Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

The Goon

New Member
Yea none of the other actors do. A bit weird isn’t it.
Not if Ford is able to perform. The movie industry has been working around injured actors for decades, and they have all kinds of tools in their kits to fool audiences. They're not always successful, but much of the time they pull it off and we never even know.
 

HMSwolfe

Sr Member
I think you’re missing the point…the pic of the actor in the hair helmet is an entirely different character…he was pointing something out from the production that didn’t revolve around Harrison Ford.
 

rockbottom

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I was kidding. The picture I posted was of Boyd Holbrook. He’s an actor playing a completely new character. I was just pointing out the motorcycle helmet he was wearing that had hair on it.

I apologize if you thought I was trying to imply that was Harrison, because I wasn’t.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

JoeG

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Meanwhile this is happening

45806747-9818465-image-a-12_1627048192434.jpg
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

rockbottom

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Dude wearing a mask right in front of that car. It’s either rehearsal or can’t be seen in the shot. I wouldn’t worry. Plus it’s not a huge detail.
 

batguy

Sr Member
That apparent stunt double moves like the most spry 79 year old that I have ever seen.

It's concerning. Not only is he moving pretty youthfully for Harrison Ford now. It may get worse. Film crews usually undercrank the camera during fight scenes to speed it up another 10-15%.


But there is a mitigating factor that everyone is forgetting - Indy (the character) won't be 79 in this movie. This movie takes place in the late-60s space race era, which puts Indy in his late 60s.

Indy's age has never been locked to Harrison's age. 'Temple' was set before 'Raiders'. 'Crusade' took place 2 years after 'Raiders' and Harrison was late 40s when they filmed it.

Scrubbing one decade off Harrison Ford is nothing for the CGI department these days.
 
Last edited:

ALLEY

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
It's concerning. Not only is he moving pretty youthfully for Harrison Ford now. It may get worse. Film crews usually undercrank the camera during fight scenes to speed it up another 10-15%.


But there is a mitigating factor that everyone is forgetting - Indy (the character) won't be 78 in this movie. He'll be more like 68. Indy's age has never been locked to Harrison's age. 'Temple' was set before 'Raiders'. 'Crusade' took place 2 years after 'Raiders' in the fiction and Harrison was nearly 50 when they filmed it.

The fictional Indy was born in about 1900, give or take. That aligns with the old movies and the 'Young Indy' TV series. Scrubbing one decade off Harrison Ford is nothing for the CGI department these days.

They really should have just set the new movie in 1976 and been honest about the 40 years that have passed between the Indy of Raiders and the Indy of this movie.

Unless having “flower power and hippies” figures prominently into the overall story of this film, somehow.
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Lightning

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Why stop there? They could set the next movie in 1981. Show Indy taking Marion on a date night to watch 'Raiders' in the movie theater.

Make it Young Indy style style old Indy Bookends. It's the new remake of Raiders with the new Actor. We watch the whole thing,
then after the credits we cut back to Indy and he tells Marion that they took some creative liberties. Then all the new sequels are actually "in universe" dramatizations of his adventures. I hate this idea, by the way.
 

The Goon

New Member
Why stop there? They could set the next movie in 1981. Show Indy taking Marion on a date night to watch 'Raiders' in the movie theater.
Better yet. It's 1979. Indy is contacted by a couple of up and coming directors named Lucas and Spielberg because they want to make a movie about his adventures called "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and they want Indy (Ford) as an on-set advisor. Bring in whoever the next Indy is going to be to play the "movie Indy", and they literally have Ford handing the role to the next guy. He probably wouldn't agree to that, but it would certainly solve the age problems if he did.
 

batguy

Sr Member
Better yet. It's 1979. Indy is contacted by a couple of up and coming directors named Lucas and Spielberg because they want to make a movie about his adventures called "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and they want Indy (Ford) as an on-set advisor. Bring in whoever the next Indy is going to be to play the "movie Indy", and they literally have Ford handing the role to the next guy. He probably wouldn't agree to that, but it would certainly solve the age problems if he did.

Whoa. What a bizarre 4th-wall smashup.

I wanna see that happen in some other franchise that I don't care about.
 

Pepperbone

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Better yet. It's 1979. Indy is contacted by a couple of up and coming directors named Lucas and Spielberg because they want to make a movie about his adventures called "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and they want Indy (Ford) as an on-set advisor. Bring in whoever the next Indy is going to be to play the "movie Indy", and they literally have Ford handing the role to the next guy. He probably wouldn't agree to that, but it would certainly solve the age problems if he did.
TangibleBeneficialIguana-max-1mb.gif
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top