Indiana Jones reboot - Rob Pattinson

kongisking

Active member
IndyForever said:
Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. Good luck recasting that part :gun: Ford gave Indy character traits which made the movies work & stand the test of time.

To me when Ford no longer plays Indiana Jones I am done forever with the series. When Ford retires from Indy I retire from having anymore interest :sick:

Sean Connery IS James Bond. Jack Nicholson IS the Joker. William Shatner IS Captain James T. Kirk. Anthony Hopkins IS Hannibal Lecter. William Hartnell IS the Doctor.

History is a bunch of bull****, aint it? ;)
 

S. Dakota Jones

New member
kongisking said:
Sean Connery IS James Bond. Jack Nicholson IS the Joker. William Shatner IS Captain James T. Kirk. Anthony Hopkins IS Hannibal Lecter. William Hartnell IS the Doctor.

History is a bunch of bull****, aint it? ;)


Doctor who?









:hat:















I do agree that I'd rather not see who next dons the fedora and whip after Ford hangs it up...BUT I'd like see more adventures of Indiana Jones than none at all if and yes a big "IF" the actor can pull off "Indy" even 2/3 or half as well as Harrison did.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
IndyForever said:
To me when Ford no longer plays Indiana Jones I am done forever with the series. When Ford retires from Indy I retire from having anymore interest :sick:

Indy forever?

Were you expecting Ford to find the fountain of youth? ;)
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
kongisking said:
Sean Connery IS James Bond. Jack Nicholson IS the Joker. William Shatner IS Captain James T. Kirk. Anthony Hopkins IS Hannibal Lecter. William Hartnell IS the Doctor.

I happen to agree with two of the above statements...

But which two?

(crazy polish Penderecki pirate music ensues...)
 

No Ticket

New member
kongisking said:
Sean Connery IS James Bond. Jack Nicholson IS the Joker. William Shatner IS Captain James T. Kirk. Anthony Hopkins IS Hannibal Lecter. William Hartnell IS the Doctor.

History is a bunch of bull****, aint it? ;)

I used to be against the idea of Ford ever being recast. He can certainly still do the part, but Harrison Ford is not quite the same man he was in his youth and so neither is Indiana Jones. He can't be. KOTCS taught me that. He has to grow older too and the story has to be written with that in mind. He is married now, no more crazy love interests. (Unless they quickly write that out with a divorce)... his father is gone, Marcus is gone, etc. And Ford can only play him for so much longer. I mean, he will be mid 70s by the time this could get going. SO.

I think it's about time to face the facts that as much as I believed Harrison IS Indiana. It might be more refreshing to see the adventure of a youthful mid-30s 1940s up against the Nazis Indiana Jones. It doesnt' have to be a remake of Raiders. It could simply be another random adventure, or a prequel before TOD. There are lots of cool ideas that could work from creating more adventure of Indiana, much like the James Bond series.

I think that's what the franchise needs at this point and I think I'm ready to let that happen. Finally.


.... also, I was reading TheLastCrusader comments about sex/getting laid and got thoroughly distracted by it. How juvenile of a comment. Here's a tip man, you never look cool touting that you are "getting some" as you hint at in that comment and it's incredibly lame to tell someone they need to get laid on a message board.
 

IndyForever

Active member
Montana Smith said:
Indy forever?

Were you expecting Ford to find the fountain of youth? ;)
He did drink from the cup of christ (y) (I know he crossed the seal as well invalidating it :hat: ).

I just cannot imagine anyone else in the part the series is dead to me once Ford retires from it. I am not a purist as I love KOTCS but I cannot see anyone else bring what Ford brings to the part actors no longer have those qualities or if they do its not shown in the parts they play.
 

kongisking

Active member
indyt said:
Not taking this rumor serious yet. But even Fox news reported it this morning.

*spits out morning orange juice*

So Fox News reporting it makes it any more legitimate???

 

Indyfan82

Member
Wow- I read that article- and I agree with Stoo's assessment.
The piece had some really bad grammar and it comes from a trashy British tabloid. (Not that other countries don't have their share of trashy tabloids, but for some reason the UK seems to be notorious for it.)
I'll need to see some official confirmation from Disney before I believe that- I'm rather doubtful to its authenticity right now.
I also agree with this.
'A new film series' is not a term, bro, and the meaning is too broad.

"New film series" is not a term? Heh, don't be so close-minded, LastCrusader. When I first joined The Raven in 2005 (and decades previous to that), nobody used 'franchise' & 'reboot' to describe the Indy films (or any film series for that matter). Don't delude yourself, dude.


Quote:




Originally Posted by TheLastCrusader

Many series have been rebooted recently. From Batman and Bond to Spider-Man and Superman... Different actors, often accompanied by a refreshed origin story, and a new plot. A reboot's a reboot. I'm very sorry this fact doesn't fit into your self-constructed reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(fiction)

So what? Just because certain superheroes have been "rebooted" doesn't mean that a new actor for Indiana Jones automatically means a "reboot". You're missing the point.

