Jump to content

G.I. JOE The Live Action Movie Script ?


OptimusPrime2005
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh right, it's that terrible Rex(CC)/Duke plot. I think someone posted here about this before...

 

What a piece of crap. Shows that the writers don't know a damn thing about the source material and are just making it up. Anything with any sort of fanbase has to be somewhat loyal to the source material (because there's a reason the fanbase exists after all)... They need to take another look at Lord of the Rings and why it was so popular.

 

It's crap like this that makes me not care one bit about the "intellectual properties" of the MPAA and its supporters. As long as they put absolutely NO effort into 90% of its films I can't see why anyone would want to pay one cent to see them. I don't think I'd even pay for a rental for this one...

 

EDIT: And why the hell does Heavy Duty and Hi Tech need to be in every Joe incarnation lately? The primary people who will be going to see a GI Joe movie (20-35 year old males) who remember the old cartoon and comics will have no idea who these people are, and will be asking "where's Roadblock and Breaker/Mainframe?" the entire time they're on screen. It seems like Hasbro/the screenwriters are banking on this being a hit with the yet untested 10-year-old Sigma Six market!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like Hasbro/the screenwriters are banking on this being a hit with the yet untested 10-year-old Sigma Six market!

And yet, Wild Bill is in it, as is the inclusion of a Snake Eyes/Scarlett relationship.

 

Personally, I don't think it is too bad. If anything, it keeps one of the original ideas of Joe alive, the idea of a small covert ops team against a secret organization. An idea followed by Sigma Six.

 

 

What I think most fans want is a gigantic war film with dozens of people and vehicles in a gigantic battle. Which isn't going to happen, at least not on an ititial outing trying to appeal to the mass market

 

X-Men is a great example, it only has 4 members, but character development made it work. X3 is actually looking like to be the kind of film most were expecting: a big spectacle with a dozen X-Men.

 

This also leads back to a fundamental issue with the GI Joe fandom: What is the preferred deptiction of the brand? A covert ops strike force? A giant army force? A superhero team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: And why the hell does Heavy Duty and Hi Tech need to be in every Joe incarnation lately? The primary people who will be going to see a GI Joe movie (20-35 year old males) who remember the old cartoon and comics will have no idea who these people are, and will be asking "where's Roadblock and Breaker/Mainframe?" the entire time they're on screen. It seems like Hasbro/the screenwriters are banking on this being a hit with the yet untested 10-year-old Sigma Six market!

sure, they are banking on 20-35 year old males going to see the movie, but most of which don't remember anything specific about characters or comic plots. we are actually the monority of the demographic a Joe movie is aimed at, thus it will have to appeal to to a mass audience, which this script does. does it do it well? some aspects, yes, like the way it turns Joe into a small special forces team, and creates a viable enemy with the basic idea of Cobra and the Super Soldiers that will at least remind the audience of the enemy they played against. but the audience won't care that it isn't 100% accurate, because they don't remember the specifics anyway. they just remember Joe vs Cobra, and that is what they get.

 

comparing Joe to Lord of the Rings is an awful comparrison. Joe has neither the fan base, loyaly or appeal LOTR had/has/will ever have. LOTR succeeded first and foremost because it was well done. but there wasn't anything about it that needed to be drastically change dto appeal to teh audience, unlike the Joe vs Cobra story.

 

fact is the Joe mythos from the cartoon and comic will make an awful movie that will only please a small group of 20-35 year old males, which is hardly a movie worth making. this script isn't great, but it does a good job of taking the essence of some of the main characters and turning it into an idea with a far more appealing idea.

 

fact is, the majority of people going to see a Joe movie won't remember the difference between Heavy Duty and Roadblock or not know they never had a Hi-Tech toy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but the X-Men films didn't have Magneto (called "Magnet" in the film) as Wolverine's friend "Lex" who only turned evil after Sabertooth used him in a science experiment.

 

'Nuff said.

 

 

Exactly. I think you guys would be surprised at how many people remember the names of the characters from the old TV series. I'm not even talking about "specifics" - just broad character traits, like names, basic likenesses, and things like Duke NOT knowing CC as a kid.

