Indiana Jones reboot - Rob Pattinson

Stoo

Well-known member
Their source is "The Sun", a trashy tabloid.(n) Plus, the headline says, "franchise reboot". Two of the most nauseating words in Geekdom language today, coupled together side-by-side. Pardon me while I go vomit/puke/hurl/upchuck, etc.:sick::sick::sick:
 

TheLastCrusader

Active member
Stoo said:
Their source is "The Sun", a trashy tabloid.(n) Plus, the headline says, "franchise reboot". Two of the most nauseating words in Geekdom language today, coupled together side-by-side. Pardon me while I go vomit/puke/hurl/upchuck, etc.:sick::sick::sick:
What else would you call a new installment with new actors?

You guys need to get laid.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Hollywood sources claim 71-year-old Ford is now getting too old to play the whip-cracking action hero.

One Los Angeles insider said: “Disney is looking at its long-term options for the Indiana Jones franchise.

“They feel that the series has huge potential on many levels, starting with the films leading to other spin-offs like games which can generate more money than movies.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/381745/Robert-Pattinson-tipped-be-the-next-Indiana-Jones

Another source I wouldn't trust with anything!

Hollywood insiders are like those mysterious Air Force Colonels who assure you the government is dissecting aliens and reverse-engineering UFOs.

But in this case it's very simple to state the facts of the current situation and attribute them to someone else.

TheLastCrusader said:
What else would you call a new installment with new actors?

Something other than a chain of burger restaurants.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
IP like Indiana Jones is just not going to get abandoned. It's far more likely than not that Disney will produce another adventure sometime in the future.

When that will happen and who will star are of course questions that are likely still open at this point. Still, if I were a cynical reporter looking for a quick piece, I could easily write a story about new film being in the works - the odds are there's more truth in that claim than the opposite.

Before we get something from a source better than some nameless "Los Angeles insider" though, it's all in one ear and out through the other.



<small>By the way, how many of those names reportedly on Disney's "shortlist" have made an appearance here?</small>
 

Stoo

Well-known member
TheLastCrusader said:
What else would you call a new installment with new actors?
A 'new film series' or a 'remake'. It would be shocking if you've never heard those terms before. (See here: The Film Series is NOT the Franchise.) A "new installment with new actors" doesn't necessarily equal a "reboot" because future films could possibly take place between 1921-1934. Metro doesn't know the timeframe of any future films, they just used the term automatically because it is trash journalism. These types of writers are just regurgitating science-fiction-internet-geek jargon without thinking about the actual meaning of the words.(n)
TheLastCrusader said:
You guys need to get laid.
Do you mean "laid" like a chicken lays an egg?:confused:
 

kongisking

Active member
Stoo said:
A 'new film series' or a 'remake'. It would be shocking if you've never heard those terms before. A "new installment with new actors" doesn't necessarily equal a "reboot" because future films could possibly take place between 1921-1934. Metro doesn't know the timeframe of any future films, they just used the term automatically because it is trash journalism.

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.

As for this rumor...

I'm gonna shock you all: I wouldn't commit suicide over it. "What, no knee-jerk hatred? How dare I?!?" :rolleyes:

If this is true, I would definitely be weirded out a little, but I have heard Pattinson is very good outside of those detestable Twilight movies. At the end of the day, it would be a unique take and deserve to be given something of a chance to prove itself as its own thing. I'd try to give Disney a glimmer of trust.

It helps that I'm actually pretty supportive of a "reboot" (sorry Stoo), in the event Ford cannot come back, so if this is legit...I'll be wary, but not foaming-at-the-mouth furious. I just want the goddamn character back on screen.
 

TheLastCrusader

Active member
Stoo said:
A 'new film series' or a 'remake'. It would be shocking if you've never heard those terms before. (See here: The Film Series is NOT the Franchise.) A "new installment with new actors" doesn't necessarily equal a "reboot" because future films could possibly take place between 1921-1934. Metro doesn't know the timeframe of any future films, they just used the term automatically because it is trash journalism. These types of writers are just regurgitating science-fiction-internet-geek jargon without thinking about the actual meaning of the words.(n)
Do you mean "laid" like a chicken lays an egg?:confused:

Nope, a remake would require the same plot as Raiders, or at least a very similar one. You gotta admit there's a very low probability that will happen. 'A new film series' is not a term, bro, and the meaning is too broad.
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)


"Getting laid" means sexual intercourse with an actual woman, preferably making her scream with joy and letting you *** wherever you want to. That's what you clearly need and aren't getting. Now, I wonder why I had to spell that out for you. Seems so obvious for the rest of us.
 

curmudgeon

Well-known member
You know whose name is always conveniently left out of these BS rumors?

