I couldn't have said it better. Didn't care for temple of doom much at all. Looking forward to the next movie!
Indiana Jones 5. It's official.
- Thread starter Kelthaz
- Start date
Well I don't think Ford is too old to play Indy, but I think a 73 year old Ford is too old to be swinging around from lights on his whip. Hell, in Last Crusade Connery was 59. Ford is going to be around 75 by the time filming gets underway.
I do wonder if some of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles stuff could come up. In one of the old Indy bits we learn he has a daughter and grandkids. Now if you watch Crystal Skull and Karen Allen you would think Marion is too old, but the character of Marion is actually 48 in 1957(Crystal Skull) so def old, but not nearly impossible as if she was a decade older.
Of course the only thing worse than Shia might be Indy raising a tween in the late 60s
I do wonder if some of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles stuff could come up. In one of the old Indy bits we learn he has a daughter and grandkids. Now if you watch Crystal Skull and Karen Allen you would think Marion is too old, but the character of Marion is actually 48 in 1957(Crystal Skull) so def old, but not nearly impossible as if she was a decade older.
Of course the only thing worse than Shia might be Indy raising a tween in the late 60s
There's a growing trend of filmmakers boasting about their practical effects to curry geeks' favor, absolutely. Is there a growing trend of practical effects themselves? That's very much up for debate...
Dear God, I forgot about Shia; he was so awful in that movie, being his annoying self, and swinging along with cg monkeys, and a sword fight on a cg car... FYI all were Spielberg ideas not Lucas but oh well. I'm wondering if they would risk making the last Indy film a prequel to KOTCS? Have an in-between episode before the fourth one. But I'm not sure if he could look 64 or younger when he turns 75 to play the character??? This is beyond bewildering Disney and Spielberg wants to do this? Indy is guess would be retiring or be retiring or forced to retire or is dying and wants a final adventure... this is just don't know what to think about a 75 years old Ford playing Indy again. But he did escaped a nuclear blast within a fridge, and crashed into a speeding jeep at 65--ALL SPIELBERG IDEAS I might add.
Read the several scripts based on 4, none of that crap was in there. But oh well. Lucas gets the brunt of the hate. The man had created these works of art we all loved. Where's the love for George Lucas?
Lucas insisted on his stupid aliens idea as a precondition to making the movie, so maybe Spielberg said "screw it", and decided to make an all-out cartoon in response. That damn flying saucer at the end of KotCS might have been even more aggravating had the movie living up to that been better than it was.
Unlike Lucas, Spielberg has actually directed more than zero good movies since 1977, including his most recent Bridge of Spies; so, without Lucas' involvement and lame-ass story demands, it's entirely possible he'll make a sequel worthy of Raiders. Not guaranteed, no, but possible.
I'd rather the cute hunk from Jurassic World to be Indiana than a 75 years old Indiana Jones. LOL!!! Oh God, will he have to take naps through some on the adventures??? LOL!!! I'm sorry, I'm not going with this one; this is beyond suspension of disbelief. Nope, I think I'd rather skip the next Indy and watch the one with his Dad and have that one as the last Indiana Jones film where Ford LOOKED like Indiana Jones.Lucas insisted on his stupid aliens idea as a precondition to making the movie, so maybe Spielberg said "screw it", and decided to make an all-out cartoon in response. That damn flying saucer at the end of KotCS might have been even more aggravating had the movie living up to that been better than it was.
Unlike Lucas, Spielberg has actually directed more than zero good movies since 1977, including his most recent Bridge of Spies; so, without Lucas' involvement and lame-ass story demands, it's entirely possible he'll make a sequel worthy of Raiders. Not guaranteed, no, but possible.
Huge Indyfan here. While I didn't mind the idea of a 5th movie, not sure how I feel about Ford returning. In Crystal Skull his advanced age was fine. Now? He might be a bit too old. We'll see. As long as the plot for this one discards the silly aspects of the plot to Crystal Skull. An "old Indy" story could work, depending on how they do it. But after the last film took a nosedive once they got to Peru, I'm not too confident in the abilities of the filmmakers to give us such a story.
And I should add that while I would've supported a recasting of the role, I didn't like the idea of Chris Pratt. Glad they didn't go with him. I know he was everyone's golden boy/darling recast of Indy...but no.
And I should add that while I would've supported a recasting of the role, I didn't like the idea of Chris Pratt. Glad they didn't go with him. I know he was everyone's golden boy/darling recast of Indy...but no.
It's worth pointing out that the character of Indy has always been ten years younger than Ford. Granted that still means we'll get a Indy in his late sixties, but as long as they acknowledge his age I think it will be just fine.
I like the idea of him being "out of the game" so to speak and being pulled back in for one last great adventure.
I like the idea of him being "out of the game" so to speak and being pulled back in for one last great adventure.
