It's not as bad as what some idiot posted on Wikipedia that Natalie Portman would play Indy's daughter.
That's not just the work of some random Wikidiot - that's a horrible fanboy rumor that's been floating around for at least a year or two now. I mean, some idiot had to come up with it initially, but it's nothing new.
Why sons & daughters???
Because cats & dogs would be a lot creepier???
I'm totally unfamiliar with this Shia LaBeouf goof, so I'm not as angry about his possible casting as many of the other internet nerds apparently are. But I already have incredibly low expectations regarding this movie, anyway--so the casting of some Transformers ******bag really isn't a big deal to me. It's like having a heart attack, and then stubbing your toe--sure, your toe hurts, but you're already in pretty bad shape to begin with, so the toe's kind of minor, in comparison, yeah?
But really, is it really
that much of a stretch to believe that Indy sired a kid or two (or thirteen) as he was gallivanting around the world? He wasn't exactly a prude (nor were any of the women in the films). It's perfectly reasonable to think that he's got a kid or two running around somewhere, and it's a perfectly reasonable spin for Spielberg/Lucas to want to put on the franchise.
Why not just include Indy's Dad again who was great in 'Crusade'. 
Because he's (apparently) retired from acting? Because there's not much left for them to do with the character? His whole life revolved around the Holy Grail. He found the Holy Grail. There really isn't much more for Dad to do except to die and in turn, motivate Junior, and all that can easily happen off-screen, without Connery.
But who's to say that he's
not gonna be in it? It sounds like it's still not entirely out of the question, and I wouldn't put it past Spielberg/Lucas to try to shoehorn him in there, somewhere, no matter how awkward. . .
