Hollywierd v1 GiJoe

[Valdin]

I still think Bobby Lashley from wwe would make a good Roadblock. I could definetly see Jessica biel as lady jaye. What about Christian Bale as Flint? And I still can't think of someone who would make a good Gung-Ho.

[Viper Hunter]

I still can't think of someone who would make a good Gung-Ho.

 

 

How's about ol' Matthew McConaughey?

 

 

[RobbieDigital]

I still think Bobby Lashley from wwe would make a good Roadblock. I could definetly see Jessica biel as lady jaye. What about Christian Bale as Flint? And I still can't think of someone who would make a good Gung-Ho.

 

 

Please no Pro Wrestlers........

[joefreak]

How about Jamal Duff ( dodge ball, The game plan) as roadblock? he's been in a few movies now and he's 6'8".

[Valdin]

How about Jamal Duff ( dodge ball, The game plan) as roadblock? he's been in a few movies now and he's 6'8".

He is an excellent choice. I don't know how to add pics here but I can send link with his pics

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1410687/

Here's a guy who was in Dodgball with him, that looks like a shoe in for flint Kevin Porter

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1049174/

Now I do like the choice if Jamal Duff, I was checking out pics and saw this guy: Morris Chestnut

Tell me what you think

Morris Chestnut http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0297162/hpd...7162&seq=13

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004820/

[pesatyel]

I have to wonder what is it that makes G.I. Joe what it is?

 

Is it REALLY going to "destroy G.I. Joe" to have the characters wear what modern military personnel wear? Or is it a REQUIREMENT that Quick Kick wear nothing but pants and a sash or Bazooka wear a football shirt, for example. Would Quick Kick and Bazooka, wearing modern army outfits suddenly NOT be Quick Kick and Bazooka?

 

There was another thread about which tv/movie characters and/or actors would fit into G.I. Joe. A few people said the Predator characters would work. Why? Billy wasn't wearing a blue shirt and khaki pants with Indian motifs. Mac wasn't dressed in a green tank top and brown pants with a .50 cal. They wore "regular" military outfits (albeit Hollywood exaggerated). It was the CHARACTERS that made them.

 

Would it even BE necessary to include "odd" characters like Quick Kick, to continue the example? Take a look at the figures. Most of them have relatively realistic looks.

 

Just WHAT would be a "necessary minimum" for a G.I. Joe movie to BE a G.I. Joe movie?

 

Characters? I can only think of 6 that I think would be required: Duke, Scarlett OR Lady Jaye, Snake Eyes, Cobra Commander, Destro and Baroness. And which itteration of the characters? The toon and comic versions were similar, generally, but for examples like Bazooka.

 

 

 

The MacGuffin? Probably. Cobra has had some weird ideas. Is that necessary, as in truly outlandish ideas? The Weather Dominator or maybe the MASS Device sound plausible, but the Synthoids, not so much (to go by previous examples).

 

How did Reloaded work?

 

The American Angle? This might be the touchiest and even most signifcant issue. Is it 100% necessary that G.I. Joe be a total "Real American Hero"? I get the impression, though I may be wrong, that some of the people that are complaining about that aspect want it in an almost "in your face" reminder. that G.I. Joe is a REAL AMERICAN HERO. Don't forget that. But to play Devil's Advocate a bit, is that necessary? Would it change anything if the team was under the auspice of the U.N. or Interpol (or some other made up global organization) instead of being a strictly American military unit? If the characters, locations (for the most part) and events are "accurate" why would it matter? Or is the argument that, if G.I. Joe is multi-national agency, it would necessitate multi-national characters? And if that's the case, is that a BAD thing? What about the Oktober Guard?

[Viper Hunter]

Is it 100% necessary that G.I. Joe be a total "Real American Hero"? I get the impression, though I may be wrong, that some of the people that are complaining about that aspect want it in an almost "in your face" reminder. that G.I. Joe is a REAL AMERICAN HERO. Don't forget that.

 

 

No, you're wrong on that. That's the kind of attitude the Hollywood apologists are working off of, in thinking that's how we embarrassing type Americans think, and they're going to show everyone else that they don't think like us arrogant PROUD folks, who like to SHOVE our pride in being AMERICANS in foreigners face, and they'll tone down all that hyperbole rhetoric like what's demonstrated in our G.I.Joe cartoons and comic books.

 

How can we be guilty of such an accusation, when we're merely wanting to keep G.I.Joe as it is, no more, no LESS? We're concerned about the LESSENING aspect of their proposition, not asking for MORE of it. There's a difference.

 

They're showing embarrassment towards it, and wanting to mellow it out a bit, and we're (I'M) saying that's BULL, and it needs to remain. If Hollywood is just interested in making a movie based on the toys and the story of ARAH G.I.Joe, then run with it as is and stop playing politics with the characters patriotic essence and American culture. "Fighting for freedom WHEREVER there's trouble!" Yeah, that's those cocky Americans for ya, trying to POLICE the world again! That's what Hollywood is telling us won't fly anymore, even with a CARTOON fictional character(s) we created. To Hollywood...it's like the phrase "A Real American HERO" is too much of a contradiction of itself, nobody buys it, and nobody will humor the thought enough to go see a movie of them, if they use that tagline?

