Worst Casting For G.I. Joe

[TheVileOne]

That's not much of a defense if it is true.

[mr. peasant]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

That's not much of a defense if it is true.

So, not knowing who the source of your information is not a good defense against the quality of information you're receiving? I'm not saying it's wrong (though I seriously hope so). Rather, do take it with a grain of salt at least until an independent party corroborates with this claim. Until then, you've only got one unverified source from a third party.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

Well, it should be noted that all this stems from one guy on imdb who claims to have the script but won't share it. The guy who started the "what happened to sE/Scarlett" thread on hisstank is another guy from imdb who is repeating the info from that one guy- I know because I PM'd him and asked if he had the script, and he said no, and he identified himself as another imdb poster.

So I'm not saying its not true, just that it really does seem to be coming from one person, and one anonymous source who won't share his info is not someone you should believe without a grain of salt.

BTW- I found out I might be able to get it. We'll see. Then I'll get back to you.

[bell110]

Saw a couple of complains about actors and their accents. I haven't been following this movie closely, but from what I've seen, aren't they making the Joes an international team? If that's the case, than maybe they're purposefully casting these actors FOR their accents.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by Bug-Eyed Earl

Well, it should be noted that all this stems from one guy on imdb who claims to have the script but won't share it. The guy who started the "what happened to sE/Scarlett" thread on hisstank is another guy from imdb who is repeating the info from that one guy- I know because I PM'd him and asked if he had the script, and he said no, and he identified himself as another imdb poster.

So I'm not saying its not true, just that it really does seem to be coming from one person, and one anonymous source who won't share his info is not someone you should believe without a grain of salt.

BTW- I found out I might be able to get it. We'll see. Then I'll get back to you.

All of which sounded legit based on the reports from El Mayimbe, who spilled the beans a ton along with one of the mods on Hisstank.com. Just saying, they did match the other reports which we know are legit.

[CorpusBlack]

Tatum for me. I wanted a more powerful proven actor as Duke. Not some guy from a worthless dance movie that just happens to be hot right now.

[That-Guy]

I haven't seen Tatum in anything, but the sheer fact that he was in a dance movie makes me have concerns.

[Octoberist]

Is it me, while there's some 'iffy' choices, overall, or this is a damn good cast.

[Jake Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Is it me, while there's some 'iffy' choices, overall, or this is a damn good cast.

I agree. There's more good than bad.

[Nightmare]

Chase Tatum? I always hear about girls screaming about how hot he is. He always seemed like a pretty boy to me.

Wayans better put on the acting role of his life.

[Philly Phanboy]

Voted for Murray and Kurkova...even though Murray has since been replaced.

I'm kinda surprised Marlon Wayans has so many votes. He's not so much a problem of being cast wrong as his character is being an ill-conceived attempt at having comedy relief.

[Voyeur]

I agree there is more good than bad (I'm especially pleased with the new casting of Destro). But miscasting Duke could be deadly for me. He's my favorite character and one of the most important characters.

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Wayans as Ripcord and Tatum as Duke. Especially now that

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Ripcord hooks up with SCARLETT. If that ends up getting filmed, **** this movie.

Why is that so horrible exactly? I'm not understanding why that alone is reason enough to drop a movie.

And to others: I'm no fan of Marlon Wayans, but fi you doubt his dramatic ability, rent Requiem for a Dream.

[CorpusBlack]

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious??

Chase Tatum? I always hear about girls screaming about how hot he is. He always seemed like a pretty boy to me.

Wayans better put on the acting role of his life.

Wayans is actually a pretty good actor when he needs to be. His role in 'Requiem For A Dream' was enough validation for me.

Well shooting has started with no news of Wayans getting dumped...
Only my love of G.I.Joe and my desire to see Snake Eyes beat some @$$ on screen are holding me back from slamming this movie up one side of the internet and down the other. As to the Joseph Gordon-Levitt controversy, I would like to encourage posters to take it easy on him. Using him as a "Rex" character and not just throwing him in as The Commander means that even with less success than this movie will have we would pretty much be guaranteed a sequel. YO JOE!

[K.B.]

I still can't believe people are thinking Wayans is going to give some sort of tour de force dramatic role equel to whatever he did in "Requiem". Get your heads out of your a**ses.

This is G.I.JOE!!!! A multi-million dollar summer blockbuster!!!

Want to know what type of role he will be playing?

THE EXACT SAME ONE HE HAS BEEN FOR YEARS!!!!

Anyone who thinks that for G.I.Joe he is going to suddenly change his money making formula of playing characters that set his people back 200 years needs a serious kick in the balls from a wingtip.

[tamron]

Originally Posted by K.B.

I still can't believe people are thinking Wayans is going to give some sort of tour de force dramatic role equel to whatever he did in "Requiem".

This is G.I.JOE!!!! A multi-million dollar summer blockbuster!!!

Want to know what type of role he will be playing?

THE EXACT SAME ONE HE HAS BEEN FOR YEARS!!!!