 

I'm all for keeping it to a core team, but there's a huge nostalgia factor with a movie like this so there's no reason to include characters the audience didn't know as a kid. And obviously I'm not talking about keeping it the same as the comics or cartoon - it's a different medium so the story has to be told in a different way, but it's the same basic story. gscbr, you missed the point in comparing it to the Lord of the Rings - it was well made, yes, but it was also successful because Jackson didn't mess with the basics of the plot and characters involved. Same with the X-Men movies, which is another great example. Of course changes need to be made, but not to the extent that's been done in this take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it would be hard to understand where gi joe and cobra originated and would sound wierder than this does to non-fans. i mean the whole gi joe the movie about cc's past. they are starting from the begining, and making it relate more to the VvV toyline and consept. you know what i mean?? and if you guys didnt realize that there are way to many gi joe characters to even be introduced withing a two hour period. hopfully though they will show that their are many team members... just not a detailed look at them. the t.v series only focused on a small group per episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it would be hard to understand where gi joe and cobra originated and would sound wierder than this does to non-fans. i mean the whole gi joe the movie about cc's past. they are starting from the begining, and making it relate more to the VvV toyline and consept. you know what i mean?? and if you guys didnt realize that there are way to many gi joe characters to even be introduced withing a two hour period. hopfully though they will show that their are many team members... just not a detailed look at them. the t.v series only focused on a small group per episode.

 

 

I guess I just don't think that it's necessary to go into the origin of GI Joe and/or Cobra, especially these days. GI Joe is a special forces group, and everyone knows about these. Cobra is an international terrorist/James Bond villain-like organization, and to be honest, I think knowing Cobra and the Commander's origin is a mistake. (Ditto for Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow, and to a lesser extent, even Duke. It's better to assume Duke is the "everyman" all-American soldier, and not go into too much detail about his origin.) If TV/movie history has shown us anything, it's that cool characters and organizations with a mysterious origin aren't as interesting if we know too much about their past. Wolverine, Boba Fett, etc... They're all cooler when we don't know all that much about them. Better to leave them that way, at least for the first movie anyway.

 

Considering how well the VVV concept and toyline did, I think it'd be a mistake to base a mass-market movie on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gscbr, you missed the point in comparing it to the Lord of the Rings - it was well made, yes, but it was also successful because Jackson didn't mess with the basics of the plot and characters involved. Same with the X-Men movies, which is another great example. Of course changes need to be made, but not to the extent that's been done in this take on it.

the difference is HUGE. LOTR is a book with a specific plot and story, in which that plot and story was simply adapted from being a book to a movie.

 

G.I. Joe is not a story or a book which is being adapted. it is a movie based on a toyline about Joe vs Cobra. there is nothing to change or betray, simply an idea, that being a military team vs an enemy called Cobra, to adapt into a movie and story which will be accessible to a large movie going audience, not a bunch of man-children dedicated to the toy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the difference is HUGE. LOTR is a book with a specific plot and story, in which that plot and story was simply adapted from being a book to a movie.

 

G.I. Joe is not a story or a book which is being adapted. it is a movie based on a toyline about Joe vs Cobra. there is nothing to change or betray, simply an idea, that being a military team vs an enemy called Cobra, to adapt into a movie and story which will be accessible to a large movie going audience, not a bunch of man-children dedicated to the toy.

 

 

What?????

 

The Gi Joe that everyone relates to is not the toys per say when you think of a film being made its the Comic book or Cartoon from the 80s so there is a big story line to betray. And you could say its based on a toy line but you could say that about X-men spawn,spider man all kinds of movies, but writers dont get there ideas from the toys they get them from the comic or cartoons, but mainly from the comics of that entity.

 

There are many ways to do this. Even an origin story is not necessarily bad, most comic book movies do that to take in non-fans so they feel like they know whats going on. Such as X-men

 

But this oh Duke and Rex are best friends Oh save your friend Duke is crap. And your right Pit viper Cobras not in it Its MARs Destro's group. And Destro makes Cobra Commander what ever, Its like a bad version of the Serpentor saga.

 

Im sorry, sounds like another Spawn to me. It may be a good movie if it was not based on Gi Joe but it is so theres alot of history to stay true to. That doesn't mean you cant change things around some and still stay true, Like the new Batman movie alot was changed but it stayed very true I think and did great.

 

So what you have to ask yourself is will It be a Spawn or an X-men. There were changes in both but one did much much better, why it stayed true to the characters and to the comic.

 

So, I hope this clears things up for you gscbr. We are not a bunch of "man-children" that are blindly devoted to a toy line were devoted to the essence of GI JOE as stated in their comics and to a lesser extent cartoons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What?????

