Twilight Star Robert Pattinson Confirms He Won't be Indy in Indiana Jones Reboot

[Random Argument Man]

He's very conscious about the geek community hatred of him. He's going to need to play a few key roles to shake off the reputation.

It's been done before. I remember back in high school, there were few things that would have brought me more joy than to punch Leonardo DiCaprio right in his pretty boy face. I was so sick of hearing about him, and any movie that had him in it was basically an instant "No" because it was all-but guaranteed to be some crappy romance movie for the women to swoon over. I guess you could say that he was my generation's Bieber, but that would be a blatant insult since I'm sure that at no point in his personal life was Leo even half the dickhead that Bieber has been.

*Ahem* But anyway, fast forward to today, and now it's just the opposite. I freaking love Leo, and will consider seeing a movie simply by him being on the cast list. They aren't all great, but he's just such an awesome actor that it's worth seeing the movie anyway. I think Robert could easily have that kind of track record. He seems like an okay guy, just needs to be in a few movies that aren't horrible swoonbait rubbish.

Edit: Hm... "swoonbait". I like it. I'm gonna have to start using that term more often as way of describing cheesy romance flicks with the heartthrob du jour in the lead role.

Oh man?..I remember that Leo craze even if I was just a kid. I'm cheering for Leo to finally get that damn Oscar.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I didn't even know they were planning on rebooting it. So to summarize this article, the good news: Robert Pattinson won't be playing Indiana Jones. The bad news: they're rebooting Indiana Jones.

 

[Mave]

Thank God for that, but ..... what do you mean with Indy reboot .... this is new for me

 

[RJ Dalton]

I'm just going to pretend this Indy Reboot thing isn't going to actually happen. Just like with Crystal Skull and the Star Wars prequels.

 

[Reaper195]

You know what? I'd actually like to see him take the role. I mean, yeah, Twilight sucked, of course it did, but that doesn't mean the actors from it can't do any good given the right material and direction. And the guy needs to catch a break.

Have you seen The Rover? Australian film with Pattinson in it. The guy can act like a mother fucker. So can most who were in the Twilight series.

Ad to be honest, the Twilight series didn't have bad acting in it. It's just really, really hard to act well when the script, and the source the script is based off of, is written like a fuckin' mongoloid.

 

[FPLOON]

What I [already] knew: Indiana Jones reboot...
What I didn't know [already]: Robert Pattinson "rumored" to be the next "Indy"...

Now that I'm "caught" up to speed... uh... "Eh..."
I mean, I not hung up that Robert's not the new "Indy" or not, to be honest... Although, now I must watch The Rover, which seems to be the main thing I got out of this thread...

Other than that... uh... I can't think of a person who should play new "Indy" that's not over the age of 50, let alone 40 right now...

 

[Jingle Fett]

Wait, Indiana Jones is getting a reboot?

That's it Hollywood, you've gone too far into the abyss, I'm digging out my torch and pitchfork.

Hold on a second there. Normally I'd agree...but Indiana Jones is now owned by Disney. And they've done pretty well by Marvel so far...

 

[mindfaQ]

Makes sense to not have an ugly, uncharismatic actor with hygiene problems as the actor for a new Indy.

 

[GameChanger]

That's a shame. I kinda like him. He's arguably one of the best choices for a young Dr. Jones.

Otherwise, I would still nominate the hell out of Shia LeBeouf. I think he deserves a chance at a good role.

 

[sXeth]

Just not sure why they want to reboot Indiana Jones at all. It's kinda like the Nightmare On Elm Street reboot from a few years back. The actor was great, but no one else can really BE Freddy Krueger. It's got too much of Robert Englund attached to the very core of the character. Anyone other than Englund was going to feel like expensive cosplay and that's exactly what happened through no fault of his. I kinda feel like Indiana Jones could suffer from the same issues. Harrison Ford and Indiana Jones are synonyms at this point.

Ford only played Indy in fo--- *ducks gunfire* three movies.

They managed to succesfully recast James Bond from Sean Connery playing him in six movies (with another guy in the middle), Roger Moore playing him in seven, and Brosnan in four. (And Dalton in two).

Although Bond has always been in the present/near future, which has let him move gracefully over the years. The mileage you get out of Indy's "period piece" stigma is debatedly less (and the attempt to shift periods didn't go over well). The actor being recast probably isn't its major problem though.

 

[Mike Fang]

They're going to WHAT?

No. No, no, nononononononononononononono, sweet merciful GOD NO. The Indiana Jones movies are classics, DO NOT REBOOT THEM. DO NOT defile the legacy of Harrison Ford and Steven Speilburg with a poor-quality, modernized rehash of the iconic character and stories. I can't think of a single current-generation actor that has Ford's charisma and presence on screen. Nobody can own the role of Indiana Jones like he can; any current-generation actor trying to will just come across as someone dressing up as Indiana Jones and trying to do an impersonation.

And who are they going to get to direct a reboot? Michael Bay? Oh God Almighty, I'd be tempted to pull a South Park and threaten to shoot the premire copy of the film with a rocket before letting that shakey-cam-addicted hack put his version of Indy on the screens. M. Night Shamalayan? Please, that'll have people's faces melting like they just opened The Ark of The Covenant. Simon West? Pfff. John Turteltaub? Meh, only if you wanted a toothless reboot with no guns in it no matter how unfeasable that would be. The only one I can think of that would come close would be Stephen Sommers, but even his style doesn't quite match up with Speilburg's. As for Speilburg himself, I really hope the man has the strength of conviction to refuse to take part in something like this. If the majority of the reboots we've seen are much to go by, odds are this is going to be lackluster at BEST.