Co-sign. Any hope for Wayans performance went out the window when LDB described Ripcord's character "as the best friend who sorta gets Duke in trouble all the time and Duke has to bail him out all the time and have fun with him." Clearly, he's the goofy sidekick, the Detective Carter to Duke's Inspector Lee, to use a Rush Hour analogy. This is no "Requiem".

First people are upset he's cast because they don't think he has any serious acting skills, then people point out that he does have serious acting skills, after which people point out "well this isn't a serious role". what the hell people? are you just looking for things to complain about? Are we that fanboyish now? And I'm still trying to get answer to what TheVile One said. Why is that spoiler you posted the things that'll push you over the edge and say eff this movie? I'd really like to know

[K.B.]

I was NEVER a fan of Wayans being cast. Ever. Here is the difference between me and about 99.9% of the people on this board : If a production does or cast someone I don't agree with, I hate it. I don't take the sissy excuse and say "I'll reserve judgment" or "Wait for the context" b.s. chances are, more often then not, if it sucks in pre production it will suck in the final cut. Fans nowadays have VERY little balls and it honestly makes my sick.

What will it take for fandom as a whole to become angry and vocal again like in the good old days? How many of our favorite franchises and characters have to be raped before you guys open your eyes?

And to answer your question : Becasue Scarlet should only ever end up with Snake Eyes.

Originally Posted by K.B.

I was NEVER a fan of Wayans being cast. Ever. Here is the difference between me and about 99.9% of the people on this board : If a production does or cast someone I don't agree with, I hate it. I don't take the sissy excuse and say "I'll reserve judgment" or "Wait for the context" b.s. chances are, more often then not, if it sucks in pre production it will suck in the final cut. Fans nowadays have VERY little balls and it honestly makes my sick.

What will it take for fandom as a whole to become angry and vocal again like in the good old days? How many of our favorite franchises and characters have to be raped before you guys open your eyes?

And to answer your question : Becasue Scarlet should only ever end up with Snake Eyes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying you won't give anything a chance unless it matches your vision precisely? And that fans are testicle free if they are open to changes being made in a property? If this is indeed what you're saying, my only response is "Wow".
Something alot of people don't seem to accept is that, no matter how much we love these various properties and franchises from our youth, they are still only properties and franchises. They are there to make a buck for the companies that own them. Our fan tenure means squat. The comapnies want the widest appeal to bring in the largest population in order to make the most money. All the pissing and moaning the vocal fans do amounts to little in the long run because for every one of the longtime fans oppossed to some random change in the movie, there'll be two or three other new fans who love it.
Your response to my question fits in with what I've said above. I have a new question now though:
Why is change such a bad thing? Why do we as fans expect these properties and characters to stay static?

Edit* Also: I'm not questioning whether or not anyone is a fan of Marlon Wayans(I'm not a fan personally)I'm questioning why everyone is so upset. Why does the reason change from:he can't be a serious actor to the opposition to the character's race being changed? And why is that when examples that refute those objections get raised a new reason materializes? It's like we're just looking for a reason to be upset. Can we not be happy a movie is being made first? and then once we have "evidence" that it sucks get pissy?

[K.B.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're saying you won't give anything a chance unless it matches your vision precisely? And that fans are testicle free if they are open to changes being made in a property? If this is indeed what you're saying, my only response is "Wow".

You are wrong. I do give things a chance and I am open to change when it makes sense but not change for changes sake and espeically not to be P.C. Fans are testicle free becasue they willingly accept all these changes blindly for the same reason you posted below: "Can we not be happy a movie is being made at all?"

I would much rather not have a fantastic four movie then a really, REALLY watered down version.

Like I said change that makes sense is o ki nmy books. Want to make Kingpin black? Ok that makes sense becasue of the choice in actor and size demands of the character he is portraying. Want to make a film adaptaion of WANTED but not refrence the source material at all? No thats just wrong.

Something alot of people don't seem to accept is that, no matter how much we love these various properties and franchises from our youth, they are still only properties and franchises. They are there to make a buck for the companies that own them. Our fan tenure means squat. The comapnies want the widest appeal to bring in the largest population in order to make the most money. All the pissing and moaning the vocal fans do amounts to little in the long run because for every one of the longtime fans oppossed to some random change in the movie, there'll be two or three other new fans who love it.

Go read up on the history of Batman '89 and tell me that fans don't mean squat.

Also it is a fact that the more love and faith put into building a franchise, the more money it makes. Case in point : Spider-man made a gajillion bucks because it was so well done that people paid multipul times to see it and the box office grew week by week.

The more you deviat the less likely the audience (fan or casual veiwer) will see it multipule times therefore instead of keeping a steady flow of cash coming in, you get your opening money and watch as your film slides down the box office faster then pills down Brittney Spears' throat.

Why is change such a bad thing? Why do we as fans expect these properties and characters to stay static?

