Why can't Hollywood accept the natural aging process? (Indy 5)

[ahalpert]

Since we're talking about actors performing sometimes as characters of a different age, I will note that Brando and DeNiro had only a 19 year age difference. Brando wore considerable makeup to age himself for The Godfather. He was only 46 when cast. DeNiro was 29 when he acted in The Godfather, Part II.

Yes, but for one thing you're generalizing about wrong-age actors when I was speaking specifically about being too old to be an action hero. I think it's easier to look/act older than vice versa because you can slow yourself down more readily than you can speed yourself up. But even then, I've seen a lot of poor and unconvincing aging makeup/acting - usually people having too much hair (just grayed) and moving too quickly or with too little effort

But yeah - sean connery was only 12 years older than harrison ford yet played his dad in last crusade. I think that irked him a little. But the whole thing (with ford probably supposed to be a bit younger than he actually was) was believable enough to me

 

[ahalpert]

I feel the same way about directors. I really hope that Ridley Scott is able to finish his Alien series. Visually his work is still genius to me...

Finish it? Is there an end in sight? Plus, he can just let others take over, no?

 

[filmguy123]

People will always want that again forever. That's what rebooting with younger actors is for.

Meh, sure with Bond - but not with a character like Indy. Harrison Ford is Indy, Indy is Harrison Ford. They are so intrinsically intertwined with voice, mannerisms, etc. that there's no point in recasting or rebooting. Young Indy, sure... but not 1930s and later Indy. It's not the role of Indiana that makes the character special, but the personality. Contrast with Bond where the fantasy is more so in the role than the person. As such I have zero interest in a reboot with someone else playing Indy in his prime (I believe they considered doing this with Chris Pratt, and then canned the idea). It's also clear they previously contemplated a quasi-reboot with his son Mutt and now possibly with another character via Phoebe Waller-Bridge... but I hope they just let it be.

Indy also has never been the smooth Bond-type action hero, which is why if handled well I think all of this has potential to work quite well. Quintessential Indy moments are things like "fly, yes. Land... no" or "dad, we're well out of range." Ford brings a certain indelible charm to the imperfect and unlikely hero that makes him relatable... Indy is always in over his head, making things up as he goes, and surviving against the odds. He's always been vulnerable and survived by a sort of resourceful wit and in spite of his many missteps.

So, I'll happily take a 15 min flashback with a de-aged Ford and a well thought out Indy sequence. I would feel differently if they were trying to make Indy 5 in the 1940s a 2 hour flick, no thanks, but a fun intro sequence? I'm rooting for ya, James.

What do you think are the examples of it working well?

Indiana Jones 5

But really I think you're being too hard on Irishman as a whole. With a handful of exceptions, I thought it worked well for the most part. And that was 3 hours. I'd hope with another 2-3 years of technological improvement, the massive budget of Disney, the pressure of Indy, and a short 15-minute section with may only consist of several minutes of CUs on Ford's face that they can do a bang up job. I mean, it's likely only 15 minutes and they are shooting it first to give plenty of time for post. I am not saying they will do it justice, but I am saying I believe they can/could... so I will give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Mangold acted like an ass on Twitter and mostly responded to critics by saying he was more famous and successful than they were. He could have said, "Don't worry, we'll be tactful about his age. We share your perspective."

I agree with you on the surprisingly poor response, but I don't think that makes him a less talented director, it just makes him human. It's sort of a non-sequitur to make a further correlation to what it means for his directorial abilities on the film.

I think you're ratifying my decision to not see star wars after force Awakens or the crystal skull. (Ok I've heard some praise for last jedi that has made me reconsider, but I'm on the fence.)

I had high hopes for Rian Johnson on the Last Jedi and was disappointed. I think there's a ton of smart, great thematic ideas and themes crammed into a 2.5 hour film that simply isn't that entertaining for large sections, has pacing issues, feels like a tonal mismatch to the rest of the series, and gave many fans the opposite of what they wanted.

RJ is talented too and IMO he botched Last Jedi (others would disagree), but point is, Mangold could well botch Indy 5 too. But I'll still remain optimistic until the film releases. The talent is there, the budget is there - so I'm rooting for the crew.