 

 

But to play Devil's Advocate a bit, is that necessary? Would it change anything if the team was under the auspice of the U.N. or Interpol (or some other made up global organization) instead of being a strictly American military unit? If the characters, locations (for the most part) and events are "accurate" why would it matter? Or is the argument that, if G.I. Joe is multi-national agency, it would necessitate multi-national characters? And if that's the case, is that a BAD thing? What about the Oktober Guard?

 

You brought up Oktober Guard, and there's the point right there. G.I.Joe ARAH has ALREADY incorporated the help and assistance of Non-American based organizations, in the effort to fight Cobra. There's no membership EXCLUSIVE attitude out of G.I.Joe in fighting Cobra. The idea behind G.I.Joe is that they WILL look after ANYONE, ANYWHERE if Cobra is threatening. It isn't REAL WORLD terrorism at work here, where if it was, Cobra would be buddying up to the Soviets or communists, wheeling and dealing with world leaders and plotting along WITH them, in order to take out the Joes, so Cobra can then take over the world, and they're not going to have Russia or China played out like that in such a movie, inferring that they're corrupt and could be BOUGHT by such a fiendish organization. No....in the ARAH mythos, it's usually COBRA against the WORLD and the Joes are there to save the day, and even with the aid and assistance of other organizations about the globe. That's COOL, and it can be the same for the movie, even by keeping the story about A REAL AMERICAN HERO'S, not REAL INTERNATIONAL HERO'S.

 

Once again, even though George Bush won't be the President anymore by the time this movie comes out, the attitude in Hollywood is that they are NOT..in no way shape or form, going to make a movie that would somehow show an AMERICAN based team of expert terrorist fighters actually doing a GOOD job of it, and therefore somehow reflecting a positive light on the Bush administration, which is all these liberal pricks are thinking such a portrayal of our capabilities in this field (fighting terrorists) would do.

 

Sure, you can say I'm putting too much behind what they're proposing, it's just a movie and they're just interested in making as much profit off of it as possible, no harm no foul intended in their ideas for it.

 

Why would they think keeping it A REAL AMERICAN (especially since that's what it IS..ARAH! )would hurt that profitabilty? Isn't that just playing politics and trying to hide what they've deemed FOR US is a skelton in the closet....so-to-speak?

 

I want the movie to be FUN! I want lots of ACTION! I want to be as impressed with the outrageous and eccentric characterizations of these uniques and indivdual characters as what I was when I first read Larry Hama's descriptions of them on a filecard. I don't want a PLATOON version of G.I.Joe, I don't want a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN version either. It's a tough one to haul in I think, and it's going to be tough to put it all together and not have another STREET FIGHTER, but with todays technology, they could REDO that SF crap and actually make it rock, same for G.I.Joe, even with keeping all the goofy outfits and the FUN-FILLED nature in which these GUNG-HO soldiers go about the task of using their individual talents to kick COBRA'S BUTT!!

 

I don't want a bunch of Joes hiding in a fox hole, crying because they didn't sign up for this sh@#, they only have 10 more days on their tour of duty and smoked too much weed earlier and are scared sh@#less!

 

G.I.Joe LOVES this sh@#...that's why they're here! Is that too cocky, arrogant and typical of an American attitude that Hollywood thinks we have to hide now? I don't think so!

 

 

#US1# Yo Joe!

[pesatyel]

Is it 100% necessary that G.I. Joe be a total "Real American Hero"? I get the impression, though I may be wrong, that some of the people that are complaining about that aspect want it in an almost "in your face" reminder. that G.I. Joe is a REAL AMERICAN HERO. Don't forget that.

 

 

No, you're wrong on that. That's the kind of attitude the Hollywood apologists are working off of, in thinking that's how we embarrassing type Americans think, and they're going to show everyone else that they don't think like us arrogant PROUD folks, who like to SHOVE our pride in being AMERICANS in foreigners face, and they'll tone down all that hyperbole rhetoric like what's demonstrated in our G.I.Joe cartoons and comic books.

 

How can we be guilty of such an accusation, when we're merely wanting to keep G.I.Joe as it is, no more, no LESS? We're concerned about the LESSENING aspect of their proposition, not asking for MORE of it. There's a difference.

 

They're showing embarrassment towards it, and wanting to mellow it out a bit, and we're (I'M) saying that's BULL, and it needs to remain. If Hollywood is just interested in making a movie based on the toys and the story of ARAH G.I.Joe, then run with it as is and stop playing politics with the characters patriotic essence and American culture. "Fighting for freedom WHEREVER there's trouble!" Yeah, that's those cocky Americans for ya, trying to POLICE the world again! That's what Hollywood is telling us won't fly anymore, even with a CARTOON fictional character(s) we created. To Hollywood...it's like the phrase "A Real American HERO" is too much of a contradiction of itself, nobody buys it, and nobody will humor the thought enough to go see a movie of them, if they use that tagline?

 

 

But to play Devil's Advocate a bit, is that necessary? Would it change anything if the team was under the auspice of the U.N. or Interpol (or some other made up global organization) instead of being a strictly American military unit? If the characters, locations (for the most part) and events are "accurate" why would it matter? Or is the argument that, if G.I. Joe is multi-national agency, it would necessitate multi-national characters? And if that's the case, is that a BAD thing? What about the Oktober Guard?

