[JayC]

Okay so here is the real question. Everyone has basically said their POV, multiple times in many cases. Do I leave the thread open till one of you virtually beats the other to a pulp because the other guy won't change his opinion to that of yours or do I close it and put an end to it?

[ARROW]

JayC, on Mar 28 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

Okay so here is the real question. Everyone has basically said their POV, multiple times in many cases. Do I leave the thread open till one of you virtually beats the other to a pulp because the other guy won't change his opinion to that of yours or do I close it and put an end to it?

Close it JayC, if the positions are intractable, then the only thing that can follow is people making things personal--and we don't need that. Its just a toy, just a movie.

[Viper Hunter]

JayC, on Mar 28 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

Trilogy?????? Though im sure they have left it open to do another movie, nothing has been greenlighted beyond this first movie and probably won't till they see if this movie does well enough to warrent another one.

That's kind of what I was thinking, and why I'm so anally demanding on it being done as well as possible, to even warrant a 2nd (let alone a third) sequel. I'm not a comic book reader, so what's the "rise of Cobra" according to them? How did Cobra come about according to the comic books? How did Cobra Commander get started besides the version they threw at us in the movie version where he completely turned into a snake?

I think non-ARAH fans can get behind (and into) the plot of the film real quick, given they see what the bad guys look like and what they are plotting and then the good guys and gals come in looking all MTV's The Real World/Road Rules Challenge meets Stargate and let the ACTION heat up and carry on without taking us on a baby stroll thru the park with litle CC and how he met Destro on the monkey bars and both fall off and smashed their faces and blamed the school board and vowed revenge after they graduated from college and could finanace a plan?

WOW us with this first go around and then worry about filling in the extra details if a 2nd flick is justified. Star Wars did it and look how successful it became?

[Viper Hunter]

JayC, on Mar 28 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

Okay so here is the real question. Everyone has basically said their POV, multiple times in many cases. Do I leave the thread open till one of you virtually beats the other to a pulp because the other guy won't change his opinion to that of yours or do I close it and put an end to it?

The most ACTIVE thread on the forum? Let us rant and vent and whine and cry and aregue till the cows come home. Hasn't killed us in all these years yet, and seems to be of interest to a lot of folks, even if the horse is considered DEAD..it's keeping the thread alive and people checking back. people will get heated and then (if they're semi-rational in the head) will calm down and relax, maybe even apologize if necessary.

[CLAM]

Jmacq1, on Mar 28 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

You can "honestly believe" whatever you want. By late August we'll have a pretty good idea about who had a better idea of what general audiences were looking for.

no, we won't.

to get any idea what movie goers prefer, we would need two GiJoe movies to be release simultaneously, one more closely based on the source material and the other "rise of cobra."

[Devilbat]

I just wanted to add that me personally, I don't like to get bogged-down too much in origins. Tim Burton did it with Batman Returns and it was a mess, although there are things I enjoy about it. See, with movies like X-Men and the original Star Wars, some background info is mentioned briefly, and to me that's the best way to go. It's okay to get a little bit of a set-up for what's going on, but I hate it when filmmakers waste 45 minutes of a film explaining a backstory in excruciating detail. Let's get to the story at hand already!! (lol) Now, if the entire movie is meant to be an origin story, then fine, as long as it's done right. Like Batman Begins for example. And I hope X-Men Origins: Wolverine will be done just as well. I just don't think a property as broad and epic as G.I. Joe needs too much time spent on origins.

But I can't help it guys; I just really like what I see so far. I like the costumes (yes, even Cobra Commander's). I like the special effects, at least what I saw in the previews. I like the actor choices. I like the director choice; his movies have a light-hearted adventure feel to them, mixed with a healthy dose of seriousness and darkness, perfect for G.I. Joe in my humble opinion. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a repeat of Masters of the Universe. (lol) It has the potential to be that actually, if it's not done right.