Bottom line, today's Hollywood just seems like the wrong place to try and do a series like Indiana Jones properly. It's all liberal politics, lowest common denominator mass marketing, over-reliance on special effects and focus group made films designed by committee. At least that's how it seems to me. Many current generation directors don't have appealing styles of filmmaking, not like Spielburg, Carpenter, Kubrick or Scorsese. Most current-generation actors and actresses also lack much distinct personalities, unlike Ford, Eastwood, Freeman, Nickelson, Stewart, Dench, Fisher and Weaver. A reboot is inevitably going to be compared to the previous films, and when this oen is, I'm betting dollars to doughnuts it comes across as bland and by-the-numbers, if we're lucky.

 

[gridsleep]

The reboot should not happen. Stop it. Stop. Just stop it. Hollywood? Stop. Sit, boy. Sit. I'm at the point where I swear, remakes and reboots should be punishable by death. Someone wants to make some gravy off a thirty year old series that ran it's course? Just kill the bastard. Kill him with fire.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Just not sure why they want to reboot Indiana Jones at all. It's kinda like the Nightmare On Elm Street reboot from a few years back. The actor was great, but no one else can really BE Freddy Krueger. It's got too much of Robert Englund attached to the very core of the character. Anyone other than Englund was going to feel like expensive cosplay and that's exactly what happened through no fault of his. I kinda feel like Indiana Jones could suffer from the same issues. Harrison Ford and Indiana Jones are synonyms at this point.

Ford only played Indy in fo--- *ducks gunfire* three movies.

They managed to succesfully recast James Bond from Sean Connery playing him in six movies (with another guy in the middle), Roger Moore playing him in seven, and Brosnan in four. (And Dalton in two).

Although Bond has always been in the present/near future, which has let him move gracefully over the years. The mileage you get out of Indy's "period piece" stigma is debatedly less (and the attempt to shift periods didn't go over well). The actor being recast probably isn't its major problem though.

An interesting point. But I've been watching Bond films since For Your Eyes Only and I still hear people tell me "THAT'S NOT REALLY BOND" when I say that it's my favorite since it was my first. Even 30 years later, people still cling to the "original". Heck Connery didn't even play the character for more than a decade. Moore did. But people still cling to the original.

Bond is also an adaptation. Drawn from a book series and if memory serves adapted over other media prior to film. Indy has no such luxury. Harrison Ford build the character from the ground up with his own charm and demeanor. Sure, it's just Han Solo in the 1940s, but still it's always been Ford. For over 30 years. So I stand by the Freddy example. Sure, you CAN recast. But the question is should they?

If they do move forward with it, I just hope they can find the right guy to cast. Either way, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Nazulu]

Not a God damn mother fucking reboot! I don't care if they continue the series but trying to compete with the classics means you're doing just that. Hollywood now is uninspired and pathetic. They're not going to do anywhere near the quality of the originals, so what the hell is the point!? You know, other than trying to rake in money by milking till blood comes out.

 

[jFr[e]ak93]

and if Star Trek (2009) and if Into Darkness showed us anything, it's that even great casting can still lead to the movies failing critically, so I'd personally rather see a well written, well directed but mediocre acted movie then a well acted but poorly written and directed one.

Failing Critically... Ya... A 95% (Star Trek) and an 87% (Into Darkness) on Rotten Tomatoes is failing critically...

OT - I know the internet constantly says Karl Urban for everything, but seriously. He has traces of Harrison's charisma. Plus he can pull off the edge of camp you need for a Jones film.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Thank fuck for that, and seems I'm not the only one who never knew there was an Indiana Jones reboot in the first place.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

ak93]

and if Star Trek (2009) and if Into Darkness showed us anything, it's that even great casting can still lead to the movies failing critically, so I'd personally rather see a well written, well directed but mediocre acted movie then a well acted but poorly written and directed one.

Failing Critically... Ya... A 95% (Star Trek) and an 87% (Into Darkness) on Rotten Tomatoes is failing critically...

OT - I know the internet constantly says Karl Urban for everything, but seriously. He has traces of Harrison's charisma. Plus he can pull off the edge of camp you need for a Jones film.

I'll second both the notions, as much as I love the original Treks I also liked the reboots. And Karl Urban as Indy? Oh hell yeah... the dude just has the "it" factor.

 

[Fasckira]

Karl Urban or Nathan Fillion please.

As to the other point, I dont mind the reboot of the franchise. I mean if they tried to release a new film about any kind of archaeologist explorer, all that'd happen is people would cry "Its a blatant Indy rip-off!". May as well keep the name, that way people have an idea of what they're getting into.

 

[SteinarB]

Karl Urban does not need to be Indiana Jones (although I'm sure he would do a bang-up job of it) because Indiana Jones should not be rebooted. What Karl Urban needs to do is make sure a second Judge Dredd movie with him in the title role is made, because he was _AWESOME_ as Dredd the last time around.