 

You brought up Oktober Guard, and there's the point right there. G.I.Joe ARAH has ALREADY incorporated the help and assistance of Non-American based organizations, in the effort to fight Cobra. There's no membership EXCLUSIVE attitude out of G.I.Joe in fighting Cobra. The idea behind G.I.Joe is that they WILL look after ANYONE, ANYWHERE if Cobra is threatening. It isn't REAL WORLD terrorism at work here, where if it was, Cobra would be buddying up to the Soviets or communists, wheeling and dealing with world leaders and plotting along WITH them, in order to take out the Joes, so Cobra can then take over the world, and they're not going to have Russia or China played out like that in such a movie, inferring that they're corrupt and could be BOUGHT by such a fiendish organization. No....in the ARAH mythos, it's usually COBRA against the WORLD and the Joes are there to save the day, and even with the aid and assistance of other organizations about the globe. That's COOL, and it can be the same for the movie, even by keeping the story about A REAL AMERICAN HERO'S, not REAL INTERNATIONAL HERO'S.

 

Once again, even though George Bush won't be the President anymore by the time this movie comes out, the attitude in Hollywood is that they are NOT..in no way shape or form, going to make a movie that would somehow show an AMERICAN based team of expert terrorist fighters actually doing a GOOD job of it, and therefore somehow reflecting a positive light on the Bush administration, which is all these liberal pricks are thinking such a portrayal of our capabilities in this field (fighting terrorists) would do.

 

Sure, you can say I'm putting too much behind what they're proposing, it's just a movie and they're just interested in making as much profit off of it as possible, no harm no foul intended in their ideas for it.

 

Why would they think keeping it A REAL AMERICAN (especially since that's what it IS..ARAH! )would hurt that profitabilty? Isn't that just playing politics and trying to hide what they've deemed FOR US is a skelton in the closet....so-to-speak?

 

I want the movie to be FUN! I want lots of ACTION! I want to be as impressed with the outrageous and eccentric characterizations of these uniques and indivdual characters as what I was when I first read Larry Hama's descriptions of them on a filecard. I don't want a PLATOON version of G.I.Joe, I don't want a SAVING PRIVATE RYAN version either. It's a tough one to haul in I think, and it's going to be tough to put it all together and not have another STREET FIGHTER, but with todays technology, they could REDO that SF crap and actually make it rock, same for G.I.Joe, even with keeping all the goofy outfits and the FUN-FILLED nature in which these GUNG-HO soldiers go about the task of using their individual talents to kick COBRA'S BUTT!!

 

I don't want a bunch of Joes hiding in a fox hole, crying because they didn't sign up for this sh@#, they only have 10 more days on their tour of duty and smoked too much weed earlier and are scared sh@#less!

 

G.I.Joe LOVES this sh@#...that's why they're here! Is that too cocky, arrogant and typical of an American attitude that Hollywood thinks we have to hide now? I don't think so!

 

 

#US1# Yo Joe!

 

I respect your views but, here, I think your just whining. You didn't even answer my questions. Where they TOO hypothetical?

 

I suppose my logic is askew since I don't give a rat's ass about Bush's administration (with regards to a G.I. Joe movie). I don't see how politics needs to be an issue. How much did it play in Black Hawk Down, Full Metal Jacket, Jarhead or Courage Under Fire? Maybe it did a lot? I don't believe so. Even to some extent The Kingdom. I don't think it's going to be a significant effect, but it will be interesting to see when the movie comes out.

 

Okay, not entirely true. You DID imply G.I. Joe shouldn't be under the auspice of the UN or Interpol or whatever.

 

So G.I. Joe can be G.I. Joe WITHOUT the "in your face" rhetoric? That's all *I'm* aksing.

[I AM SCI-FI]

Why have so many people lost respect for the "ARTISTIC INTEGRITY" of established characters artist/creator?

Why can't these individuals leave creators work as the creator intended?

How would these individuals like it if they created a fictional character(s), that became famous for the parameters they established for their character(s), then some Hollywood director and his writers come along and defile their creation when making it into a movie?

I know I wouldn't.

I don't know why I question why people have no respect for others "ARTISTIC INTEGRITY" when it seems that a lot of these same individuals have lost all forms of their own "integrity". I'm not singling anyone out anyone on these boards, mind you, because I don't personally know any of you. Please, keep that in mind before anyone thinks I'm attacking them, personally.

[Viper Hunter]

I respect your views but, here, I think your just whining.

 

 

@lol@ If that's your idea of "respect" I'd hate to piss ya off and earn your disrespect!!

 

 

 

 

You didn't even answer my questions. Where they TOO hypothetical?

 

 

No, not at all ya little wiseass, (affectionately speaking) I merely focused on the comments that I wanted to add my own thoughts to. I wasn't breaking down your entire post, hell i wasn't even being critical of you, just the line of thought you were "advocating". I'm pissed at Hollywood. You appeared to be playing the "devils advocate" in questioning what's wrong with their ideas and I focused on that, not you personally.

 

 

I suppose my logic is askew since I don't give a rat's ass about Bush's administration (with regards to a G.I. Joe movie). I don't see how politics needs to be an issue. How much did it play in Black Hawk Down, Full Metal Jacket, Jarhead or Courage Under Fire? Maybe it did a lot? I don't believe so. Even to some extent The Kingdom.

 

WOW! You don't think real life politics played ANY role in any of those movies you've cited?

