From the “Oh, God, I Hope They Don’t Screw This Up” file, the latest peeks at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that are currently circulating the webospheres:
You know the routine: click to embiggen.
I especially like the second one, which is pure old-school Indy. Yeah, Harrison is looking pretty long in the tooth, but I’m not as minty-fresh as I was back in 1981 either. If the script actually reflects the fact that he’s much older than the last time we saw him (“it’s not the years, honey, it’s the mileage”), I don’t see any reason why that’s going to be a problem. I’m keeping my fingers crossed…
OK, so the girl whose first love was Han Solo (and, OK, maybe I’m secretly still in love with him) is crying on the inside looking at these pics. But I guess I got most of my crying over when I saw “K19: The Widowmaker” and realized with great devastation that age happens to the best of us. Not that Harrison Ford isn’t an attractive older man, but, well… Han is dead.
But despite the lack of eye candy on that front, I am looking forward to this movie. And hey, it comes out two days before my birthday. 🙂
But, then, I really liked “Rocky Balboa,” too, and found the latest “Die Hard” movie entertaining if lightweight and completely unrealistic (because, hey, weren’t they all?). I’m typically not one for nostalgia, but the actors of today are missing something that they still had in the 80s. They were movie stars then. Movies in my childhood had a special magic, and the actors that brought that magic into my life still have a place in my cynical, twisted heart. So bring on Geriatric Jones, baby! I’m jonesing for some Jones.
Han’s not dead! He’s just hanging around the cantina boring everyone with stories about the good old days when he was a footloose, wise-talking, Greedo-wasting bachelor instead of married to a frumpy space princess/Jedi trainee with three kids who just can’t stay away from the dark side!
I’m not shy about wearing my nostalgia on my sleeve, but I think a lot of the reason why I do cling to the stuff from my youth is exactly what you mention: there were real movie stars then, playing real heroes. Now all we get are interchangeably generic-looking kids who are all conflicted and angsty…
These photos are really tripping the GeekMeter for me as well, but there was something that bugged me about them when I first saw them on AICN, and I only just now figured out what it is: look how clean Indy is! Indy should always be covered with dirt and three days’ growth of beard.
Yeah, now that you mention it… his jacket and clothing aren’t even that scuffed or worn.
Maybe as the movie commences, he’s been retired from the adventure biz and is nothing more than a mild-mannered college prof who needs to buy all-new gear before they set out? (I’d like to know where he does that kind of shopping; Bad Asses ‘R’ Us?)
I want to know what’s up with the kid’s hair? Who is this character? Cousin Oliver?
I for one can’t wait to see the scene where Indy jumps over a pool of sharks on his motorcycle.
P.S. Bah. Humbug.
The movie is set in the ’50s, Robert — looks like typical greasy ’50s-kid hair to me.
I probably shouldn’t mention to you that there are rumors of spinning this kid (who is almost undoubtedly Indy’s son with Marion) off into his own movie, possibly even his movie trilogy, should I? 🙂
Good instinct. Heaven knows what I’d do with that one.
The kid really bothers me, too. I don’t like the look of him, and I definitely don’t like the idea that he’ll be taking screen time away from the person I am actually going to see in that movie. But oh well…. Youth über alles, I suppose…. We do so revere the young in this country–for what reason I know not.
And now you’ve got me thinking about the old Indy, rough around the edges, with a bit of dirt on his face. Mmmmmm….
Er…. So, anyway….
I soooo do not like the look of that kid. I like my actors over 30, please, not a hop, skip, and a jump outside of puberty. Dear movie execs: Please find someone a little older and a little more rugged if you wish to continue the franchise. Oh, wait: I forgot my earlier rule: Youth über alles. If he is young and awkward looking, they will come.