Yes - I think they could do interesting things with older Indy. It's all about imagination and creativity for the character. It almost worked in dark Knight rises but I felt it was a rather weak story and the whole trilogy would have been better served with a non-ending of riding off into the sunset in his prime. More like how dark knight ended

The Dark Knight ending was fantastic, the Dark Knight Rises ending felt to me like a forced hollywood change. Not saying it was, but IMO they should have just let Batman die and Joseph Gordon Levitt stumble into the cave to imply Batman had no become a symbol without the whole "Bruce is still alive kicking it with Catwoman in Europe". (I would *love* to know Nolan's original intent was for Batman to die and if WB vetoed him killing Batman). To me the main problem with Dark Knight Rises was Nolan tried to cram the whole Jospeh Cambell hero's journey, way too many characters, and a circular trilogy arc into one overly long, unfocused film. Just too much going on, and it simply couldn't live up to the Dark Knight. Oh well.

You either end on a perfect note or sequelize long enough to become an object of ridicule

Nice reference!

Yeah, for me the Indy series is already tarnished with Temple of Doom and Kingdom. So it's not as if "Indy is ruined if 5 isn't awesome!". We already got that out of the way, and turns out, it's easy enough to ignore Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... so if 5 bombs, it's easy enough to ignore, too. But if they can add a meaningful conclusion and story arc to Indiana's character that feels like a natural extension to the series, I am for it.

 

[filmguy123]

Side note, one of my biggest gripes (not my only big gripe by any means) but one of my biggest was the art direction and cinematography on Crystal Skull. I hated that they changed the classic Indy aesthetic to feel like the 50s, with over the top diffusion, more telephoto lens choices, etc. Ugh. The move to the 50s, Russians, and Alien theme all made sense but at least make it look and FEEL like an Indy film! It felt like a completely different series. I am still irked about the diffusion/lens choices... just as made as I am about Shia LeBouf swinging from trees, human sized ants, the stupid snake and quicksand scene, the closing wedding scene, the nuclear blast and the fridge, and the moment I knew I would dislike the film: the opening Paramount logo with the stupid mole popping out. I still remember being there opening night and my heart sinking within 30 seconds. The scene where the Russian guy squats to tie his shoe and the soldiers open fire behind him solidified it for me, where the cinematography took on such a stark contrast to the other films.

But I digress.

Anyway, Ford still has such great screen presence. His 2 minute cameo in Rise of Skywalker is great. And I can't believe the condition he's kept himself in:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/06/14/00/44182553-9682793-image-a-11_1623625441555.jpg

I don't want to see him jumping off horses at 78 but he could play a compelling 70-year old progression of Indy (perhaps he'll have a few nods to Connery's role, being his father's son and all).

 

[DLD]

I'd hope with another 2-3 years of technological improvement, the massive budget of Disney, the pressure of Indy, and a short 15-minute section with may only consist of several minutes of CUs on Ford's face that they can do a bang up job...

The technology of 2016-2017 allowed the recreation of the Peter Cushing character. In 2021, one should be able to recreate Fred Astaire. I expect that soon every actor of note will have a digital 3D mask of himself made, so s/he can perform on the screen from beyond the grave.

PS. Those are not that difficult anyway. All it takes is a couple of dozen high res still cameras.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I went to Columbia U. Film school with Jim Mangold and shot his student film which became the basis for his first feature. My best advice would be to not pay attention to his responses on Twitter and instead judge his filmmaking by his collected work.

 

[lambert]

Steven Segal movies have him Of late being so tired as a top special forces guy that he’s sitting in a chair on the “operations” as a sharpshooter and moving at the speed of glue when he does react. I just picture Will Sasso when he used to do him, the impression is more and more accurate with each film.

 

[ahalpert]

Meh, sure with Bond - but not with a character like Indy. Harrison Ford is Indy, Indy is Harrison Ford. They are so intrinsically intertwined with voice, mannerisms, etc. that there's no point in recasting or rebooting. Young Indy, sure... but not 1930s and later Indy. It's not the role of Indiana that makes the character special, but the personality. Contrast with Bond where the fantasy is more so in the role than the person. As such I have zero interest in a reboot with someone else playing Indy in his prime (I believe they considered doing this with Chris Pratt, and then canned the idea). It's also clear they previously contemplated a quasi-reboot with his son Mutt and now possibly with another character via Phoebe Waller-Bridge... but I hope they just let it be.

