G.I. Joe Anti-Hype

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think it's good that they have made the team more international.

Why would anyone outside of America give a **** about a all American super soldier team? I know I wouldn't. I think the world is pretty sick of all this "YEEEAAA AMERICA RULES!! HOO-RAA!!!" and all that crap, and rightly so.

That's not being racist, I love America. But the whole "YEAA AMERICA RULES!! HOO-RAA!!" not so much. It would be playing up to that whole Team America World Police thing.

You're acting as if, at its core, that's all GI Joe is/was. There would have been no need to flaunt anything, just make the movie based on the source material. All we seem to have here is an action movie, a poor one at that, with GI Joe slapped on for good measure. This is just one decision in a long line that leaves me a little perplexed.

 

[The Guard]

And yea, why the **** hasn't a Rainbow Six movie been made yet? Out of all the Clancy properties, I would of thought that would be right at the top of the pile. Love that book and the games.

I blame Ben Affleck. I remember some studio tossed around the idea of a film a while back, but when they decided to make THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, they abandoned plans for another movie with an older Jack Ryan (which they've now done AGAIN to make JACK RYAN BEGINS or whatever it's going to be called). I believe it's been brought up here and there and been in development hell a few times, though. I think a few years after 9-11, it would have been a no brainer, but who knows. I'm actually really glad to see GI JOE incorporate that element of it, though I'm sure it won't be as politically minded.

You're acting as if, at its core, that's all GI Joe is/was. There would have been no need to flaunt anything, just make the movie based on the source material. All we seem to have here is an action movie, a poor one at that, with GI Joe slapped on for good measure. This is just one decision in a long line that leaves me a little perplexed.

How does their statement in any way imply that all GI JOE was was "Yee-haw America!"? They're referring to the "Yee haw America" side of GI JOE, not the entire concept.

I'm curious as to what makes this a "poor action movie".

Some of you just seem to want to hate this entire project because you know it won't be exactly what you wanted.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

How does their statement in any way imply that all GI JOE was was "Yee-haw America!"? They're referring to the "Yee haw America" side of GI JOE, not the entire concept.

I'm curious as to what makes this a "poor action movie".

Some of you just seem to want to hate this entire project because you know it won't be exactly what you wanted.

Ok, simply tone down or take out this undesirable element and leave everything else as is. Like I said there is no need to flaunt anything, simply base the movie around what the source material dictates. All that requires is an secret group of mercenaries on call whenever their government needs them. There was no need to redefine anything.

My description of the movie as poor is largely based on what I've seen of the film itself, the actors, and the director. Take a movie like Wolverine, fairly average by most counts, yet it had very talented actors who really seemed to buy in to what they were given. Yet the movie still was bogged down by uninspired directing and a poor script. How can you expect a cast of mostly average to below average actors, (excluding maybe Dennis Quaid) an average to below average director, and an average script to come up with anything less than mediocrity? Lastly, I'm not looking to hate this film. I just look at the ingredients being used to put it together and shrug my shoulders. No loss on my end, I have nothing invested in it.

If I'm gonna pay money to see a movie all that I require is that it be a well made picture. This one probably won't be, oh well. I'll get my kicks from the next one that comes along.

I'm curious about how the two of you think Captain America will fare.

 

[The Guard]

Ok, simply tone down or take out this undesirable element and leave everything else as is.

They kind of did.

Like I said there is no need to flaunt anything, simply base the movie around what the source material dictates.

Seems to me they did do just that, inasmuch as you can compress all that source material into a two hour movie, or even several of them.

All that requires is an secret group of mercenaries on call whenever their government needs them.

Isn't that what this is?

There was no need to redefine anything.

While I understand where you're coming from in terms of being faithful to the material to some extent, I loathe it when people use the word "need". There's no "need" for a GI JOE movie, period. Why even bother to adapt anything if you're not going to think about the concept and attempt to present something that does the idea itself justice and lends the concept some credibility? Many of the changes made to Joe lore in this movie do just that.

And I know it's a tired rhetoric, but: Such is the nature of adapting.

My description of the movie as poor is largely based on what I've seen of the film itself, the actors, and the director. Take a movie like Wolverine, fairly average by most counts, yet it had very talented actors who really seemed to buy in to what they were given. Yet the movie still was bogged down by uninspired directing and a poor script.

