Gi Joe

[Timstuff]

Hmmm, I seem to remember a couple small movies titled Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones where pretty much that very thing was done. Seemed to work fine there.

You picked a pretty awful example to back up your argument since episodes 1-3 are PREQUELS. If anything, that validates the argument that the movie should NOT be about Snake Eyes, and that a separate spin off prequel featuring him should come later.

Snake Eyes is my favorite Joe, but personally I want a GI JOE movie, not "Snake Eyes and friends." The movie should be an ensemble story, but Duke should be the main focus of the plot since he is the quintessential Joe, and has been the face of the franchise for years. GI Joe is basically a team of army superheros, so it makes more sense to make the focal point be an infantryman than a ninja. And your idea of switching main characters in each film is pretty ******ed, for the record.

 

[mr. peasant]

Most people, going in will be going in expecting Snake Eyes. I say, for the first film, give it to them. Shove Snake Eyes right down their throats until they want to puke. Then.... take him away and let them fiend for him for 4-5 more movies, tease them with bits of him here and there, bringing him back in a major way in the series finale. I'm not saying make Snake Eyes the whole f'n show, just use him as the bookends.t:

Actually, that's where you're wrong. Like Transformers, most of the audience will be the general public who while have heard of the series, won't be intimately familiar with the characters, in which case, they will be expecting a movie about an elite team of soldiers and not about one super soldier whose name doesn't make the title of the movie. Even if the audience is solely from those who purchased the toyline, recent sales have indicated that it's the kids who have a by far larger buying power than collectors. And as the kids will be more familiar with the recent Sigma 6 series (and maybe recent comics) who've pushed Duke as the primary focus. In which case, the kids will want Duke first.

I will agree that the audience are going there to be entertained first and foremost. However, that doesn't mean Snake Eyes has to be the main character.

And to be perfectly clear, how many movies do you imagine G.I. Joe will be able to pull off? Even the most successful movie series not tied to book titles have only gone as far as three movies. Before you mention Star Wars, that doesn't count since the two trilogies were made more than a decade apart and featured virtually two whole different sets of characters and actors.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

You picked a pretty awful example to back up your argument since episodes 1-3 are PREQUELS. If anything, that validates the argument that the movie should NOT be about Snake Eyes, and that a separate spin off prequel featuring him should come later.

Snake Eyes is my favorite Joe, but personally I want a GI JOE movie, not "Snake Eyes and friends." The movie should be an ensemble story, but Duke should be the main focus of the plot since he is the quintessential Joe, and has been the face of the franchise for years. GI Joe is basically a team of army superheros, so it makes more sense to make the focal point be an infantryman than a ninja. And your idea of switching main characters in each film is pretty ******ed, for the record.

You have been mind controlled. I've already posted three seperate cases to be made for my side of the discussion and you have yet to even recognize them. You are so wrapped up in yourself that you are failing to realize you are wrong and I am right.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

Actually, that's where you're wrong. Like Transformers, most of the audience will be the general public who while have heard of the series, won't be intimately familiar with the characters, in which case, they will be expecting a movie about an elite team of soldiers and not about one super soldier whose name doesn't make the title of the movie.

They will get the team, as you put it, just not all at once. Snake Eyes IS
the character with the most depth and juiciest parts, it only makes sense to show him early and often. Unlike the comics, a film series won't have 20 years and multiple issues to reveal itself though. We would have to work
quicker than that. The filmmakers will have likely 3-4 movies over 5-7 years to give the audience as close to the truth, according to the comics, as possible. And the truth is, Snake Eyes IS what made G.I. Joe so appealing in the first place. It's no coincidence that it's comic book sales,
merchandising, and overall intrest peaked when Snake Eyes past was being revealed and he was getting a more prominent role. Take the previous
peak of the franchise and START THEIR!!! Use THAT as a springboard to success for the next films in the franchise.