Kathleen Kennedy.

You'd think that the sitting president of Lucasfilm, producer on all four films, and longtime friend of Steven and Harrison, would have something to do with any decisions about where the franchise is going.

But nope, it's always all DISNEY. Because "Disney" is known for quickly rebooting the popular film series that it owns, just like they did with... um...

Can anyone think of a time when Disney remade/relaunched a series in less than ten years from the last installment?
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
curmudgeon said:
But nope, it's always all DISNEY. Because "Disney" is known for quickly rebooting the popular film series that it owns, just like they did with... um...
Star Wars? Okay, it's not a reboot, but additional installments to the existing continuity, but they did jump pretty quick on that IP.

curmudgeon said:
Can anyone think of a time when Disney remade/relaunched a series in less than ten years from the last installment?
Revenge of the Sith came out in 2005.
 

curmudgeon

Well-known member
Finn said:
Star Wars? Okay, it's not a reboot, but additional installments to the existing continuity, but they did jump pretty quick on that IP.

Revenge of the Sith came out in 2005.

A re-launch of sorts, but not the type of remake/re-imagining/recast that we're specifically talking about in here.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
TheLastCrusader said:
Nope, a remake would require the same plot as Raiders, or at least a very similar one. You gotta admit there's a very low probability that will happen.
No, I don't have to admit such a thing. Following cinematic history, it is indeed a probability that "Raiders" will eventually be 'remade'.
TheLastCrusader said:
'A new film series' is not a term, bro, and the meaning is too broad.
"New film series" is not a term?:confused: 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.
TheLastCrusader said:
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?:confused: Just because certain superheroes :sick: have been "rebooted" doesn't mean that a new actor for Indiana Jones automatically means a "reboot". You're missing the point.

TheLastCrusader said:
"Getting laid" means sexual intercourse with an actual woman, preferably making her scream with joy and letting you *** wherever you want to. That's what you clearly need and aren't getting. Now, I wonder why I had to spell that out for you. Seems so obvious for the rest of us.
It's a good thing that you're here to tell us all about sex, LastCrusader! Otherwise, we would never know!:rolleyes:
curmudgeon said:
Can anyone think of a time when Disney remade/relaunched a series in less than ten years from the last installment?
The only one I can think of which comes anywhere close to 10 years is the 1997 TV version of the "The Love Bug", which continued the story 15 years after the short-lived 1982 TV series. (The "series", not the "franchise").

"The Shaggy Dog" and the "The Shaggy D.A." were 17 years apart.
 
Last edited:

TheLastCrusader

Active member
Stoo said:
It's a good thing that you're here to tell us all about sex, LastCrusader! Otherwise, we would never know!:rolleyes:
I know you know, that's the whole deal, you're thinking about it the whole time, getting all frustrated about life and everything. Meanwhile, I don't have to think about it. Got the gist? ;)
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
TheLastCrusader said:
I know you know, that's the whole deal, you're thinking about it the whole time, getting all frustrated about life and everything. Meanwhile, I don't have to think about it. Got the gist? ;)

I don't think you have to <I>talk</I> about it, either. At least not here.
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
kongisking said:
If this is true, I would definitely be weirded out a little, but I have heard Pattinson is very good outside of those detestable Twilight movies.

Yeah, I've heard that too, but I'm yet to see it. The Rover is about to be released in Australia, however, so I'll see how he performs in that.

One thing's for sure, he'd have to bulk up a little to be Indy...
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
If you're intrigued by the possibility of Mr. Pattinson donning the fedora, then I would encourage you to keep an eye on Queen of the Desert. The film is currently in post-production and is slated for a late 2014 release. It's worth paying attention to because Mr. Pattinson will be playing the late Col. T.E. Lawrence.


robert-pattinson-elephant.jpg


See Water for Elephants. He handles the period wardrobe well. If it ultimately turns out to be true, then it would be an inspired bit of casting and one that goes a lo-ong way to securing the female audience.
 

IndyForever

Active member
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:
 
Top