I thought WOLVERINE was directed fairly well for a first-time action director. WOLVERINE is bogged down by a subpar concept and subpar script, period. The very execution of the concept is flawed. It's somewhat difficult to look at GI JOE's script and say the same thing about exploration of key themes, etc. Granted, they're two different animals.

How can you expect a cast of mostly average to below average actors, (excluding maybe Dennis Quaid) an average to below average director, and an average script to come up with anything less than mediocrity? Lastly, I'm not looking to hate this film. I just look at the ingredients being used to put it together and shrug my shoulders. No loss on my end, I have nothing invested in it.

I don't have much invested in it, either.

I suppose that depends on what you define "mediocre". I very much doubt that at the end of the day, GI JOE will even resemble your "average" action movie. What does "average action movie" even mean, for that matter?

Is anything that doesn't reach it's full potential now mediocre?

If I'm gonna pay money to see a movie all that I require is that it be a well made picture.

And again, I guess that depends on what "well made picture" means. For instance, Bryan Singer directs a beautiful film, but many comic book fans think his X-Men and Superman efforts were below average. At least they did, till something they consider even more below average came along.

I'm curious about how the two of you think Captain America will fare.

I'm curious as to how it will fare as well. Captain America's a known quantity, but he's not remotely as popular as many other superhero franchises. I think it just depends on their approach, really. Too early to make any calls on it.

However, I think the title "THE FIRST AVENGER: CAPTAIN AMERICA tells you how Marvel thinks it will fare overseas or on its own.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

They kind of did.



Seems to me they did do just that, inasmuch as you can compress all that source material into a two hour movie, or even several of them.



Isn't that what this is?



While I understand where you're coming from in terms of being faithful to the material to some extent, I loathe it when people use the word "need". There's no "need" for a GI JOE movie, period. Why even bother to adapt anything if you're not going to think about the concept and attempt to present something that does the idea itself justice and lends the concept some credibility? Many of the changes made to Joe lore in this movie do just that.

And I know it's a tired rhetoric, but: Such is the nature of adapting.



I thought WOLVERINE was directed fairly well for a first-time action director. WOLVERINE is bogged down by a subpar concept and subpar script, period. The very execution of the concept is flawed. It's somewhat difficult to look at GI JOE's script and say the same thing about exploration of key themes, etc. Granted, they're two different animals.



I don't have much invested in it, either.

I suppose that depends on what you define "mediocre". I very much doubt that at the end of the day, GI JOE will even resemble your "average" action movie. What does "average action movie" even mean, for that matter?

Is anything that doesn't reach it's full potential now mediocre?



And again, I guess that depends on what "well made picture" means. For instance, Bryan Singer directs a beautiful film, but many comic book fans think his X-Men and Superman efforts were below average. At least they did, till something they consider even more below average came along.



I'm curious as to how it will fare as well. Captain America's a known quantity, but he's not remotely as popular as many other superhero franchises. I think it just depends on their approach, really. Too early to make any calls on it.

However, I think the title "THE FIRST AVENGER: CAPTAIN AMERICA tells you how Marvel thinks it will fare overseas or on its own.

What I'm saying is nowhere near as abstract/crptic as you seem to be making it. We know what well-made films are and we know what terrible films are, we also know the ones that fall somewhere in between. Iron Man was a quality movie, as were Spider Man 2 and the Dark Knight. The Incredibles was also a well made film. Those movies were aiming at different targets in some respects but the consensus holds that they were all "well-made". Daredevil was a bad movie, as were The Punisher: War Zone, Ghost Rider, and The Fantastic Four. Wolverine, X3 ect fall somewhere in between. We call them mediocre. If a film could have been excellent, but wound up being merely very good then no obviously its not mediocre. The common definition of mediocre describes something that is not very good, but not really all that bad. Thats why, at least for me, its such a bad place to be. Nobody cares about things that are mediocre, but people love extremes.

I understand your point about the word need. My point however, has to do with the idea that there was no good reason for that part of the overall story to be changed into what it was. GI Joe is American by definition, just let it ride. There are quite a few things that needed to be "updated", but that can be done without instituting changes that redefine the characters and their story.

I think Captain American's success will come down to an age old truth: If its good people will watch it.

Good talking with you.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Captain America is technically Captain WWII America....
They can make him all jaded and cynical when he sees post-9/11 America....

