Timstuff
Avenger
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 19,914
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
Okay, one of the biggest points of contention surrounding this movie has been the fact that early on, Stephen Sommers and Paramount proudly declared that this version of GI Joe would be a non-offensive, "politically correct" re-imagining. "Globally Integrated Joint Operations Entity" was the newly christened acronym for "GI Joe," rather than simply being "General Infantry Joe" which has for ages been a slang term denoting an American soldier. Also, their headquarters had been moved from America to Brussles Belgium, which is the home of the European Union Headquarters. Since Americans tend to distrust international unions, it's no surprise that the implications of this were seen as offensive.
Naturally, there was a massive backlash from the fan community, it managed to get brought up by outraged callers on talk radio shows, and it became the subject for angry bloggers everywhere. People's faith is not restored much, either, when the early leaked script got out that described the various members of the GI Joe team as having foreign accents. It would have been one thing to have the GI Joes cooperating with newly-created foreign operative characters, but that was unfortunately not so. One example would have been Scarlett, who had an Aussie accent despite being quite thoroughly American in all previous versions-- and in Sigma 6, she even had a Texas accent. The "politically correct" re imagining of GI Joe was more than just having the American Joes cooperating with international allies, but an actual re-assignment of the characters' nationalism. Cue more fanboy outrage.
However, Paramount clearly realized that they had landed themselves in hot water, and along with Hasbro issued multiple damage-control statements. The Hasbro CEO promised that GI Joe would not be based in Brussles and was still American based, and stated clearly that the franchise's American identity would not be molested. However, the fact that the production got going so quickly has led many to question how much could have really changed since the initial controversy. Most of the actors playing the Joes are American (an exception being Ray Park, who is British, but his character does not speak), which would mean that if any of this garbage about nationality-reassignment were true, then the actors would have to be faking their accents-- which could possibly be more offensive to the international market than if they had simply been left as American special forces.
The actual practicality of making a politically-correct commando unit who is almost entirely played by American actors seems a little bit far fetched, to say the least. However, thanks to that initial scare there's still a large cloud of doubt hanging over this project, and whether or not Paramount will let it retain it's original identity. Is it possible to make a movie about American commandos fighting terrorists and still make lots of money? Yes. Does Hollywood have a good track record for positively portraying the armed services recently? Heck no, and given that every movie about the Iraq war in the last 4 years has been a commercial dud, it doesn't look like they care much about what audiences think of their military portrayals.
The fact that Paramount is a part of the Viacom corporation, makes it a little hard to believe that they are capable of making a GI Joe movie that is respectful to the franchise's origins. However, when you're spending $170 million on a movie, it's kind of important to make sure that the audience is on board. Hopefully, even the suits at Viacom are able to realize such basic economics, regardless of what agenda they may be pushing.
Naturally, there was a massive backlash from the fan community, it managed to get brought up by outraged callers on talk radio shows, and it became the subject for angry bloggers everywhere. People's faith is not restored much, either, when the early leaked script got out that described the various members of the GI Joe team as having foreign accents. It would have been one thing to have the GI Joes cooperating with newly-created foreign operative characters, but that was unfortunately not so. One example would have been Scarlett, who had an Aussie accent despite being quite thoroughly American in all previous versions-- and in Sigma 6, she even had a Texas accent. The "politically correct" re imagining of GI Joe was more than just having the American Joes cooperating with international allies, but an actual re-assignment of the characters' nationalism. Cue more fanboy outrage.
However, Paramount clearly realized that they had landed themselves in hot water, and along with Hasbro issued multiple damage-control statements. The Hasbro CEO promised that GI Joe would not be based in Brussles and was still American based, and stated clearly that the franchise's American identity would not be molested. However, the fact that the production got going so quickly has led many to question how much could have really changed since the initial controversy. Most of the actors playing the Joes are American (an exception being Ray Park, who is British, but his character does not speak), which would mean that if any of this garbage about nationality-reassignment were true, then the actors would have to be faking their accents-- which could possibly be more offensive to the international market than if they had simply been left as American special forces.
The actual practicality of making a politically-correct commando unit who is almost entirely played by American actors seems a little bit far fetched, to say the least. However, thanks to that initial scare there's still a large cloud of doubt hanging over this project, and whether or not Paramount will let it retain it's original identity. Is it possible to make a movie about American commandos fighting terrorists and still make lots of money? Yes. Does Hollywood have a good track record for positively portraying the armed services recently? Heck no, and given that every movie about the Iraq war in the last 4 years has been a commercial dud, it doesn't look like they care much about what audiences think of their military portrayals.
The fact that Paramount is a part of the Viacom corporation, makes it a little hard to believe that they are capable of making a GI Joe movie that is respectful to the franchise's origins. However, when you're spending $170 million on a movie, it's kind of important to make sure that the audience is on board. Hopefully, even the suits at Viacom are able to realize such basic economics, regardless of what agenda they may be pushing.
