Is the G.I. JOE movie going to be massively changed from the cartoon/comic?

[toddly6666]

Why do people keep on casting huge stars for the G.I. JOE movie? First, it will be ******ed if they use the fan-boy famous actors, because they are all too into themselves - the movie will be thrown off with big-names. Second, they don't want to be the suckers to be in a live-action movie based on a cartoon, especially directed by a popcorn-director Stephen Sommers. This isn't a superhero movie where people are lining up to be the next silver-screen superhero. This is a toy cartoon tv show. Think of Scooby Doo, Transformers (no one really famous in the film), Garfields, Underdog, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1-3, Alvin, He-Man. Being cast as Cobra Commander is not the exciting equivalent of being cast as Lex Luthor. Being cast as Duke is not the exciting equivalent of being cast as Spiderman. Being cast as Snake Eyes is not the exciting equivalent of being cast as Wolverine.

G.I. JOE will be a better film with unknown actors capturing the look/feel of the unique characters, rather than famous actors re-inventing the characters and just being themselves in an action movie.

 

[tamron]

Fox News just ran a little blurb called "Is G.I. Joe still a real American hero?". Maybe that will start a little firestorm of controversy...

That op-ed piece is online now.
[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295179,00.html[/URL]

So, my contact at the salon where I get my eyelashes tinted tells me that the new film version of G.I. Joe will no longer involve U.S. Special Forces, but be Brussels-based with an International co-ed force. It’s like a Benetton ad, with camouflage Capri pants.

Hasbro and Paramount execs are changing it because they think it's too tough to sell a film about the U.S. military when the world is mad at us over Iraq.
Meaning, they're cowardly ass-hats.

So Hollywood is shy about making a film favorable to the U.S. military? This is an industry that drops a Vietnam epic every time it sneezes. Meaning: Hollywood will only make movies about the military if the military loses.
From “The Bourne Ultimatum” to “Shooter,” Hollywood wants our heroes to be battle-tough American soldiers. But they want that expertise focused against the government that trained them, not the enemy!
Hollywood capitalizes on the military's amazing supply of heroism, but it's too cowardly to attach moral value to it. That saves embarrassment in David Geffen's hot tub.

As for G.I. Joe being in Brussels: Why not simply give him a blue hat, call him a peacekeeper and let him pimp 12-year-old refugees for drugs? Wait, that's my hobby.
Best of all: G.I. Joe's enemy is Scottish, not radical Islam. Who knew America's worst enemy wears a kilt? That should make for easier frisking at airport security.

But why stop there? Lets make G.I. Joe an unarmed vegan played by Leo DiCaprio! He could lead a band of trans-gendered teens against evil polluters who want to turn dolphins into luxury bathrobes for Wall Street fat cats. Then Hasbro can create a new doll and when you pull his string, he'll say, "I'm sorry I'm an American. Please hug me."
And that's my gut feeling.

ROFL at the bolded section. t:

 

[Timstuff]

The more public eyes that get pointed towards this project, the better. What Paramount is doing is not the kind of controversy that sells tickets, it's the kind that turns people off. People aren't going to say "Ooh, I heard they completely butchered the source material! I need to see this movie to know what the fuss is all about!" They'll just say "Eh, I'm in no rush to see it." And that's where Hasbro and Paramount will become fearful, so I hope we see lots more op-ed pieces and commentators complaining about this. The only reason Paramount thinks they can get away with this right now is because as far as they can tell, no-one is going to notice. But if people do notice, it could potentially damage the movie's US box office, and that would be Paramount shooting themselves in the foot. The more people become aware of what's happening to GI Joe, the more respectful Paramount will be to it.