I would agree, but

1. I also felt that Captain Kirk was intrinsically linked to William Shatner, but they rebooted the character with Chris Pine. I didn't think that the reboot worked, but not because of the casting. (And plenty of people DID think the reboot worked.)

2. I also felt that way about Han Solo and Harrison Ford, but they rebooted him with Alden Ehrenreich in the new Solo movie, and I thought the casting worked. (The movie wasn't a masterpiece, but it was a decent popcorn flick.)

3. Generation Z and beyond will probably never see the original Indy movies because they were made in the 20th century, so we can show them whatever Indy actor we want.

But really I think you're being too hard on Irishman as a whole. With a handful of exceptions, I thought it worked well for the most part. And that was 3 hours. I'd hope with another 2-3 years of technological improvement, the massive budget of Disney, the pressure of Indy, and a short 15-minute section with may only consist of several minutes of CUs on Ford's face that they can do a bang up job. I mean, it's likely only 15 minutes and they are shooting it first to give plenty of time for post. I am not saying they will do it justice, but I am saying I believe they can/could... so I will give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

I thought the de-aging in the Irishman worked. I wouldn't say it worked well. It entered the uncanny valley for me. I'm not sure I would have felt differently if I hadn't known about the de-aging situation. There was something off about the humans in it. Humans are incredibly sensitive to other humans' behavior and expressions. And it's also a little distracting to come in with that BTS knowledge and be evaluating the effects. The type of BTS knowledge that enhances the viewing experience usually relates to aspects of REALISM rather than FAKISM, such as "they actually built an entire castle just so they could burn it down for this scene" (Kurosawa's Ran, Game of Thrones).

I'll admit that my reaction to this whole thing is influenced by my reaction to Ford playing Solo in the Force Awakens. I thought he did a fine job, although I thought he was still a LITTLE too old for it... But my bigger problem was that they cast Ford at all. If I were writing a continuation of the story that ended in Return of the Jedi without any considerating for casting, I would have picked up the story in a different place. Being slavishly tied to casting choices was much to the detriment of the story writing and execution, IMO.

 

[filmguy123]

I would agree, but

1. I also felt that Captain Kirk was intrinsically linked to William Shatner, but they rebooted the character with Chris Pine. I didn't think that the reboot worked, but not because of the casting. (And plenty of people DID think the reboot worked.)

2. I also felt that way about Han Solo and Harrison Ford, but they rebooted him with Alden Ehrenreich in the new Solo movie, and I thought the casting worked. (The movie wasn't a masterpiece, but it was a decent popcorn flick.)

3. Generation Z and beyond will probably never see the original Indy movies because they were made in the 20th century, so we can show them whatever Indy actor we want.

IMO the Solo movie worked because it's the equivalent of Young Indiana Jones... I really don't think it would work with Alden Ehrenreich playing Han Solo's side adventures during the original trilogy era. But we can buy it as a sort of before we knew him origin story.

I may be biased growing up with Indy, but the archetype of his character is rather generic. Enter National Treasure, Romance of the Stone, Tomb Raider, etc. What's made Indy so iconic, besides the quality of the film, really is Ford. I can't imagine Indy would hold the place it does today if Tom Selleck had played the role. Sure, Shatner become iconic and famous as Captain Kirk... but I'd argue it's Apples to Oranges. IMO for something to feel like Star Trek it's need to have the USS Enterprise, the crew, the concept, the character roles... but for something to feel like Indy, it needs to have Ford. Shatner didn't *make* the show, and it was a show about a whole crew of characters (all of which were recast, maintaining the ship, the concept, the roles)... whereas Indy is in many ways a one-man personality driven show.

Anyway, like I said I may well be biased here growing up watching Raiders too many times to count, but I just can't see it without Ford. As for Gen Z, it's a fair enough point... but at the point, what does it even matter? Just start a new adventure series all together, not with someone playing "Indy", but rather with a new character in the universe all together. This may be what they are attempting with Phoebe.

I thought the de-aging in the Irishman worked. I wouldn't say it worked well. It entered the uncanny valley for me. I'm not sure I would have felt differently if I hadn't known about the de-aging situation. There was something off about the humans in it. Humans are incredibly sensitive to other humans' behavior and expressions. And it's also a little distracting to come in with that BTS knowledge and be evaluating the effects. The type of BTS knowledge that enhances the viewing experience usually relates to aspects of REALISM rather than FAKISM, such as "they actually built an entire castle just so they could burn it down for this scene" (Kurosawa's Ran, Game of Thrones).