Even if the audience is solely from those who purchased the toyline, recent sales have indicated that it's the kids who have a by far larger buying power than collectors. And as the kids will be more familiar with the recent Sigma 6 series (and maybe recent comics) who've pushed Duke as the primary focus. In which case, the kids will want Duke first.

If you were intresred in making a FILM, YOU WOULDN'T BE WORRYING ABOUT THE TOYS AND MARKETING!!!

I will agree that the audience are going there to be entertained first and foremost. However, that doesn't mean Snake Eyes has to be the main character.

YOU CAN'T HIDE A FACELESS, MUTE NINJA!!! Unless you make a damn fool out of him!!! He's going to get the most attention whether you like it or not, I say give HIM the most so you know you're 100% IN CONTROL of your characters and story development and not the audience.
DON'T LET TICKET SALES TELL YOU WHAT THE SHOULD BE!

And to be perfectly clear, how many movies do you imagine G.I. Joe will be able to pull off? Even the most successful movie series not tied to book titles have only gone as far as three movies. Before you mention Star Wars, that doesn't count since the two trilogies were made more than a decade apart and featured virtually two whole different sets of characters and actors.

I can definitely see this as five movies but, in typical Hollywood fashion, milk it for everything it's worth and go for 6 or 7.

HOW DO I KNOW WHATS BEST FOR A G.I. JOE MOVIE?
1. A number 1 G.I. Joe fan during the 80's. Being such, involved extensive hours of working with all the characters and doing so spontaneously and freestyle. In other words, I found a way for G.I. Joe to be entertaining to a young boy once already.

2. I've studied films for a very, very long time.

3. I have been into filmmaking for almost as long.

4. I've studied screenwriting closely and read many books on the subject over the years.

5. I'm a big brother, so that means anything I put my full efforts towards
will be better than 97% of the population.

6. You may be wondering 'is he in touch with 'reality?' I AM REALITY.

 

[mr. peasant]

They will get the team, as you put it, just not all at once. Snake Eyes IS
the character with the most depth and juiciest parts, it only makes sense to show him early and often. Unlike the comics, a film series won't have 20 years and multiple issues to reveal itself though. We would have to work
quicker than that. The filmmakers will have likely 3-4 movies over 5-7 years to give the audience as close to the truth, according to the comics, as possible. And the truth is, Snake Eyes IS what made G.I. Joe so appealing in the first place. It's no coincidence that it's comic book sales,
merchandising, and overall intrest peaked when Snake Eyes past was being revealed and he was getting a more prominent role. Take the previous
peak of the franchise and START THEIR!!! Use THAT as a springboard to success for the next films in the franchise.

I can't and won't argue that Snake Eyes was the star attraction of G.I. Joe back then. However, as I stated before, ninjas just aren't nearly as 'cool' as they were back then (not saying they aren't anymore, just not nearly as strong a pull). Hence, he may or may not be able to draw in the audience and I doubt producers would risk putting all their eggs in a basket and rely on his draw alone.

Another issue with placing Snake Eyes as the star, on a pedestal higher than the others much like in the comics, is that it doesn't suit the genre. As far as I know, G.I. Joe is often thought of as military in which case, the audience not intimately familiar with the comic mythos will expect to see a military themed movie rather than that of the Snake Eyes origin. Of course, this doesn't mean that his story can't be a subplot to a larger plot set in the present. It just shouldn't take the front seat of the first movie.

YOU CAN'T HIDE A FACELESS, MUTE NINJA!!! Unless you make a damn fool out of him!!! He's going to get the most attention whether you like it or not, I say give HIM the most so you know you're 100% IN CONTROL of your characters and story development and not the audience.

I'm not saying hide him. I'm just saying hold back on going all out and focusing on any one character alone for the first movie. If Snake Eyes does turn out to be the fan favorite, then by all means start focusing more on him (though again, not necessarily based on the comics). However, the first movie should be the origins of the G.I. Joe team as a whole, as in how and why they came together, particularly why their sole purpose is to stop Cobra.

