|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Oct 9, 2022 19:41:13 GMT
And Patrick Stewart can still play Jean-Luc Picard well into his 80s,
And William Shatner can really go to space at 90 years old,
Then Harrison Ford can continue to play Indiana Jones well into his 80s and beyond as long as he continues to be in good health and in good shape.
And he's in way better shape than any of them were at his current age.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 9, 2022 20:11:08 GMT
I don't think we'll be seeing an 80 year old Indy swinging from a whip and especially getting into fist fights with guys half his age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 9, 2022 20:48:54 GMT
I think it has more to do with Harrison Ford not wanting to play Indiana Jones anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 9, 2022 21:12:24 GMT
I think it has more to do with Harrison Ford not wanting to play Indiana Jones anymore. By all accounts, Harrison Ford loves playing Indiana Jones. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 9, 2022 21:16:08 GMT
I think it has more to do with Harrison Ford not wanting to play Indiana Jones anymore. By all accounts, Harrison Ford loves playing Indiana Jones. That may be, but its possible to love doing something and deciding not to do it anymore. If he feels he is to old to play Indiana Jones, people have to respect that, and not whine like a bunch of babies.
|
|
jjamp48
Sophomore
@jjamp48
Posts: 488
Likes: 320
|
Post by jjamp48 on Oct 10, 2022 3:13:59 GMT
While I can understand where you are coming from, consider the differences in physical requirements and commitments between the examples you brought up. All are very impressive, and should not be undervalued in any way, but the demands of playing freakin' Indiana Jones at any age are going to be absurd.
You could take the "well, why don't they just rely more on stuntmen?" angle, but I don't think they want to go that route and strain credibility more than they already are - which is a lot to begin with. Think of how ridiculous Roger Moore's last few James Bond entries were. They induce far more chuckles than thrills....I don't think they quite want that for this series.
Ford is well known for doing his own stunts when possible and within reason and, with that approach, it's easy to understand why this needs to be his last "active" outing as Indy. On top of that, because of Ford's hands on approach to doing action, he has suffered numerous on set injuries(including during the filming of Indiana Jones movies) throughout his career. I don't think he, understandably, wants to stretch it any further.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 10, 2022 3:40:31 GMT
Think of how ridiculous Roger Moore's last few James Bond entries were. They induce far more chuckles than thrills.... The obvious stuntmen sure earned their pay on Moore's last Bond movie.: 
|
|
jjamp48
Sophomore
@jjamp48
Posts: 488
Likes: 320
|
Post by jjamp48 on Oct 10, 2022 3:45:11 GMT
Think of how ridiculous Roger Moore's last few James Bond entries were. They induce far more chuckles than thrills.... The obvious stuntmen sure earned their pay on Moore's last Bond movie.: yeah, I don't think Moore was ever on screen during any of the action sequences in his post 70s Bond roles!
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Oct 10, 2022 5:38:54 GMT
i'm sure Disney will have fake AI Indy , like what they are doing with Luke Skywalker
|
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Oct 10, 2022 6:57:48 GMT
While I can understand where you are coming from, consider the differences in physical requirements and commitments between the examples you brought up. All are very impressive, and should not be undervalued in any way, but the demands of playing freakin' Indiana Jones at any age are going to be absurd. You could take the "well, why don't they just rely more on stuntmen?" angle, but I don't think they want to go that route and strain credibility more than they already are - which is a lot to begin with. Think of how ridiculous Roger Moore's last few James Bond entries were. They induce far more chuckles than thrills....I don't think they quite want that for this series. Ford is well known for doing his own stunts when possible and within reason and, with that approach, it's easy to understand why this needs to be his last "active" outing as Indy. On top of that, because of Ford's hands on approach to doing action, he has suffered numerous on set injuries(including during the filming of Indiana Jones movies) throughout his career. I don't think he, understandably, wants to stretch it any further. Wasn't that actually the point of the Roger Moore James Bond movies?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 10, 2022 14:55:21 GMT
I don't think we'll be seeing an 80 year old Indy swinging from a whip and especially getting into fist fights with guys half his age. Maybe they'll insert his face on that lookalike guy Anthony Ingruber.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Dec 22, 2022 12:33:46 GMT
Clint Eastwood was a better actor outside the western movies any actor would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 22, 2022 12:46:53 GMT
Eastwood has a little more range and never really did much actual action movie stuff-especially with reliance on FX.