I agree that our culture is far too youth-centric these days. And if you don’t like this kid’s look, well, that’s a subjective thing and there’s not much that can be done about that.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with his looks. I’ve seen some stills of him where I think I see a resemblance to Karen Allen, so if his character is who and what I think he is — Indy and Marion’s son, or at least Marion’s kid — then I’m fine with him being cast. The actor’s age — 21, I believe — also fits my theory. Raiders was set in 1936 and this film appears to be the mid- to late-’50s, so if he’s the product of the relationship Indy and Marion had in and/or shortly after Raiders, his age is spot-on. The only way to make him older would be to set the movie in the ’60s, and then Indy really would be old. Plus, let’s be honest, the believability of pulp-style adventures drops the closer we get to the present. Pretty hard to believe in ancient treasures and lost cities and such while the Vietnam War is going on. (That was one of my big problems with National Treasure — I had a hard time believing this kind of stuff here in the time of the iPod. It just doesn’t seem to fit.)
As far as whether this Shia kid can act, if he has enough charisma to keep up with H.Ford, if the character is likable or compelling in any way, or how much screen time he may take away from Indy, I’m reserving all judgments until I actually see the movie.
Oh, I recognize that he has to be young for this movie. I’m talking about were they to do more of these movies without Indy. But you’re right: they’d have to get pretty modern to do that.
Personally, I’m just not in to watching kids on screen. I never have been, even when I was one. But that’s just one person’s opinion.
That being said, I reserve judgment, too, because sometimes I can still really embrace a show with young people as the focus. “Buffy” is the example that comes to mind. OK, so it’s about the only one for me, but still…. And I was OK with the very young Carrie Fisher, too. She presented for me as older than she was in Star Wars. So… we’ll see.
Hmmmm…. As far as pulp-style adventures being believable now, that’s a matter of opinion, too, I should think. I didn’t think much of “National Treasure,” but it wasn’t the fact that the adventure unfolded in the modern day that bothered me–not in the slightest. I was fine with that. In fact, I like to be reassured that adventure is still to be had in the here and now.
Do I want Indiana Jones movies shot in the here and now? No. But I’d be fine with the 60s and 70s.
Ha! Indy in bell-bottoms and wide lapels! Now that’d be something to see…
Zoiks!
OK, I take it back. >;)
I agree that he is likely Indy’s kid with Marion. And by his “look” I don’t mean I find this particular kid’s appearance unappealing. I generally don’t care for the 50s look, period. But beyond that, I just mean that he’s young, and looks young, and youth on screen has never been my cup of tea. But all the same, I look forward to seeing how the story unfolds, and how the actor does with his role. And I’m interested in seeing what they do with the idea of Indy as Dad.
Let’s be honest: What we want is Raiders of the Lost Ark. There is a perfect formula for getting exactly what we want: Give us Raiders of the Lost Ark. There must be some anniversary or other coming up. Add some more digital snakes and erase the five-o’clock shadow from the super-bad Nazi’s supposedly bald head (don’t tell Jason). I’d pay $14 to go see a restored print on the ginormous screen.
I look at these pictures and think: “That belongs in a museum!”
Robert, I am really taken aback by how snarky you’re being about this (especially since I’m the one who’s supposed to be the movie curmudgeon). I don’t quite know how to respond to it. You don’t like the idea of them making another Indy movie. Okay, fine. I get that.
I didn’t want them to make another one either. There really isn’t any point, and I’m deeply afraid that they’re going to screw it up big time and sour yet another of the franchises I’ve loved since childhood.
That said, however, Indy IV is inevitable. It’s coming. And I decided some time ago that I am interested in seeing it. Probably against my better judgment, but dammit, I’ve got decades of Pavlovian conditioning at work here. I’ve heard my old friend Indy is coming to town, and I want to see him and find out what he’s been up to. I’ll probably be disappointed, but I’ve liked what I’ve been seeing and hearing, and I want to give my old heroes — Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford — a chance to redeem themselves from their recent mediocrity. I’d love nothing more than to see them knock one last homer out of the park before they head off to their respective retirement homes, and shut up all the grumbling fanboys who’ve been excoriating them for years (particularly in the case of Lucas) for the sin of not being the men they were 30 years ago.