 

G.I.Joe isn't (and SHOULDN'T be) even in the same league or category as those movies you listed, and that's why I don't give a rats ass about Hollywoods apparent political CONCERNS over the "Real American Hero" identification aspect for this movie, and how it MIGHT affect profits if the characters and their story they're wanting to use, has too much "in your face" patriotism? G.I.Joe (ARAH) SHOULDN'T ever be politicized, but it's obvious that it is and will be (by Hollywood) going by the articles/comments made by the producers, who are making the noted changes for some worldwide foreign acceptability and popularity sake? I'm not making it "political"...THEY are, and I'm giving reasons as to why they don't need to do that. Are you even reading all my comments, or are you skimming and missing a lot? let me guess, they're too LONG? @lol@ I have a tendency to elaborate a little TOO MUCH?

 

 

Okay, not entirely true. You DID imply G.I. Joe shouldn't be under the auspice of the UN or Interpol or whatever.

 

I'd say I MORE than "implied" it! If Hollywood wants to suck the asses of those in the world who they think MIGHT object to a movie about our REAL AMERICAN HEROS for being "TOO AMERICAN" and therefore immediately be disliked and disregarded by the international film society (or just plain movie-goers) then that's THEIR political spin on it, and that's just wrong to think they have to do. If they think the Joes need DEsegragated as just American hero's, then have the Joes team up with additional international organizations, hell MAKE SOME UP if they have to, but going thru the UN (as though THAT'S less offensive?) is ridiculous, and a slap in the face of Americans, considering what a worthless pile of sh@# the UN is anyway. Talk about an organization with blood on it's hands....they're worse than COBRA!

 

So G.I. Joe can be G.I. Joe WITHOUT the "in your face" rhetoric? That's all *I'm* aksing.

 

What I don't understand is...just what the hell is it, that's being categorized as "in your face rhetoric" with regards to G.I.JOE ARAH? Too much flag waving? To many references to the word AMERICA? Too much Gung Ho-ism? What is it exactly, that's too much of it, that you think is offensive or others might find offensive?

 

Is it REALLY going to "destroy G.I. Joe" to have the characters wear what modern military personnel wear? Or is it a REQUIREMENT that Quick Kick wear nothing but pants and a sash or Bazooka wear a football shirt, for example. Would Quick Kick and Bazooka, wearing modern army outfits suddenly NOT be Quick Kick and Bazooka?

 

They need to have their comic book/cartoon outfits on.

 

 

There was another thread about which tv/movie characters and/or actors would fit into G.I. Joe. A few people said the Predator characters would work. Why? Billy wasn't wearing a blue shirt and khaki pants with Indian motifs. Mac wasn't dressed in a green tank top and brown pants with a .50 cal. They wore "regular" military outfits (albeit Hollywood exaggerated). It was the CHARACTERS that made them.

 

We always make comparisons to great movies and how some of the great characters i nthem, could work for a G.I.Joe character. Blains character was VERY G.I.Joe-ish, with the hat, the ridiculously heavy gatlin gun and his MTV t-shirt, plus his whole demeaner was cool like the Joes. "I ain't got time to bleed" He could very easily be a Recondo in my Joe world with more of a Gung Ho type attitude, but that's the thing we chat about, in regards to movies like this and comparing it to our own personal G.I.Joe world.

 

Aliens & Starship Troopers even get brought up in discussion, but would we want the REAL Joe movie to be THAT SCI FI oriented, in space, on another planet, fighting aliens? NO! Even though that gimmick was added in for the toys, it would be stupid for the movie.

 

 

Would it even BE necessary to include "odd" characters like Quick Kick, to continue the example? Take a look at the figures. Most of them have relatively realistic looks.

 

Just WHAT would be a "necessary minimum" for a G.I. Joe movie to BE a G.I. Joe movie?

 

Characters? I can only think of 6 that I think would be required: Duke, Scarlett OR Lady Jaye, Snake Eyes, Cobra Commander, Destro and Baroness. And which itteration of the characters? The toon and comic versions were similar, generally, but for examples like Bazooka.

 

There's no way in hell they can use ALL the characters in this two hour plus movie, so yeah, a limitation is going to have to be factored in and if it means no Quick Kick or Bazooka, I couldn't care less, but I don't want freaking Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow hoggin' up the screen time either, as I sick of all that BS between them two.

 

 

There, I think that covers the other questions you asked, but I doubt my opinion will be taken as anything besides MORE "whining" simply because I'm sticking to my guns on this issue and my contempt for Hollywoods f@#king around with it, because of THEIR politics, not mine and not the JOES. Hollywood is the one that's claiming America sucks and we better hide that fact, even if it's a movie about, well gee, let's see.....G.I.JOE A REAL AMERICAN HERO!

 

G.I.Joe can go after Cobra as AMERICANS...based in AMERICA, and hiding behind the UN isn't going to make that go down any better, for those that might find it a bitter pill to swallow from us arrogant, flag waving, war mongering, oil hungry, war starting AMERICANS! It's just a comic book story with neat toys.

[Viper Hunter]

Captain AMERICA was killed off, and G.I.Joe when soon have their AMERICAN nationality covered up and stuck away in the closet, along with our flag! @grumpy@

 

 

Cap didn't even get a chance to lose the stripes and replace the A with a UN...

 

 

 

 

 

[pesatyel]

I respect your views but, here, I think your just whining.

 

 

@lol@ If that's your idea of "respect" I'd hate to piss ya off and earn your disrespect!!

 

No, I do. I just felt that post was whining is all.

