Media Megaforum

G.I. Joe movie...2009
shaneronzio at 8:36AM, May 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 497
joined: 12-4-2006
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/

This could be a total mistake…or a decent film.


What are your thoughts about it?

Me, I think Ray Park(Darth Maul) as Snake Eyes is a good start.



Current Project:CROSS WORLDS NEXUS
Updates Monday, Wenzday & FRIDAY
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
ozoneocean at 8:58AM, May 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,091
joined: 1-2-2004
So it's a movie where one of the writer's first names is “skip” and it's based on an extremely crappy 80's cartoon who's sole purpose was to sell dolls with ugly uniforms and gigantic gun accessories to little boys?

It has some handicaps to overcome…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
leatherwoman at 9:35AM, May 9, 2008
(offline)
posts: 25
joined: 1-27-2008
^haha!

That said, I'll just comment on the aesthetics.

Snake Eyes looks decent. The Baroness looks like Emma Peel, which would be passable if everyone elsewasn't in black leather. What a cheap, cliche move. Don't you know! Anything can be updated and modern and bad-ass by putting pretty people in black leather! *sigh* Leather is like red hair. Not everyone gets to enjoy leather's particular sexiness, unless you're shooting some B&D flick, and then Sienna Miller is probably not in it (Dennis Quaid, maybe).

The close up pic of Storm Shadow's costume looks bad, like they changed actors and couldn't find a decent tailor.

I really dug the cartoon as a kid, but I have no idea (artistically) why the hell they're making this movie :| Dear Hollywood, quit raping my childhood for fun and/or profit. Thx.
(18+ please)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:30PM
SarahN at 3:50PM, May 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,581
joined: 1-1-2006
What the…what is with these “trip down oldschool cartoon memory lane” movies?! What with Speed Racer and now this…
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:23PM
Steely Gaze at 4:31PM, May 9, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
I will watch this movie, and though it will probably suck, I will love this movie.

GI Joe was my life as a kid, and the idea of a live-action movie is just too tempting. We've already had a (surprisingly) decent cartoon movie back in the day, so this actually excites me.

And I don't care how awful the movie is. For me, this will be like Wing Commander. Crappy, but somehow I'll enjoy it nonetheless.
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
Hawk at 4:42PM, May 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
So it's a movie where one of the writer's first names is “skip” and it's based on an extremely crappy 80's cartoon who's sole purpose was to sell dolls with ugly uniforms and gigantic gun accessories to little boys?

It has some handicaps to overcome…

You have to realize the nostalgic power G.I.Joe has on a lot of people these days. They're willing to forgive the problems of almost any property from their childhoods. In fact, they often don't notice the problems because their childhood was built on it.

Not me though. I never could manage to get my hands on the G.I.Joe toys as a kid and I didn't watch it enough for it to saturate me. Although I do remember, even as a child, noticing how nobody in the show could aim a gun well enough to kill anybody. He-man would apply to me really well though. I loved it when I was little and somehow didn't notice the poor animation quality and homoerotic overtones. I wonder if we'll get another He-man movie.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
mlai at 7:35PM, May 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Wait, isn't this supposed to be GI Joe? Where's the military camo? Why the F is everyone dressed in black spandex?

Ok this is already stupid.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
Ziffy88 at 10:14PM, May 9, 2008
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
besides costumes what will separate this from any other military action movie…I mean at least Transformers had robots…though it was unnecessary long and was crappy about everything else, but hey cool robots!
last edited on July 14, 2011 5:02PM
isukun at 10:38PM, May 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
The costumes really baffle me. They're a military organization that doesn't wear military gear and instead dresses up like cosplay rejects who have watched the X-men movies one too many times. Some of the casting is really strange, too. Can't say I can really see Christopher Eccleston as Destro or Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander. I also have to wonder if all those guns will shoot lasers and every pilot will eject just in the nick of time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
shaneronzio at 8:37AM, May 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 497
joined: 12-4-2006

Current Project:CROSS WORLDS NEXUS
Updates Monday, Wenzday & FRIDAY
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
mlai at 10:24AM, May 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Snake-Eyes is 1 of the only Joes who should be dressed in all black. Everyone else looks stupid.
Schwarzenegger and his commandos in Predator look more like GI Joe than these losers.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
shaneronzio at 12:30PM, May 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 497
joined: 12-4-2006
Yeah, your right.




That first predator movie was so great.

you know what bothered the shit out of me…why the hell were the predators in the frozen tundra in AVP when they are only supposed to show up in the hottest most humid summers?
Current Project:CROSS WORLDS NEXUS
Updates Monday, Wenzday & FRIDAY
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:33PM
Steely Gaze at 3:01PM, May 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
Actually, though the latex seems out of place, I think most of you don't realize that military commandos don't have to dress like we've seen from all those old movies. Okay, I can't defend the costumes, but I will say the they aren't too much of a stretch to believe.

