jrpstarwars
Civilian
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Messages
- 921
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Michael Allred said:That idea sounds fine for a new animated movie but live action? It just screams "too cartoony." I'm pretty sure any live action film will likely be as realistic as a GI Joe movie could possibly be.
A live action Joe film has been a dream of mine for quite some time and I too have ideas of how it should be handled (it has "trilogy" written all over it.) I would stay far away from the cartoony, fanboy-ish take most seem to have and take a more practical Bryan Singer approach ala "X-Men." I like some of the casting ideas in this thread (some of them, most are just too outlandish and not remotely realistic either storywise or financially.)
I still wish Superherohype would include a dedicated GI Joe forum on here, it certainly deserves one.
How Cambodia and a butchered platoon sounds 'too cartoony' is beyond me but you're entitled to your opinion. As for your statement thet this has "trilogy" written all over it, I think you are wrong.
GI Joe is so much more than a trilogy. There are over 250 characters and each one could fill one film easily.
Personally, I think GI Joe warrants a collaborative effort with numerous mogul types in Hollywod. At least 10 directors/producers. I would want Oliver Stone(Platoon), Bryan Singer(X-Men), Quentin Tarantino(Inglorious Bastards), Steven Spielberg(Saving Private Ryan), and Francis Ford Coppola(Apocalypse Now) all involved if I had this my way. I see the big screen version of GI Joe as 'Apocalypse Now meets Happy Days.'
Stone, Coppolla, and Spielberg because they made my three favorite war films. Singer because he made a few little movies based on large groups of comic book characters. Tarantino because... well... he's Tarantino man and 'Inglorious Bastards' is sure to rock!!!
My ultimate vision is for there to be 667 GI Joe movies in the... uh, I don't know what to call it. They couldn't make them up as they go along though. The hype for 667 movies would kill the movies. The only way that many motion picture releases could work would be if they filmed all 667 at once and hyped up the whole package. That is so there wouldn't be 667 years of GI Joe hype. I'm talking a one shot deal, 667 movies, a new GI Joe movie released each week - if it is released in theaters. They could sell the entire set straight to DVD for roughly $10,000. Or God forbid they could just give one set to each household free for paying to see all the crap films over the years!
I just see GI Joe as holy and want it done to reach it's potential on film.

t:
At least Cheat Commandos would be funny. How could you do justice to each of the characters without making the movie to be a pointlessly elaborate game of paper/rock/scissors? If you use scenes to showcase the martial arts, demolitions or sniper characters you will either (1)put like characters against each other or (2)having the lead characters showcasing their abilities against grunts. In a movie of first scenarios you get too much happening and lots of seeming inconsistencies. In a movie of second scenarios, you end up with a boring back and forth. If a GI Joe movie ever gets made I'm pretty certain it will quickly be buried next to Starship Troopers. As far as war movies go, nothing beats a good WW2 movie and there is a nearly limitless supply of material still to be used for WW2 movies.

, Peter Jackson's King Kong, or what (as has been said) Bay and Speilberg are doing with
Besides being action-packed and exciting, it's got to be real and dark and gritty and probably bloody, all the things the previous incarnations have never quite been before.
or will it be lesser known actors like "Dawn of the Dead" or "Friday Night Lights" with a few big names thrown in?