 

 

Those movies I mentioned, yeah, I'm sure they had "politicized" aspects, but I don't think it interfered with the movie. I get the impression that is what you are worried about for G.I. Joe.

 

As for the "in your face rhetoric", well, I actually have no idea. I've had the impression they simply want to, at best "tone down" the Joes being an American military unit. Or, worse, making them multi-national (which would, probably, mean making everybody from different countries or some crap). But, again, to be honest, I don't know WHAT all the hoopla is. I didn't (or otherwise ignored) political crap in those other movies. I don't see that as being a major problem here, but what do I know.

 

 

Is it REALLY going to "destroy G.I. Joe" to have the characters wear what modern military personnel wear? Or is it a REQUIREMENT that Quick Kick wear nothing but pants and a sash or Bazooka wear a football shirt, for example. Would Quick Kick and Bazooka, wearing modern army outfits suddenly NOT be Quick Kick and Bazooka?

 

They need to have their comic book/cartoon outfits on.

 

Why? The X-Men had "team" uniforms. Why not the Joes? Is it that the X-Men are/were more popular?

 

There was another thread about which tv/movie characters and/or actors would fit into G.I. Joe. A few people said the Predator characters would work. Why? Billy wasn't wearing a blue shirt and khaki pants with Indian motifs. Mac wasn't dressed in a green tank top and brown pants with a .50 cal. They wore "regular" military outfits (albeit Hollywood exaggerated). It was the CHARACTERS that made them.

 

We always make comparisons to great movies and how some of the great characters i nthem, could work for a G.I.Joe character. Blains character was VERY G.I.Joe-ish, with the hat, the ridiculously heavy gatlin gun and his MTV t-shirt, plus his whole demeaner was cool like the Joes. "I ain't got time to bleed" He could very easily be a Recondo in my Joe world with more of a Gung Ho type attitude, but that's the thing we chat about, in regards to movies like this and comparing it to our own personal G.I.Joe world.

 

Aliens & Starship Troopers even get brought up in discussion, but would we want the REAL Joe movie to be THAT SCI FI oriented, in space, on another planet, fighting aliens? NO! Even though that gimmick was added in for the toys, it would be stupid for the movie.

 

I agree about Aliens and such (main reason I didn't mention them). And my comment dealt more with the "clothing" issue. The Predator characters didn't have to have "G.I. Joe style outfits". They wore "normal" military outfits. So why not Duke, Stalker, Flint and Gung-Ho?

 

 

Would it even BE necessary to include "odd" characters like Quick Kick, to continue the example? Take a look at the figures. Most of them have relatively realistic looks.

 

Just WHAT would be a "necessary minimum" for a G.I. Joe movie to BE a G.I. Joe movie?

 

Characters? I can only think of 6 that I think would be required: Duke, Scarlett OR Lady Jaye, Snake Eyes, Cobra Commander, Destro and Baroness. And which itteration of the characters? The toon and comic versions were similar, generally, but for examples like Bazooka.

 

There's no way in hell they can use ALL the characters in this two hour plus movie, so yeah, a limitation is going to have to be factored in and if it means no Quick Kick or Bazooka, I couldn't care less, but I don't want freaking Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow hoggin' up the screen time either, as I sick of all that BS between them two.

 

 

There, I think that covers the other questions you asked, but I doubt my opinion will be taken as anything besides MORE "whining" simply because I'm sticking to my guns on this issue and my contempt for Hollywoods f@#king around with it, because of THEIR politics, not mine and not the JOES. Hollywood is the one that's claiming America sucks and we better hide that fact, even if it's a movie about, well gee, let's see.....G.I.JOE A REAL AMERICAN HERO!

 

G.I.Joe can go after Cobra as AMERICANS...based in AMERICA, and hiding behind the UN isn't going to make that go down any better, for those that might find it a bitter pill to swallow from us arrogant, flag waving, war mongering, oil hungry, war starting AMERICANS! It's just a comic book story with neat toys.

 

Not more whining, no. You answered all but one of my questions (IMO).

 

And that was:

 

Just WHAT would be a "necessary minimum" for a G.I. Joe movie to BE a G.I. Joe movie?

 

I guess, basically, how would YOU do it?

 

And I agree about Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. This is G.I. Joe (or G.I. Joe vs Cobra) not Snake Eyes vs Storm Shadow with some other G.I. Joe characters.

[Viper Hunter]

I respect your views but, here, I think your just whining.

 

 

@lol@ If that's your idea of "respect" I'd hate to piss ya off and earn your disrespect!!

 

No, I do. I just felt that post was whining is all.

 

 

Well, it's pretty common knowledge that I have my more than fair share of complaints and things to b!tch about, and get labeled the "nay-sayer" more often than anything resembling a "fanboy"!

 

I think there's a big difference though, between "whining" and being critical and complaining/b!tching about this movie deal and how Hollywood is proposing to implement it, onto the big screen.

 

Whining, is more like "I can't find all the Joooooes because of scaaaaalpers" "My Walmart suuuucks!" "you guys are ruining the fun for meeeee" @cry@ and other little personal gripes & grievances as such.

 

 

Those movies I mentioned, yeah, I'm sure they had "politicized" aspects, but I don't think it interfered with the movie. I get the impression that is what you are worried about for G.I. Joe.