 

The Gi Joe that everyone relates to is not the toys per say when you think of a film being made its the Comic book or Cartoon from the 80s so there is a big story line to betray. And you could say its based on a toy line but you could say that about X-men spawn,spider man all kinds of movies, but writers dont get there ideas from the toys they get them from the comic or cartoons, but mainly from the comics of that entity.

 

you're wrong. there is a big difference between adapting a book and making a G.I. Joe movie simply based on the idea of a military unit that battles an evil terrorist organization.

 

a book is a story with a plot, characters and exposition already established and you take that same plot, characters and exposition and simply transfer it from paper to film, making cinematic changes where necessary. adapting a book is not the same as adapting an idea.

 

taking a single issue or series of issues of the comic and adapting them would be the same thing, but not simply taking the basic principle of the idea and making a movie out of it. I hope this EXTREMELY SIMPLE DYNAMIC is apparent to you now.

 

the purpose of this movie was to take the idea of G.I. Joe, as a special forces team, make it a small unit that would be more believeable to an audience, and face them off against an enemy that would remind viewers of the enemy they fought, keeping it Joe vs Cobra. there is not ONE story for the movie to betray, thus it has not betrayed G.I. Joe,merely created a new version of the story.

 

 

We are not a bunch of "man-children" that are blindly devoted to a toy line were devoted to the essence of GI JOE as stated in their comics and to a lesser extent cartoons.

but what if you do not like the cartoon or the comics, just the toys? then agains there is no story to betray or adapt. this is where your own argument fails, because you have two different stories, played out differently but with the same characters, again hardly the same thing as adapting LOTR.

 

this script is just a different story using the same characters in different ways, just as the cartoon and comics did. sure, the cartoon and comics had more similarities to each other than the movie does to either, butthe dynamic is the same: creating different stories and storylines with the same characters. just because you grew up with those two and like them and thus would like a movie made form those ideas or some combination of them does not change this simple dynamic between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The live action writers will NOT take material from the cartoons, or the comics, if they can help it-unless the whole thing is to be a parody.

Those materials are written down to a child readership and won't make for a good movie.

 

The very basic premise and character dynamics are the starting point here--and most of those come from the basic concept of the toys themselves.

Granted the toys have a sizable amount of continuity tacked on to them, after the fact, from the comics, but because of copyright issues with the creators of THOSE stories, its likely they will take VERY little from that material.

 

So......this production could go down almost any path and likely will not be very recognizable to fans of the cartoons or comics.

 

The audience is not going to want the very cardboard characters that are present in GIJOE, they'll want some meat to the drama--so other attributes and motivations have to be wrought for the characters in the story. This means new interplay and interwined histories for the main players and newly-contrived story-points to allow their motivations to make sense in a dramatic , yet easily understood, way.

Cobra Commander's and Snake-eye's stories are both convoluted enough as is.....so something has to give.

 

I have my doubts this film will ever come into being. Its been optioned for the past decade, has had about a half-dozen ( or more) treatments for it in that time, and nothing has gelled.

There's no real marketing reason coming up in the next couple of years to warranted the expense of such a picture( other than the event of the film itself), so that makes it just that much more unlikely.

 

But hey, projects like have happened.........Spiderman was in development at four studios for 15 years before it came out so anything can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GSCBR, I get the feeling that you're arguing for argument's sake. I mean, that story is crap. The only thing you've really been able to say is that change is good, or at least sometimes good... Fine, but why fix what isn't broken? I agree that if a movie were to be made, the concept could, and should, be updated - it wouldn't really make sense to base Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes' past in Vietnam, for example, but this whole business with Cobra Commander and Duke being best friends is a bad idea, period. Just because it's a different take doesn't mean it's a good one.

 

I have my doubts this film will ever come into being. Its been optioned for the past decade, has had about a half-dozen ( or more) treatments for it in that time, and nothing has gelled.

There's no real marketing reason coming up in the next couple of years to warranted the expense of such a picture( other than the event of the film itself), so that makes it just that much more unlikely.

 

But hey, projects like have happened.........Spiderman was in development at four studios for 15 years before it came out so anything can happen.

 

I have no doubt that there will be a GI Joe movie some day... it's too much a part of popular culture not to. People (non-fans, I mean) may not be familiar with specific characters and storylines as much as some properties, but the same could have been said about X-Men before the movies came out. GI Joe, as a franchise, is part of popular culture, and has been for several decades. That's enough of a reason to make a movie right there - people are already familiar with the name, so a lot of the marketing is done right from the get-go.

 

But I agree that it looks like they're taking their time with it. Spider-Man proved that it's better to wait 15 years until you get a good script and a good director than rush some crap out just to make a quick buck.