Interesting point, I watched it more from a blank slate so wasn't bothered by this. Reminds me of a review I read on 1917 where someone said they ruined their first viewing by spending the whole time playing "spot the cut" instead of just enjoying the film. In either case, I would expect Indy 5's de-aging to be even better than Irishman. And it's not the whole film, it's just a flashback sequence, so not everything is riding on it.

I'll admit that my reaction to this whole thing is influenced by my reaction to Ford playing Solo in the Force Awakens. I thought he did a fine job, although I thought he was still a LITTLE too old for it... But my bigger problem was that they cast Ford at all. If I were writing a continuation of the story that ended in Return of the Jedi without any considerating for casting, I would have picked up the story in a different place. Being slavishly tied to casting choices was much to the detriment of the story writing and execution, IMO.

FWIW, Lucas way back in the 80s talked to some of the crew about filming a sequel trilogy decades later once they had aged. In Lucas' vision, when he could have picked the story up anywhere, he always pictured the sequel trilogy with an older Han/Luke/Leia. Obviously his take would have been different, but the timeline was always the same.

 

[Paul F]

I've been mulling over Harrison Ford at 78 and on second thought, as long as I don't see his Depends sticking out, I'm ok with him doing Indy. Who am I to disparage some old dude re-living his youth.

 

[ahalpert]

IMO the Solo movie worked because it's the equivalent of Young Indiana Jones... I really don't think it would work with Alden Ehrenreich playing Han Solo's side adventures during the original trilogy era. But we can buy it as a sort of before we knew him origin story.

I didn't relate to Ehrenreich as being drastically younger than New Hope Han. In fact, the geek sheets have Han at 32 in New Hope and 22 in Solo. https://www.yodasdatapad.com/ages.html

Whereas Young Indy was either played as 9 years old or late teenager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Indiana_Jones_Chronicles, while he's supposed to be 37 in Raiders. So, I don't think the Young Indy comparison is totally relevant to Solo. I could see Ehrenreich at that age jumping into a story about how Han dumped the shipment he was smuggling for Jabba that put a price on his head pre-New Hope. Ehrenreich was about 27 when Solo was filmed.

I may be biased growing up with Indy, but the archetype of his character is rather generic. Enter National Treasure, Romance of the Stone, Tomb Raider, etc. What's made Indy so iconic, besides the quality of the film, really is Ford. I can't imagine Indy would hold the place it does today if Tom Selleck had played the role. Sure, Shatner become iconic and famous as Captain Kirk... but I'd argue it's Apples to Oranges. IMO for something to feel like Star Trek it's need to have the USS Enterprise, the crew, the concept, the character roles... but for something to feel like Indy, it needs to have Ford. Shatner didn't *make* the show, and it was a show about a whole crew of characters (all of which were recast, maintaining the ship, the concept, the roles)... whereas Indy is in many ways a one-man personality driven show.

I disagree. For one thing, Temple of Doom was broadly panned but not because Ford was bad. I think that if you gave another actor the fedora and the whip and the lines, that Raiders would still have been successful. Quite as iconic? Probably not. But it's not like The Fugitive, where Ford was easily the most memorable part of the movie.

As someone who has seen almost all of the Trek series and movies, I would say that Kirk definitely makes the show (with the 3-way bromance between him, McCoy, and Spock rounding out the iconic characters/relationships.) Kirk flew by the seat of his pants and trusted his gut. The halting yet assertive delivery of Shatner sealed that deal, along with his cocky charm.

FWIW, Lucas way back in the 80s talked to some of the crew about filming a sequel trilogy decades later once they had aged. In Lucas' vision, when he could have picked the story up anywhere, he always pictured the sequel trilogy with an older Han/Luke/Leia. Obviously his take would have been different, but the timeline was always the same.

I hadn't heard that. I had just heard that Lucas' sequel story treatment involved characters becoming microscopic to fix someone's midi-chlorians, a la Fantastic Voyage.

Personally, I would have picked it up with the next generation training at the Academy. (There were a lot of great novels set there.) With the main characters in their 50s.