 

I think the little "political" slants on some of those movies DID interfere with them. Hollywood (once again) uses movie making as they're own little personal podium for political commentary and personal editiorial on whatever subject they think we need educated on. There's enough slant in those drama's and presentation of the "facts" that lean in either negative or positive ways to show light on a subject or to darken it depending on how THEY want to affect us or our thinking on it.

 

Yes...I'm worried and P!SSED OFF that Hollywood is making excuses for why they don't think the story of G.I.Joe the REAL AMERICAN HERO as it is...would be popular to the international community. Using the excuse that we're unpopular right now, because of our politics and our war on terror in the REAL world right now, a movie about a cartoon/comic book bunch of AMERICAN HERO'S fighting "terrorism" wouldn't be prudent!

 

That's politicizing our G.I.Joe mythos and that's what i don't want! It's not necessary and I think it stinks that they're playing around with the story like that, for the reasons they're citing.

 

 

As for the "in your face rhetoric", well, I actually have no idea. I've had the impression they simply want to, at best "tone down" the Joes being an American military unit. Or, worse, making them multi-national (which would, probably, mean making everybody from different countries or some crap). But, again, to be honest, I don't know WHAT all the hoopla is. I didn't (or otherwise ignored) political crap in those other movies. I don't see that as being a major problem here, but what do I know.

 

G.I.Joe isn't fighting terrorism at the hands of radical Islamics. They're not fighting anything even REMOTELY to that. They're fighting the Cobra organization and for all intents and purposes, they're no different for any other comic book style villain like Red Skull, Lex Luther or the Joker, only along with the main (and numerous) head honchos...they have a vast ARMY. They're not even glorifying the issue of being AMERICAN over and above ANY other nationality, as Cobra is even more Americanized than being from another country, like we had SPECTER (from the James Bond movies) being mostly the communistic/Soviet group, realting to the times and our fears during the cold war era. Those no REASON for anybody to think we're making a statement AGAINST another nation in how this ARAH story fights the villains of COBRA.

 

G.I.Joe has never presented COBRA as something REAL, or based off of REAL terrorist groups. What...Hollywood thinks it's too much for the world wide audience to think that if one of our OWN (Cobra Commander) was to flip out and threaten other nations in his quest for domination and power, that we'd go after him to STOP him, rather than us thinking something like "well hell, as long as it's just China or Korea, let'em destroy them. We only PROTECT the U.S." @firedevil@ ???? Now all of a sudden, they're going to play real politics with the story, and if COBRA is in China or Russia, planning a doomsday device for us ALL....the proper thing for G.I.JOE to do is go thru the UN, and HEY...if Hollywood makes G.I.Joe a UN based group to begin with, they can skip all that crap and they've got the ok to go right ahead with their plans to stop Cobra wherever they're at, the UN trumps all objections! riiiiight!

 

I don't even really think they'll CHANGE the nationality or birthplaces of the Joes, they'll just move them from the U.S. and it's government backing or base set up, and have them operating out of the UN, which is Hollywood's way of stating THAT'S how it should be done in real life, and they'll show us exactly how well it works this way for real life terrorist fighting operations (Bush supporters are you watching???) If anything they'll just bring in some new characters to fill a few international slots/necessities. Strip the ARAH team of all it's emphasis on being AMERICAN (apparently to "tone down" the "in your face" rhetoric that being AMERICAN carries with it?) and drop the ARAH tag line, and replace it with the new acronym they've come up with for G.I.JOE, so it's not even ARAH anymore, just DUKE, Snake Eyes and their "TEAM" fighting COBRA under the newly formed UN supported G.I.J.O.E. organization?

 

 

The X-Men had "team" uniforms. Why not the Joes? Is it that the X-Men are/were more popular?

 

I never followed the X-MEN, not as a major fan or anything, so I wouldn't have really known the difference.

 

I'm not following the concern over Hollywood making changes to the uniforms of the Joes here, is that a problem? My complaints are with the whole dropping of the AMERICAN aspect of them. I have always liked the basic uniforms of the original 13 so if they went that direction, I don't really care. You asked about the more eccentric outfits of Quick Kick and Bazooka and I responded to it, in that if they chose to use those characters...yeah, at some point in their big screen portrayal, they need to be shown in their classic attire. Do they have to be wearing it while on a mission or in a battle? No...not really. Just like i nthe cartoon movie version....they had on winter gear, and THAT was appropriate, as I hated it, when the Joes were always wearing the toy outfits, even if in weather (or conditions) not appropriate for it. They can play with this aspect a little bit I think, as homage to their outfits but not showing them in it 100% of the time. More like their personal attire at different times.

 

 

Just WHAT would be a "necessary minimum" for a G.I. Joe movie to BE a G.I. Joe movie?

 

 

For starters...NOT changing the name of G.I.JOE to an acronym, and then...NOT dropping the ARAH acronym.

 

G.I.JOE has already been used in a movie title, and G.I.Joe means MORE to a lot of folks and fans than JUST the ARAH variety. Why crap on my fun as a child, playing with 12" Adventure Team G.I.JOE'S just because Hasbro came up with the ARAH theme for them, and NOW Hollywood is indifferent to that theme because it classifies the "AMERICAN" part too much for they're liking, or for the liking of the world they're trying to impress and please? They're f@#king around with an awful lot, and I'm not all that desperate for a G.I.Joe movie featuring all the ARAH characters, that I'd just ignore all this bullsh@# in order to get one made finally.