DON'T LET TICKET SALES TELL YOU WHAT THE SHOULD BE!

You need to. Otherwise, you would lose touch with the audience and the resulting movie will be a flop. In which case, you won't be able to secure the financial backing to further develop the story.

I can definitely see this as five movies but, in typical Hollywood fashion, milk it for everything it's worth and go for 6 or 7.

Unfortunately, I disagree. Even the most major franchises generally don't attempt to go beyond two sequels. This occurs due to many factors, from the inability to secure the continued return of the main cast, to producers becoming more interested in newer, fresher products.

1. A number 1 G.I. Joe fan during the 80's. Being such, involved extensive hours of working with all the characters and doing so spontaneously and freestyle. In other words, I found a way for G.I. Joe to be entertaining to a young boy once already.

*Gasp* You're a fan? I wouldn't have guessed that! t: Anyway, the thing is, as a hardcore fan, one's view won't be objective. Your interests and wants from a G.I. Joe movie will differ from the expectations of the general viewer who isn't so attached to the brand. Unfortunately, it is these people that the movie must attempt to reel in as G.I. Joe as a franchise has proven unable to support itself from fans alone.

 

[tamron]

HOW DO I KNOW WHATS BEST FOR A G.I. JOE MOVIE?
1. A number 1 G.I. Joe fan during the 80's. Being such, involved extensive hours of working with all the characters and doing so spontaneously and freestyle. In other words, I found a way for G.I. Joe to be entertaining to a young boy once already.

2. I've studied films for a very, very long time.

3. I have been into filmmaking for almost as long.

4. I've studied screenwriting closely and read many books on the subject over the years.

5. I'm a big brother, so that means anything I put my full efforts towards
will be better than 97% of the population.

6. You may be wondering 'is he in touch with 'reality?' I AM REALITY.

Don Murphy? Is that you?

 

[OptimusCannabis]

Don Murphy? Is that you?

No! This is Charlie Murphy fool!

 

[OptimusCannabis]

I can't and won't argue that Snake Eyes was the star attraction of G.I. Joe back then. However, as I stated before, ninjas just aren't nearly as 'cool' as they were back then (not saying they aren't anymore, just not nearly as strong a pull). Hence, he may or may not be able to draw in the audience and I doubt producers would risk putting all their eggs in a basket and rely on his draw alone.

Another issue with placing Snake Eyes as the star, on a pedestal higher than the others much like in the comics, is that it doesn't suit the genre. As far as I know, G.I. Joe is often thought of as military in which case, the audience not intimately familiar with the comic mythos will expect to see a military themed movie rather than that of the Snake Eyes origin. Of course, this doesn't mean that his story can't be a subplot to a larger plot set in the present. It just shouldn't take the front seat of the first movie.



I'm not saying hide him. I'm just saying hold back on going all out and focusing on any one character alone for the first movie. If Snake Eyes does turn out to be the fan favorite, then by all means start focusing more on him (though again, not necessarily based on the comics). However, the first movie should be the origins of the G.I. Joe team as a whole, as in how and why they came together, particularly why their sole purpose is to stop Cobra.



You need to. Otherwise, you would lose touch with the audience and the resulting movie will be a flop. In which case, you won't be able to secure the financial backing to further develop the story.



Unfortunately, I disagree. Even the most major franchises generally don't attempt to go beyond two sequels. This occurs due to many factors, from the inability to secure the continued return of the main cast, to producers becoming more interested in newer, fresher products.



*Gasp* You're a fan? I wouldn't have guessed that! t: Anyway, the thing is, as a hardcore fan, one's view won't be objective. Your interests and wants from a G.I. Joe movie will differ from the expectations of the general viewer who isn't so attached to the brand. Unfortunately, it is these people that the movie must attempt to reel in as G.I. Joe as a franchise has proven unable to support itself from fans alone.