[pesatyel]

ARROW, on Mar 28 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

JayC, on Mar 28 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

Okay so here is the real question. Everyone has basically said their POV, multiple times in many cases. Do I leave the thread open till one of you virtually beats the other to a pulp because the other guy won't change his opinion to that of yours or do I close it and put an end to it?

Close it JayC, if the positions are intractable, then the only thing that can follow is people making things personal--and we don't need that. Its just a toy, just a movie.

Intractable? Perhaps, but that really applies to everything, not just this.

Besides I don't opinions are really that intractable. Take my post a few posts above. I asked a question, you gave a good answer, end of story, at least as far as *my* dislike of the figure as Cobra Commander.

Besides, I think there are quite a number of us that, well, DON'T dislike the figure.

[Wheeljack35]

Who knows maybe its a figure of him from a down moment in the movie

We may see him in his visor and helmet torwards the end

[pogoman]

yo joe!
this has been the most active thread in a long time for me.
cobra commander 1 tni 0

[jjlecaros]

i think the part that bugs me the most is the clothes....the helmet in the pic is not to bad, i can understand them wanting to see the eyes to show emotion. Also understand y they went with a design of sorts on the mask instead of just a plain metalic face plate.

I think people just need to let go a bit and understand its not always goign to be like in the comic or the cartoon

[pesatyel]

jjlecaros, on Mar 29 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

i think the part that bugs me the most is the clothes....the helmet in the pic is not to bad, i can understand them wanting to see the eyes to show emotion. Also understand y they went with a design of sorts on the mask instead of just a plain metalic face plate.

I think people just need to let go a bit and understand its not always goign to be like in the comic or the cartoon

I think, for most, the question is WHY. As stated on another page, there are 3 types of "movie goers"

CLAM, on Mar 27 2009, 05:38 AM, said:

there is a certain population of people who know everything about GiJoe, and expect to see a GiJoe movie.
there is second population of people who remember Gijoe, and know what kinds of things to expect.
there is a third population of people who know absolutely nothing about GiJoe, and have no idea what they will see.

So WHY, really, was it necessary to make such a dramatic change, given that?

I'm inclined to think we will see a more "classic" look near the end of the movie, but what if we don't? Why was it necessary to make a change when it could be argued that group 3 wouldn't really care what he looks like and may be just as "put off" by the character as groups 1 and 2. Then nobody wins, so to speak.

But what do I know.

[jjlecaros]

ok take a look at watchmen........awsome any fan of the book would love the movie....but the general audiance didnt think so it had disappointing numbers. so they ahve to cahnge things around to appeal to a greater mass. did you see v for vendetta? you didnt think it was weird that the main character in the movie you oculdnt see any expression at alldont you think some peopel lost soem of the emotion and suff cuz they werent able to see facial expressions.

so thats y i think they went for the battle helmet sans hat prt and with eye holes, as for why not the cloth over the ehad idk maybe they will have it too.

[pesatyel]

jjlecaros, on Mar 29 2009, 03:43 AM, said:

ok take a look at watchmen........awsome any fan of the book would love the movie....but the general audiance didnt think so it had disappointing numbers. so they ahve to cahnge things around to appeal to a greater mass. did you see v for vendetta? you didnt think it was weird that the main character in the movie you oculdnt see any expression at alldont you think some peopel lost soem of the emotion and suff cuz they werent able to see facial expressions.

so thats y i think they went for the battle helmet sans hat prt and with eye holes, as for why not the cloth over the ehad idk maybe they will have it too.

I think that Hugo Weaving did a great job EMOTING his character. You didn't need facial expressions to understand him or what he was doing.

Thing is, I don't think the jackass they got playing Cobra Commander can do that well.

As for comic adapations, making too many changes can be bad too. But it could be just as much the audience not being able to get get into the characters/movie then it has anything to do with changes made OR being "true to the source".

