Would a purist version of GI Joe been more successful?

[MessiahDecoy123]

or would it have bombed?

 

[lespaul59]

I would say about the same because I just can't see the ARAH uniforms being took serious by the general public. I'm sure some would work because they're some what realistic like Duke, Hawk, SE(which was used) and a few others. But I just think people would think Bazooka, Barbecue and probaly any other colorfull Joe was stupid.

 

[Timstuff]

GI Joe made 50% of its money overseas, and if it had been the flag-waving All American version of the 1980's, I don't see that happening. At most it probably would have made about 200 million world wide if it had been "purist," which is not bad but definitely not worth a 175 million budget.

 

[JRPJCDJC]

The percentage of what movies are making domestically versus overseas has really become astonishing.

Only 23% of 2012 total gross was attributed to the U.S.. Compare that to what films were doing 30 years ago and it is safe to say things have really changed, and not necessarily for the better. Based on the U.S. stats alone, 2012 was a bust here.

G.I. Joe has done about the same numbers as Fantastic Four both domestically and overseas. That's no surprise since most people would agree with the statement 'G.I. Joe is about the same quality as Fantastic Four.' I find it really sad that G.I. Joe didn't even do half as well as either of the Transformers movies.

I hate to think the reason for G.I. Joe coming up short being because they changed the original story to appeal to the same global audience that gave it these poor numbers. Very ironic. Next time - stick to the original material, if it's a good film - word will spread.

A purist version would have done better, by far. G.I. Joe was a much bigger entity in the U.S. when both it and Transformers were at their peaks. Yet, Transformers 2 is now the 9th highest grossing in U.S. history while the G.I. Joe opener sits at 185th with around $250 million less domestic gross??? Even if you compare the first Transformers to G.I. Joe, Transformers still annihilates it by nearly $170 million dollars.

If G.I. Joe was once bigger or, at the least, on the same level as Transformers then it really should've been the same here. But, alas, this wasn't G.I. Joe and that is why it failed.

 

[mr. peasant]

The percentage of what movies are making domestically versus overseas has really become astonishing.

Only 23% of 2012 total gross was attributed to the U.S.. Compare that to what films were doing 30 years ago and it is safe to say things have really changed, and not necessarily for the better. Based on the U.S. stats alone, 2012 was a bust here.

G.I. Joe has done about the same numbers as Fantastic Four both domestically and overseas. That's no surprise since most people would agree with the statement 'G.I. Joe is about the same quality as Fantastic Four.' I find it really sad that G.I. Joe didn't even do half as well as either of the Transformers movies.

I hate to think the reason for G.I. Joe coming up short being because they changed the original story to appeal to the same global audience that gave it these poor numbers. Very ironic. Next time - stick to the original material, if it's a good film - word will spread.

A purist version would have done better, by far. G.I. Joe was a much bigger entity in the U.S. when both it and Transformers were at their peaks. Yet, Transformers 2 is now the 9th highest grossing in U.S. history while the G.I. Joe opener sits at 185th with around $250 million less domestic gross??? Even if you compare the first Transformers to G.I. Joe, Transformers still annihilates it by nearly $170 million dollars.

If G.I. Joe was once bigger or, at the least, on the same level as Transformers then it really should've been the same here. But, alas, this wasn't G.I. Joe and that is why it failed.

I disagree. G.I. Joe's poorer performance relative to Transformers can't be attributed to its deviation from comic or cartoon canon since the latter had just as big a change if not more so. The reason for Transformers' success is due to a number of other draws that G.I. Joe could not pull on; namely it was made by Michael Bay (who has his own dedicated fan base which is larger than Somers'), features giant robots that blow stuff up (which draws both, the hard sci-fi fans and general audience), was the first 80s cartoon movie and toyline turned into a big budget movie (which likely drew upon G.I. Joe fans to the original) and had a high grossing original (in the case of the sequel).

 

[joegeek]

I said no, it would be about 75% as popular as the current version. I am a huuuuge ARAH fan due to the cartoon of 84-87 only, so I did not, nor will I ever see the new movie unless it is a a Sunday afternoon movie on TBS someday.


Most fans would think the old ARAH uni's would be corny and the story line too corny.

 

[wyltk75]

Transformers only loosely followed the source material as well, so, I really don't think it could necessarily be attributed to that. I think it might have done a bit better among fans due to following the original source, but I don't think a ton.

The one single thing that might have made it do better was, to make a movie that doesn't suck! That movie, Gi Joe or not was pretty crappy.

 

[BlackLantern]

"original source" meaning?? GI Joe, as a toy line, was around for almost 20 years prior to the cartoon...and since the first animated series there have been tons of other animated series, DTVs, comic books, etc so IMO there are multiple sources to draw from

 

[Judge Holden]

Just make a good film, that might help... Worry about accuracy to the source material later.

 

[BlackLantern]

it made its money back and did well overseas...big American effects driven films almos always do well overseas...i liked the movie, wasn't Shakespeare, but hardly something on the level of "Glitter" or "Catwoman"

 

[Judge Holden]

I liked certain things about it, like Snake Eyes, Gorden Levitt and Eccelstones over the top performance.

But it was just a paint by numbers, cookie cutter summer blockbuster like all Sommers flicks IMO.

 

[BlackLantern]

every time I see Eccleston now, I think of the Doctor...at least he dressed better in GI Joe...nice suits

 

[Londeaux]

I think it would. Mainly because G.I. Joe is a real American hero. I can understand creating a international organization, but it wouldn't be the same. Cobra was supposed to be originally a domestic terrorist organization that went global. They were sort of the Al Quaida of the U.S.

The Marvel Comics version was far more realistic in story line and character development than the movie.

 

[Ultra Lantern]

I think a purist version of G.I.Joe would be more successful.

 

[Quasimod0]

Depends on what ya mean by purist. The cartoon costumes would look cheesy. Wouldnt be difficult to update them though. And thankfully snake eyes was translated well

 

[Hypestyle]

so just what would be a purist version?

 

[Duke]

I believe a purist version would've been much better & definitely be a success. The version we got in my opinion lacked character depth, costumes were pretty much generic as well. It was an "ok" movie, but in my view, just an average action film.

 

[ripse]

Yup, Pure Version is always success....why not?