TheLastCrusader
Active member
http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/02/rober...diana-jones-role-in-franchise-reboot-4747241/
Why is there no thread on this yet? Big news Indylovers.
Why is there no thread on this yet? Big news Indylovers.
The Reaper said:There is no news b/c it is not news. The source is questionable at best. It's bogus, dude. Get over it.
What else would you call a new installment with new actors?Stoo said:Their source is "The Sun", a trashy tabloid. 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.
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.
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.TheLastCrusader said:What else would you call a new installment with new actors?
Do you mean "laid" like a chicken lays an egg?TheLastCrusader said:You guys need to get laid.
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.
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.
Do you mean "laid" like a chicken lays an egg?
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: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...
Revenge of the Sith came out in 2005.curmudgeon said:Can anyone think of a time when Disney remade/relaunched a series in less than ten years from the last installment?
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.
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: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.
"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.TheLastCrusader said:'A new film series' is not a term, bro, and the meaning is too broad.
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.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)
It's a good thing that you're here to tell us all about sex, LastCrusader! Otherwise, we would never know!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.
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").curmudgeon said:Can anyone think of a time when Disney remade/relaunched a series in less than ten years from the last installment?
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?Stoo said:It's a good thing that you're here to tell us all about sex, LastCrusader! Otherwise, we would never know!
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?
Attila the Professor said:I don't think you have to <I>talk</I> about it, either. At least not here.
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.