 

[bullets]

we need to show them we care

 

[Blade X]

The more public eyes that get pointed towards this project, the better. What Paramount is doing is not the kind of controversy that sells tickets, it's the kind that turns people off. People aren't going to say "Ooh, I heard they completely butchered the source material! I need to see this movie to know what the fuss is all about!" They'll just say "Eh, I'm in no rush to see it." And that's where Hasbro and Paramount will become fearful, so I hope we see lots more op-ed pieces and commentators complaining about this. The only reason Paramount thinks they can get away with this right now is because as far as they can tell, no-one is going to notice. But if people do notice, it could potentially damage the movie's US box office, and that would be Paramount shooting themselves in the foot. The more people become aware of what's happening to GI Joe, the more respectful Paramount will be to it.

Preach on brother. I agree with everything you said.

I hope news of how Hasbro and Paramount are disrespecting our military (and country) by diverting from the source material, makes national news and garners so much negative publicity for both Hasbro and Paramount, that they are forced to ditch their asinine plans for this film and instead be more faithful to the source material.

OMT, someone needs to remind both Hasbro and Paramount that the international G.I. JOE SIGMA 6 team was (as far as I know) unsuccessful in revitalizing the G.I. JOE franchise.

 

[Desslar]

Preach on brother. I agree with everything you said.

I hope news of how Hasbro and Paramount are disrespecting our military (and country) by diverting from the source material,

Wait a minute. We're talking about toys here, not the real military. The only person getting disrespected is Larry Hama.

 

[mr. peasant]

Actually, in my youth, I had always known the brand as G.I. Joe as 'International Heroes' as that was what it was marketed as in my country. If I'm not mistaken, outside of the U.S., G.I. Joe was always marketed as either 'International Heroes' or as 'Action Force'. So, if you want to play the numbers game, more people would be affected if they went with 'A Real American Hero' as opposed to 'International Heroes'.

 

[TheVileOne]

Bash Fox News all you want, but that article was 100% right on.

All they did overseas was change the name of the comic or cartoon.

But now they aren't even trying to keep it as GI JOE anymore. So why even ****ing call the movie GI JOE? GI JOE is a pretty ****ing synonymous American term. So if you are that serious about pandering to international/Anti-American sentiment, then just jettison it all. Don't even release the movie in the states as GI JOE.

 

[mr. peasant]

So, let me get this straight; because they decide that a modern interpretation of G.I. Joe, whose most prominent theme (as of the 80's) is that of anti-terrorism, should be one of a global, multinational coalition (thus making it unique as far as anti-terrorist organizations compared to real-life anti-terrorist organizations), you've come to the conclusion that the filmmakers are anti-American?

It's mind boggling how you made that jump. Thus far, we don't know anything specific regarding the movie or the team's composition. For all we know, it could be a 'mostly American' team based in Brussels. Chances are, they aren't going to individually mention the nationalities of each team member but rather keep it ambiguous.

At the end of the day, a movie that is to be marketed internationally has and should cater to international tastes. If making the movie about an all-American team detracts from that, then that setting should be done away with. Making a movie with an international audience in mind without catering to their tastes and sensitivities is a disaster waiting to happen as well as insulting to the audience. Hence, irrespective of yours, Hasbro's or Paramount's views, their hands are tied on the matter.

 

[toddly6666]

Exactly...and Hasbro/Paramount is not exclusive to the USA. Why should these companies cater only to the USA? People around the world have spent tons of money supporting Hasbro as well. It's not like Hasbro owes the USA fan-boys for making an All-American version of G.I. JOE. Not everything revolves around the USA...

And once again, the theme of G.I. JOE is not about USA. If you don't see one American flag in the movie or if the word "America" is not mentioned, it's not going to hurt the movie. If you saw Duke running around holding an American flag, just waiting to plant that flag somewhere, that's the most cheesy thing to do. This is not the 1940s. It can be called patriotism, but there is nothing cheesier than people planting and waving flags of their country. It's just goofy and gay. It's as bad as people holding up and waving their lighters during some huge music concert. It's not an important factor for writing the screenplay of this live-action film. What they need to focus on is the characters of G.I. JOE. When I watched the cartoon as a kid, I certainly enjoyed the characters talking to each other, rather than shooting each other with their laser guns.

