Did Harry age a lot between 1981 and 1989?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Raiders90

Well-known member
If you watch Raiders, and then LC, back to back, the contrast in Harrison's appearance is almost unsettling. Seven years may be a long while, but even for seven years, Harrison aged A LOT.

Compare his aging in that time frame to other stars, for example Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp or Brendan Fraiser, or even old time stars like Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart...In the case of the first mentioned more modern three, they all have baby faces not that dissimilar to when they first started out, I mean Brendan Fraiser could still easily pass for his late 20s or 30s despite being around the age Harrison was when he made LC, and in the case of the latter two, they didn't age all THAT much until they both became sickly....

What caused Harry to age so much between 1981 and 1989? Hell, even between the production of ToD (1983) and LC (1988), just 5 years, there's a lot of aging...He doesn't look much different in ToD than he does in Raiders, just thinner and in better shape, whereas he looks haggard in LC...
 

HenryJunior

New member
He aged a bit, but remember Harrison has never been that young, he was almost 40 years old when he did Raiders, and closing in on 50 by LC. I think he has always looked great for his age. The only thing I can think of is that Harrison got into peak condition for TOD's shirtless scenes, by the time LC rolled around he was still in good shape, just a bit more relaxed into his middle age.

People change quite a bit in nearly a decade, nothing bad happened he just matured a bit more.

edit: sorry, I wrote my response while you posted Montana Smith
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Nobody replied when Raiders112390 bumped his other one so a new duplicate was necessary.
Nobody replied when Raiders112390 bumped his other one so a new duplicate was necessary.

:D :eek: :dead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top