 

[Batutta]

I'll watch Indy 5 just for Phoebe Waller Bridge. The thought of her as British explorer in a Lara Croft get-up sends my pulse racing.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I may be biased growing up with Indy, but the archetype of his character is rather generic. Enter National Treasure, Romance of the Stone, Tomb Raider, etc. What's made Indy so iconic, besides the quality of the film, really is Ford. I can't imagine Indy would hold the place it does today if Tom Selleck had played the role. Sure, Shatner become iconic and famous as Captain Kirk... but I'd argue it's Apples to Oranges. IMO for something to feel like Star Trek it's need to have the USS Enterprise, the crew, the concept, the character roles... but for something to feel like Indy, it needs to have Ford. Shatner didn't *make* the show, and it was a show about a whole crew of characters (all of which were recast, maintaining the ship, the concept, the roles)... whereas Indy is in many ways a one-man personality driven show.

Anyway, like I said I may well be biased here growing up watching Raiders too many times to count, but I just can't see it without Ford. As for Gen Z, it's a fair enough point... but at the point, what does it even matter? Just start a new adventure series all together, not with someone playing "Indy", but rather with a new character in the universe all together. This may be what they are attempting with Phoebe.

Many people said that no one could play James Bond after Sean Connery. I wasn't particularly a fan of the smug comedy direction Roger Moore took the character, but certainly Bond lived on.

 

[lambert]

If not mistaken I believe Tom Selleck would have been Indiana Jones if not for the producers of magnum not letting him do it because of shooting conflicts. Hard to imagine that film, but who knows.

 

[ahalpert]

Many people said that no one could play James Bond after Sean Connery. I wasn't particularly a fan of the smug comedy direction Roger Moore took the character, but certainly Bond lived on.

When I was a kid, Roger Moore was probably my favorite Bond. Of course, the whole sex thing was way over my head, so his relatively wholesome charm was just more my speed

 

[NorBro]

HF was hurt today during filming/rehearsing, but doesn't seem major.

 

[ahalpert]

HF was hurt today during filming/rehearsing, but doesn't seem major.

Yeah, he broke his leg filming force Awakens, too. I mean - if he still looked athletic and simply broke bones more easily due to his age, I would say fine, do the action thing forever. Although I'm sure it's tough on the production schedule to have these injury down-times...

(And just a note in case anyone thinks I'm ageist - I have beef with other types of fakery in action movies. Like I was watching one of the John wick films and it was obvious that each of the bad guys should have been kicking his ass. They moved so much faster than him and more adeptly. Until they got right up to him when they slowed down and allowed themselves to be beaten. And it's like that all the time in movies/TV. Sure, the movie can still be enjoyable. But ideally I shouldn't be thinking about these things. With Bruce Lee, I sure didnt.)

 

[NorBro]

Most people don't really pay attention to the age of action stars and their abilities and stuff because most people don't do cardio or lift weights.

Because the reality of it - for anyone who actually sprints and moves a lot and does physically demanding movements - is that you already have broken down a lot in your mid 30s and most couldn't do half of the stuff these action people do on the screen unless they've been training their entire lives or at least put in a lot of training leading up to the role.

I don't know anything about HF and this entire situation, but I think this is a more him situation than a Hollywood one.

Sometimes people need to work until the end and he's obviously not going to do something he doesn't want to, and I think he would be smart enough to call it off after one day of filming if he didn't like what he saw on the screen after they started rolling.

 

[ahalpert]

Most people don't really pay attention to the age of action stars and their abilities and stuff because most people don't do cardio or lift weights.

I mean, the whole thing is an illusion. But the illusion has to remain intact. Maybe part of that illusion is the memories you bring to the theater of these actors in their prime. But people definitely notice actors getting older, fatter, etc. It's not like people just don't notice. There's a reason actors get so much work done and do such crazy muscle building regimens before superhero roles.

Now, as far as logically believing that these people can do what they do on screen - that's another story. But the illusion has to be convincing enough for you to get into the story.

HF - it's just money. They're offering it to him. He's making it for them. I dont think he's delusional.

He introduced himself to ryan gosling on BR2049 by saying, "Do you have any idea who I used to be?"

As for declining past your mid-30s - I mean, Bruce Lee at 50 probably could have kicked my ass at 20

 

[NorBro]

Maybe it could have been worded better, but that comment was specifically about their age and their abilities because the overall physical appearance is as important as the dialogue.

If you're 80 and you look good and you're running around and swinging a sword for a minute or whatever, no one will question that...but real people are out of breath walking up the stairs for 10 seconds.