Ford abandoned serious acting for the $$ and FX-driven stories.
He could always just let his face and voice be used for Deep Fakes.
That is probably what they will do.
It's not good culturally speaking. The problem is--they aren't interested in cultural renewal by grooming (er, sorry, the only word that came to mind) a new generation for public display. They are just doing tired brands now.
Hollywood is hoping Deep Fakes will keep their game afloat but it will just become more of a CGI freak show.
Simpsons predicted this of course.
Star Trek 15-So Very Tired
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 22, 2022 16:22:00 GMT
Sure. One thing the fourth movie got right was having a son to carry on in the action department. The senior Indy should provide more wit and History, with the young son providing the search for romance.
Same should go for 007. That should have started 20 years ago, with Bond being the father of so many children who could provide a team of world savers.
As for Clint Eastwood, when has he ever been an "actor"? In Rawhide, maybe. At least in Rawhide he did a tiny bit of acting. Since then, you can run the gamut of Eastwood expressions, gestures, and emotions in a second, all "one" of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 22, 2022 16:29:22 GMT
Eastwood has a little more range and never really did much actual action movie stuff-especially with reliance on FX. Ford abandoned serious acting for the $$ and FX-driven stories. Barf. You just lost every iota of credibility imaginable. Eastwood? Acting range? Was that a joke? Let's look at the entire gamut of Clint Eastwood's facial expressions...all one of them. There is no "subtlety", no "range". He defines "wooden". That's why his few good movies are the ones where he's more of an observer of injustice than a catalyst. There's no denying that "Hang Em High" is his best film, and that's because his lack of acting doesn't get in the way of being the "observer". |
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Dec 22, 2022 16:49:33 GMT
Eastwood has a little more range and never really did much actual action movie stuff-especially with reliance on FX. Ford abandoned serious acting for the $$ and FX-driven stories. He could always just let his face and voice be used for Deep Fakes. That is probably what they will do. It's not good culturally speaking. The problem is--they aren't interested in cultural renewal by grooming (er, sorry, the only word that came to mind) a new generation for public display. They are just doing tired brands now. Hollywood is hoping Deep Fakes will keep their game afloat but it will just become more of a CGI freak show. Simpsons predicted this of course. Star Trek 15-So Very Tired Clint Eastwood had zero range in those garbage western movies that genre was just silly hat movies for kids and how are you. You've been gone sometime. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 22, 2022 18:42:19 GMT
Barf. You just lost every iota of credibility imaginable. Eastwood? Acting range? Was that a joke? Let's look at the entire gamut of Clint Eastwood's facial expressions...all one of them. There is no "subtlety", no "range". He defines "wooden". That's why his few good movies are the ones where he's more of an observer of injustice than a catalyst. There's no denying that "Hang Em High" is his best film, and that's because his lack of acting doesn't get in the way of being the "observer". I said he had a little more range than Ford is showing in recent times. Ken Russell called Ford an "extra in a hat." I think Harrison Ford can be a decent actor when he has a good director--much of the time he does not have a director who cares about performance.
I would say Ford is better at comedy than Eastwood but Eastwood has been funny in line delivery so I can't knock him for that.
The reality is--and this is undeniable--regardless of what you think of his acting, Eastwood is the last Hollywood star who could sell a movie entirely on his name alone.
Ford, Stallone, Arnie, they all had to rely on famous directors or spfx hooks. Ford is completely lost in brand name irrelevance now.
Bladerunner, Han Solo etc.
Just collecting the paycheck. He admits it.
Someone asked him if he is going to do sequels to everything he ever did and he said "you bet your ass I am."
What I mean is--Harrison Ford showed more range than Eastwood as an actor but Ford is just going for the paycheck. At least Eastwood shied away from the brand names (other than Dirty Harry) that is what I mean by showing a little more range. I assume Eastwood is not going to be doing Dirty Harry 5 or 6.
At some point Ford just said screw this--I'll take the money.
Shia LeBouef said that it was mistake to have made Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull and Ford told him that he was a f888ing idiot for saying that.
Presumably because a) Spielberg would get him blacklisted and b) he missed out the chance to make a lot of money.
I don't like Eastwood's later movies--I hated Million Dollar Baby--but he has avoided just going for the paycheck.
|
|