 

The live action writers will NOT take material from the cartoons, or the comics, if they can help it-unless the whole thing is to be a parody.

Those materials are written down to a child readership and won't make for a good movie.

 

Well, the same could have been said about Superman, or Batman, or any number of comic-book movies. To a certain point, any GI Joe movie should appeal to children, and "the child in us" (not to sound cheesy, but it's true).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

keeping it Joe vs Cobra. there is not ONE story for the movie to betray

 

How about the story of "Joe vs Cobra" itself? What we have with this script is "special forces unit" vs "terrorists". If you can't even allow yourself to keep the idea of the Joe team fighting the COBRA organization in the script then you have no buinsess writing it IMO.

 

Cobra Commander's and Snake-eye's stories are both convoluted enough as is

 

And this story where Cobra Commander only becomes evil because Destro made him evil through some Venemous Maximus storyline is better? Give me a break.

 

I'm not saying that the movie should follow the story between Cobra Commander and Snake-Eyes exactly as it was in the comics but there is no point to make up a relationship between Cobra Commander and a Joe when there are already like 15 such relationships they could have used.

 

This script reminds me of the Spider-man script that was going to have Spidey fighting "guys who are like Hydro Man and Electro". They would have the same powers as those two guys but it wouldn't be them . . . .

 

I'm sure there were people making the same "you can't expect Hollywood to cater to you over grown fanboys" arguments then too. But you know what? They made a Spider-man film that had him fighting the GREEN GOBLIN (not some guy who was like the Green Goblin but called something else) and it made a crap load of money. That film didn't have to stray 90% from the comics and neither does a Joe film.

 

All I really ask is for is this:

 

#1 The G.I. JOE team to be fighting the COBRA organization - lead by Cobra Commander - not "Cobra".

 

#2 That both the Joe and Cobra teams not have 3rd string characters and/or MADE UP characters on the roster.

 

This script can't even do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DPrime

 

GSCBR, I get the feeling that you're arguing for argument's sake. I mean, that story is crap.

 

Thats just your opinion on the Script. Ive been reding a lot of other peoples post on this and most of them like the script. There is nothing wrong with the Cobra Commander back story if you ask me. It still shows a regular guy being pushed over the edge by the system. Is that not what the comics tell us?

 

 

How about the story of "Joe vs Cobra" itself? What we have with this script is "special forces unit" vs "terrorists". If you can't even allow yourself to keep the idea of the Joe team fighting the COBRA organization in the script then you have no buinsess writing it IMO.

 

Correct me if im wrong but............ G.I. Joe an elite special missions force whose purpose to defend freedom against Cobra a ruthless terrorists organization determined to rule the world.

 

I think the Script hit the nail on the head!

 

I guess you did not feel the same way as me. There were plenty of cobra army troops in the film from start to finish. Im sure any Director that got ahold of this film would change a few things to make it more of a fan wank. The name Cobra in the Script is fine with me. Im sure he would have been called Cobra Commander in the movie.

 

Everybody has different ideas on what should be done im not saying anybody is right or wrong but this script IMO is a great start!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't they just tell the story of GI Joe from the GI Joe point of view? In other words, Cobra is in it but just as the faceless enemy they are fighting. No origin for Cobra because it isn't neccessary.

 

I'd start the movie with Cobra doing something bad. A group of generals is called in and they decide to start up a covert force to attempt to take out Cobra and pick Hawk to lead it. Then we cut to Hawk in the PITT reviewing his choices for the team so we get a little intro to the Joes (who should be a small number, including Duke, Snake Eyes, Flint, Lady Jaye, Scarlett, Stalker, etc.)

 

After seeing the Joes training, then detail the Joes first mission to take out Cobra, which goes horribly wrong. In a helicopter crash Snake Eyes loses his face but they continue the mission.

They take out the Cobra instillation, but don't catch CC.

 

Then showing how Snake Eyes is dealing with the loss of his face, etc and the introduction of his black outfit and mask.

 

And a second and final mission that stops the Cobra threat. CC is captured alive (he'll need to be alive for a sequel!).

 

The end.

 

Is something like that so hard to do? We get Joe, we get Cobra, we get the personal interactions that make for a good movie, and we get to focus on Snake Eyes in the first film as the bad ass we all know and love. Sounds simple enough to me.

