But with Harrison Ford now older than Sean Connery was in Last Crusade...Am I the only one here who thinks that it would be better to just get a new actor to play Indy? I know it's hard for fans to think of anyone other than Ford as the man in the fedora, but it worked for Bond. And Indiana Jones is sort of a Bond-like character. It beats forcing the writers to come up with some contrived reason for getting around Harrison Ford's age anyway.
OP: But with Harrison Ford now older than Sean Connery was in Last CrusadeAm I really the first to point out that Harrison Ford was born in 1942, and Sean Connery was born in 1930, and IJATLC came out in 1989, and it's currently 2006. So... unless my math is funky, Sean Connery was 59 when IJATLC came out, and Harrison Ford is 54 now, and would be 56 if the IJ4 comes out in 2008. So uh... I think you're wrong.
magodesky ...Sure, Ford still can do action movies, obviously. But do we really want him to play Indy again? A 65-year-old archaeologist running around the world fighting bad guys rather stretches credibility, even by Indiana Jones standards. And besides, they'd have to move the timeframe up considerably to explain the age difference. Like to the 1950s, or even the early 1960s. It just seems so un-Indy-ish. And it also means no Nazis. They tried doing an Indy movie sans-Nazis before. And, in my opinion, Temple of Doom is definitely the weak link in the trilogy.
I saw Harrison Ford not all that long ago. He's in remarkable shape and easily has another Indy movie in him.
« Older Cigar Box Labels... | Who is John Dishwasher?... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by lemoncello at 10:51 AM on September 21, 2006