I get really tired of the "reboot" and "installment" terms that are used. They are both computer terms and I understand that they've been adopted into the common vernacular to use in terms of movies and movie series, but I do think they are other words that could be used. For instance, a movie series could be said to be "butterflied" (just to make up a term that can be used as slang) when the series is continued with new actors and actresses and returns to the original premise, albeit with a new take on it. (In the same way that God made the caterpillar to eventually metamorphose into a butterfly. The butterfly is still the caterpillar in a sense, but in another sense, the creature is totally transformed at the same time. In fact, C.S. Lewis would probably say the animal is more itself than ever before now.;) )
"Metamorphosis" itself would be an appropriate term as well. One could also use "transform", "convert", "invert", "reform", "restart", "refresh" [okay, those last two are computer terms too;) ] or maybe "mutate" (which would be very accurate for "X-Men: Days of Future Past":D )
Sean Connery IS James Bond. Jack Nicholson IS the Joker. William Shatner IS Captain James T. Kirk. Anthony Hopkins IS Hannibal Lecter. William Hartnell IS the Doctor.
One point about these characters and the aforementioned Batman, Bond, Spider-Man and Superman. Batman, Superman and Spider-Man (and all other comic book superheroes) are based on their source material- the comic books. Thus, Christopher Nolan's series of Batman movies are not necessarily a "cocoon" of Joel Schumacher's Batman movies and Tim Burton's Batman movies. Rather, they are a fresh take on a classic comic book character. In fact, the "Batman Begins" movie itself is largely based on Frank Miller's classic "Batman: Year One" comic book storyline.
The same goes for Superman and Spider-Man. "Superman Returns" could rightfully be called a continuation of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies though. "Man of Steel", however, is clearly a new interpretation of the character altogether, definitely inspired by some of the most recent Superman comic books.
As for Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield's movies are a new take on Spidey, based on the comics. (Though the origin story is quite different and that's one change I didn't really like. The Tobey Maguire movies did that much better and much truer to the comic books.)
The James Bond movies are based on Ian Fleming's novels. And many people have portrayed the character, though I agree that Sir Sean Connery is James Bond- and Henry Jones, Sr. (and Allan Quatermain and Darby O'Gill, for that matter.)
Jack Nicholson played a great Joker- but I think everyone knows Cesar Romero IS The Joker.;) [And Heath Ledger did a great job too, though "The Dark Knight" is not necessarily my favorite of Nolan's Batman movies- it gets a little too violent and over the top for me at times. But that's just a side comment.] But this movie character is also based on the Batman comic books.
I don't really care about Hannibal Lecter and the novels by Thomas Harris that feature him- but again, that movie character is based on novels.
William Hartnell certainly is The Doctor- but that character is in a little different category, since the show's creators designed him to be able to regenerate and thus, have different people portray him over the years.
William Shatner, however, IS Captain James T. Kirk- mainly since he originated the character on "Star Trek"- and he continued to portray him in the movies. Chris Pine does a nice job as Kirk, but I have not been totally happy with the J.J. Abrams movies. (I'm still waiting for a resolution for the original Spock and the planet of Vulcan, but it doesn't seem like it's happening.) I think it's more appropriate to make comparisons here, since Shatner really is the original and there is no other source version before him.
Indiana Jones is in the same category with Harrison Ford being the originator of the role. All other variations came after his iconic appearance in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
So, yes- it's possible Disney will decide to reinvent the Indiana Jones movies with another actor portraying Indy (presumably a younger Indy to fill some of the gaps from the years 1921 to 1934 or so)- but I don't know that I would like that too much. (Though as a fan of Indiana Jones, I'm sure I would check them out.) I would prefer just to see at least one more Indiana Jones movie made with Harrison Ford starring as Indiana Jones and leave it at that. (As I agree that he can only reasonably be expected to play Indy or any other action role for only a few more years.)
Of course, I also know that where there is money to (potentially) be made, movie companies are going to keep making movies and Disney will no doubt seek to continue the adventures of their property wherever they can. I just hope they will do it well.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
kongisking said:
Well, to be fair, Stoo...it has become an actual term for a series-restart, so its prevalent usage isn't a gargantuan crime. It may sound silly spoken out loud, but it's not like a slang term or something. And we don't know exactly what form a revamped Indy would take, you're right. But the word is a decent one to fall back on with the little info we have, for the time being.
Whether "reboot" is slang or not isn't the problem. The 'crime' (as you say) is in the usage. Flaunting the word with such wanton abandon in a news article like this is lazy, careless & misleading, especially when the anonymous source never said it. Better to avoid using the term all together until more details of the situation are known.
TheLastCrusader said:
'A new film series' is not a term, bro, and the meaning is too broad.
Tell that to whomever wrote these articles:

"Robert Pattinson is apparently in the running to play Indiana Jones in a new series of films."
http://www.droitwichadvertiser.co.uk/leisure/showbiz/11250031._/?