 

[TheVileOne]

So, let me get this straight; because they decide that a modern interpretation of G.I. Joe, whose most prominent theme (as of the 80's) is that of anti-terrorism, should be one of a global, multinational coalition (thus making it unique as far as anti-terrorist organizations compared to real-life anti-terrorist organizations), you've come to the conclusion that the filmmakers are anti-American?

They are pandering to Anti-American sentiment. And they are taking out all the aspects that make GI JOE, GI JOE so they can appease the "international audience" that doesn't like America.

It's mind boggling how you made that jump. Thus far, we don't know anything specific regarding the movie or the team's composition. For all we know, it could be a 'mostly American' team based in Brussels. Chances are, they aren't going to individually mention the nationalities of each team member but rather keep it ambiguous.

I'm going by the comments of the producers and the reports coming out of this movie so far. Or has what DiBonaventura said not actually happened?

At the end of the day, a movie that is to be marketed internationally has and should cater to international tastes. If making the movie about an all-American team detracts from that, then that setting should be done away with. Making a movie with an international audience in mind without catering to their tastes and sensitivities is a disaster waiting to happen as well as insulting to the audience. Hence, irrespective of yours, Hasbro's or Paramount's views, their hands are tied on the matter.

So basically we need to make a happy, friendly policitally correct GI JOE movie that won't offend anyone and even go so far as changing the meaning of GI JOE so it's less offensive.

And we are typically insulted by behavior such as this.

The people supporting a happy, friendly, inoffensive PC GI JOE aren't true fans at all.

Exactly...and Hasbro/Paramount is not exclusive to the USA. Why should these companies cater only to the USA? People around the world have spent tons of money supporting Hasbro as well. It's not like Hasbro owes the USA fan-boys for making an All-American version of G.I. JOE. Not everything revolves around the USA...

Yup. All the people that have invested their time and money in this franchise for years, don't matter at all. **** them, go screw themselves.

Also, I want some legitimate proof that releasing this movie with all the "Real American Hero" elements would really hurt it overseas.

All I've gotten so far are the PC opinions of posters here and Hollywood.

What has Hasbro said? A Hasbro representative said the movie would be a classic GI JOE/COBRA story not unlike the comics. Yes, that's what he said.

And once again, the theme of G.I. JOE is not about USA. If you don't see one American flag in the movie or if the word "America" is not mentioned, it's not going to hurt the movie. If you saw Duke running around holding an American flag, just waiting to plant that flag somewhere, that's the most cheesy thing to do. This is not the 1940s. It can be called patriotism, but there is nothing cheesier than people planting and waving flags of their country. It's just goofy and gay. It's as bad as people holding up and waving their lighters during some huge music concert. It's not an important factor for writing the screenplay of this live-action film. What they need to focus on is the characters of G.I. JOE. When I watched the cartoon as a kid, I certainly enjoyed the characters talking to each other, rather than shooting each other with their laser guns.

A lot of GI JOE is about Cobra Commander's problems with the country and wanting to destroy it/take it over.

 

[toddly6666]

TheVileOne,
I'm assuming that the political Cobra Commander you are talking about is the comic-book Cobra Commander? Also, correct me if i'm wrong because my memory of the comic/cartoon is vague, but wasn't the cartoon Cobra Commander not really political - for example, wasn't he just "destroy G.I. Joe and rule the world for no real reason except for power?" In the live-action movie, I hope they make Cobra Commander empathatic and understandably anti-government and that the audience will deep down root for his extreme goals. For example, Ozy from WATCHMEN and Thanos from INFINITY GAUNTLET. Or the environmentalist villain or killing-the-whole world-to-clean-it-up, and start-fresh type villain. Those are the type of villains I love.

What is Cobra Commander's goal with running the world? Would it be like Fascist Democracy (G.W. Bush), Military state (Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea) or Hitler-type crazy murderous Fascism?

 

[Timstuff]

If the current US government is "fascist democracy" as you call it, then Cobra Commander would just run for office if that was the kind of government he wanted. Sheesh, some people take the Bush bashing so far that it becomes downright childish...