Skin-tight blacksuits with heat-dampening and thermo-insulation capabilities have been used before, though they still don't look quite as futuristic as the Joes do now, but it's not all that unbelievable.

If GI Joe is supposed to be a highly secret commando force, then why shouldn't they get the cool toys that no one else gets to play with?
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
leatherwoman at 4:14PM, May 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 25
joined: 1-27-2008
^ I know you've already recused yourself, and I understand loving something so much you sit though a lot of crap for it, but it's not about it being realistic, because GI JOE is inherently fantastic. This is why these movies are so often very bad, they don't know who they are. And much of this is from a lack of source material. Although GI Joe is fun as hell in its original form, it lacks a depth of story/character development to translate in to live action and “modernize” or “realify” or what ever vague thing the people in charge of this movie are trying to do. Therefore, this movie has two basic options: complete, weird cheese-o-rama(Captain America, anyone?); or overlaying the brand name onto a generic action flick, which looks like what they did.

I guess my basic point it that this movie is that-which-should-not-be and should be killed :D
(18+ please)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:30PM
mlai at 4:16PM, May 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
@ Steely:

Because if that's the kind of movie they want to make, then they shouldn't call it GI Joe.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
Steely Gaze at 5:40PM, May 11, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
mlai
@ Steely:

Because if that's the kind of movie they want to make, then they shouldn't call it GI Joe.

Why not? Stop for a moment and consider that, if we were to use the original toys as a basis for the movie, than it would be a generic war movie set in some normal old war, because that's what the original dolls were.

Now this movie is based on the animated show, and I don't see where it's actually deviating a lot. The show was about a terrorist organization called Cobra, and a counter-terrorist force called GI Joe. GI Joe fought Cobra and all their strange and weird enemies, such as Destro and Cobra Commander. Where in that does it say they have to be old-fashioned commandos straight out of World War II?

I mean, what do you suggest they do? Set it in the ‘80s and make it a colorful, campy romp back through time? Or perhaps they should set it on another planet?

That show was a generic action show packaged for kids, meaning less violence than a normal war movie. There were elements of fantasy in it and that’s what stuck with people. And so far, this movie seems to promise the same cheesiness that the show had. A mix of the semi-real and the completely cartoonish.

Everyone seems to expect this to be either realistic or fantasy, and no one seems to want it to be either. Man, some people will never be satisfied.
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
leatherwoman at 10:54PM, May 11, 2008
(offline)
posts: 25
joined: 1-27-2008
If you read my post, my idea was to not have it be a movie at all, for reasons I already outlined. That solves our little problem quite nicely :D
(18+ please)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:30PM
Steely Gaze at 5:51AM, May 12, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
Um, if you read my post, you'd see I wasn't directly replying to you. You made your position very clear. I don't, however, feel Mlai did and would like him to clarify if he pleases.
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
mlai at 7:38AM, May 12, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
When you make a movie based on a franchise, the point is to stay faithful to that franchise. Otherwise, you're just tacking on the name to make an additional buck. Or you're Uwe Boll.

If the writer/director felt that commandos-in-camo fighting ninja-ish goons are stupid, and they want to make a movie about latex-clad losers fighting leather-clad terrorists, then they can go ahead and make a movie about what they like. But then, don't call it GI Joe.

==========
Entry in Wiki:
GI or G.I. is a term describing members of the US armed forces or items of their equipment. It may be used as an adjective or as a noun. The term is often thought to be an initialism of “Government Issue” but the origin of the term is in fact galvanized iron after the letters “GI” that used to denote equipment such as metal trash cans made from it in U.S. Army inventories and supply records.

Similarly, “Joe” denotes a grunt.
==========

This is an example of… an analogy would be the members of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy deciding they're gonna go and spruce up Chuck Norris' house (while he's away, of course).

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
Steely Gaze at 9:33AM, May 12, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
Okay, thanks Mlai, but I still don't get you. How is changing some outfits to latex deviating from the franchise? I mean, we aren't talking about the actual definition of GI Joe, because this isn't based around that. This is based around the cartoon.

I still fail to see how changing some minor points is a big deviation from the established franchise.

Do you believe Casino Royal should not have been considered a James Bond movie, even though it more closely followed the books than the previous movies in the series?