 

And for the people who ignorantly continue to argue that the movie cannot be based on the comics/cartoon, I'd ask you to look at the direction the Transformers movie is going in. For all that is known, that one will be a faithful retelling of the basic origin from the comics/cartoons. Why can't GI Joe do the same?

 

Louis

 

Louis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DPrime

 

GSCBR, I get the feeling that you're arguing for argument's sake. I mean, that story is crap.

 

Thats just your opinion on the Script. Ive been reding a lot of other peoples post on this and most of them like the script. There is nothing wrong with the Cobra Commander back story if you ask me. It still shows a regular guy being pushed over the edge by the system. Is that not want the comics tell us?

 

Sorry, but it's not just my opinion buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that there will be a GI Joe movie some day... it's too much a part of popular culture not to. People (non-fans, I mean) may not be familiar with specific characters and storylines as much as some properties, but the same could have been said about X-Men before the movies came out. GI Joe, as a franchise, is part of popular culture, and has been for several decades. That's enough of a reason to make a movie right there - people are already familiar with the name, so a lot of the marketing is done right from the get-go

 

The name is known, but the internal nuances and story are another matter. GIJOE has a lot of renditions; The original 12" figures, the Adventure Team, RAH, SuperJoe, GIJOE Extreme and now Sigma Six--there's a LOT of brand confusion in all that and a LOT of different associations.

 

What adds to this are some broad premises. The enemy in the RAH story is, for the most part, intended to be a faceless enemy. That makes for pretty poor drama, as it makes the villains some what boring, and very cartoonish. It WORKS in a cartoon and a comic because its broad, but in a live-action film the gimmick is much harder to pull off.

 

 

 

Cobra Commander's and Snake-eye's stories are both convoluted enough as is

 

 

And this story where Cobra Commander only becomes evil because Destro made him evil through some Venemous Maximus storyline is better? Give me a break.

I think you missed my point.

The motivations and circumstances that foment these characters gets quite complex and convoluted in the original and derivative storylines.

A good example of this kind of thing working out to advantage is the fiurst Batman movie--where-in the younger Jack Napier ( Joker) is the man who kills Batman's parents--not Joe Chill as in the comics. Likewise, Peter Parker having organic web-shooters in his wrists makes a whole lot more story sense for a film, than him building mechanical webshooters. The premises have been streamlined and simplified for cinema.

 

 

 

(ARROW @ Apr 16 2006, 11:33 PM)

 

The live action writers will NOT take material from the cartoons, or the comics, if they can help it-unless the whole thing is to be a parody.

Those materials are written down to a child readership and won't make for a good movie.

 

 

 

Well, the same could have been said about Superman, or Batman, or any number of comic-book movies. To a certain point, any GI Joe movie should appeal to children, and "the child in us" (not to sound cheesy, but it's true).

 

Again, my point was missed. DIRECT lifting of material from the cartoons and comics will be avoided. Inference to the comics, homages are more sensible. X-men is a good example because X-men carries a LOT of story baggage.

The Superman and Batman film build off their original premises for the sake of cinema. In the Superman comics, Jor-El was not an adjudicator, he was purely a scientist. There was no mention of General Zod and the Phantom Zone villains until much much later in the comics--and even then, they were not tied into the origin story. In this case, adding them as conflict tightens the story for cinema and makes it more accessible.

 

If the GI-JOE film has a character like Shipwreck, he's likely to NOT be as corny as he is in the cartoons and comics--he's likely to me more caustic than comedic. Again the idea is to attract as wide as possible an audience to what is essentially a children's property.

 

 

And for the people who ignorantly continue to argue that the movie cannot be based on the comics/cartoon, I'd ask you to look at the direction the Transformers movie is going in. For all that is known, that one will be a faithful retelling of the basic origin from the comics/cartoons. Why can't GI Joe do the same?

 

I would hardly say I'm ignorant of the movie-making process. I've worked in the animation industry for over 20 years.

 

The Transfomer movie script is UNKNOWN at this time. There's bound to be significant changes to the story as you know it, and even some changes to the basic premise. Cinema works that way--and its unavoidable.

 

Films like TMNT, Rocketeer, The Superhero flicks, Ghost World, American Splendor, V for Vendetta, Super Mario Bros. All the toy/cartoon and comic based films have been altered from their original story/concept materials to accomodate cinema. The films are meant to stand-alone to the other materials--for a host of reasons ( legal, marketing and otherwise) and thus things will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote"you're wrong. there is a big difference between adapting a book and making a G.I. Joe movie simply based on the idea of a military unit that battles an evil terrorist organization.

