Where'd you read that. I don't doubt you but I don't recall seeing that anywhere. That sucks, and I can see Ripcord totally sucking now as well.
It was in an interview with Boniventure a few weeks before they cast Zartan and Hawk. Those were his exact words too. I'm sure you can find it on iesb.com
How can you decide this change was made "for the sake of change" without any evidence past, what I'm guessing, is a gut feeling? I understand where you're coming from, but I don't follow your logic here. If the movie comes out and wayans completely sucks in the role, then by all means feel free to complain about it. Until we either see a polished product or we here from the makers of the movie, we have no idea WHY the change was made. We can't assume it was made just for the hell of it.
2 points can be made here.
1) since day one the producers have fretted over how this can be marketed globally since the tag line of the cartoon was " a real american hero" and the subject matter is about an american military force. Note, not "how do we make this a great film" but "how do we market this globally". There are numorus interviews from both the producer and hasbro where this line has been quoted and if you have followed it since day one I'm sure you'll remember.
2)If your a fan of G.I. Joe then you wil lrecall that there are actually a good healthy number of black characters that Wayans could have played instead of just randomly picking a white character and changing his background just to suit a demo. Many fans have said that they wouldn't have been so bothered if he had been cast as Alpine. Myself. while not my first choice for Alpine, at least it would have made SENSE to cast him and it wouldn't have stung so bad and been such a "wtf?!?" moment for all joe fans. This also turns to the age old "race card". Like I said, there are a number of strong black characters in the Joeverse that deserve the spotlight he could have been cast as, so WHY make such a change? It is not disimmiler to the casting of Jolie as a black character from WANTED.
"Your telling me you couldn't find one strong, black female actress in all of hollywood to play Fox?/ Your telling me you couldn't find one black character in G.I. Joe so you had to take a white one and switch race?"
(that quote wasn't directed towards you, just the line of logic that helps illistate my point I'm trying to make. Hope it helps, I'm sure you get what I mean thoguh.)
If there's no actual evidence that it sucks right now, there's nothing that validate spitting venom at the movie. In short:Until there is proof positive that a movie will suck why complain about it?
But there already is : Lackluster casting and a script that leaves a little to be desired. Do I hope G.I. Joe turns out great? Yes I do. I never want any of these films to fail. I would love for Joe to do Transformers money x's 10 mill, and I have no doubts it will, I would just love for there to be a GREAT joe film to back up the B.O. instead of just the quick cash grab A LOT of these films turn out to be.
Referencing the source material is one thing, staying one hundred percent panel for panel is something else. I agree that not referencing the source material would be a bad thing, but this rarely happens. In most cases the source material is altered(sometimes drastically sometimes not so much). This speaks to the changes already mentioned.
Happens a lot more then you would think. Like I said, I don't mind certain changes and I'm not the guy in the crowd yelling "but he didn't do that till issue 242!!!"
The casual viewer is likely unconcerned with who much a film deviates from the source. Why? Because they aren't that familiar with it. This is why they are casual viewer. Let's take Ghost Rider for an example. gR fans HATED that movie, yet it made a mint. Why? Because casual fans loved it. There were likely more people that went to that movie because they're fans of Nick Cage than because they really followed GR as a character.
K maybe I didnt explain it properly. Filmgoers are not as stupid as studios seem to think. A bad movie is a bad movie and the audience can tell wether they are comic geeks or never ever heard of the source material. Lets take F.F. for example, deviated WAY to far and the the box office suffered. Made most of its cash opening day and then sank. Spider-man, opens and is done well and with respect to the source contiues to kill in ticket sales.
Bad move using GR as I don't know of ANYONE who liked it GR fan or casual veiwer. One of only 3 time I have been in a theater where after the film, literally the entire crowd vocalizes how sh**ty it was (the other 2 being the art of war and the village).
Fans hated the idea of Micheal Keaton as Batman. Studio response: Hire Bob Kane as a consultant.
Actually, when fans hated Keaton as Bats WB rushed out a trailer as fast as they could and this instantaily won fans over. Kane was hired long before this as he was on set daily and helped during pre production giving "input".