Like I said , change isn't the bad thing it is the WHY behind the changes. As long as it is change for the right reason then there isn't much of a problem.

[CorpusBlack]

Originally Posted by tamron

Co-sign. Any hope for Wayans performance went out the window when LDB described Ripcord's character "as the best friend who sorta gets Duke in trouble all the time and Duke has to bail him out all the time and have fun with him." Clearly, he's the goofy sidekick, the Detective Carter to Duke's Inspector Lee, to use a Rush Hour analogy. This is no "Requiem".

Where'd you read that. I don't doubt you but I don't recall seeing that anywhere. That sucks, and I can see Ripcord totally sucking now as well.

Originally Posted by K.B.

You are wrong. I do give things a chance and I am open to change when it makes sense but not change for changes sake and espeically not to be P.C.

How can you decide this change was made "for the sake of change" without any evidence past, what I'm guessing, is a gut feeling? I understand where you're coming from, but I don't follow your logic here. If the movie comes out and wayans completely sucks in the role, then by all means feel free to complain about it. Until we either see a polished product or we here from the makers of the movie, we have no idea WHY the change was made. We can't assume it was made just for the hell of it. As far as the PC remark: I understand your point their. If a change is made for the sake of pandering to ANY demographic I'm against it. If the change is made because the film makers thought it would make for an honestly better movie, then I can't fault them for that(This does not mean I'll be lovey with the final product)

Originally Posted by K.B.

Fans are testicle free becasue they willingly accept all these changes blindly for the same reason you posted below: "Can we not be happy a movie is being made at all?"

I would much rather not have a fantastic four movie then a really, REALLY watered down version.

I think you've missed what I was trying to say here so I'll try again: It's prefectly acceptable to be pissed if the final product of a movie is not to your liking. But to be pissy BEFORE ANYTHING has been produced makes no sense. You're angry with what you THINK is going to be the final product, not what it actually is. If there's no actual evidence that it sucks right now, there's nothing that validate spitting venom at the movie. In short:Until there is proof positive that a movie will suck why complain about it?

Originally Posted by K.B.

Want to make a film adaptaion of WANTED but not refrence the source material at all? No thats just wrong.

Referencing the source material is one thing, staying one hundred percent panel for panel is something else. I agree that not referencing the source material would be a bad thing, but this rarely happens. In most cases the source material is altered(sometimes drastically sometimes not so much). This speaks to the changes already mentioned.

Originally Posted by K.B.

The more you deviat the less likely the audience (fan or casual veiwer) will see it multipule times therefore instead of keeping a steady flow of cash coming in, you get your opening money and watch as your film slides down the box office faster then pills down Brittney Spears' throat.

The casual viewer is likely unconcerned with who much a film deviates from the source. Why? Because they aren't that familiar with it. This is why they are casual viewer. Let's take Ghost Rider for an example. gR fans HATED that movie, yet it made a mint. Why? Because casual fans loved it. There were likely more people that went to that movie because they're fans of Nick Cage than because they really followed GR as a character.

Originally Posted by K.B.

Like I said , change isn't the bad thing it is the WHY behind the changes. As long as it is change for the right reason then there isn't much of a problem.

Who decides when the change is made for the "right reason". Me? You?


As for the Batman reference: Fans hated the idea of Micheal Keaton as Batman. Studio response: Hire Bob Kane as a consultant. The movie makes millions, spawns a bunch of add ons that get progressively worse and eventually rebooted. So what do you want the Gi joe producers to do? Maybe hire Larry Hama? Hasn't that happened already? What can we change this complaint to now? Admittedly I'm not up on the fan complaints for Batman, so please let me know what other changes were made in response to the rabid fan base.

[mr. peasant]

Originally Posted by K.B.

The more you deviat the less likely the audience (fan or casual veiwer) will see it multipule times therefore instead of keeping a steady flow of cash coming in, you get your opening money and watch as your film slides down the box office faster then pills down Brittney Spears' throat.

I disagree regarding what draws audiences. If the movie is 'good', it'll draw people to watch it again and again. Of course, what defines 'good' is completely subjective. For some (e.g. hardcore fans), it is to-the-letter adherence of the source material, for action movie buffs, it's more likely along the lines of the number of explosions in the movie. The thing is, the things people want aren't the same and isn't always predictable.

What is known is that adhering to the source material is not necessary for the movie to be a success. Take a look at the remake of the Italian Job movie. The only things they stayed true to was that the main characters are planning to steal something, and that they used minis. Yet, it was a massive success.

Originally Posted by kedd

If a change is made for the sake of pandering to ANY demographic I'm against it.

But the problem is, any decision (including doing nothing) is made to cater to a particular demographic, especially in business. Whether it's adding more action content, better development of a story, etc, it's made to attract a particular demographic. For instance, the more you adhere to the source material, the more you're catering towards long-time fans.

I'm really not sure how to reword what I said. I'll say this though, I draw line between Catering towards fans and pandering. I'll try to make sense of this later