"TWILIGHT star Robert Pattinson is the shock favourite to play Indiana Jones in a new series of adventure movies."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/381745/Robert-Pattinson-tipped-be-the-next-Indiana-Jones

"Actor Robert Pattinson may end up playing Indiana Jones in the new series of adventure movies."
http://news.yahoo.com/pattinson-play-indiana-jones-012421356.html
TheLastCrusader said:
... Different actors, often accompanied by a refreshed origin story, and a new plot. A reboot's a reboot. I'm very sorry this fact doesn't fit into your self-constructed reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(fiction)
The wikipedia page that you linked to is pathetically flimsy and lists a bunch of titles which don't even fit the entry's own definition!:rolleyes: Also notice how no film remake before 2001 is listed and approx. 98% of the titles are science-fiction & horror movies. That says a lot about the pinheads who contributed to writing the page.(n):sick:
curmudgeon said:
Because "Disney" is known for quickly rebooting the popular film series that it owns,
Maybe things have changed but Disney doesn't normally do 'reboots'. In the past, when they remade a movie, it was either a modern adaptation of the source material (ex. "The Parent Trap", "Freaky Friday", "The Shaggy Dog", "Flubber") or a continuation of the series, (ex. 1997's "The Love Bug", "Race to Witch Mountain". Both films are essentially the same stories as their originals but they are also sequels at the same time). Disney has a record of being genuinely concerned with preserving continuity so it's quite likely they would do the same for Dr. Jones. If a new Indy movie will not be a straight-up remake then it could very well be a prequel (like "Return of The Shaggy Dog"). As a matter of fact, I can't think of ANY Disney films which could be classified as a reboot*, especially since most (if not all) of their remakes haven't gone farther than 1 film. If Indiana Jones does indeed get 'rebooted' with a completely new series, then it would be a highly irregular avenue to take for a character who was born on the silver screen.

*Except, perhaps, "Beyond Witch Mountain" from 1982.

---
Plus, isn't this Pattinson guy British?:confused: How well can he speak without an English accent? If this pretty boy does get chosen for a 'reboot', they should make Indy a Brit and call him Sussex Jones. (He'd have 'sex' in his name so maybe LastCrusader would like that!:p)
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Give real news sites a week to discredit this "agent's pipe dream" as Frank Marshall would call it. They're getting started:

E! News did some digging. Unfortunately, though, sources tell us there's there's no truth to the rumors.
 

Tibor

Member
IndyForever said:
Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. Good luck recasting that part :gun: Ford gave Indy character traits which made the movies work & stand the test of time.

To me when Ford no longer plays Indiana Jones I am done forever with the series. When Ford retires from Indy I retire from having anymore interest :sick:


I agree that Ford invented the personality of Indy and I really want to see at least one more adventure with him as the star. I completely agree that people vastly under-value the subtle things he does with the character.

I do also remember how exciting it was to see Young Indy adventures! I'll go regardless of who plays Indy. Now regarding his gear, please get back to a more realistically aged jacket... ;)
 

Rojodi

New member
No!

For the life of me, I can't understand what people see in his acting. He's not that good, not even on the Shia Labeouf level. Please, let these rumors die on the vine.
 

Tibor

Member
Rojodi said:
No!

For the life of me, I can't understand what people see in his acting. He's not that good, not even on the Shia Labeouf level. Please, let these rumors die on the vine.

It's not a rumor; it's an opinion and I'm entitled to it, as you are to yours. :hat:
 

Tibor

Member
Unless you were replying to the rumor about Pattinson and not my post in particular, in which case we share the same opinion. ;)
 

Rojodi

New member
Tibor said:
Unless you were replying to the rumor about Pattinson and not my post in particular, in which case we share the same opinion. ;)

The rumor itself made me laugh, not your opinion.

There are far too many tween, teen and 20somethings out in the interwebs that opine far too much about him and unfortunately, some in Hollywood read and listen to it.
 

TheLastCrusader

Active member
Oh good - my post got deleted. I guess freedom of speech doesn't count on this message board. You probably considered my post offensive. Yet I find the initial replies to my OP more offensive than my honest reply.
So whatever.
Ban me.
 

Walecs

Active member
TheLastCrusader said:
Oh good - my post got deleted. I guess freedom of speech doesn't count on this message board. You probably considered my post offensive. Yet I find the initial replies to my OP more offensive than my honest reply.
So whatever.
Ban me.

My post got deleted as well just because I said that The Sun is not a reliable source providing examples of past mistakes of The Sun.

Ban me, I'm a criminal for telling the truth.
 
Top