Harrison Ford says he's fit to play Indiana Jones

[블라스]

It'd be cool if he said "It's not the mileage, honey, it's the years".

 

[black_dust]

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think it will suck ass. I just really don't want it to start with him teaching, and then hearing about some amazing find, and then have it cut to slo-mo of his hand reaching for his fedora and whip while strings swell.

And if he says "I'm really getting too old for this." I'll leave.

I guess you won't be in the theater very long then. I am almost certain he will say something to that effect, assuming it gets made.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

What I hate about internet cartoons is that they ALWAYS go for the easiest, most obvious joke. Usually one that we've all made up ourselves beforehand.

"Hey, you know what? Harrison Ford is old!!!! Hahahahahahaha!!! And Indy on a walking frame - good one guys!"

 

[black_dust]

What I hate about internet cartoons is that they ALWAYS go for the easiest, most obvious joke. Usually one that we've all made up ourselves beforehand.

"Hey, you know what? Harrison Ford is old!!!! Hahahahahahaha!!! And Indy on a walking frame - good one guys!"

Next thing you know, Stonlone in a hold peoples home "Rocky VIII - Rumble in the retierment home"

 

[Warhammer]

Harrison isn't getting any younger.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Geez, it's over!

Although Last Crusade was ok, it was the weakest of the trilogy because it tried to hard to be serious and in turn, robbed itself of that awesome b-movie charm that made the first two so good. Unlike Temple, Last Crusade does NOT age well at all.

Also, so much time has passed I am sure there will be tons of meta-references and self-references and all of these "I'm told old for this ****" type scenarios where soooo much attention will be brought to the idea of Indiana Jones.

Please, senoir.

 

[Backdrifter]

Geez, it's over!

Although Last Crusade was ok, it was the weakest of the trilogy because it tried to hard to be serious and in turn, robbed itself of that awesome b-movie charm that made the first two so good. Unlike Temple, Last Crusade does NOT age well at all.

Also, so much time has passed I am sure there will be tons of meta-references and self-references and all of these "I'm told old for this ****" type scenarios where soooo much attention will be brought to the idea of Indiana Jones.

Please, senoir.

Are you serious? The Last Crusade actually had a character arc for Indy. In the first two films, Indy never changed. Sure he was a cool character, but you never relate to him, he never has any character flaws. The Last Crusade gave Indy a character flaw to overcome and that was his relationship with his father. I think you are completely wrong about TLC. It is the BEST of the trilogy because it characters actually have personal journey's..instead of just looking for random artifacts/

 

[swifty]

Raiders was the absolute best. As much as I want a 4th installment, I prefer for it not to be made cuz I truly believe it's going to suck, Spielberg keeps making one crappy movie after another of late and Lucas is full of ****. End of rant.

 

[Retroman]

I LOVE the Indy trilogy and really don't see a need for a 4th. I also feel they've waited a little too long to get this in to production. Spielberg is busy as hell and Ford, Connery and the other returning cast members are not getting any younger.

They've been working on this thing for so long that they must come to some agreement that if it doesn't start filming in so and so timeframe they shouldn't do it all.The fact that George Lucas was the one who rejected a script that both Spielberg and Ford loved is pretty worrying.

BTW Check this out (LMAOt: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7890

 

[The Chairman]

Are you serious? The Last Crusade actually had a character arc for Indy. In the first two films, Indy never changed. Sure he was a cool character, but you never relate to him, he never has any character flaws. The Last Crusade gave Indy a character flaw to overcome and that was his relationship with his father. I think you are completely wrong about TLC. It is the BEST of the trilogy because it characters actually have personal journey's..instead of just looking for random artifacts/

I agree. Last Crusade is the best for that reason alone. I also disagree that it tries to hard to be serious. A lot of people feel it's more lighhearted than the first two. Not to mention the chemistry between Ford and Connery is brilliant.

 

[green]

BTW Check this out (LMAOt: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7890

t:
Somebody had to say it.

 

[The Question]

One thing I don't understand: At the end of Indiana Jones 3, Indy drank from the Holy Grail, becoming immortal and ageless. Ford has, quite noticebly, aged.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Are you serious? The Last Crusade actually had a character arc for Indy. In the first two films, Indy never changed. Sure he was a cool character, but you never relate to him, he never has any character flaws. The Last Crusade gave Indy a character flaw to overcome and that was his relationship with his father. I think you are completely wrong about TLC. It is the BEST of the trilogy because it characters actually have personal journey's..instead of just looking for random artifacts/

Opinion. Look into it sometime, buddy.

Are you serious? You must not have seen the first two. There is a character arc; Indy goes from non-believer to believer, and it takes the quest to do that. Go back and actually watch them, you'll see.