Anyway, my vision of what Cobra wants is a government would be a military state, where the government is run by the military leaders rather than a congress / parliament. In order to advance in Cobra's government, you must advance in Cobra's military. "Voting" would probably exist to a degree, but it would be a single party system, where candidates must be approved by the military, and come from within it.

 

[The Question]

If the current US government is "fascist democracy" as you call it, then Cobra Commander would just run for office if that was the kind of government he wanted. Sheesh, some people take the Bush bashing so far that it becomes downright childish...

Anyway, my vision of what Cobra wants is a government would be a military state, where the government is run by the military leaders rather than a congress / parliament. In order to advance in Cobra's government, you must advance in Cobra's military. "Voting" would probably exist to a degree, but it would be a single party system, where candidates must be approved by the military, and come from within it.

I always got the feeling that Cobra was very anti-government and anti-establishment in general, and were over all fairly Libertarian in their political views. So, a military dictatorship would be the last thing they'd want. I always imagined that their goal is to overthrow the U.S. government and set up a state in it's place that is very loosly governed, similar to the frontier back in the old west, with only a military in place for national defense and some law enforcement for the sake of settling disputes.

 

[Timstuff]

Hmm, very interesting point, and it would actually make sense. Cobra would view themselves as being more "liberators" than "conquerers" because they would want to simply do away with the establishment that they believe held them back. If Cobra's ultimate goal was extreme libertarianism, then people could empathize with their motives a lot more than if they were seeking a totalitarian government.

 

[toddly6666]

I wrote "Fascist Democracy", but I actually meant the term "Friendly Fascism", which is currently a good description of Bush's USA.

 

[mr. peasant]

They are pandering to Anti-American sentiment. And they are taking out all the aspects that make GI JOE, GI JOE so they can appease the "international audience" that doesn't like America.

No, they aren't. There's a difference between anti-Americanism and dissatisfaction with America. What most people are feeling nowadays is that of a disapproval of some of America's political and military decisions. The vast majority of this group neither hate America nor go around burning flags and what not.

From what I can tell, the producers are simply just stepping cautiously around the topic so as not to get involved in a political debate. They just want to make a profit and entertain while they're at it. If adding a political element detracts from these goals without adding anything to the quality of the product, the element ought to be done away with.

I'm going by the comments of the producers and the reports coming out of this movie so far. Or has what DiBonaventura said not actually happened?

And aside from the basic description of 'international team versus terrorist group and Scottish arms dealer', what else has he said regarding finalized, confirmed material for the film? And actually, most of what Di Bonaventura said has yet to actually happen.

So basically we need to make a happy, friendly policitally correct GI JOE movie that won't offend anyone and even go so far as changing the meaning of GI JOE so it's less offensive.

If that generates a better response from their target audience. Then, yes.

You must remember, the movie will be targeted primarily to the young teens and family market, both of which don't really find movies heavily criticized due to political controversies particularly appealing when choosing which film to watch. They'd rather watch something less offensive.

The people supporting a happy, friendly, inoffensive PC GI JOE aren't true fans at all.

Who are you to decide who's a fan and who's not or even what fans are supposed to think? Different people like different aspects of G.I. Joe and have different expectations and preferences for the movie.

Yup. All the people that have invested their time and money in this franchise for years, don't matter at all. **** them, go screw themselves.

Precisely my point. Not 100% of the sales came solely from the United States. Hence, they have to cater to their international supporters as well and not merely the American-borne ones.

Also, I want some legitimate proof that releasing this movie with all the "Real American Hero" elements would really hurt it overseas.

All I've gotten so far are the PC opinions of posters here and Hollywood.

There is no legitimate, incontrovertible 'proof' on the subject since the movie hasn't been released yet. Thus, nobody knows how it will perform if it had gone a particular manner. Any evidence presented, whether for or against, is speculative, interpretative and purely subjective.