Also, your analogy didn't really make sense to me. You're talking aesthetics, not the actual product. If the members of Queer Eye spruced up Chuck's pad while he was gone, it doesn't change Chuck, it changes his surroundings. Same with the costumes here.
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
isukun at 11:21AM, May 12, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
They are changing the costumes for a reason. If you think the only thing that's getting an overhaul is the wardrobe, you're kidding yourself. A complete visual change usually accompanies a complete change in style, story, and presentation. The original toys and cartoon series were designed not only as a toy line boys to latch onto, but also to foster patriotism in the American Armed Forces. The characters were supposed to be recognizable as military figures. Here they are being equated more with the modern superhero movies than with the US military. That betrays the entire spirit of the old franchise and makes it much harder to accept the characters in the roles they were originally supposed to play. When I look at this, I don't see a “real American hero.” The pro-military message is killed by the rejection of the military aesthetic.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Ziffy88 at 11:29AM, May 12, 2008
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
I say some things really need to be updated, but yeah GI Joe was more of a superhero war series and most of the soldiers don't look all that unique. Also aren't they now NATO soldier instead of just US soldiers. I wonder what would the UK version of GI Joe look like please don't say they're agnsty like Torchwood
last edited on July 14, 2011 5:02PM
Steely Gaze at 1:06PM, May 12, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
isukun
They are changing the costumes for a reason. If you think the only thing that's getting an overhaul is the wardrobe, you're kidding yourself. A complete visual change usually accompanies a complete change in style, story, and presentation. The original toys and cartoon series were designed not only as a toy line boys to latch onto, but also to foster patriotism in the American Armed Forces. The characters were supposed to be recognizable as military figures. Here they are being equated more with the modern superhero movies than with the US military. That betrays the entire spirit of the old franchise and makes it much harder to accept the characters in the roles they were originally supposed to play. When I look at this, I don't see a “real American hero.” The pro-military message is killed by the rejection of the military aesthetic.


Is that all there was to the show for you guys? Man now I feel really sad. I know these characters pretty well, and I'm hoping that they'll be made at least semi-well in this new big-screen version, and here you all are telling me it'll suck because it isn't patriotic enough. Huh, well how about that?

A movie about an (admittedly) international force of counter-terrorists led by an American fighting against a terrorist cartel determined to ruin world peace and global democracy. How is that exactly unpatriotic? I know the producers chose this route in an attempt to garner more international money from the film, but how is that a bad thing necessarily? To me, this still falls under the heading of patriotic, at least to a certain degree.

For me, there was more than the message to the show, but apparently I'm completely wrong. I suppose this will be like having the first Spider-Man movie not showcase Peter in high school, when he was first bitten by the sider. Since as we all know, most of the early Spider-Man comics had a lot of metaphorical references to the awkwardness that was life for a teenage boy. Yeah, a movie like that would suck.

Oh, wait a second….
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
isukun at 3:47PM, May 12, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Is that all there was to the show for you guys?

No, but it was a major element both with the original toys and the older TV series. I'm sure there is plenty more that will be changed, especially looking at their casting choices and the various story synopses I've read. I can already see they are making major changes to cobra, both in its structure and in what it does. It has been mentioned in interviews with the director that the movie is moving away from the more American presentation of the old TV show to shoot for a more international audience. The movie was delayed more than once because of the Iraq war and the director and Hasbro both want to steer clear of anything that seems too pro-American.

I suppose this will be like having the first Spider-Man movie not showcase Peter in high school, when he was first bitten by the sider. Since as we all know, most of the early Spider-Man comics had a lot of metaphorical references to the awkwardness that was life for a teenage boy. Yeah, a movie like that would suck.

The major elements people remember from the comics were still there in the Spiderman film. The hero who fights for what's right despite his love/hate relationship with the public/media, the web slinging/abilities, the costume, the attitude, the story, etc. Spiderman still embodied Spiderman, something I'm not seeing in what I've seen of G.I. Joe.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Steely Gaze at 4:09PM, May 12, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
isukun
The major elements people remember from the comics were still there in the Spiderman film. The hero who fights for what's right despite his love/hate relationship with the public/media, the web slinging/abilities, the costume, the attitude, the story, etc. Spiderman still embodied Spiderman, something I'm not seeing in what I've seen of G.I. Joe.

Oh, so you've already seen the final release of the movie and can speak from assurance that it's as you say?

Okay, good for you. Me, I'll wait before judging it until I can see it myself. Anything else is still speculation, and though it probably isn't the same GI Joe I grew up with, it could still be very watchable. I love how everyone jumps on the hate wagon immediately, without proper cause. Sure, there's a huge chance this movie will tank and upset the fanboys, but it isn't a given yet.

From what little I know (concretely know, not just rumor and speculation) I feel they are at least trying to keep elements of the movie faithful. To me, if this works out properly, it will be like the Transformers movie. Pleasing the old fans (at least me) and keeping it fresh.
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
leatherwoman at 6:24PM, May 12, 2008
(offline)
posts: 25
joined: 1-27-2008
Steely Gaze
Um, if you read my post, you'd see I wasn't directly replying to you. You made your position very clear. I don't, however, feel Mlai did and would like him to clarify if he pleases.

