Actions heroes should be older...
Why do so many action movies make the mistake of casting a guy in his early 20’s with zero life experience? Indiana Jones and James Bond films have always gotten this detail right.
shareThe other extreme is action stars in their 60s and 70s -- I'm looking at you Stallone and Neeson -- who we are supposed to believe go toe to toe with guys decades younger than them and come out on top. That's why I really don't wanna see another Indiana Jones movies... the idea of an 80-year-old Harrison Ford believably doing action is too difficult for me.
shareI’m talking 37 through 52 years of age. That is when a man is the most manly he will ever be. Anything younger onscreen is almost always worthy of an eye roll.
shareI definitely agree and good luck to us seems like Marvel agrees too really.
If we give examples of the best casting choices in action films we realize most are in mid 30s the youngest and
Robert Downey Jr as IronMan
Ryan raynolds as Deadpool
Hugh Jackman as Wolverine
Christian Bale as Batman
Chris Hemsworth as Thor
Chris Evans as Captain America
The youngest Avengers actors are the two chrises (Hemsworth and Evans) hehe but most of the MCU stars are in their 40s. the only super young actor in the MCU is Tom Holland Because SpiderMan is a very young hero but Chadwick Boseman (RIP) was in his 40s when he started And Benedict Cumberbatch is also in his 40s.
Robert when he did IronMan was 43 I think.
But well at the end we agree the best action stars happen to be in their mid 30s to 54 yers old which is when RDJ left the MCU just a year ago.
I don’t watch Marvel movies, but I’m aware enough of them to know that RDJ seemed like he was an appropriate age for that role. A man needs twenty years to build up a level of confidence and competence that makes him ready to handle the events thrown at him in an action film. I can think of nothing less compelling to watch than a cocky, know-nothing teenager.
shareIt’s okay You don’t I just gave the example because well I do watch them and it goes with your idea how it’s much better for action stars to not be younger than maybe 34 or 35 years old.
Now there some cases like with SpiderMan where you need a much younger actor but yes I’m with you action movies work better with actors in their mid 30s, 40s or very early 50s
I mean all bond actors have started in their early 40s.
The problem regarding actions stars in their 60s and 70s is that there's no replacement for them.
With very few exceptions, white males are only cast to play psychopaths or cucks nowadays. You don't have a Sean Connery or a John Wayne in his 30s anymore, because those actors wouldn't get any role in modern Hollywood. So you have Neeson or Keenu Reeves or Tom Cruise playing roles even if they're old, because once they're gone, there's no replacement.
Not anymore difficult than believing in a 1000 year old knight or an invisible bridge or immortality...
shareAh, yes, but those were things that were meant to be supernatural within the context of the story. It was easy to suspend disbelief for those examples.
Ford as an 80-year-old Indy who is merely human is beyond my ability to overlook biological and physical limitations and accept an octogenarian ass-kicking globe-trotting adventurer.
Even from a practical point of view it would be difficult to film and overcome. De Niro and Pacino were de-aged for The Irishman, but no amount of movie magic could disguise the fact that they moved like old men. (That scene with De Niro feebly punching out and kicking the shopkeeper was the most obvious example. Ugh.)
So they would have to relegate Indy to some sort of role where he stands aside in the moments of danger, and turns over the physical stuff to a sidekick. Who really wants to see that? I know I don't.
At 73 Stallone still moves at a younger pace. Ford is 78. While it's TRUE that when a person hits the 80 mark they really start to lose a step.(very rare that they dont) But there are plenty of late 70 something people still moving very well. Ford better hurry though. They were supposed to start filming this year.
shareSo they would have to relegate Indy to some sort of role where he stands aside in the moments of danger, and turns over the physical stuff to a sidekick. Who really wants to see that? I know I don't.
That was The Last Crusade, with Connery turning over the physical stuff to Ford. share
Exactly my thought. Connery was fine as the curmudgeonly dad but his 'action' sequences were limited to an umbrella and some physical comedy in the tank chase. People expect Indy to be doing dangerous edge-of-your-seat suspenseful stuff.
The other issue is the time period. The character was inspired by the action serials of the early 20th century and 50s movies such as Secret of the Incas and King Solomon's Mines.
Crystal Skull was set in the 60s and the somewhat modern setting took away some of the charm and spirit of the originals. (Nuclear explosions, Soviet bad guys...)
A new movie would be set in the mid- to late-70s I assume. The age of disco, platform shoes, Vietnam, social unrest... it all seems too recent.