The Rocketeer Sequel/Requel

[TheComicbookKid]

How about no. I attended more than a few Battlestar Galactica revival panels at Dragoncon for years before the SF version. Things that came out were that it was pulling in over 20 million viewers and got canceled mainly because of budget.

The SF channel did the name only adaptation for a reason, namely the original show had lots of viewers.

Viewers don't equate to quality or being memorable. Especially considering the viewing habits of tv over 30 yeas.

The fact is they felt less pressure to conform to previous BSG than the makers of Star Wars: Redux cause less people cared.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I love it. But nothing about it really makes me go, "wow, this can't be touched."

The Wizard of Oz is untouchable to me, but I have no problem with the Wiz or Wicked putting their own spin on a story and getting acclaim for their own spin on the characters/mythos. And yeah, there are more terrible versions than good ones.

That's all well and good, but people just don't know when to leave things the alone. It's been done. Why bother again? Especially if it was good the first time? Or you know, make something new Disney. You can afford it and with all your successful franchises you're pretty assured, and you don't need to spend an obscene amount of money. But your investors just want more money so that won't happen.

This movie will probably having a larger than necessary budget. Ugh. The wheels are turning.

 

[regnak]

Viewers don't equate to quality or being memorable. Especially considering the viewing habits of tv over 30 yeas.

The fact is they felt less pressure to conform to previous BSG than the makers of Star Wars: Redux cause less people cared.

Well duh! Star Wars is the biggest name out there and needed lots more people to see it. Of course there was more pressure to conform. The bolded part is like saying water is wet.

 

[TheVileOne]

I have a lot of love for the Rocketeer, so we'll see.

Instead of calling it a reboot, just call it a sequel.

 

[Doctor Jones]

A sequel people won't get since the first film is barely heard of. But a reboot that they don't say is a reboot, you can market that better. It's like applying a fresh coat of paint to hide the fact it's an old chair and selling it as brand new.

 

[Mysteryman]

I am a big fan Of The First Rocketeer.
But I like this idea.
Besides It seems like the right time.
In the comics we recent got ourselves a black female Iron Man.
I think people will easily accept the same for the new Rocketeer.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

That's all well and good, but people just don't know when to leave things the alone. It's been done. Why bother again? Especially if it was good the first time? Or you know, make something new Disney. You can afford it and with all your successful franchises you're pretty assured, and you don't need to spend an obscene amount of money. But your investors just want more money so that won't happen.
.

This movie didn't stop Tomorrowland being made or a sequel to John Carter.

I could understand getting mad at a Han Solo trilogy or a 5th freaking Indiana Jones. Why were you so much more okay with that possiblity?

Koepp coming back is just fine. KOTCS's flaws weren't because of Koepp's writing. The man had to cobble together so many different ideas from various scripts over the years and turn it into a central story that three people couldn't totally agree on and when some of those ideas weren't totally good, the script will suffer no matter what. Under Spielberg and Kennedy this will be just fine. And I highly doubt Koepp will be the only writer on this.

I'd like to see Indy and Marion in a dual adventurer type role myself. They could play it either way. I imagine by this point Indy's focused on being the Dean of Marshall College given his age and is pulled back into perhaps one last great adventure.

I feel like this is 2008 again with making old Ford jokes. The man has proven himself time and time again beginning with KOTCS he can handle this stuff just fine for his age.

That's what will make things interesting. The new situations Indy will be put in because he is a man out of time (which was also explored in the fourth film) and contrast that with the new era of the adventurer is intriguing. It's very unique. The stuck in the 30's and 40's idea only persists because not everybody loved the fourth film. If the fourth film was as good as LC even people wouldn't have had a problem with it.

 

[Hunter Rider]

The plural title makes me think the new Rocketeer will find Cliff Secord. I love the original so I'm interested to see how this develops.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Well duh! Star Wars is the biggest name out there and needed lots more people to see it. Of course there was more pressure to conform. The bolded part is like saying water is wet.

Apparently not well,duh. You're the one arguing viewership numbers.

All I say was that it was a "crappy show few people cared about."

I didn't say anything about viewership. Viewership doesn't mean people care intensely about it.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

The plural title makes me think the new Rocketeer will find Cliff Secord. I love the original so I'm interested to see how this develops.

That's what I noticed. It may be a Rocketeer program that she ends up disrupting. Like Cap getting captured on enemy lines and the Nazis attempted to reverse engineer him.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The story of The Rocketeers will maintain the period setting of the original film, as it picks up six years after the events of that movie with Campbell’s Secord having vanished fighting Nazis:
An unlikely new hero emerges: a young African–American female pilot, who takes up the mantle of Rocketeer in an attempt to stop an ambitious and corrupt rocket scientist from stealing jetpack technology in what could prove to be a turning point in the Cold War.

Correct me if I'm wrong, since it has been ages since I've seen it, but wasn't the original set in 1938? Six years later is 1944. That's hardly the Cold War.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Correct me if I'm wrong, since it has been ages since I've seen it, but wasn't the original set in 1938? Six years later is 1944. That's hardly the Cold War.

I don't remember it giving a specific date. Just set before the US officially entered the war. 1939s to 1940?

 

[regnak]

Apparently not well,duh. You're the one arguing viewership numbers.

All I say was that it was a "crappy show few people cared about."

I didn't say anything about viewership. Viewership doesn't mean people care intensely about it.

And I showed more cared than you thought but I never claimed it was Star Wars numbers. And there is still an active classic BSG fanfic community going 40 years later. That's fairly intense.

They still love it unlike all the FFINO defenders who disappeared after the movie came out. t:t:t:

Oh yes I remember you and often chuckle at your ridiculous signature which was in defense of that abomination.

 

[Doctor Jones]

This movie didn't stop Tomorrowland being made or a sequel to John Carter.

