's like a rock against which others break themselves. A stubborn anachronism. Even when he's too old to go hand to hand, he'll give his enemies a steely glare, and the 'Ford finger'.

Excellent usage of "The Ford Finger", I like how you worked it in there....ewwww, that didn't sound right at all.

Indy's brother said:

Excellent usage of "The Ford Finger", I like how you worked it in there....ewwww, that didn't sound right at all.

Click to expand...

How about a little bullwhipping for afters?

Montana Smith said:

How about a little bullwhipping for afters?

Click to expand...

"Why you conceited ape, I'm not that easy!"

To get back on topic, I think it was a nicely alluded to, but as someone in a separate thread mentioned in comparing KOTCS to it's novelization, it could have been so much more. I did notice, as did many, that Dr. Jones seemed to get younger as the movie progressed. I like to think of it as the adventure bringing him back to life, wether or not that was the intention of the film.

Indy's brother said:

"Why you conceited ape, I'm not that easy!"

Click to expand...

Indy's brother said:

To get back on topic, I think it was a nicely alluded to, but as someone in a separate thread mentioned in comparing KOTCS to it's novelization, it could have been so much more.

Click to expand...

That was probably me!

Indy's brotherI [I said:

did[/I] notice, as did many, that Dr. Jones seemed to get younger as the movie progressed. I like to think of it as the adventure bringing him back to life, wether or not that was the intention of the film.

Click to expand...

Nice.

He did look very old in the first shot. And by the end he was fully in his rights taking that fedora back from Mutt.

Montana Smith said:

Yes, it was sad to see Indy aged so dramatically, and to be so out of place. To me, Indy is a constant character. Regardless of the events in KOTCS which have angered some fans, Indy is still Indy. The real time aging since The Last Crusade was a brave and pretty unusual element.

It's sad like the end of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, which Peter Jackson recreated beautifully in The Return of the King. You don't want to see favourite characters go, but that they do creates a greater sense of the reality of their existence in their world.

It's one of the reasons that a reboot would lose a lot of the magic. All these years we've watched Harrison play the character. If another actor took over it be be as though we were watching an entirely new character.

Click to expand...

I think there are certain qualities that remain constant in Indy - his passion for archeology, love of adventure, etc. But I don't think it's quite accurate to say he's a constant character. He's human like the rest of us and he experiences character arcs.

In this film, you're supposed to feel sad for Indy near the beginning. He has lost his father and Marcus, and without his job there is nothing to keep him in the States. The line "We seemed to have reached the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away" is absolutely wrenching. Clearly, Indy is lonely.

It all sets up the character arc. At the conclusion of the film's journey, Indy finds what he was looking for all along - a family.

As for feeling sad because Indy has aged? Absolutely not. To see Ford play Indy so exceptionally in his mid-60's, and to see Indy still be Indy in 2008.......it was extraordinarily inspiring. Ford refused to dye his hair for the film because he wanted people to accept this aging process. I love the fact that the film accepts this, because Indy has always been a very human character, and humans age. It's a natural part of life. But just because you age doesn't mean your spirit dimmers, or that life stops giving you things........these are things I take from the movie.

kongisking said:

The shot of Indy silhouetted in front of the mushroom cloud perfectly symbolized this theme. Indy is (I like to say this a lot) a dynamite stick in an atomic age. He doesn't belong in this world of nukes and Soviets. I always viewed KOTCS as Indy trying to prove that he still "has it". And, damn, did he prove himself.

Click to expand...

I respectfully see it differently.....I don't ever feel Indy is "lost" or "doesn't belong" in this world.

In my opinion, Indy standing in front of the silhouette of the mushroom cloud is a moment for the audience to reflect on the awe-inspiring power of the atomic bomb. We've clearly entered an age now where man holds exceptional power. And it's ominous and a little scary........in fact, when I watched the film in the theater, I distinctly remember how intense the nuclear bomb scene is. Heck, I think the film needs the comedic, lighthearted "break" that the fridge/prairie dog provides.

The scene mirrors the shot near the end of the film when the flying saucer emerges from beneath Akator and disappears. Obviously it's another awe-inspiring moment of reflection for the audience. I think it says something about a power that is too powerful for humans - something beyond our understanding, something we underestimate - themes we find in all the Indy movies.

Spalko also mentions the matter in the tent when Indy is held captive. She says something about Oppenheimer's quote ("Now I become Death, the destroyer of worlds"), nuclear intimidation, and how the next level of weapon (the skull) would be their's. It's an interesting scene worth mentioning.

I didn't exactly feel sad for him...He was older, but he still carried on with his life as easily as he did when he was young, it seems. Plus he still has those kick-butt fighting skills

How can you be sad about seeing Indy in his older age? I liked the older Indy just as much as the youngER Indy (Young Indy sucks) just for different reasons. 30s Indy was cool and kick-ass. The 50s Indy is like a legend going to work. Like Kongisking said He's still got it, and seeing this icon do what he does in an unfamiliar world is just as riveting as seeing him in a time that respected him.

I really didn't feel sad. Infact, I thought it worked having Ford playing Indy towards the end of the 1950s. I don't think it would hav worked if they'd have had ford dye his hair brown again and do the 30s style Indy.

I also liked the fact that he's very set in his ways and still a fish out of water compared to the modern tone, but he proved he's still got what it takes and can still run rings around his much younger foes.

i didnt feel sad , other than being glad that indy was back!!! with him aging the years as long as they did in real time was , i think a bold choice , they could have dyed his hair brown and gone back about ten years to do some adventuring in the forties ,( which i think he could have pulled off easily)but having him in the fifties looking for the skull was still a great story line.if they do another indy film they could go either way dye his hair and go back a few years and have him set in the early 50's or continue his adventures with marion and mutt. but whatever happens i will be there opening night with my money in my hand and dressed as indy waiting to see his next exploits .

Cole said:

I think there are certain qualities that remain constant in Indy - his passion for archeology, love of adventure, etc. But I don't think it's quite accurate to say he's a constant character. He's human like the rest of us and he experiences character arcs.

Click to expand...

I meant he was constant as in being the same character in each film. There are subtle shifts between the films, but he's still the Indy we can recognize from Raiders. Take the 'dagger stealing' scene from KOTCS as an example that there's still something of the ambiguous tomb raider in him.

Ford did play the role exceptionally well in KOTCS - well enough to invoke a feeling of sadness not just for his personal situation, but also for the fact that we're seeing an icon entering his autumn years.

Yeah, it was a little sad to see Indy somewhat "beaten down". It seemed like Indy knew he wouldn't be able to have the upper hand as much as he used to.