 

[Desslar]

And once again, the theme of G.I. JOE is not about USA. If you don't see one American flag in the movie or if the word "America" is not mentioned, it's not going to hurt the movie. If you saw Duke running around holding an American flag, just waiting to plant that flag somewhere, that's the most cheesy thing to do.

Surely you're kidding. The flag is heavily featured in the cartoon intros, and in particular Duke carries one to the top of the Statue of Liberty in the movie. This franchise isn't subtle about that kind of thing.

 

[TheVileOne]

TheVileOne,
I'm assuming that the political Cobra Commander you are talking about is the comic-book Cobra Commander? Also, correct me if i'm wrong because my memory of the comic/cartoon is vague, but wasn't the cartoon Cobra Commander not really political - for example, wasn't he just "destroy G.I. Joe and rule the world for no real reason except for power?" In the live-action movie, I hope they make Cobra Commander empathatic and understandably anti-government and that the audience will deep down root for his extreme goals. For example, Ozy from WATCHMEN and Thanos from INFINITY GAUNTLET. Or the environmentalist villain or killing-the-whole world-to-clean-it-up, and start-fresh type villain. Those are the type of villains I love.

Yes. But Cobra Commander was originally created for the figures and comics, NOT the cartoon. I'm talking about the original interpretation of the character.

No, they aren't. There's a difference between anti-Americanism and dissatisfaction with America. What most people are feeling nowadays is that of a disapproval of some of America's political and military decisions. The vast majority of this group neither hate America nor go around burning flags and what not.

Then why are they being so upfront about removing these elements and believing they need to be taken out if such is the case as you state it?

From what I can tell, the producers are simply just stepping cautiously around the topic so as not to get involved in a political debate. They just want to make a profit and entertain while they're at it. If adding a political element detracts from these goals without adding anything to the quality of the product, the element ought to be done away with.

The political element is called being politically correct so no one will get offended and everyone will love it and make it an Academy Award winner.

And aside from the basic description of 'international team versus terrorist group and Scottish arms dealer', what else has he said regarding finalized, confirmed material for the film? And actually, most of what Di Bonaventura said has yet to actually happen.

I'm simply going by his own words and what their essential vision is for this movie as well as the script reports to come out of numerous sources. Until I hear a legitimate claim to a real change in direction, I'm not changing my stance.

If that generates a better response from their target audience. Then, yes.

Hey, according to Don Murphy, putting Tom Sawyer in LXG would make the movie popular with Americans and make the movie commercially lucrative and a big hit. Yuppers . . . oh wait.

Because Hollywood is ALWAYS right and in touch with their target audience. They know ALWAYS know what to do to make their target audiences happy and for the movies to NEVER bomb. ALWAYS, 100% perfect.

You must remember, the movie will be targeted primarily to the young teens and family market, both of which don't really find movies heavily criticized due to political controversies particularly appealing when choosing which film to watch. They'd rather watch something less offensive.

Which is pretty much what GI JOE is at it's core. It's really not offensive or heavily political at all. But that's the core GI JOE that the same teens and families like are into and grew up with.

Who are you to decide who's a fan and who's not or even what fans are supposed to think? Different people like different aspects of G.I. Joe and have different expectations and preferences for the movie.

You sound like you work on this movie. To me any fan who thinks it's OK to neuter, sanitize and do whatever the material to make it more PC-friendly doesn't get it and isn't a true fan.

Precisely my point. Not 100% of the sales came solely from the United States. Hence, they have to cater to their international supporters as well and not merely the American-borne ones.

Once again, I'd like some proof that you know this is what the non-American-borne fans of GI JOE want to see as well.

There is no legitimate, incontrovertible 'proof' on the subject since the movie hasn't been released yet. Thus, nobody knows how it will perform if it had gone a particular manner. Any evidence presented, whether for or against, is speculative, interpretative and purely subjective.

Then quite frankly I think you have no right to speculate either like you have or give approval to the direction it's going to take and making it more PC-friendly for non-Americans and the international crowd.

