G.I. Joe Rise Of Cobra possibly in huge trouble

[bunk]

This thread managed to spin out of control pretty quickly.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Sure kids want to see a role model, and see Bumblebee as a big brother. But guess what? Kids like to see their big brothers do naughty things too. Kids like that sorta ****.

 

[BlackLantern]

I think children would rather see adult role models and have Bumblebee act like a big brother for sorts whose brave, noble and all sorts of good stuff.

Not a ruffian who pees on people for fun...

Also, about the fat black kid. Turns out I meant personality. He came off more as a juvenile delinquent that a computer genius.

Those two traits aren't mutually exclusive....most computer freaks I know aren't exactly your model citizen...they have their issues just like anyone else

 

[AnorexicBatman]

I just realized the film I was thinking off when speaking about the tone and humor of Transformers and GI Joe.... Spider-Man 1

No really. A fun action film for the whole family with morals and engaging story.
It doesn't take itself too seriously and neither does it become a parody of itself.
Even the comedy is situational and genuinely funny....

 

[BlackLantern]

Morals??? sounds boring

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Well that's what good Disney films and Pixar movies have been full of and the kids love them

 

[BlackLantern]

Well that's what good Disney films and Pixar movies have been full of and the kids love them

I was joking, man

it's all in the branding maybe....if I want morals and all that wholesome ****, Ill watch a Disney film....if I want alternate fare, I'll go somewhere else

 

[S.A.A.D.]

This situation is DAMAGE CONTROL IMO.

 

[craigdbfan]

I also smell damage control. I know the first reports validity about the firing is in question but it was deleted from the Don Murphy forums and Bonaventura is the producer of the film. He wouldn't just say "Oh well yeah the movie is a piece of crap and we had to bring master editor Steve Baird into this".

Bonaventura is probably hoping that Baird's editing magic will be enough to make this film watchable and I'm sure ILM and the other sfx companies are doing some extra work in probably making this movie's CGI good at least (its one of the few aspects its got going; although the first trailer doesn't indicate that).

Again I hope this does well, because Paramount doesn't deserve a flop like this. They are definitely one of the more risk taking studio's out there but I guess with risk comes openings for something like this to occur.

I really don't expect much from this film but if its successfully dumb entertainment then it has accomplished something. If it doesn't even pull that off because of Sommers craptastic directing and the editing isn't able to save this movie, well lets just say thats $170 mil down the drain.

 

[The Guard]

Where did the idea that TRANSFORMERS is loaded with toilet humor come from?

 

[Chewy]

People watching it?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

How could a movie starring Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans be in such a quagmire?

This movie can't be GI JOke.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

You know its made up when you can clearly see the malicious intent behind the statement "lowest scores in the history of paramount".

 

[Timstuff]

I also smell damage control. I know the first reports validity about the firing is in question but it was deleted from the Don Murphy forums and Bonaventura is the producer of the film. He wouldn't just say "Oh well yeah the movie is a piece of crap and we had to bring master editor Steve Baird into this".

Bonaventura is probably hoping that Baird's editing magic will be enough to make this film watchable and I'm sure ILM and the other sfx companies are doing some extra work in probably making this movie's CGI good at least (its one of the few aspects its got going; although the first trailer doesn't indicate that).

Again I hope this does well, because Paramount doesn't deserve a flop like this. They are definitely one of the more risk taking studio's out there but I guess with risk comes openings for something like this to occur.

I really don't expect much from this film but if its successfully dumb entertainment then it has accomplished something. If it doesn't even pull that off because of Sommers craptastic directing and the editing isn't able to save this movie, well lets just say thats $170 mil down the drain.

I can understand your opinion seeing as you hate Sommers as a director. However, there are plenty of people out there (including me) who like his movies (well, except Van Helsing, although it had it's moments). There's a reason why The Mummy and The Mummy Returns made over 400 million each, and it's because Sommers is an excellent entertainer. Heck, even Van Helsing (which IMO broke Sommers' winning streak that started with Jungle Book) made 300 million at the BO and brought in a profit with DVDs.