Daredevil might be a good example. His stature in comics isn't even that big, yet they made a movie...and it sucked. I think few people could really get into it. It just wasn't believable to the mass audience. Question, for me, is how well did it go for the FANS of comic/character itself.

Or maybe it just that Ben Affleck sucks as a leading man.

[jjlecaros]

affleck does suck. but i actualy liked the directors cut a lot more than the regular version. I was only happy with affleck doing ti cuz he was a fan so i know hed do the cahracter like the book and not take any vcreative cahnges for himself.

yeah weaving was fgood but it was just akward seeing a character...espcialy the main character have no facila expression.

[pesatyel]

jjlecaros, on Mar 29 2009, 04:09 AM, said:

affleck does suck. but i actualy liked the directors cut a lot more than the regular version. I was only happy with affleck doing ti cuz he was a fan so i know hed do the cahracter like the book and not take any vcreative cahnges for himself.

yeah weaving was fgood but it was just akward seeing a character...espcialy the main character have no facila expression.

Well we wouldn't be seeing anything here either (and that ISN'T a comment about the actor) unless we got a lot of eye closeups. Wouldn't the same be true of Destro? Or the Vipers?

[Chopz]

Look like Jason X from Friday the 13th. Just plain goofy looking. You Bastards!!!
Chopz

[DPrime]

Meh, not a fan. I will admit that my opinion is tainted by nostalgia, and would prefer a more classic look to him, but overall, I think the look is overdesigned to the point that it doesn't look at all cool to me.

I thought the same thing about the Transformers, too. Still do. I think they're just trying too hard. Who knows, though. A lot of the other iconic characters, like Destro, Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow and the Baroness, have more or less retained their original look. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another, more classic-inspired CC look in the movie or its sequels.

[RobbieDigital]

Quote

ok take a look at watchmen........awsome any fan of the book would love the movie....but the general audiance didnt think so it had disappointing numbers. so they ahve to cahnge things around to appeal to a greater mass. did you see v for vendetta? you didnt think it was weird that the main character in the movie you oculdnt see any expression at alldont you think some peopel lost soem of the emotion and suff cuz they werent able to see facial expressions.

so thats y i think they went for the battle helmet sans hat prt and with eye holes, as for why not the cloth over the ehad idk maybe they will have it too.

You can't use Watchmen as an example........they marketed it like an action movie......and its not. I know a lot of people went thinking they were going to get X-men and got a 2 and a half hour movie deconstructing the super-hero mind. Watchmen was pretty deep.......and I think it went over a lot of peoples heads. The fact that it was loyal to the book didn't hurt its box-office.......it was the story/movie in general. A lot of people didn't "Get" it.

I had to tell a couple people I worked with to not take their kids to it......."My kids like superheros, they should like it" I was like NOOOOOOO!!! The general public was more concerned with Doc Manhattan's blue thingy than anything.

[Jmacq1]

CLAM, on Mar 28 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

Jmacq1, on Mar 28 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

You can "honestly believe" whatever you want. By late August we'll have a pretty good idea about who had a better idea of what general audiences were looking for.

no, we won't.

to get any idea what movie goers prefer, we would need two GiJoe movies to be release simultaneously, one more closely based on the source material and the other "rise of cobra."

Wrong again.

If Rise of Cobra is highly successful (financially speaking), then it inarguably appealed to general audiences, and Hollywood is validated (from a moneymaking perspective) for whatever changes they made to the property.

[CLAM]

Jmacq1, on Mar 29 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

CLAM, on Mar 28 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

Jmacq1, on Mar 28 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

You can "honestly believe" whatever you want. By late August we'll have a pretty good idea about who had a better idea of what general audiences were looking for.

no, we won't.

to get any idea what movie goers prefer, we would need two GiJoe movies to be release simultaneously, one more closely based on the source material and the other "rise of cobra."

Wrong again.