Also, the whole point to Indy was that he is a throwback to the old B-movie adventurers. You're naive to think that we're going to see him for any other reason than to kick Nazi ass and have adventures. That's why the first two work so well; these are supposed to be action-adventure films, not dramas. We root for Indy to overcome his many obstacles, not shed a tear at his "personel journey".

There was too much emphasis on comedy. Marcus and Salah, longtime faithful adventuring companions, were reduced to pratically bumbling comedic relief sidekicks. What the hell was wrong with Brody, was he drunk the whole time? It was pathetic; in Raiders, Marcus was someone that a few years ago would have "gone after it" himself. In Last Crusade, he was someone that "got lost in his own museum". I cringe everytime I see how they butchered the character.

Its the worst of the trilogy, not to say its terrible, but pales in comparison to the first two. The action is watered down and nowhere near as exciting as what we've seen, the pacing is slower, and we get too many points where the movie just kinda stops for a moment. It was very obvious after how dark Temple was, they were going for a much lighter mood, and this was the result.

We've seen Indy chase after a vehicle and board it already in Raiders. We've seen Indy try and fly a plane, only to have it crash in Temple. The boat chase wasn't that exciting either, and something we'd find in any old action movie. The motorcycle chase was ok, but again nothing really heartpounding.

When I say serious, its in regards not to the material but to Indy's nature; trying to give him too much story and really forcing the character arc, which Stewie here apparently loves . They tried to expand the idea of Indy, give him more serious personel obstacles to work through, and it kinda robs Indy of his roguish, semi-mysterious charm. We're taken away from the quest at hand and are forced to pay attention to the character or Indy, which IMO is not what the point of these action films are.

 

[Galactus]

Talk, talk, talk. That seems to be the only thing they can do about this movie. I still have my doubts that it will happen.

 

[The Chairman]

Opinion. Look into it sometime, buddy.

Are you serious? You must not have seen the first two. There is a character arc; Indy goes from non-believer to believer, and it takes the quest to do that. Go back and actually watch them, you'll see.

That may have been the point of Raiders, but there was no arc whatsoever in Temple.

Also, the whole point to Indy was that he is a throwback to the old B-movie adventurers. You're naive to think that we're going to see him for any other reason than to kick Nazi ass and have adventures. That's why the first two work so well; these are supposed to be action-adventure films, not dramas. We root for Indy to overcome his many obstacles, not shed a tear at his "personel journey".

Naive? Hardly. What makes Indy so special is that he isn't some typical B- movie action adventurer. He's given depth, he's not just some 2 - D cutout action hero, and this is most apparent in Last Crusade. Spielberg and Lucas did an incredible job at making him seem like a real character.

There was too much emphasis on comedy. Marcus and Salah, longtime faithful adventuring companions, were reduced to pratically bumbling comedic relief sidekicks. What the hell was wrong with Brody, was he drunk the whole time? It was pathetic; in Raiders, Marcus was someone that a few years ago would have "gone after it" himself. In Last Crusade, he was someone that "got lost in his own museum". I cringe everytime I see how they butchered the character.

There wasn't anything butcher with Marcus. He was given no development at all in Raiders. You're basing your opinion of that one line in Raiders. Marcus actually has development in Radiers. We learn his connection to Indy, and while he may have been used for comic relief, he still served more of a purpose than he did in Raiders.

Its the worst of the trilogy, not to say its terrible, but pales in comparison to the first two. The action is watered down and nowhere near as exciting as what we've seen, the pacing is slower, and we get too many points where the movie just kinda stops for a moment. It was very obvious after how dark Temple was, they were going for a much lighter mood, and this was the result.

Couldn't disagree more. For me, it's easily the best. The action is by far the most entetaining. The boat chase? The plane chase? The fight on the tank? All incredibly entertaining, well shot, well choreographed and exciting. The pacing is excellent, it's a breeze for me to watch. There's never a dull moment. Every scene is worth watching.

We've seen Indy chase after a vehicle and board it already in Raiders. We've seen Indy try and fly a plane, only to have it crash in Temple. The boat chase wasn't that exciting either, and something we'd find in any old action movie. The motorcycle chase was ok, but again nothing really heartpounding.

When I say serious, its in regards not to the material but to Indy's nature; trying to give him too much story and really forcing the character arc, which Stewie here apparently loves . They tried to expand the idea of Indy, give him more serious personel obstacles to work through, and it kinda robs Indy of his roguish, semi-mysterious charm. We're taken away from the quest at hand and are forced to pay attention to the character or Indy, which IMO is not what the point of these action films are.

I disagree. Considering Last Crusade was most likely initially intended to be the last film, they needed to wrap Indy's story. They gave him more development IMO to give him a sense of closure.

