Indy 4 (Spoilers)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
RoboDad said:
So, are you saying that simply because they don't look 30 any more, they should go hide in a dark room somewhere?

Get real, people. People age. All of us.

Harrison Ford is still Indy, and he always will be.
Thank you. I agree fully.
 
This film has DISASTER written all over it!

rameny290607a_01.jpg
 
I can't believe they let that picture out...


indy4shiaharrison.jpg


They're really asking for it. Did they actually whiten his hair, or is he really that grey now?


It looks like "Grumpy Old Men 3" to me.
 
Um, yeah...he's really that grey now. Scary huh? Happens to the best of us... :)

I don't know why everyone's carping on that photo but anyway...

I think it's a safe bet that no matter what they do with this movie, no one's going to be happy with it or admit they like it. Sound familiar?
If this new Indy film does anything for Lucas, it will be taking the place of TPM for utter disappointment. Not for me mind you, but I know the next year is going to be filled with folks whining, moaning and complaining about ruined franchises and raped childhoods....oh brother.

Back in the '80s when Lucas did "The Indiana Jones Chronicles", the first reaction was "Cool!" "Can't wait!"..."Wow, Indy every week!"...but when it finally appeared, the reaction was harsh..."What? No cracking whip every week?" "You want to TEACH us something?" "He's going to meet WHAT historical figure this week?"....it wasn't what folks expected...is wasn't the same old thing so it was rejected. I thought it was pretty good and great that it was different, especially from everything else that there was on at the time. I'm looking forward to revisiting it later this year when it debuts on DVD.

Now here we are all these years later and Lucas, Speilberg and Ford are revisiting this character again and already, the complaining and disappointment is reaching operatic heights....it's a wonder they even bother.


I'm gonna keep an open mind and try not to get spoiled too much...
 
tomandshell said:
I can't believe they let that picture out...
Why, because he isn't wearing a bunch of phony make-up to make him look 30 again?

tomandshell said:
They're really asking for it. Did they actually whiten his hair, or is he really that grey now?
He's 65 years old. His hair is gray. So what?

tomandshell said:
It looks like "Grumpy Old Men 3" to me.
No, it sounds more like "Whiny Young Freaks" to me.
 
2000man said:
I'm not worried about how Harrison looks, I am worried about Shia and the story


Ditto! I think Harrison looks great. The 50's greaser Shia thing is what concerns me.
 
I am going to see the movie when it comes out, without a doubt. Within the context of the film, his age will be dealt with and taken for what it is. There are plenty of examples of older actors credibly taking on roles in action films.

But these pictures are hitting skeptical viewers out of context of the film, with Harrison Ford looking as aged as I have ever seen him amidst criticisms that he is too old for the part. When people who are on the fence about this see a picture of Indy with white hair and a scowl on the back of a motorcycle from Grease, they are just going to get more skeptical than they already are. I am surprised they let this picture out because of how it will feed into some of the existing negative feelings about the project. If he looked like he was having fun it would have been different, but when I saw that shot over at Comingsoon.net, my initial reaction was that he looked like an uncomfortable and grumpy old guy on the back of Shia's motorcycle. The picture from last week wearing the fedora got me pretty excited, but I can't help it if this one had the opposite effect.

Alec Guinness was about the same age when he first played Obi-Wan Kenobi, so yes, I think that an older actor can make an indelible impression in an action film. But I think that there are better shots that could have been posted to get people hyped about Indy IV.
 
Andy Bergholtz said:
Ditto! I think Harrison looks great. The 50's greaser Shia thing is what concerns me.

I was JUST thinking that too. I wouldn't be surprised if Shia had a pack of smokes rolled up his shirt on that bike. WTF is up with that? You know what, Indy was in his 30s/40s when the movies took place in the 1930s right? So if he was getting old, then that would make the correct time around the 1950s/60s. So Shia's look doesn't seem too out of place.
 
Darth Caedus said:
I was JUST thinking that too. I wouldn't be surprised if Shia had a pack of smokes rolled up his shirt on that bike. WTF is up with that? You know what, Indy was in his 30s/40s when the movies took place in the 1930s right? So if he was getting old, then that would make the correct time around the 1950s/60s. So Shia's look doesn't seem too out of place.
Raiders was set in 1936, and Ford was roughly 38-39 years old at the time of filming. So, if you extrapolate Indy's age to match Ford's, a reasonable time period for the new movie would be at least the late 1950's. Given that, I don't see anything out of place with LaBeouf's costume. That is, of course, unless people would prefer to have him sporting a surfer haircut, driving a Woodie with a couple of surf boards strapped to the top, listening to some Beach Boy tunes. ;)

And Tom, thanks for clarifying for me. It sounds like I was reading something into your post that wasn't really there. All I can offer in response to your concern, though, is that anyone who is swayed that much by one photo should probably not see the movie anyway, because they will most likely be expecting Indy to look and act the same way he did 25 years ago, and anything less will be a letdown. A healthy skepticism is a good thing to have, but there is also such a thing as an unhealthy skepticism.
 
They should have kept Indy in the 1940's and replaced Ford with David Duchovny a la the James Bond flicks. Save the character loose the actor.
 
jungle jom said:
They should have kept Indy in the 1940's and replaced Ford with David Duchovny a la the James Bond flicks. Save the character loose the actor.

No sorry. Can't replace Ford with Duchovny, that just wouldn't have worked.
 
FYI, the film is set during 1957.

That's 21 years after RAIDERS, when Indy was in his late 30's early 40's. Works for me.

And I might as well come out and say this now: When I was in L.A. for C4 I was fortunate enough to be able to read the script (and talk to some of the crew literally days before they set out for shooting). And let me just say that I look forward to watching the crow-eating contest around here come May 22.
 
Andy Bergholtz said:
Ditto! I think Harrison looks great. The 50's greaser Shia thing is what concerns me.
It works for the story, trust me. Plus, like I said, the flick is set during 1957, when almost every late teen/early 20's suburban white dude was a greaser.

Some of you other guys need to relax and give the movie a chance while you still can. And I certainly wouldn't be fretting over any unauthorized, clandestine photos from the set. Most of those who give this flick a fair shot are going to be pleased, trust me.
 
Last edited:
Duchovny is Mulder. Ford is Indy. You can't replace Indy. I'm sorry but no one will ever buy it. May work for Bond but never for Indy.

I just think they waited too long. I was all for this back in the 90's but seeing Old Indy on the bike with Fonzie is embarassing. This looks like American Grafitti meeds Indiana Jones only Ford is old enough to be Bob Falfa's grandpappy. And no Sean Connery so what's the point? To me the book closed on Indy when they all rode off into the sunset. This movie looks and feels like one of those bad television reunion movies.
 
i'm SO ready for this film. they haven't made a bad Indy yet and I know they'll keep his age in mind during the movie. Harrison is a great actor and will play the role he was made for(along with Han). so what artifact is he looking for in this movie?
 
Back
Top