 

Save it for another day, when the Hollywood crowd can make it RIGHT without having to make concessions in lieu of our unpopular standing in the world!

[pesatyel]

Just WHAT would be a "necessary minimum" for a G.I. Joe movie to BE a G.I. Joe movie?

 

 

For starters...NOT changing the name of G.I.JOE to an acronym, and then...NOT dropping the ARAH acronym.

 

G.I.JOE has already been used in a movie title, and G.I.Joe means MORE to a lot of folks and fans than JUST the ARAH variety. Why crap on my fun as a child, playing with 12" Adventure Team G.I.JOE'S just because Hasbro came up with the ARAH theme for them, and NOW Hollywood is indifferent to that theme because it classifies the "AMERICAN" part too much for they're liking, or for the liking of the world they're trying to impress and please? They're f@#king around with an awful lot, and I'm not all that desperate for a G.I.Joe movie featuring all the ARAH characters, that I'd just ignore all this bullsh@# in order to get one made finally.

 

Save it for another day, when the Hollywood crowd can make it RIGHT without having to make concessions in lieu of our unpopular standing in the world!

 

 

Thanks for the clarifications. Cleared things up for me some.

 

I think part of the reason they want to do G.I. Joe right now is to ride on the coattails of Transformers, for one thing. It's also a possibility of a "PR" thing since people feel we are getting bogged down in Iraq.

[DPrime]

My two cents...

 

I wouldn't mind if they downplayed the American aspect a little, but not to the extent that they've proposed. More specifically, I wouldn't mind if it was an international team, but I still think they should be based in the Pit, which should be in the US. I wouldn't mind if "Real American Hero" was gone, but I do hate the new acronym. I understand the desire to appeal to an international audience, considering that Europe and South America (among others) grew up with GI Joe as well, and it wasn't exactly the same as what we North Americans saw.

 

I would prefer if they kept the look of the characters from the '80s. Obviously there will be some minor changes and updated weapons and equipment, but Bazooka isn't Bazooka without the football jersey, Flint (or Falcon, or Stalker) isn't the same without a beret, etc. They wouldn't even need to be in the same uniforms at all times - personally, I'd like to see some variation, like spec-ops outfits, etc... But if they're just on the base or in a normal field environment, it'd be very cool to see them in their (more or less) original gear.

 

They need to stay away from anything too futuristic (except in cases like Flash, or someone like that), and shouldn't be too uniform either. The guys from Predator are a great example - traditional military garb but everyone had their own personal touches - GI Joe should take it a bit further, however.

[Viper Hunter]

My two cents...

 

I wouldn't mind if they downplayed the American aspect a little, but not to the extent that they've proposed. More specifically, I wouldn't mind if it was an international team, but I still think they should be based in the Pit, which should be in the US.

 

 

I appreciate that, but what does that leave that needs to be "downplayed" in the sense of being to much of an "American Aspect" to the story and it's characters?

 

 

I wouldn't mind if "Real American Hero" was gone, but I do hate the new acronym. I understand the desire to appeal to an international audience, considering that Europe and South America (among others) grew up with GI Joe as well, and it wasn't exactly the same as what we North Americans saw.

 

So is it the right thing to do, because of someones bigotted racism or anti-American hate? If a group of people have ill feelings towards another, is that something to be worked around and their hate to be taken into consideration because we want their dollars or do we not tolerate those kinds of attitudes and preach tolerance and compassion for each other? Why cater to the haters?

 

"I HATE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR PEOPLE, BUT I LOVE YOUR COMIC BOOKS AND ACTION FIGURES! MAKE THEM LESS AMERICAN AND I BUY!" nice!

 

What kind of reaction would the world have taken to Americans claiming they wouldn't go see some stupid ninja movie called Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon unless they made it more American looking? "We don't relate to all that ASIAN mythology and crap, but we like the FIGHTING and fantasy aspect of it, so make it LESS rooted in Chinese mythology and we mIGHT buy a ticket to go see it!"

 

Would the movie producers be expected to cater to OUR bigotry in this example, or would the attiude be more like "YOU ARROGANT F@#KING PRICKS...WHAT NERVE!!" and the movie would be made as it SHOULD be, despite our discriminating expectations?

 

Sure...we had a series of movies entitled "An American Ninja" and look how LAME those stupid movies were? (well...IMO anyway )

 

 

I would prefer if they kept the look of the characters from the '80s. Obviously there will be some minor changes and updated weapons and equipment, but Bazooka isn't Bazooka without the football jersey, Flint (or Falcon, or Stalker) isn't the same without a beret, etc. They wouldn't even need to be in the same uniforms at all times - personally, I'd like to see some variation, like spec-ops outfits, etc... But if they're just on the base or in a normal field environment, it'd be very cool to see them in their (more or less) original gear.

 

They need to stay away from anything too futuristic (except in cases like Flash, or someone like that), and shouldn't be too uniform either. The guys from Predator are a great example - traditional military garb but everyone had their own personal touches - GI Joe should take it a bit further, however.

 

 

I agree on the rest!

[I AM SCI-FI]

Sure...we had a series of movies entitled "An American Ninja" and look how LAME those stupid movies were? (well...IMO anyway )

Oh, Viper Hunter! Why'd you have to go and say that? That's the first thing I've disagreed with you on. Michael Dudikoff as Joe Armstrong was awesome. The character was the closest thing I've seen to a live-action representation of Snake-Eyes in a movie. Both are American soldiers trained in Ninjutsu. I remember, when "American Ninja" first came out, my friends and I were all into G.I. Joe and envisioned Michael Dudikoff playing Snake-Eyes in a live-action movie of G.I. Joe.

