The beginning of the new Indiana Jones movie has an extended sequence of Harrison Ford de-aged, he basically looks like how he did in The Last Crusade.
It really weirded me out. It looked fine on the surface, but I couldn’t help but be distracted by what it represents for film as an art form.
It’s very possible that we’ll be watching some version of Harrison Ford in movies for hundreds of years, and that is an unsettling thought.
Modern technology has a way dehumanizing people, extracting just what is valuable and discarding the rest. Maybe the luddites were on to something when they rebelled against the shoe-making machines.
Only if people want to be watching Harrison Ford movies for that long.
You forget how much power people have as consumers. Studios keep making unoriginal movies with old actors because people keep going to see them. If Star Wars sequels didn't make billions of dollars, Disney wouldn't keep making them.
> It’s very possible that we’ll be watching some version of Harrison Ford in movies for hundreds of years, and that is an unsettling thought.
Well, it's really weirder than that. Think about having a Harrison Ford that can actually act. That would be super weird.
I suspect that the the end state of all of this is that it uses technology to split performing into "acting well" and "being attractive" as separate things. And the "being attractive" will get scanned, archived and used over and over and over and ...
Yeah, Hollywood actors should definitely fear this.
You’re not watching Harrison Ford, you’re watching Indiana Jones in a purer form than today’s Harrison Ford is able to play him. In a universe without digital trickery they would have recast the character and rebooted the series. For an actor being asked to be the face of a character for all time should be the high mark of their career, and what a way to honor them after they pass away.
I'm watching Indiana Jones as interpreted by Harrison Ford. The actor's interpretation of the role is an important part. I'm less interested in some "purer form" of the character, because that's effectively a different character.
But, for now, "Indiana Jones as interpreted by Harrison Ford" is Indiana Jones. His is really the only interpretation of Indiana Jones as an adult. By contrast, there are a handful of interpretations of James Bond.
River Phoenix played Indiana Jones as a teen in the third film, while Sean Patrick Flanery played the teen Jones in the TV series/movies. (Corey Carrier played a younger version in some episodes.) Add a little of George Hall as a 90-year-old Indiana Jones; but, all he does is introduce the stories of the young Indiana Jones.
All of which I'd bring up to support my opinion, too!
All of those are characters as interpreted through the actors. That interpretation is, in my opinion, a very important part of the art form. Without it, it's a different thing entirely.
It really weirded me out. It looked fine on the surface, but I couldn’t help but be distracted by what it represents for film as an art form.
It’s very possible that we’ll be watching some version of Harrison Ford in movies for hundreds of years, and that is an unsettling thought.
Modern technology has a way dehumanizing people, extracting just what is valuable and discarding the rest. Maybe the luddites were on to something when they rebelled against the shoe-making machines.