I may have come up with a possible compromise between the people who want Snake Eyes as the star and the people who don't.

My main arguement for centering on Snake Eyes for the first film is that
his story in particular reveals all the connections. Your arguement is that it should be about G.I. Joe, not Snake Eyes. I propose using someone who was a key member of G.I. Joe and a key member in Snake Eyes beginings and use that person as the main character?

I am talking about using Sgt. Stalker as the main character, in moderation of course.

And as Stalker...

 

[tamron]

Will Smith for Stalker, Tom Cruise for Cobra Commander, Lindsay Lohan for Scarlett...

OC, your casting choices would burn up a significant part of the budget before a single scene is shot. A property of this caliber can get away with casting lesser "names", as name recognition and proper marketing will get butts in the seats. In short, a movie like GI Joe doesn't need star power. Done correctly, it's the kind of movie that makes stars.

Considering the amount of screentime Stalker would likely get, a guy like Brian White would fit just fine, IMHO.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

Will Smith for Stalker, Tom Cruise for Cobra Commander, Lindsay Lohan for Scarlett...

OC, your casting choices would burn up a significant part of the budget before a single scene is shot. A property of this caliber can get away with casting lesser names, as name recognition and proper marketing will get butts in the seats.

Those are simply the best people for each role. They will all not be used.
Personally, I am starting to really favor Crispin Glover as Cobra Commander.
And another thing, actors will work in an ensemble cast for reasonable prices IF they like the project and how it relates to them. And to be honest with you this potential franchise could only help careers. There is no way it could kill anyones career.

In short, a movie like GI Joe doesn't need star power. It's the kind of movie that makes stars.

Oh I'm sorry. I thought we we're trying to make a MOVIE not STARS!
Movies don't make stars, stars make movies!

Considering the amount of screentime Stalker would likely get, a guy like Brian White would fit just fine, IMHO.

Well if we were going to make him a main character then we'd just have to give him more screentime wouldn't we Skippy?

You are really coming off as an arrogant, little brat who doesn't respect the audience, the actors, and the film industry in general.

 

[tamron]

You are really coming off as an arrogant, little brat who doesn't respect the audience, the actors, and the film industry in general.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

What kettle? Are you in the kitchen? Are you eating grammy's cookies again?

I respect the audience to not try and give them some hack-job of a movie that is based solely on it's 'marketing power.'

My idea can't be too bad if it kept my attention as a child and re-emerged many years later with the same passion. There has to be something there that I see and you and the Hollywood moguls your representing do not. Because you're not filmmakers, you're businessmen.

I respect the actors because I think this is an idea with potential and it'd be better if certain ones were in it.

If I didn't respect the film industry I'd be more concerned with what will make more money than making a good film, like yourself.

 

[Timstuff]

The fact that Optimus Cannabis always resorts to calling people arrogant when they prove him wrong only proves his own arrogance. Sorry OC, but no-one takes you seriously, because you're always wrong.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I believe focusing the entire movie around Snake Eyes would be a mistake. He can still have a major role, including his rivalry with Storm Shadow, without overshadowing the other members of the team.

I understand where a Snake Eyes fan would want to see him shine, but there are plenty of other Joes, complete with fans of their own who no doubt want their character to share the spotlight, and rightfully so.

Snake Eyes is a badass, but as others have said, he's just a cog in the machine. It's all about the team imo.

 

[mr. peasant]

I believe focusing the entire movie around Snake Eyes would be a mistake. He can still have a major role, including his rivalry with Storm Shadow, without overshadowing the other members of the team.

I understand where a Snake Eyes fan would want to see him shine, but there are plenty of other Joes, complete with fans of their own who no doubt want their character to share the spotlight, and rightfully so.

Snake Eyes is a badass, but as others have said, he's just a cog in the machine. It's all about the team imo.