 

[mr. peasant]

Then why are they being so upfront about removing these elements and believing they need to be taken out if such is the case as you state it?

Using your logic, everyone around the world who isn't American and doesn't support American policy is anti-American. They're just making a setting so that the good guys aren't exclusively American while every foreigner in the movie is a villain.

The political element is called being politically correct so no one will get offended and everyone will love it and make it an Academy Award winner.

I don't understand the complaint about making movies politically correct. Making a movie so doesn't automatically make a bad movie just as making one that is politically incorrect doesn't automatically make a good one.

Hey, according to Don Murphy, putting Tom Sawyer in LXG would make the movie popular with Americans and make the movie commercially lucrative and a big hit. Yuppers . . . oh wait.

Putting Tom Sawyer in was a deliberate attempt to appease American audiences.

Because Hollywood is ALWAYS right and in touch with their target audience. They know ALWAYS know what to do to make their target audiences happy and for the movies to NEVER bomb. ALWAYS, 100% perfect.

Nobody is ever 100% of the time right. Just as how the producers' opinion may be flawed and wrong, so could yours.

You sound like you work on this movie. To me any fan who thinks it's OK to neuter, sanitize and do whatever the material to make it more PC-friendly doesn't get it and isn't a true fan.

If you noticed, in the G.I. Joe forum we both go to (Joebattlelines), you'll notice that the opinion there is fairly split down the middle. So, unless you consider half the people there as not being true fans, then I'll have to say that your definition of what a Joe fan should think is wrong.

Once again, I'd like some proof that you know this is what the non-American-borne fans of GI JOE want to see as well.

The only 'evidence' I can think of would be that G.I. Joe has never been successfully marketed overseas as 'A Real American Hero' but only as 'Action Force' and 'International Hero'.

Plus, it's a well known fact that a fairly large number are opposed to the idea of America invading more countries or meddling in the issues/policies of other countries without the support of the United Nations. Whether this would affect the movie's viewership is debatable but it is nonetheless indicative of the viewer's opinion.

Then quite frankly I think you have no right to speculate either like you have or give approval to the direction it's going to take and making it more PC-friendly for non-Americans and the international crowd.

Using your reasoning, neither do you since you have yet to present any hard, irrefutable and objective evidence to support your opinions either.

Personally, I think it's too early to condemn or even criticize the film yet since we know next to nothing regarding the movie. To conclude that it will be lousy before actually watching it is indicative that you are a biased and unobjective critic.

 

[TheVileOne]

Using your logic, everyone around the world who isn't American and doesn't support American policy is anti-American. They're just making a setting so that the good guys aren't exclusively American while every foreigner in the movie is a villain.

Unfortunately that's not all they are talking about. They seem to want to make the movie appeal to the people they think hate America.

I don't understand the complaint about making movies politically correct. Making a movie so doesn't automatically make a bad movie just as making one that is politically incorrect doesn't automatically make a good one.

I have no idea what you mean at all. The specifically suggested name change for the meaning of GI JOE is a specific change in meaning so it's less American and more of a PC "international global entity that doesn't offend anyone" type of crap.

Like that article stated, why don't they just give them blue ribbons on their helmets and have them report to the UN?

Putting Tom Sawyer in was a deliberate attempt to appease American audiences.

Yup that was a STUPID idea that failed miserably. Meaning that producers don't always know what it takes to appeal to the "target audience".

Nobody is ever 100% of the time right. Just as how the producers' opinion may be flawed and wrong, so could yours.

Bollox to you not even detecting the sarcasm.

At least my opinion is backed up by a lasting and popular franchise that has been around and built it's fanbase for decades.

If you noticed, in the G.I. Joe forum we both go to (Joebattlelines), you'll notice that the opinion there is fairly split down the middle. So, unless you consider half the people there as not being true fans, then I'll have to say that your definition of what a Joe fan should think is wrong.

Opinion on X-men 3 was split down the middle as well. And pretty much every wrong move I predicted on that movie ended up being right.