Anway, despite my valiant efforts, you'll probably be unconvinced by my argument.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Old men and their delusions of youth... sigh.

I could not have said it better myself.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

That may have been the point of Raiders, but there was no arc whatsoever in Temple.

Remember one of the last lines of Temple? "Yes, I see its power now". Before, the Shankara stones were just some worthless rocks. So yes, the arc is in Temple as well, and even more prevailent than in Raiders.

Naive? Hardly. What makes Indy so special is that he isn't some typical B- movie action adventurer. He's given depth, he's not just some 2 - D cutout action hero, and this is most apparent in Last Crusade. Spielberg and Lucas did an incredible job at making him seem like a real character.

Well, he was already a real character to me. The movies were always about the quests for me, and how Indy deals with them. THAT'S the appeal, not backstory. We don't necessarily need to know more about Indy to make his quests better or more exciting. That's the whole point of that style of B-movie; we do not slow down to learn more about the character, its all about moving forward and seeing how the character deals with the obstacles of the PRESENT.

I don't think the whole father elements and backstory and all that was bad. You and Stewie are really taking me out of context. I just think as a result, the movie isn't as good as Raiders or Temple, which both were solid action movies. This movie strays, and as a result, isn't as high up on the quality scale.

There wasn't anything butcher with Marcus. He was given no development at all in Raiders. You're basing your opinion of that one line in Raiders. Marcus actually has development in Radiers. We learn his connection to Indy, and while he may have been used for comic relief, he still served more of a purpose than he did in Raiders.

Well, that one line is still pretty important. I guess you mean to say Marcus has development in Crusade. How so? All he does is get captured by the Germans, stumbles around, tries to rescue Henry Sr and gets captured again, and then stumbles around some more. I don't see any character development at all. It's pure comedic relief, at the expense of building his character from Raiders from the foundation it set with that line that implied he was once an adventurer the same as Indy.

In fact, in Raiders, he seems to be a very educated man, as evidenced from what he says and his apparently high position in the school campus at the near-beginning of the film. In Crusade, he doesn't exhibit ANY of this intelligence, does he? It almost doesn't seem like the same character.

And I certainly don't remember any connection established to Indy in Last Crusade.

Couldn't disagree more. For me, it's easily the best. The action is by far the most entetaining. The boat chase? The plane chase? The fight on the tank? All incredibly entertaining, well shot, well choreographed and exciting. The pacing is excellent, it's a breeze for me to watch. There's never a dull moment. Every scene is worth watching.

Can you honestly say that Crusade has better action than Raiders? I hope not, as Raiders was extremely exhilerating, and puts ANY action sequence in Last Crusade to shame. Again, not to say the action in Crusade wasn't good, it just wasn't anything next to Raiders. Not only that, it didn't have as many action sequences either.

Sorry, but a fight on top of (and underneath) a flying wing is much more entertaining than a motorcycle or boat chase, which we can see in any old action movie on cable. If you look at Last Crusade, most of the action pieces are derivative of the action pieces from Raiders, only not as good. And can you honestly say that the extremely exciting opening hook from Raiders wasn't as good as the rehash temple tromp at the end of Last Crusade? Indy riding a horse, capturing a truck, getting thrown off, and recapturing it is one of the best action scenes in film history. And while the tank sequence in Last Crusade was very good, its obviously very inspired from the desert chase, but nowhere near as good.

Anway, despite my valiant efforts, you'll probably be unconvinced by my argument.

Of course I am not going to change my opinion. I've felt this way for a very long time, and I know a lot of people feel the same way. I thought Last Crusade was the best when I was a kid, but when I saw it recently back to back with the rest of the trilogy, it wasn't as exciting nor as fun as the first two. I can see how my view that Temple is better is debateable, but if you look at ratings and reviews, most people's opinion is that Raiders is the best.

 

[Mic]

One thing I don't understand: At the end of Indiana Jones 3, Indy drank from the Holy Grail, becoming immortal and ageless. Ford has, quite noticebly, aged.

As far as I know, he had to stay in the temple for that to be effective, once he leaves the room, he ages as normal.................or something like that.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I think they can dye his hair and stretch his skin a bit... For can definitely pull off a fifty year old...

 

[swifty]

if they were able to make Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellen digitally younger for X-3 then they can do the same for Harrison Ford.

 

[GoldGoblin]

-If this movie is as good as the other three,you think they will make more?

-George Lucas loves technology,and he has probably seen what they did on X-3 with Magneto and Professor X to make them look younger.You think GL will use this technology on Ford?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

-If this movie is as good as the other three,you think they will make more?

There isn't much of a time frame to make any more. It's debatable whether Ford is too old now. I can't see this being anything but the last Indy film, should it ever get made.

 

[Dr. Fate]

I'm afraid Harrison Ford must be on crack.