I could understand getting mad at a Han Solo trilogy or a 5th freaking Indiana Jones. Why were you so much more okay with that possiblity?

And Tomorrowland sucked. Shame on Bird. When these big original movies come out, they suck too which is worse for potentially great original movies. And what do you mean sequel to John Carter?

I couldn't give two ****s about a Han Solo trilogy and it's an aggravating idea. And Disney will just use Indy 5 to create more endless Indy movies which is also aggravating. Is a 5th Indy movie unnecessary? Absolutely. But Indy's my favorite film character so this is an exception. And it's Ford and Spielberg in what will probably be the last one with them. I'm excited. But after that I don't know how much I'm going to care about the franchise because then it will be devoid of uniqueness and be yet another franchise among other franchises.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

And I showed more cared than you thought but I never claimed it was Star Wars numbers. And there is still an active classic BSG fanfic community going 40 years later. That's fairly intense.

I never said their wasn't. FEW ISN'T NONE. 1 ISN'T ZERO.
Tron has a huge cult following. Tron Legacy still sucked.

Rocketeer is fondly remember but it isn't some untouchable classic or a genre redefining blockbuster.

Disney wants to try it. Let'em. This movie isn't stopping a Doc Savage movie or an adaption of some terrible YA dystopian novel. It's not milking a franchise that was good like Bourne for a cash grab.

They still love it unlike all the FFINO defenders who disappeared after the movie came out. t:t:t:

Oh yes I remember you and often chuckle at your ridiculous signature which was in defense of that abomination.

Yeah. I was totally wrong. You caught me. Wow.

You still don't have a good Fantastic Four movie and Fox still has the rights.

Unlike people who like the pretend ."oh, I knew Heath Legder was going to be great!" I stand by my wrongheadedness!

 

[TheComicbookKid]

And Tomorrowland sucked. Shame on Bird. When these big original movies come out, they suck too which is worse for potentially great original movies. And what do you mean sequel to John Carter?

There's no real correlation though. Original movies do well all the time. That's why we have franchises. Just like Wal-Mart used to be a mom and pop store until is became a giant.

Stargate was a small-budget movie. Now it's a franchise that's being rebooted.

IMO, John Carter could have gotten a sequel if it wasn't for all the behind the scenes stuff. No reason Pacific Rim gets a sequel and JC doesn't. I'm not sure what the Hollywood logic is behind Pacific Rim.

I couldn't give two ****s about a Han Solo trilogy and it's an aggravating idea. And Disney will just use Indy 5 to create more endless Indy movies which is also aggravating. But Indy's my favorite film character so he's the exception. Is a 5th Indy movie unnecessary? Absolutely. And it's Ford and Spielberg in what will probably be the last one with them. I'm excited. But after that I don't know how much I'm going to care about the franchise because then it will be devoid of uniqueness and be yet another franchise among other franchises.

Well okay.

I consider Young Indiana Jones to already be an attempt at franchising that didn't work.

 

[terry78]

Black AND a chick? Here we go.

 

[STARMAN]

Always got a kick out of the original Rocketeer. Loved the theme.

 

[regnak]

I never said their wasn't. FEW ISN'T NONE. 1 ISN'T ZERO.
Tron has a huge cult following. Tron Legacy still sucked.

Rocketeer is fondly remember but it isn't some untouchable classic or a genre redefining blockbuster.

Disney wants to try it. Let'em. This movie isn't stopping a Doc Savage movie or an adaption of some terrible YA dystopian novel. It's not milking a franchise that was good like Bourne for a cash grab.


Yeah. I was totally wrong. You caught me. Wow.

You still don't have a good Fantastic Four movie and Fox still has the rights.

Unlike people who like the pretend ."oh, I knew Heath Legder was going to be great!" I stand by my wrongheadedness!

I never said Disney could not do it. I just responded to your strange comparison between SW and BSG. And since you are bashing the original BSG which had good and great episodes when they had enough money, I think it is fair to point out your terrible taste in the past.

 

[Neno_Kos]

I found my new next mission.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Correct me if I'm wrong, since it has been ages since I've seen it, but wasn't the original set in 1938? Six years later is 1944. That's hardly the Cold War.

That was what I was wondering too. I had to google when it started

Set six years after the original Rocketeer

That places the new movie in 1944

stealing jet-pack technology in what could prove to be a turning point in the Cold War.

Didn't the Cold War start in 1947 ?

BTW I hope Billy Campbell makes a cameo.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Didn't the Cold War start in 1947 ?

Pretty much. That was the year of the Truman Doctrine. Although you can probably argue that the Cold War didn't become THE COLD WAR until August 1949 when the Soviets got the bomb.

 

[VelcroWallet]

That was what I was wondering too. I had to google when it started




That places the new movie in 1944


Didn't the Cold War start in 1947 ?

BTW I hope Billy Campbell makes a cameo.

Agreed Billy Campbell cameo would be awesome.

 

[ross2287]

I am a big fan Of The First Rocketeer.
But I like this idea.
Besides It seems like the right time.
In the comics we recent got ourselves a black female Iron Man.
I think people will easily accept the same for the new Rocketeer.

Seeing a black female Rocketeer first will--sadly--make the eventual on-screen transition to a black female Iron Man more palatable.

By the way, I'm all for more Rocketeer movies. I don't care if it's an all-female cast, all-black cast, all-trans cast. This could literally go in any direction and I'd be on board--as long as they keep this:
[YT]BXbL0iukdCo[/YT]

 

[Whatupman]

The plural title makes me think the new Rocketeer will find Cliff Secord. I love the original so I'm interested to see how this develops.

Yeah, I was thinking that too. Hopefully that's the case. I wonder who they would cast for Cliff Secord. I think Dan Stevens would be a good choice.