G.I. Joe ROC: User reviews!

[Nathan]

I think G.I. Joe would work great with technology that is as advanced as it's shown in Metal Gear 1 & 2. The stuff shown in the Movie was just too over the top and cartoonish.

[BlackLantern]

so was the equipment in every animated series....GI Joe is about over the top vehicles...the Havoc, Hiss Tanks, Sharks, remember Tiger Force??

[Nathan]

Never watched the cartoons. Only the Resolute one and a few comics that were a lot more down to earth than the Movie. I think G.I. Joe would work better with a more serious tone.

[BlackLantern]

and 98 percent of GI Joe fans and the general public are familiar with the animated series...I didn't even know there was a comic book until the first animated series was off the air and the DIC animated series had just started

the whole point of GI Joe is that it is fun and over the top, and the good guys win in the end...making it more "serious" and "gritty" would just make it another generic action movie

[Nathan]

And a lot of people were familar with a corny Batman from the TV show and comics before Batman '89 got made. I doubt people would've cried foul if no shockwave weapons and accelerator suits would've been in the Movie.

[BlackLantern]

that corny Batman tv show (and I don't appreciate the tone) got Batman into the public eye so even non comic fans knew Batman

[Nathan]

Anyway, my point is, no matter how it started out or has remained for many years, a franchise can benefit from a change of tone. The whole crazy technology made it too much like a futuristic, sci-fi movie, than something that could take place in present time or the not too distant future.

And I'm not saying everything as to be serious and gritty. Just don't make the tech so outlandish, some of the characters can keep their humorish personalities, to occasionally lighten the mood. You can have a fun action movie, without it looking like a 90 minute toy commercial.

[BlackLantern]

you're missing the point...the tech is SUPPOSED to be outlandish

[Erzengel]

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

It was mainly done to neatly tie up the Duke/Baroness subplot in the off chance that there is no sequel. That said, I can almost guarantee you that her being 'good' will be reversed should a sequel be made; possibly even all part of Cobra Commander's master plan.

It was to justify getting Duke and Ripcord into the Joes. Remember; the only reason they got in was because Duke bribed Hawk with information on her.

Oh I understood for the purposes of the storyline WHY they did what they did. I just felt with was poor storytelling.

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

As supposed to making Snake Eyes the center of the universe a la the comics?

Well he is probably the most popular of the characters.

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

Personally, I found him tolerable. His humor actually worked for the movie's setting.

If we agree with the poor storytelling then I guess I can see your point there.

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

Bad name, perhaps. However, need I point out that the actual U.S. military has been actively researching this very type of technology for almost fifty years?

And it doesn't help with acting of Wayans but the execution of the actual exo-suits was something to be desired.

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

Actually, if you want to go strictly by original canon (the original toyline), none of the Joes were romantically involved with one another. The cartoons often paired Scarlett with Duke where as the comics paired her off with Snake Eyes. Seeing as how there is no universal pair whatsoever, they were completely within their right to switch things up.

I felt no chemistry between the 2. Again whether it was just the poor storytelling or the lack of acting. It felt forced.

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

And if they didn't show Destro's ancestry, you can bet that there would be people complaining how they messed that up instead. There's no pleasing everyone. As for Cobra commander's sudden turn to evilness, they didn't give an explanation because there wasn't one. He's just a screwed up, mind-messing psychopath; exactly like he's been portrayed in all versions of him.

In the end this is GI Joe, not Shakespeare. I'm not expecting King Lear here, but I was more annoyed watching this then I was entertained.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by BlackLantern

you're missing the point...the tech is SUPPOSED to be outlandish

And like I said, we end up with a 90 minute toy commercial and ridiculous action. Metal Gear has technology that is pretty far out there, but they don't make every single piece of tech super advanced.

[BlackLantern]

and Metal Gear is also boring and bogged down by a story that grows more ridiculous with each itertation

[Nathan]

Yeah, we couldn't possibly have a fun & entertaining action movie, without ridiculous tech. More realistic gear automatically means boring story. Gotcha.

[BlackLantern]

I wasn't aware that suits that made you invisible or cybernetic ninjas were considered "realistic" technology...and like another poster had previously posted a link too....accelerator suits (or at least similar technology) is something that the US military has been doing active research into

[Nathan]

You clearly missed the part where I said that Metal Gear had it's share of far fetched technology. But it kept it at a minimum. And the military might research something similar to the accelerator suits, but that doesn't change the fact that they were poorly used in the movie and really had no point at all, other than give us cheesy sequences of two guys running after a car.

I don't mind some crazy tech, but in G.I. Joe it was all just too readily available.

[cronosred]

Originally Posted by Nathan

And like I said, we end up with a 90 minute toy commercial and ridiculous action. Metal Gear has technology that is pretty far out there, but they don't make every single piece of tech super advanced.

You did notice the huge Hasbro logo at the beginning didn't you?

[That-Guy]

The trouble I had wasn't that it strayed from the source material or that it had some futuristic technology. I just thought it was a terrible movie. I could have never heard of G.I. Joe before, watched that movie, and still hated it.

[Ipodman]

It isnt a bad movie...

But there are better things this year...

[BlackLantern]

agreed...I don't think there's anyone that thought this movie was breaking new ground but there are some fans who do take GI Joe a bit too seriously