The only 'evidence' I can think of would be that G.I. Joe has never been successfully marketed overseas as 'A Real American Hero' but only as 'Action Force' and 'International Hero'.

This isn't legitimate proof. All this means is that they changed the NAME ONLY overseas and it was successful. It's not legitimate evidence to support your stance though. Cobra was still Cobra, either way.

Plus, it's a well known fact that a fairly large number are opposed to the idea of America invading more countries or meddling in the issues/policies of other countries without the support of the United Nations. Whether this would affect the movie's viewership is debatable but it is nonetheless indicative of the viewer's opinion.

Who is talking about Americans invading anything in these movies? I can never recall GI JOE conducting mass scale invasions either on foreign soil either.

I don't ever exactly recall the Joes invading countries and taking down dictatorships and rogue governments. It's almost always been about battling Cobra.

Using your reasoning, neither do you since you have yet to present any hard, irrefutable and objective evidence to support your opinions either.

When you stop then so will I. But at least I have the support of the massively popular Joe fandom that's existed for decades.

Personally, I think it's too early to condemn or even criticize the film yet since we know next to nothing regarding the movie. To conclude that it will be lousy before actually watching it is indicative that you are a biased and unobjective critic.

Am I biased toward GI JOE? Yes, because I'm a GI JOE fan. But why should I have an open mind? It's not like Hollywood has a superb track record with these things though. If you don't think I'm being fair, then tough.

Was it wrong for fans to think the Catwoman movie looked like garbage and was going to be garbage? Was that biase and being unobjective? No, that was the fans, audiences, and critics alike calling it like they see it.

 

[toddly6666]

I think that Tom Sawyer should get another chance - he should be a new Joe. If they are going to remove the American element from the movie, they should at least put Tom Sawyer in the movie, because he represents the American theme of G.I. JOE. This way, the movie will make a lot more money because American kids and adults love Tom Sawyer.

 

[Timstuff]

LoL?

 

[toddly6666]

Here's Hollywood's track record for movies based on comic books/cartoons:

THE GOOD (these are the list of ones that are generally good, even with ones with mixed reviews):
300
Batman
Batman Returns
Batman Begins
Blade
Blade 2
Daredevil
Fantastic Four
Fantastic Four 2
Flash Gordon
Hellboy
Hulk
The Punisher (Tom Jane)
Sin City
Spiderman
Spiderman 2
Spiderman 3
Superman
Superman 2
Superman Returns
TMNT (CGI)
Transformers (2007)
V For Vendetta
X-Men
X-Men 2
X-Men 3

THE BAD (more widely accepted as crap, even if some people enjoy 'em!):
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin
Blade 3
Catwoman
Elektra
Ghost Rider
Howard the Duck
Judge Dredd
The League of Ext. Gentleman
The Phantom
The Punisher (Dolph)
Spawn
Steel
Supergirl
Superman 3
Superman 4
Tank Girl
TMNT 1
TMNT 2
TMNT 3
Underdog
Scooby Doo
Scooby Doo 2
Garfield
Garfield 2


I'm sure people can find other films, but the moral of the story is that Hollywood actually DOES get it right with these superhero/comic/cartoon live-action movies. It's split down the middle - half are generally good, half are generally bad. But this is just a pointless percentage if you look at the titles of the bad films: they are the second-hand, not-so famous, not so popular cartoon/comic book superheros. There is nothing that tragic about screwing up the ones found in the "bad" category, because the majority of comic book fans don't really give a rat's ass about those that much. It would be tragic if comic book fans didn't get at least one good movie from the major franchises, but that's not the case - the fans have been lucky (Spidermans, X-Mens, Supermans, Batmans, Transformers)!


and yes, i was kidding about the Tom Sawyer G.I. Joe.

 

[Blade X]

Wait a minute. We're talking about toys here, not the real military. The only person getting disrespected is Larry Hama.

They are disrespecting our military by NOT having the JOES be a special U.S. military unit.

And yes, it's also disrespectful to Larry Hama, who btw, also served in the army.