I am being perfectly honest when I say that I want to see this movie. I don’t want Raiders. I’ve seen it 100 times already, and I’ve got the DVD whenever I want to see it again. If we must get an Indy IV anyway, then I want an Indy IV that’s as good as Raiders, but is its own animal, something that’s honest about the fact that our hero is a lot older now. If this movie is done right — and I acknowledge that’s a helluva big if — I think it could really deepen the Indy character and be a lot of fun in its own right. It won’t be Raiders. But that’s okay if whatever it is, is done well.
Jason, I see your point. I also hope for the very best from the film. And, as I’ve said before, I hope we get to watch it together so we can bask in its triumph, weep over its failure, or have a good long argument over which it should be. I promise not to be snarky (but I can’t promise anything about cranky).
Above all, everything I said is meant in fun. No snarks (and hopefully no friendships) were hurt in the making of this blog thingy.
Upon reflection, I’m just being too damn touchy about this stuff. Blame the head cold that’s currently got my eyeballs sweating, and my own built-in inferiority complexes. No harm done… 🙂
With that settled, cue the theme music:
Doo-da-doot-dooo! Doot-da-dooo! Doo-da-doot-dooo! Doot-da-dooo-dooo-dooo!
I actually agree that coming back to this story after so many years opens the door to adding dimension to the character. We’ll see.
It didn’t happen with Die Hard: same old McClane. In fact, if anything, there was less personal characterization in the latest movie than in any preceding it.
It did happen some, I think, with Rocky. Though the real dimension in that character was forged in the first movie and never much expanded upon from there–partly a side-effect of the genre and partly, I think, just reality, given the somewhat uncomplicated nature of the man himself–I think they did a decent job of exploring what that individual would be like at the age he is now. The script actually made something of a return to the first movie, by focusing far more on the person than on the boxing event.
So Indy? This one could go either way. I think Jones himself was more realized than McClane and less realized than Balboa. But Spielberg does tend toward sentimentality these days, so I can see him potentially focusing a lot on Indy himself. And I also think that there is probably more to bringing some of these stories back to the screen than an understanding that the nostalgic market will pay. I imagine some of the directors, now 20-some-odd years older themselves, are interested in bringing a fully realized, older hero to the public.
I myself am more interested in seeing what they do with Indy’s character than in how the plot unfolds.
Yes, I think that’s what I’m interested in, too – not that i want to see Indy diminished and bitching about arthritis, but I think it could be fascinating to see how a guy who’s always been so physical and powerful is dealing with the inevitable ravages of age (especially considering the pounding this guy took in his younger days). Would he be accepting of age and walking into it with grace? Would he be fighting it tooth and nail? Would he be depressed or angry about “losing it”? Would he have given up the adventuring game and settled into a bland late-middle age, and have to be coaxed into pulling out his old “working clothes”? These are all possibilities that I think may be really fun and/or fascinating to explore.
And then there’s the question of Marion and the kid. Is he Indy’s son? Did Indy know about him? What went down between I and M, anyway, and why didn’t they stay together? They certainly seemed happy at the end of Raiders, but by Last Crusade, a mere two years later in Indy-time, there was no mention of her whatsoever.
My favorite of the Star Trek movies was Wrath of Khan, in large part because it humanized Kirk and allowed him to realistically explore the idea of consequences, of how you deal with discovering the life you could’ve led and didn’t, and what happens when the life you’ve got is no longer entirely fulfilling. It didn’t harm Kirk’s status as a hero; if anything, it made him even more sympathetic. Unlike ST VI, where he was throwing punches and behaving like a 30-year-old and generally being silly.
I’m hoping Indy IV will be a lot more like Wrath of Khan than The Undiscovered Country…