I did read your post.

Steely Gaze
Everyone seems to expect this to be either realistic or fantasy, and no one seems to want it to be either.

I figured I was part of “everybody.” Silly me, out in the cold again. :O

As other's have said in different ways, the outfits are essential cues in a film like this. They serve as visual short-hand, as they did in the cartoon. Take such an important element away and it changes everything.
(18+ please)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:30PM
isukun at 2:15AM, May 13, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Anything else is still speculation, and though it probably isn't the same GI Joe I grew up with, it could still be very watchable.

Last I checked, the argument wasn't about whether or not the movie would be watchable, but about whether or not the movie would really be a “G.I. Joe” movie or simply an action film with the name tacked on.

To me, if this works out properly, it will be like the Transformers movie. Pleasing the old fans (at least me) and keeping it fresh.

Most of the fans I know hated the Transformers movie. Sure it had transforming robots, but none of the personality of the original and as a movie it just wasn't any good. The director had never even seen the original series and said repeatedly in interviews he had no intention of catering to the fans. I've also noticed that among those people who watched it, those under the age of 18 appreciated the film more than the older audiences who actually grew up on the show.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Steely Gaze at 6:18AM, May 13, 2008
(offline)
posts: 824
joined: 7-7-2007
isukun
Last I checked, the argument wasn't about whether or not the movie would be watchable, but about whether or not the movie would really be a “G.I. Joe” movie or simply an action film with the name tacked on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that go directly into what you're saying? You make it sound like it'll be unwatchable if it doesn't rigidly conform to the original show. You seem to imply that the movie will be a travesty due to its failure to live up to a 20+ year-old cartoon. I apologize for apparently misreading you.


isukun
Most of the fans I know hated the Transformers movie. Sure it had transforming robots, but none of the personality of the original and as a movie it just wasn't any good. The director had never even seen the original series and said repeatedly in interviews he had no intention of catering to the fans. I've also noticed that among those people who watched it, those under the age of 18 appreciated the film more than the older audiences who actually grew up on the show.

Huh, that's funny, cause I watched the movie with a whole group of old Transformer fans, people much older than myself, who had grown up on the original series, and were prepared to hate the film, and they came away loving it. They said there were problems, but it kept a lot of it true to the spirit of the show. And, being one who was weaned on that show as well, I found myself agreeing. I honestly don't think a better job could have been done with that movie.

But this is deviating again.

I don't really have much more to say on the whole GI Joe topic actually. I stand by my argument, although I can see where yours comes in. I still feel you're being excessively whiny and unreasonable about a silly topic, but then so am I so that's evened out. :)

Unlike most people, who delight in judging things before they see them, I actually like to reserve my judgment until the final viewing. Hell, otherwise I might miss a surprisingly good movie in the process.
A Roll of the Dice now with full-size pages!

John Clyde now with ten times the tacky Hawaiian shirts!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
Druchii at 2:22PM, May 13, 2008
(online)
posts: 252
joined: 4-29-2008
shaneronzio
Yeah, your right.




I agree completely!

TELL me that Jesse the Body Ventura isn't “Gung-Ho”, or Carl Weathers would be a bad ass “Stalker”, the Native American guy? “Spirit”. The guy with the glasses? “Tripwire” Older black guy who always shaved dry? “Roadblock”!

You could go on and on. :D
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
isukun at 3:15PM, May 13, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I apologize for apparently misreading you.

Apology accepted. Most of what I've posted was more related to mlai's comment: “If the writer/director felt that commandos-in-camo fighting ninja-ish goons are stupid, and they want to make a movie about latex-clad losers fighting leather-clad terrorists, then they can go ahead and make a movie about what they like. But then, don't call it GI Joe.” After that point, I don't say anything about the quality of the film, just how well it represents the franchise.

They said there were problems, but it kept a lot of it true to the spirit of the show.

I couldn't disagree more. There was very little of the spirit of the Transformers in that movie. For one, the Transformers were secondary characters in their own movie. While G1 had human characters, they never felt like the focus of the show. All of the personalities were drastically changed over the G1 characters. The motivation on both sides was completely different. The Deceptacons were almost completely dehumanized. The Autobots were awkward for the most part. The All Spark? Retarded bathroom humor and puberty jokes. The only idea that they kept from the old show was that you had robots that transformed into vehicles. THAT'S IT. And while I can say my friends hated the movie as much as I did, I don't judge popular opinion on just what they think.

As for the quality of the movie, we weren't just blessed with the less than funny toilet humor and puberty jokes. We also had a fairly shallow storyline, characters who were not only flat, but annoying as all get out, plot holes, poor dialog, special effects ruined by Michael Bay's obsession with close in shots and “shaky cam,” the most vile film technique ever devised by man, and dialog and story elements that reeked of oldschool racism.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved