The whole concept of the original character was based on pulp heroes of the 1930s. They should have just made a bunch more films when Ford was young enough or recast the role with younger actors and kept the 30s setting. Putting Indiana Jones in the 1950s and 60s is like putting The Lone Ranger in movies about WW1 or 1930s gangsters.
And yes, I am aware of the time travel angle.
Now thats a very interesting idea putting the Lone Ranger in WW1. Don't forget he is a master of disguise, so he can be a high level spy in Europe. I'd love to see him ride into a German town on Silver shooting down the bad guys
shareThe problem with that is that then the movie loses the draw power of Harrison Ford, which terrifies the studios.
I agree with your point about the Pulp Heroes of the 1930s, it would be out of place in the 50s or 60s.
Good writing though, could have made that work. The hero out of place in time, hell that's already a cliche, Bond has touched on it, many times. Verious westerns....Hell MCCLOUD was all about that.
They should have kept the stories and Ford in the 30's and 40's. Really lazy on Ford's part that he can't act younger than he really is. Screw the age continuity, its just a minor detail and not so important.
shareSo you ignored What I wrote?
"They should have just made a bunch more films when Ford was young enough or recast the role with younger actors and kept the 30s setting."
I always had this thought that when they bring old actors for sequels from established shows long ago, they should at least make them watch their younger selves to pick up past youthful mannerisms again. A lot of the times they just seem tired or bored to do it and only did it because of the money. Not always but a lot of them do.
shareA big part of the problem is that Harrison Ford doesn't want anyone else to play Indy. The guy should retire from action movies and let a younger guy take over. I think it's ridiculous for an eighty-year-old to be running around as an action hero UNLESS they have mutant/magical powers. Harrison Ford is going to play Red Hulk in the MCU.
The article below notes that Harrison Ford told Craig Melvin that nobody else should play Indy.
Craig Melvin asked the actor who should play the swashbuckling archaeologist once he is done with the role.
“Nobody! Don’t you get it? I’m Indiana Jones,” said Ford. “When I’m gone, he’s gone. It’s easy.”
https://www.yahoo.com/video/harrison-ford-play-indiana-jones-190658058.html
Ford isn't the owner of Indiana Jones, why should the present owner of the property care what he thinks?
shareI agree. Disney has been trying to push more underrepresented groups to the forefront of their movies so they would love to sideline an old white male. Harrison Ford wanted to kill off Han Solo and it sounds like he wanted to off Indiana Jones as well. The original plan was for Phoebe Waller Bridge to take over and have some sort of show or movie about a treasure hunter. She ended up leaving Disney and signing on to write a Tomb Raider show for Amazon. Now, Brie Larson is involved with a female adventurer show called Treasure Hunters. I have no interest in watching PWB but Brie Larson is at least telegenic.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/tomb-raider-tv-show-amazon-phoebe-waller-bridge-1235311582/
https://cosmicbook.news/brie-larson-cast-as-modern-day-indiana-jones
It's not that Ford doesn't want anyone else to play, he despises a lot of his characters or wants them killed off if anything. It's the studio and more the fans that want to keep him in those typecast roles he once did due to nostalgia effect or that no one else could play that character besides the first (unlike Batman/Superman/etc.).
If you know Ford long enough from watching his interviews, he has this I don't give a shit anymore attitude/vibe he plays as in the later age of his life. Imo he said that in jest, not a serious remark.
Obvious shit is obvious.
This movie is shit. What is the point of ponting out how shitty it is?
It's shit! Of course it will be shitty!
Did you see crystal turd? After that level of turdiness, plus 15 years, do you expect anything worthy?
Since it's about time travel, why not set it in the 20s or 30s with an old Indy who time traveled back to save young Indy?
shareBecause it will be shit.
shareThere shouldn't even BE anything else than a 'young Indy', because Indy DRANK FROM HOLY GRAIL, so he shouldn't be able to AGE (at least visibly).
At least visually young Indy, is what I am saying.
Because they already added time travel into the story, that could be the ONLY saving grace that would make 'aged Indy' possible; Indiana Jones coming to 1969 from 2369 or something would make sense, by THEN, he'd have aged visibly, I reckon'.
But just Indy aging without that kind of explanation makes no sense, as we should all remember the character DRANK FROM THE CUP OF CHRIST, so he should be basically aging EXTREMELY SLOWLY, but he seems to have aged exactly the same speed as Harrison Ford did... what a weird coincidence.
Well for what it's worth, I have no intention of watching the new film. The story ended when they rode off into the sunset at the end of The Last Crusade. Everything else is fan fiction to me.
shareThey lost the cup in the end of The Last Crusade. Immortality probably requires constant drinking from the cup. If Indy was really immortal in the end of Crusade, they would have made it a bigger deal in the end, don't you think.
shareActually, I think it would be kind of interesting to see a movie with The Lone Ranger living in the 1930s. Fish out of water indeed... coming out of retirement for whatever reason.
shareI’m all for this movie
share