Sometimes, I feel like I'm one of the only people at this website who actually got EXCITED when I heard Sommers was directing. Then again, I imagine most people here didn't see The Mummy so many times since they were 13 years old that it became permanently etched into their inner psyche...

 

[TheVileOne]

Well, Van Helsing was supposed to be a huge new franchise for Universal and it failed to produce that.

Stuart Baird was brought on for stuff like MI2 and also Tomb Raider and he's credited for "saving" those movies or helping make them as successful as they were.

I don't take the debunking seriously because consider the source.

 

[CelticPredator]

I can understand your opinion seeing as you hate Sommers as a director. However, there are plenty of people out there (including me) who like his movies (well, except Van Helsing, although it had it's moments). There's a reason why The Mummy and The Mummy Returns made over 400 million each, and it's because Sommers is an excellent entertainer. Heck, even Van Helsing (which IMO broke Sommers' winning streak that started with Jungle Book) made 300 million at the BO and brought in a profit with DVDs.

Sometimes, I feel like I'm one of the only people at this website who actually got EXCITED when I heard Sommers was directing. Then again, I imagine most people here didn't see The Mummy so many times since they were 13 years old that it became permanently etched into their inner psyche...

I was rooting for Sommers to do a good job. I like the guy. Maybe his movies suck ass...but his attitude is pretty cool IMO.

 

[Blade X]

I have to wonder if this movie is going to be leaked to the internet like X-MEN ORIGINS:WOLVERINE was leaked.

In any case, despite some stupid and unnecessary changes made to the source material, I think this movie looks pretty good so far.

 

[Timstuff]

Well, Van Helsing was supposed to be a huge new franchise for Universal and it failed to produce that.

Stuart Baird was brought on for stuff like MI2 and also Tomb Raider and he's credited for "saving" those movies or helping make them as successful as they were.

I don't take the debunking seriously because consider the source.

You might also want to consider the source of the story he was debunking. Just because it's on an internet message board doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Theweepeople]

I don't trust either source. I don't believe GI Joe got the lowest test screening ever for a Paramount film. On the other hand there's no reason for me to believe anything Lorenzo says anymore after he screwed up Batman 3, 4, Catwoman, Doom, Constantine, and Superman Lives(The biggest and most disturbing failure to adapt a comic book to film.)

I don't believe GI Joe's test screening was as good as the original Transformers film. I saw the second trailer twice in the theaters and both times I heard laughter and booing. That's not a good sign for a movie of this genre however, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The film probably got an average test screening and Paramount may have threatened to fire Stephen Sommers if he didn't get his act together.

 

[TheVileOne]

You might also want to consider the source of the story he was debunking. Just because it's on an internet message board doesn't mean it's true.

I dunno we'll see. Honestly, though considering what we've seen so far, I find it easier to believe that story than the **** that's come out of LR.

 

[GhostPoet]

LOL...wow...the people in charge of this movie are just too stupid to live.
It's not hard to make a GI Joe. Or even WRITE one.

 

[Heretic]

Regarding Accelerator Suits:

This "they are barely in it" crap is spin. Every commercial we've seen thus far is focused more on the suits than the people. Why would they spend every commercial focusing on a side issue that ticks off the diehard fanbase and is only a subplot?

Will they eventually ditch the suits? OF COURSE! Both Spider-Man and Iron man ditch their masks by the final fight. Its about clearly showing the faces of the actors in the end. If you want to convince yourself that it is part of a bigger story, then great, but almost every other action film that involves a mask ends with the hero not wearing it.

I keep hearing that "they use the suits once and then never again", which would mean that all the footage they are showing...which again...is ticking off the fanbase...is from the first battle with Cobra. So, that Cobra helicopter must transform into a car so that Baroness can fire torpedoes at the Joes. The scenes we've seen thus far involving the battle suits do not appear to be from the same battle...which means they use them more than once...which means they spend valuable time developing the concept of the suits and NOT developing the characters.