 

a book is a story with a plot, characters and exposition already established and you take that same plot, characters and exposition and simply transfer it from paper to film, making cinematic changes where necessary. adapting a book is not the same as adapting an idea.

 

taking a single issue or series of issues of the comic and adapting them would be the same thing, but not simply taking the basic principle of the idea and making a movie out of it. I hope this EXTREMELY SIMPLE DYNAMIC is apparent to you now.<quote >

 

Every comic book move is based on the comic book, not the toy line Im not and have not been saying it should be a direct copy of the comic, but it should stay true to its roots, as all good comic movies do.

 

So Am I wrong, Were did the Spider- man movie come from a book, or X-men,or batman,superman or any other super hero movie. They all came from comic books. They all have had toys before the movie so the your argument about not liking the comic but the toys can still be made. But its not a strong point, there are toys for everything. But most movies arent based on them. There based on established material.

 

What i was trying to say is that the movie should not just be base on the toys but on the spirt of GI. joe as seen in the comics as with all good comic book movies,and this movies not.I IT won't be made this way and hopefully the new script will be better.

 

I hope my EXTREMELY SIMPLE way of explaining it to you can be understood. I hate to be aggressive, but if you keep insulting every one and talking down to us your going to get it back.

 

But in the end it dosent matter, cause i dont think you care or will listen. I think Dprime was right you just argueing to be argueing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that there will be a GI Joe movie some day... it's too much a part of popular culture not to. People (non-fans, I mean) may not be familiar with specific characters and storylines as much as some properties, but the same could have been said about X-Men before the movies came out. GI Joe, as a franchise, is part of popular culture, and has been for several decades. That's enough of a reason to make a movie right there - people are already familiar with the name, so a lot of the marketing is done right from the get-go

 

The name is known, but the internal nuances and story are another matter. GIJOE has a lot of renditions; The original 12" figures, the Adventure Team, RAH, SuperJoe, GIJOE Extreme and now Sigma Six--there's a LOT of brand confusion in all that and a LOT of different associations.

 

What adds to this are some broad premises. The enemy in the RAH story is, for the most part, intended to be a faceless enemy. That makes for pretty poor drama, as it makes the villains some what boring, and very cartoonish. It WORKS in a cartoon and a comic because its broad, but in a live-action film the gimmick is much harder to pull off.

 

We're arguing different points here. I actually agree with your first point - but what I meant is that from a marketing point of view, the name is already in the lexicon of the North American and European movie-going public. It's not so much about knowing the specific characters and storyline - I doubt very much that 95% of the people who went to the Spider-Man movie knew anything about the various characters and villains that were in the movie, other than Spider-Man himself, and even then they knew very, very little. What really counted, from a revenue point of view, was that people were familiar enough with the NAME Spider-Man to be interested in the movie, because it's such a prominent part of popular culture.

 

And I disagree with you about the villains completely. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "faceless" - whether you meant it literally (ie: Cobra Troopers, Cobra Commander) or in the sense that they mostly work behind the scenes... Either way I think you're off on this point. There's enough of them "non-masked" characters like Mindbender and the Baroness to get some potentially good performances out of them, and literally "faceless" villains can be incredibly well done - look at Darth Vader/Stormtroopers or the interchangeable Nazi soldiers from any Indiana Jones or WWII movie. In many ways it's a more effective way to portray faceless, souless evil, which is at the heart of a movie like this.

 

Again, my point was missed. DIRECT lifting of material from the cartoons and comics will be avoided. Inference to the comics, homages are more sensible. X-men is a good example because X-men carries a LOT of story baggage.

The Superman and Batman film build off their original premises for the sake of cinema. In the Superman comics, Jor-El was not an adjudicator, he was purely a scientist. There was no mention of General Zod and the Phantom Zone villains until much much later in the comics--and even then, they were not tied into the origin story. In this case, adding them as conflict tightens the story for cinema and makes it more accessible.

 

If the GI-JOE film has a character like Shipwreck, he's likely to NOT be as corny as he is in the cartoons and comics--he's likely to me more caustic than comedic. Again the idea is to attract as wide as possible an audience to what is essentially a children's property.

 

No, your point was not missed. If you'll reread my post on the matter I fully admit and expect to see some changes. Obviously a direct translation from comic/cartoon to movie would never work - it'd be horrible. But a major change like having CC know Duke just isn't necessary - I know what the writers were trying to achieve with it, but it's just corny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Find Action Figures on Ebay

×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE