Oh boy, do I ever have a feeling that we’re about to experience another epidemic of “childhood ruined!” screaming from certain infantile corners of the web. In a move that will surprise no one, Disney has announced yet another reboot of a catalog title. This time, it’s 1991’s “The Rocketeer.”
READ MORE: Why Hollywood Needs To Questions Their Faith In Remakes
Joe Johnson‘s original film and comic book adaptation starring Billy Campbell and Jennifer Connolly is certainly a charmer, an old fashioned tale about a hero armed with a jetpack, mask, and the heart to do the right thing. And while critical notices were kind, audiences largely shrugged, and the movie topped out at $46 million and was considered a disappointment. But in the years since, it has earned impressive cult worship.
The new movie will feature a black female lead character, in what THR is calling a “modern-day twist.” It will be set six years after the original, with a female pilot stepping in to save the day and stop a corrupt scientist from setting jetpack technology, in a story set against the backdrop of the Cold War.
Max Winkler and Matt Spicer (who penned the indie “Ceremony” together, which Winkler directed) are working on the script for this project, but no director or casting has been revealed just yet.
This one is certainly to stir a lot of talk, so let us know what you think in the comments section.
Since only ten people saw the original, and only 6 liked it – and of that 6, only 2 remember the story – I would say very few childhoods will be fake ruined.
I went and seen it, I was a big fan. I would rather it be a man, don’t care what color, but at this point it’s whatever. I think we’re all getting numb to it. There’s more important things to be mad about. Like the fact that there’s anyone dumb enough to think ANYTHING on CNN isn’t fabricated fiction, or that any REAL person wants Hillary Clinton in office, and actually believes that it’s not all rigged when everyone and their mother seemed to love Bernie but he didn’t get the nomination AND he didn’t just run independently! He’s a shill, so is Trump, the worlds a stage. Everyone wake up and stop playing the game
Deep breath, Drock. Deeeep breath.
I expect this movie to ruin my middle-age memories.
My main thought is “Stop with the ‘hipper-than-thou’ crap, Kevin.”
I was going to post a question but it’s been answered,
Hi hollywood changing a character from male to frmale or black to white really doesnt make anything hipper. Its what you do in the movie itself. This SJW PC hollywood crap needs to stop.
Now before anyone screams racism or misogyny i think i a female black character is a fine way to go. However saying something is hip just because the character may be black or female i think is kinda racist and misoginistic.
I can totally imagine a bunch of white dudes sitting in a boardroom somewhere at disney stereotyping the crap out of todays culture to come up with some of these ideas.
Totally…..it’s the new flavor in Hollywood copycatting. As if the gimmick is supposed to make people forget it’s a reboot.
Yes a million times
I loved the Rocketeer when it first came out, but when I watched it again a few years ago, I didn’t enjoy it nearly as much. It’s a seriously flawed movie, so I’d actually be down for a reimagining. That being said, I don’t like the sound of “a modern twist.” I couldn’t care less if the lead is white, black, man, woman, gay, straight, or whatever, but they should keep it set in the same time period as the original. That was part of the charm.
It’s left out of this article, but supposedly the reboot will take place 6 years after the original, so in 1944.
If that’s the case, I’m on board.
No matter how good the reboot is, we will never have James Horner back to compose it. That score is legendary.
I’m confused. Is today April 1st???
This article seems to leave out the plot point where the new character is attempting to find Cliff. Cliff is still part of this movie.
That does seem crucial in getting people to accept this
Those Anne Hathaway and Tobey McGuire pictures right below the article are brilliant! Thank you for capturing our feelings so perfectly.
Want to impress me, Hollywood? Make it a sequel. Want to frustrate me because no matter how many times we say it you just don’t get it? We don’t want good stories “rebooted”. We don’t want pale imitations of good stories. We want more from you than crap you forge from the Recycle Bin.
People “reboot” paintings of famous art. And guess what? It sucks.
Nobody’s bothered to try and “reboot” novels yet, thank God.
DC tried to “reboot” their universe with the New 52 and look how well that worked.
Are you hearing this? Do you get it yet??
If you’re just going to re-tell the same story but with what you call “twists” such as gender changes and/or racial shifts, you’re missing the @#$%^ point (again). Tell us a new story. Or don’t bother trying to suck the money out of our wallets, cause we’re getting wise to your act (and tired of your s$#@).
It is a sequel. Calm down. It clearly states the story picks up 6 years after the first one.
It seems to me that the author of this article is a bit of a doosh. Did he actually get paid for this?
I’m for it, if the love interest of the protagonist remains a cute brunette woman.
So, this is suposed to take place 6 years after the original, in 1944. That’s cool, nazis can still play a part in it. What I don’t get is this: unless you want to re-write history, how are you going to make a black female pilot believable in 1944? Everybody nows racism was thriving at that time, not just in America but everywhere. How could a black woman become a pilot in 1944? I’m not a racist or a misoginist; if this was set in the present, I would have no problem with a black female Rocketeer. But in 1944? It’s not historically true, just isn’t. You can’t just change history to what you think it should have been just so you can be PC. Society was the way it was in the past, and we have to accept it as part of who we were so that we can understand who and what we are today. And if you’re going to make an historic film, albeit an adventure one, the least you can do is to be true to the time period you’re portaying.
So, having said all this, I have to admit I have a big problem with this reboot. It won’t destroy any childhood memories, because I was seventeen when this film came out in 1991, because I can always watch the original anytime I want, and more important, because my memories are mine and no reboot can destroy them. Also, I can always choose to ignore this reboot all together. But the possibility of Hollywood missing another oportunity to create a great film just because they want to be PC, does irritate the hell out of me, to put it politely. When will they underastand that when we go see a sequel or even a reboot is because we want more of the same? Because we want the original film over and over again? So all you have to do is to create new situations for the same characters. Is that so dificult to understand? Aparently yes, considering the amount of re-imaginings with “a modern twist” that have tanked at the box office.
Yeah, I agree. I was taken back when they said it takes place only 6 years after the original. At that point, I wondered: how would the protagonist even work for that time period? I’m hoping they won’t sugar coat the film as being lighter or do history revisionism which is a disservice. The film would have to address the extreme challenges of that time period. But would it even be worthwhile if it can alter the course of the story?
Who the hell cares about Serial Pulp throwbacks that aren’t Indiana Jones these days anyway? The film could work if it was set in a different time period where actual living moviegoers still have some sort of nostalgia for. The 70s and 80s were the time for 50s nostalgia. Why not set it in the 80s? Even 90s?
Honestly, I wonder who’s childhood is going to be ruined by the remake of “just an okay” film. It had pleasant reviews but not rave reviews from critics and watching the film, you can tell why audiences were indifferent to it. I was 6 when it came out and remember being just fine with it but even recognizing its staleness. It’s a decent Disney film but it was lackluster in the kind of action you want from this sort of period piece. I remember it being a lot more competent than The Shadow and The Phantom that would come out much later but still a pretty weak Indiana Jones wanna be.
Wasn’t Johnston’s Captain America: the first avenger, a slightly disappointing quasi-remake anyways?
I actually liked Captain America: First Avenger. It has it’s problems, but it’s still very enjoyable – a lot more than some of the films that Marvel released later, anyway. But returning to the topic here: my problem with this reboot or sequel or whatever it is it’s not that it takes place only 6 years after the original – I’m a sucker for adventure films that take place in that time period (1930’s, 40’s or 1950’s) and would love to watch another one, a good one. No, my problem is with the notion of a black female pilot in the 1940’s. It’s like you said, unless they do history revisionism or sugar coat the film or turn it from an adventure film into a social study of the life of black people in 1940’s America, I can’t see how they’re going to sell the idea of a black female pilot in that time period. Now, if they set the story in the 1970’s or 80’s, that could work. But the 1940’s? No way, Jose.
p.s: On the subject of The Shadow and The Phantom, I admit they’re far from perfect – in both cases, the villains are paper thin and cartoonish in the worst possible sense, to name just one problem. But I love both and have them on my DVD colection – like I said, I’m a sucker for adventure films set in the 1930’s, have been since I first saw Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Oh boy, do I ever have a feeling that we’re about to experience another epidemic of “childhood ruined!” screaming from certain infantile corners of the web.
… Predictable dumb comment from yet another writer who never cared to truly understood what the real uproar behind “GB16” really was about.
Once again, Disney is doing things right, setting the new movie as a continuation of the old one.
Yeah – the 1950 black female pilot thing makes very little sense… but, then again, we’re talking about a jetpack-powered super-hero, here, so I have no real issue with it.
Anyway, gotta wait to see who’s producing and writing this, and who they’ll cast, but so far, I’m on board.
Suspension of disbelief within the confines of some sort of rational logic.
Has anyone critical of unnecessary Hollywood reboots ever used the phrase “childhood ruined”? Sounds like something bloggers and studio apologists came up with in their pathetic attempts to justify the recycled garbage that studios constantly churn out in lazy cash grab attempts.
I found the Shadow and the Phantom to be both enjoyable but I felt that taking the Raiders lite adventures robbed both films of their max appeal. I really love pulpy 1930s/1940s adventure films myself as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark and the rest of the Indy films are in my collection.
The Shadow was interesting but the atomic bomb plot made the film unnecessarily goofy. I thought that they should have strived to revive the feel of the 1930s noir films in the same manner Indy mimicked the adventure serials. To see Sam Raimi turned down and instead make the better Darkman feels nothing but a missed opportunity.
Same in the case with the Phantom, he’s an incredibly interesting character and the film starts out really nice. But the movie awkwardly has him leave the island and come back later. He shouldn’t be a globe trotter and it could have been a really cool jungle adventure throughout as those were the best scenes. I remember just being thrown off when he goes to NYC the first time I watched it as a kid. Treat Williams was awesome! To hear Bruce Campbell could have been the lead was a miss too.
The First Avenger was cool but I thought that they should have went more Raiders than they did. No time skip or even an origin, just start out with him as Captain America and the Red Skull in the Rene Belloq role that way they can build a more memorable time together than they do in the actual film. The whole backstory could have been brought up through dialogue with Red Skull even making fun of his time as an entertainer for the troops. Still better than the one from the 90s.
Oh yeah, the Rocketeer reboot… Uh, I kind of lost interest after talking about those other films. Those characters are really interesting. Um, yeah… A 1970s homage to both blaxploitation and the awe inspiring experiences brought forth through the original Star Wars and Superman: the movie would be the best step considering the lead. I would be excited for that version of the reboot because it could even act as a sequel. Almost as much time has passed in the real world as it would in the film series. It would be fun seeing Billy Campbell working with Yaya DaCosta as the new Rocketeer. Race and being a female can still play a factor, but in this time period, it’s much more empowering and revolutionary than just plain oppression.