 

[Heretic]

Regarding Accelerator Suits:

This "they are barely in it" crap is spin. Every commercial we've seen thus far is focused more on the suits than the people. Why would they spend every commercial focusing on a side issue that ticks off the diehard fanbase and is only a subplot?

Will they eventually ditch the suits? OF COURSE! Both Spider-Man and Iron man ditch their masks by the final fight. Its about clearly showing the faces of the actors in the end. If you want to convince yourself that it is part of a bigger story, then great, but almost every other action film that involves a mask ends with the hero not wearing it.

I keep hearing that "they use the suits once and then never again", which would mean that all the footage they are showing...which again...is ticking off the fanbase...is from the first battle with Cobra. So, that Cobra helicopter must transform into a car so that Baroness can fire torpedoes at the Joes. The scenes we've seen thus far involving the battle suits do not appear to be from the same battle...which means they use them more than once...which means they spend valuable time developing the concept of the suits and NOT developing the characters.

 

[The Guard]

Regarding Accelerator Suits:

This "they are barely in it" crap is spin. Every commercial we've seen thus far is focused more on the suits than the people. Why would they spend every commercial focusing on a side issue that ticks off the diehard fanbase and is only a subplot?

Hell if I know why that's why they're showing so much of it. I suspect it's because it's one of the key turning points of the film's story, and because they don't want to entirely give away the massive final battle just yet, and because it's probably the most kinetic action sequence in the movie aside from Storm Shadow VS Snake Eyes, which they've also shown bits of. I kind of question how much of the trailers you remember, because the accelerator suits are hardly ALL they've shown.

One more time:

In the script, there's a scene where Duke and Ripcord are introduced to the suits in The Pit before they deploy, and a sequence that follows shortly after this, probably about 10 minutes in total, where they use the suits to chase down Storm Shadow and The Baroness on their way to the Eiffel Tower, and into that building you see The Baroness in. Snake Eyes is also part of this chase, which you can see in the trailer as well.

After this sequence, something pivotal happens, and the suits are not used again per the script. I very much doubt the filmmakers would go "To hell with how much money that costs us to render! Let's use the CGI enhanced battle suits EVERY TIME the Joes go out no matter HOW expensive it is".

Will they eventually ditch the suits? OF COURSE! Both Spider-Man and Iron man ditch their masks by the final fight. Its about clearly showing the faces of the actors in the end. If you want to convince yourself that it is part of a bigger story, then great, but almost every other action film that involves a mask ends with the hero not wearing it.

But...can't you already see their faces through the clear shields on the suits?

Am I to understand that you sincerely believe the Joes wear these things every time they go out? They wear their black/techy armor, but not the accelerator suits.

I keep hearing that "they use the suits once and then never again", which would mean that all the footage they are showing...which again...is ticking off the fanbase...is from the first battle with Cobra. So, that Cobra helicopter must transform into a car so that Baroness can fire torpedoes at the Joes. The scenes we've seen thus far involving the battle suits do not appear to be from the same battle...which means they use them more than once...which means they spend valuable time developing the concept of the suits and NOT developing the characters.

That's not a helicopter. It's a Jump Jet.

And no, those are different vehicles entirely.

What makes you think the various suit things we've seen aren't from the same sequence?

 

[Heretic]

It could be from the same sequence...

We could have the Joes chasing Baroness and she launches those torpedoes.

Somehow, she is then completely forgotten about and they stroll into the building without a problem and start killing again, then need the jet to get away.

I can see their faces through the masks, but thats not the point. It is a CGI costume that does obscure the emotion of the scene, so they WILL ditch the costumes...just as Spider-Man has done in all 3 movies.

They dont want to give away the final battle, but they DO want to promote the movie in a manner that will make diehard fans angry, misrepresent the film, AND show what is likely the heaviest effects scenes??? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Again...the commercials are ABOUT the suits. they are NOT about GI Joe. If they actually spend that much money on bad CGI on suits the diehard fanbase would hate and that much commercial time on a small subplot while ignoring the rest then this movie deserves to fail even more than I already believe.