If Rise of Cobra is highly successful (financially speaking), then it inarguably appealed to general audiences, and Hollywood is validated (from a moneymaking perspective) for whatever changes they made to the property.

who is to say that audiences won't see ANY action flick called GiJoe?

(most movies make most of their money based on the first couple weeks, and that is due to how appealing the trailers are, not really the quality of the movie itself).

you can't say that the changes will or won't make it anymore successful than a RAH GiJoe movie. It's impossible to tell unless you have both. That's science!

[Stevy Maximus]

CLAM, on Mar 29 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

who is to say that audiences won't see ANY action flick called GiJoe?

(most movies make most of their money based on the first couple weeks, and that is due to how appealing the trailers are, not really the quality of the movie itself).

you can't say that the changes will or won't make it anymore successful than a RAH GiJoe movie. It's impossible to tell unless you have both. That's science!

If that were the case, then you have a film with even less to do with the 80s property than the one we have now. And I'd bet the fans would complain even more AND you would loose the visually iconic characters like Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow.


There are numerous problem with your "experiment". If two different styles of film were released at once, you end up cannibalizing returns from one or both as people decide which one to go to. You release them at different times of the year, then if one is considered "bad" (which for all you know could end up the "classic" version), the performance of the brand as a whole is effected by word of mouth about the "bad GI Joe movie". Why would someone see ANOTHER GI Joe movie if the one they saw earlier was a piece of crap?

Then there's toys. I feel the toy sales will have a big impact on the overall success of the property (both movie and after), but with multiple movies (and if fans had their way, the classic figures as well), you'd have two or three CONFLICTING toylines on sale at the same time. So now, when little Timmy says "I want GI Joe" the parents have to pick up one of three conflicting figures.
And if they don't care what it is, then your data becomes flawed because there is no clear way to determine if the sale was determined by the success of one of the films. Same reason Hasbro only marketed movie-style Transformers toys following summer 2007.

Besides, to compete, the films either have drastically reduced budgets, or the studio would spend DOUBLE on an unproven property, there are the conflicting marketing costs,
So basically, the entire idea of your "experiment" is dramatically flawed.

[shokker]

well i wasnt pleased with stormshadow at all and destro has no expression on his mask. sienna miller looks like a popgirl from an mtv video. i can tell that this cobra commander doesnt looks like a leader but more like a wrong experiment. i am in love with the late 80's joe. those realy had something. every guy had his own uniform and everyone knew what they could do. the joe's in the movie look like some power rangers robocop wannabe's. still i want to let my mind open. i dont think that i am gonna enjoy it much, having the the 80's in mind. who knows maybe i will like it after all but seeing the joe's jumping like kangorus, realy makes me wonder if this will be good. i said that street fighter will be a flop and i guess the fans cryed when they saw it(even van damme had more to offer). dragonball will be next dissapointment i guess. gijoe had more money to it then the other 2, so it will be (like the mummy and van helsing) a real fun action packed, entertained, special effects overblasting, enjoyable movie. nothing less, nothing more.

[pogoman]

did anyone catch the G.I.Joe Movie Game trailer?
that pretty much nails the quality of this movie.

yo joe.

[wolverine2281]

I think it would be awesome if all of the characters from the 80's were in it and had they're original costumes

[Doom Saber]

Some adaptions like TF and Gi joe is completely different from the original source simply

If you think about it, the transformers and gi joe cartoons/comics were created to sell action figures. With that in mind, the stories used for those adaptions may not work for a movie adaption. A comicbook aimed for 9-15 and a cartoon for 4-12 year olds wouldn't be good source material for a movie that is aimed for 13-26 year olds.

The joe movie is made to sell a movie, as well as to make some extra money from action figure sales. Unlike the cartoon and the cb series, the the success of the movie is independent from action figure sales. If the movie toys do not sell well, it would not hurt the movie wheraas if the action figures do poorly, the cartoon would either get a revamp with a new gimmick or ends.