If it were up to me. I'd make GI: Joe as a America based military offshoot of the UN during the Cold War which later broke off and became it's own separate entity that recruits people from all over the world... there is an exam and everything!!!

Everybody happy!

 

[Ace of Knaves]

What I'm saying is nowhere near as abstract/crptic as you seem to be making it. We know what well-made films are and we know what terrible films are, we also know the ones that fall somewhere in between. Iron Man was a quality movie, as were Spider Man 2 and the Dark Knight. The Incredibles was also a well made film. Those movies were aiming at different targets in some respects but the consensus holds that they were all "well-made". Daredevil was a bad movie, as were The Punisher: War Zone, Ghost Rider, and The Fantastic Four. Wolverine, X3 ect fall somewhere in between. We call them mediocre. If a film could have been excellent, but wound up being merely very good then no obviously its not mediocre. The common definition of mediocre describes something that is not very good, but not really all that bad. Thats why, at least for me, its such a bad place to be. Nobody cares about things that are mediocre, but people love extremes.

I understand your point about the word need. My point however, has to do with the idea that there was no good reason for that part of the overall story to be changed into what it was. GI Joe is American by definition, just let it ride. There are quite a few things that needed to be "updated", but that can be done without instituting changes that redefine the characters and their story.

I think Captain American's success will come down to an age old truth: If its good people will watch it.

Good talking with you.

Daredevil wasn't perfect but no way in hell should it be lumped with the FFs, Elektra and Ghost Rider.

Daredevil was in essence, one of THE most accurate comic book adaptations in history. And people always moan about Fox changing things...

I just don't understand the hate it gets. Because it is a Fox production? Because Ben Affleck and Colin Farrel are pricks? Not good enough reasons to hate a film.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Daredevil Director's Cut is actually almost as good as Batman Begins
It just needed a lot more polish...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea the Directors Cut is brilliant IMO.

But the only faults with it, for me, were the stupid playground fight and some dodgy SFX. Otherwise I think it is a very underrated film.

 

[Ipodman]

Well, most people saw the theatrical / cheesy version in cinemas...
I, for one was impressed when i saw the DC... althought the extra scenes didnt really felt like they merged with the main story but overall an excellent movie
Why are we talking about daredevil again? :S

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Daredevil wasn't perfect but no way in hell should it be lumped with the FFs, Elektra and Ghost Rider.

Daredevil was in essence, one of THE most accurate comic book adaptations in history. And people always moan about Fox changing things...

I just don't understand the hate it gets. Because it is a Fox production? Because Ben Affleck and Colin Farrel are pricks? Not good enough reasons to hate a film.

I didn't think it was a good movie, but I only saw what was released in theaters. That aside,on the whole I don't mind changes as long as they make sense and are well executed. Fox has a tendency to put out films that account for neither. To take it a step further and more to point, GI Joe looks to be in the same boat. It also suffers from a general lack of talent on board. Anyway, we'll see.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

This is the male version of Twilight.... and I mean that in a bad way...

 

[The Guard]

I really don't feel that SPIDER-MAN 2 and IRON MAN belong in the same category as THE DARK KNIGHT. Nor do I think FANTASTIC FOUR belongs with GHOST RIDER. And frankly, WAR ZONE is a category all its own. It's not as bad as GHOST RIDER, and though it's not very good, it can be hellishly entertaining.

The DD director's cut is that good?

I haven't seen it, though I don't think the original is horrible. I think sometimes that people remember ELEKTRA and imagine that has some effect on the original film. DD is actually a pretty entertaining film, with some very appropriate elements. Yeah, it's a little cheesy in places. So is anything.

 

[bunk]

The playground fight in DD is one of the worst things ever. Other than that, it's not too bad.

 

[The Guard]

Indeed. I actually really like a lot of the early action, in the bar and so forth. That's some of the most brutal superhero action there is.

 

[That-Guy]

I haven't seen the Daredevil DC so I can't comment on it. However, I will say that the theatrical version would have been decent if a few things had been different:

- NO Jennifer Garner... she was f**king terrible.
- cut down on the bad CGI action sequences and use real people doing semi-realistic stunts
- The Kingpin's arrest needed to make sense and it didn't

I personally don't have a problem with much else... Affleck was fine, IMO and I loved Farrell as Bullseye.