Precisely! As the first G.I. Joe movie, they should probably introduce how the team was formed, featuring their separate storylines which ultimately lead them together. A basic idea would be:

Duke & other grunts: Attempting to retrieve stolen military tech which would be the Maguffin device of the movie and cornerstone to Cobra's plan

Scarlett (and maybe Hi Tech): Investigating or receiving intel regarding an impending terrorist attack on American soil

Snake Eyes: His association with Storm Shadow

 

[sexyshrek03]

Now I remember watching the cartoon back in the day growing up and the Joes I remember the most are Duke, Scarlet, Gung Ho, Shipwreck, Sgt. Slaugter, I really didn't really know who Snakeeyes was until I got his action figure. Its a GI Joe movie not a Snake Eyes movie, he should be a badass in it but not the main focus

 

[Chris B]

A question regarding any possible GI Joe sequels, would anyone want to see Serpentor appear in a sequel?

 

[Timstuff]

Serpentor is lame. Stick with Cobra.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

The fact that Optimus Cannabis always resorts to calling people arrogant when they prove him wrong only proves his own arrogance. Sorry OC, but no-one takes you seriously, because you're always wrong.

No I'm not. Nothing that is ORIGINAL can be wrong compared to the current state of Hollywood franchises.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

I believe focusing the entire movie around Snake Eyes would be a mistake. He can still have a major role, including his rivalry with Storm Shadow, without overshadowing the other members of the team.

I understand where a Snake Eyes fan would want to see him shine, but there are plenty of other Joes, complete with fans of their own who no doubt want their character to share the spotlight, and rightfully so.

Snake Eyes is a badass, but as others have said, he's just a cog in the machine. It's all about the team imo.

You and everyone else are MISSING THE BIG PICTURE!!! The series, as a whole, is what we should be looking at - not single movies. In a multiple movie series of connected stories Snake Eyes story is a very large one and using it for one film is not a stretch in the least. Having it in the middle would be disasterous. Placing it in the front, or maybe even the end are the only real options.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

Precisely! As the first G.I. Joe movie, they should probably introduce how the team was formed, featuring their separate storylines which ultimately lead them together. A basic idea would be:

Duke & other grunts: Attempting to retrieve stolen military tech which would be the Maguffin device of the movie and cornerstone to Cobra's plan

Scarlett (and maybe Hi Tech): Investigating or receiving intel regarding an impending terrorist attack on American soil

Snake Eyes: His association with Storm Shadow

Wow, how... unoriginal.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

Serpentor is lame. Stick with Cobra.

Actually, Serpentor is a fascinating character that would only ADD to the Snake Eyes/Storm Shadow feud. One of the 10 clones used to create Serpentor was a clone named 'Tommy' after Storm Shadow. It was done so because some of Storm Shadows DNA was believed used in the creation of Serpentor. That's right folks, their are two Storm Shadows and the original is Serpentor's daddy.Back to the clones. What Serpentor brings to the movie are some great historical figures. Julius Caesar, Napolean, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, Philip of Macedonia, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, and Hannibal. I would also add Adolf Hitler to the mix. I think anytime you have an opprotunity to include historical figures of this magnitude you do it.Now when it comes to using Cobra La, that is stretching it...

 

[mr. peasant]

Wow, how... unoriginal.

And I suppose lifting everything straight out of the comic books is original? That's outright plagiarism! You complain that things aren't original when nothing today is ever original; most ideas have already been well treaded over the millenia people have been storytelling.

I think you're the one missing the big picture. You want to see the exact stories from the comic to be put into the movie, yet as I have mentioned time and time again, it just isn't suitable since comics are able to stretch their stories across many issues over the span of years, revisiting and updating them every once in awhile. Movies can't do that since they are constrained to about 2 - 3 hours, tops. And focusing on one particular character's storyline for the entire movie won't work for the first movie since it'd feel more like an over the top melodramatic soap opera rather than an action film.