Then, in "Avenging Force", when Dudikoff, as Matt Hunter, fought the one guy in the S&M mask/oufit I imagined I was watching Snake-Eyes fighting Croc Master.

Of course, we mustn't forget about "The Octagon", with Chuck Norris as Scott James and Tadashi Yamashita as Seikura, which, was another close to perfect live-action representation of Snake-Eyes vs. Storm Shadow, even though it came out before their existence.

[Viper Hunter]

Sure...we had a series of movies entitled "An American Ninja" and look how LAME those stupid movies were? (well...IMO anyway )

Oh, Viper Hunter! Why'd you have to go and say that? That's the first thing I've disagreed with you on. Michael Dudikoff as Joe Armstrong was awesome. The character was the closest thing I've seen to a live-action representation of Snake-Eyes in a movie. Both are American soldiers trained in Ninjutsu. I remember, when "American Ninja" first came out, my friends and I were all into G.I. Joe and envisioned Michael Dudikoff playing Snake-Eyes in a live-action movie of G.I. Joe.

 

 

@loll@ Sorry man!

 

 

I just could NOT get into those movies, and I think it's because I saw Dudikoff play the ditsy goofball in Bachelor Party with Tom Hanks before they came out, and I couldn't get past THAT...or his high pitched whiny voice. It didn't scream "BADASS NINJA DUDE" to me, and I thought he was laughable in the role.

 

 

 

Then, in "Avenging Force", when Dudikoff, as Matt Hunter, fought the one guy in the S&M mask/oufit I imagined I was watching Snake-Eyes fighting Croc Master.

Of course, we mustn't forget about "The Octagon", with Chuck Norris as Scott James and Tadashi Yamashita as Seikura, which, was another close to perfect live-action representation of Snake-Eyes vs. Storm Shadow, even though it came out before their existence.

 

 

Yeah, I never made the correlation to the Joes with any of those movies, especially Snake Eyes, who I envision as more the commando than the ninja.

 

I had ya up until that though? I liked the Stalker lookin' actor in those movies though.

[DPrime]

My two cents...

 

I wouldn't mind if they downplayed the American aspect a little, but not to the extent that they've proposed. More specifically, I wouldn't mind if it was an international team, but I still think they should be based in the Pit, which should be in the US.

 

 

I appreciate that, but what does that leave that needs to be "downplayed" in the sense of being to much of an "American Aspect" to the story and it's characters?

 

 

I wouldn't mind if "Real American Hero" was gone, but I do hate the new acronym. I understand the desire to appeal to an international audience, considering that Europe and South America (among others) grew up with GI Joe as well, and it wasn't exactly the same as what we North Americans saw.

 

So is it the right thing to do, because of someones bigotted racism or anti-American hate? If a group of people have ill feelings towards another, is that something to be worked around and their hate to be taken into consideration because we want their dollars or do we not tolerate those kinds of attitudes and preach tolerance and compassion for each other? Why cater to the haters?

 

"I HATE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR PEOPLE, BUT I LOVE YOUR COMIC BOOKS AND ACTION FIGURES! MAKE THEM LESS AMERICAN AND I BUY!" nice!

 

What kind of reaction would the world have taken to Americans claiming they wouldn't go see some stupid ninja movie called Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon unless they made it more American looking? "We don't relate to all that ASIAN mythology and crap, but we like the FIGHTING and fantasy aspect of it, so make it LESS rooted in Chinese mythology and we mIGHT buy a ticket to go see it!"

 

Would the movie producers be expected to cater to OUR bigotry in this example, or would the attiude be more like "YOU ARROGANT F@#KING PRICKS...WHAT NERVE!!" and the movie would be made as it SHOULD be, despite our discriminating expectations?

 

Sure...we had a series of movies entitled "An American Ninja" and look how LAME those stupid movies were? (well...IMO anyway )

 

Well, movie producers have sort of catered to that kind of bigotry in the past. One example that comes to mind is when Bruce Lee wasn't allowed to play the main character from Kung Fu, but I'm sure there are many others. It's not really "right", I guess, but it's something I've come to expect, so I guess I'm just not getting that worked up about the whole thing. The fact that GI Joe was changed a little bit to suit European and South American audiences back in the '80s is a valid factor - if the movie producers want to make it for them too, why not? It was only "A Real American Hero" in North America after all.

 

I don't really disagree with you here, as I'd prefer to see something more like what I (as a North American) grew up with, but some slight changes like making it an international team, would make the movie more accessible to the fans who grew up with Action Force and other international versions of the GI Joe team. I can accept that as long as the characters are treated well and source material is respected. Who they're fighting for isn't as important as why, in my opinion - as long as they're still "fighting for freedom wherever there's trouble" it doesn't really bother me if they're under the NATO chain of command rather than the US president.

 

I guess what it comes down to, for me, is that if the changes are done because the producers think anti-Americanism is all the range, or they don't think they can make American troops heroic, etc... That IS a load of BS, and I'd be with you. But if it's being done because UK or Argentinian fans may remember a slightly different sort of GI Joe, well, I'm not all that opposed to it I guess.

 

That being said, as I've stated before, I don't really like what I've seen so far.