Well, maybe "trend" is a bit strong at this point, but I think there's been more of a leaning interest towards practical effects in the last few years. It at least seems like filmmakers are realizing that CGI can't replace the physical and isn't the be-all end-all and instead realizing a happy balance between the two where needed.
That said, I hope the new Indy will have more of the physical.
For a long time I felt the Rocky series ended on a weak note with the fifth film. I don't dislike that film, but to me it didn't feel like that good of a finale. Then Rocky Balboa came out and (in my mind at least) ended the whole thing on a much more upbeat note, and it was a much stronger film in general. If they take their time and do this right, they could very easily go out on a high note and probably redeem Crystal Skull in some people's eyes. I don't dislike Crystal Skull at all, but I think it's a really weak and problematic film.
Also, it's interesting but in a lot of old books I have talking about the film series, Spielberg and Lucas had always intended to do five films. Just something I thought was neat.
Also, it's interesting but in a lot of old books I have talking about the film series, Spielberg and Lucas had always intended to do five films. Just something I thought was neat.
I loved the beginning portion of Crystal Skull. And actually, the idea of the aliens and paying homage to 1950's B-grade scifi wasn't bad at all. It was just that once they got to Peru, everything became so "paint by numbers." But the biggest issue I had with it was the sense of discovery and peril just wasn't there. Indy just kinda finds the skull. Ho-hum. They just kinda find the pyramid. Ho-hum. There's never a sense of danger, unlike, say....if you compare it to the set-pieces in Last Crusade, or even the sense of tension that was in Temple of Doom.
I had no problem with Indy being "old" in it either. He still looked good...a grizzled veteran adventurer. I disagree with the member above that said he was too old in 2008. He looked great.
But this....I mean, what will this even be? I'm onboard regardless. Indiana Jones was my childhood hero. I mean, it's a no-brainer that I'll see it. I'm just worried for it. Say it takes place in 1965 or something, making Indy 66 (and Ford could pass for 66). But archaeology as a field was starting to die out even then. I remember an article in Archaeology magazine written in the late 2000's by a guy who got his PhD in archaeology in 1966 I believe, and he said one of his supervisors told him at the time "I fear the golden age has passed you by...you'll be stuck teaching."
Maybe this film will be about that. People think archaeology is dying out. Everything of note has already been discovered, etc. Until something comes along...and Indy is roped in by some journalist or student or something. Realistically they were still finding stuff in Mexico and in the Indus Valley in the 1960's, but the Indy films have already covered India so I doubt they'd go there again (I wish they would, though). It also rules out China because that was the time of the Cultural Revolution.
Whatever it's about, I just hope it corrects the flaws of Crystal Skull. And I pray that Ford doesn't look too old for his costume. We need to take him seriously after all. Some age jokes are fine...but not the whole movie.
If he still can be Han Solo he can still be Indy.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Han Solo wasn't the star of the movie this time around - and it wasn't exactly an action packed role, either, it was mostly being ornery and pointing blasters at people, with some nice understated drama in between. Maybe they can take Indy and make a similar approach work. But it's certainly not guaranteed - Indy was a much more physical, hands on character to start with, and any attempt to make him the starring role without that is probably doomed. Meanwhile, any attempt to make him the major supporting role (as Han was) will live or die in large part based on their choice of who to cast as the new blood. The last movie put Shia Lebeouf in that part, so how confident does that make anyone?
Han Solo in TFA was a supporting character who either sat, walked or stood during his scenes. Indy is the title character, he would have a much bigger part and he would be expected to climb through temples, jump over or out of traps, run, fight etc., Harrison Ford can no longer believably do this, I'm sorry but he is simply too old! He was pushing it during Crystal Skull and he'll be a decade older when Indy 5 films.
I want Indy to be Indy and not take a backseat to a younger character who does the physical stuff while Indy tags along and bitches about his back or something.
Another problem is that the movie would more further forward in time, the fourth one took place in the 50s, this one would presumably take place in the 60s. For me Indiana Jones is tied to an earlier time period, the type of adventure archeology it presented works less and less the closer we get to modern times.
I would prefer a recast and a movie set in the 1920s before the original ones.
Indeed. It's ironic that Spielberg and Lucas created Indy in part as their own James Bond, then cast Sean Connery as his father. Now Indy could quite run into 007 (even the Roger Moore incarnation!) if they allow real time to pass in the series - ROTLA was made in 1981 & set in 1936, so if this movie is made in 2019, it could be set in 1974. I suspect that they'll set it in the 1960s, to get a bit of a Bond/Flint/UNCLE vibe.
I'm also in the camp of wanting this to be good but very cautious after KOTCS. And while it was great to see Ford as Han Solo again, he did have sort of an old man's run and gait in the action scenes (albeit that he's in fantastic shape for a man in his 70s). He'll be 4 years older by the time this comes out; it's really hard to see how he'll handle the action scenes.
Similar threads