As for producing stories that stretch for multiple movies, it just can't be done with the central plot of the movies. Firstly, there's budgeting issues as sequels are often funded using the profits of the previous films or based on those profits. Secondly, not everyone who watches a sequel would have already watched (or still able to remember) what happened in the previous movie. Hence, they need the movies to be fairly self contained as far as the central plot is concerned so as not to alienate new viewers.

Finally, I think you should give it a rest. You've said your views and there's no point repeating them over and over again. If you haven't noticed, nobody's supported you thus far.

 

[OptimusCannabis]

And I suppose lifting everything straight out of the comic books is original?

Compared to Hollywood, it is.

That's outright plagiarism! You complain that things aren't original when nothing today is ever original

It's not plagiarism if you follow the necessary procedures. There are to original ideas, they just don't get the hype and exposure of the unoriginal ideas. The main reason for the success of unoriginality is that people like familiarity and routine. The reason G.I. Joe has a better chance at being a success if originally shot, if done in an original manner, is because G.I. Joe is an AMERICAN icon of sorts that IS more familiar and routine to people than a caped freak with special powers. G.I. Joe CAN BE an original work as a film because it is AMERICA.

I think you're the one missing the big picture. You want to see the exact stories from the comic to be put into the movie, yet as I have mentioned time and time again, it just isn't suitable since comics are able to stretch their stories across many issues over the span of years, revisiting and updating them every once in awhile. Movies can't do that since they are constrained to about 2 - 3 hours, tops.

A prospective filmmaker doesn't have to use EVERY damn story, just the ones that were critical to getting G.I. Joe to where it is at today.

And focusing on one particular character's storyline for the entire movie won't work for the first movie since it'd feel more like an over the top melodramatic soap opera rather than an action film.

Who said this is going to be an action film?

As for producing stories that stretch for multiple movies, it just can't be done with the central plot of the movies. Firstly, there's budgeting issues as sequels are often funded using the profits of the previous films or based on those profits.

Yes it can and these movies are going to make money, regardless of the storyline, so why not make A GOOD MOVIE(S)?

Secondly, not everyone who watches a sequel would have already watched (or still able to remember) what happened in the previous movie. Hence, they need the movies to be fairly self contained as far as the central plot is concerned so as not to alienate new viewers.

Hmmm, worked for LOTR.

Finally, I think you should give it a rest. You've said your views and there's no point repeating them over and over again. If you haven't noticed, nobody's supported you thus far.

I think you should get off MY THREAD!

 

[Timstuff]

A prospective filmmaker doesn't have to use EVERY damn story, just the ones that were critical to getting G.I. Joe to where it is at today.

If the goal of the movie is to make it be compatible with the cannon of the comics, then it's gonna be a disaster. NEWSFLASH: The comics are not perfect. The movie is going to have it's own canon, and if I were "prospective filmmaker," I would not want to be involved with a movie that allots me no creative freedom just because I'd be forced to adhere to the a pre-existing canon for a comic book that hardly anyone reads. Like I said before, thank God this movie isn't being produced by a bunch of purist fanboys like you, or it would suck.

Who said this is going to be an action film?

Um, maybe the fact that GI Joe was an action cartoon and an action figure?

Yes it can and these movies are going to make money, regardless of the storyline, so why not make A GOOD MOVIE(S)?

You're definition of a good movie is very warped, and no, people will not want to see the movie if they make it be what you think would be "good."

Hmmm, worked for LOTR. I think you should get off MY THREAD!

LOTR did not have to be self contained because the previous film had always come out just a year prior, with the DVD being released right before the new movie would hit. The previous film was still very fresh in peoples' minds when the second chapter came out, so there was no need for a refresher. With GI Joe, at best we're looking at a 2-3 year gap between the first and second movie, with the third possibly being filmed back-to-back with the second (if the producers see it as a good idea). It doesn't have to be fully self-contained, but it should at least have enough refresher at the start that people can walk into it without having to worry about understanding all of the plot intricacies.