Jump to content

Paramount Already Having To Do Damage Control For GIJoe Movie???


JayC
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think hell just froze over, I agree with Arrow on this one.

 

I tend to agree with arrow alot, and on this one I agree with both of you. The only change we can have on this is by not buying, not watching, etc. in other words, talking with you wallet. there is one problem with that theory...see below.

 

 

How do we know the whole ripcord thing isn't a red hearing? We don't, and companies love to do that these days.

 

That is very true, we hear all the time of movie companies throwing red herrings out just to see what the reaction will be, they will put a little truth inside a huge lie just to see what the reaction to half of it is. OH NO Ripcord is black now!! doesnt mean they are going to change the character himself (ex. airborne infantry, demolitions) just his nationality becuase Wayans may actually have put on a good screen test.

 

For every Joe 'fan' that boycotts the movie 10 little kids will be in line with their dads. Really this movie isn't for us; it's for the kids, same as the toys that I am sure everybody will #$#@# about will be.

 

And there is the flaw with the talking with your wallet theory. go ahead, boycott the movie, for everyone 1 person that doesnt go becuase of the "ruining of my childhood/favorite character" reasoning there will be 5 people going just becuase they vaguely remember gijoe and are excited about it. and then there are people like me who are going to go see it numerous times in theaters to see ray park kick the living @%$# out of someone becuase they cast the right person to play him.

 

I think I erased more then a few fellow transfans who talked with thier wallet by seeing the movie 3 times in theaters and buying the dvd 2 disc.

 

And this whole agrument about "staying true to the source material" is really ridiculous. Which source material would you like. in the cartoon duke and Scarlett were an item, in the comics it was SE/Scarlett. in the comics the whole Snake Eyes/Storm shadow thing is a major plot point, in the cartoon I dont think they ever actually fight. I think Spirit actually had more run ins with him than SE.

 

If they want to change the nationality of Ripcord.....OK, I know ripcord has alot of fans but he only had 1 figure made of him (two if you count halo jumper). He had a decent part in the comics, but wasnt a major character in most of the cartoons.

And as for comedy not being a part of the gi joe stories...one again...in which source? in the cartoon, we had the great "the Viper is coming" episode, Bazooka (token goofball on the team right them), and a cobra plot to write cobra commanders face on the moon that ended with a smiley face on it....wow, theres realism for you, a smiley face on the moon.

 

The last 50 comics in the Marvel run had transformers, the ninja force, the brain wave scanner, dr mindbender being cloned, cant argue with the hard core realism there. I cant wait to see a movie based on all of that source material.

 

ok, end of rant, just remember, be careful what you wish for. you want them to give you a movie true to the source, you might just get it. or maybe, just maybe, they change things and leave things out for a good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just havee one thing to say. If the Transformers movie looked like this, it'd have been HUGE!

http://www.hasbro.com/monkeybartv/default.ct&aid=3265

 

If the G.I. Joe move will look like the old G.I. Joe cartoons that'll be GREAT!

Your link doesn't work, but I assume that's a link to hasbro's cgi g1 prime/megs fight. That would've worked in a cartoon, but for a life-action movie, it's subpar.

 

And unless you mean "huge" in another sense than financial success, I don't see how the transformers movie could've been much bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think it will matter what they do, this movie is doomed to failure. The whole idea of doing a movie about war and fighting terrorists right now seems like such a bad idea. I know Hasbro is trying to cash in on the success of Transformers, but assuming that because one movie based on a 80's toy line did well, all movies based on toys will do well I think is foolish thinking on the part of the studios. People get enough in real life these days about war, terrorists and all that that for me to believe they will be jumping at a chance of going to the movies to see it. People go to the movies to get away from real life for a little while, not vice-versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think it will matter what they do, this movie is doomed to failure. The whole idea of doing a movie about war and fighting terrorists right now seems like such a bad idea. I know Hasbro is trying to cash in on the success of Transformers, but assuming that because one movie based on a 80's toy line did well, all movies based on toys will do well I think is foolish thinking on the part of the studios. People get enough in real life these days about war, terrorists and all that that for me to believe they will be jumping at a chance of going to the movies to see it. People go to the movies to get away from real life for a little while, not vice-versa.

 

I don't know, I'm looking forward to seeing a movie about GI Joe and Cobra . . . not a movie about Bin Laden or terrorism. For that matter, why was The Kingdom so successful? Why was the Borne Trilogy so successful? It's not so much the topic that people do or don't want to see, as it is the execution and the story. If the story is good, the movie could be about my sock drawer people would go see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we know the whole ripcord thing isn't a red hearing? We don't, and companies love to do that these days.

 

Precisely, they look for feedback, but you're saying we can't talk about it, don't give feedback, lay down and take what crap they put in front of us. When it was just said that unless you have the power to change it.......This is the power to do something about it. Feedback like this is input. Complaining about it before it's made is called NIPPING IT IN THE BUD. Furthermore, I may have been the loudest, but I wasn't the only one saying this stuff. @smilepunch@ I didn't start this thread. It's what drew me here to begin with. I came to jump on the wagon with those who felt the same. Not be tried by Big Brother.

 

So what's the point of having discussion group if we can't talk about things, voice opinions, rant about likes and dislikes. That's the point of being a Fanboy, to be passionate about this stuff. Otherwise take your "DOLLS" and go home. Maybe you need to talk to all of the people outraged by MEL GIBSON"S "the Passion of the Christ" and tell them to just deal with it. It's just a movie. So there, I just defended the CREATIVENESS of Telling the story.

 

So this is my CREATIVE vision and my Opinion. There's nothing you can do about it. Just accept what I tell you as LAW because you can't change it. See how it sounds. I thought part of being a GROWN UP was to talk out the problems. If we can't have our opinions than I guess we have nothing to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, GI Joe is a lot more about science fantasy than actual combat. I don’t know about you, but you don’t usually see a black mute ninja in a military unit fighting blue suited terrorist aided by robots, biker gangs and chrome headed arms dealers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slaughter, I say this to you as well to myself, calm down. we are all friends here, we are all collectors here, all gi joe fans. Yes we have different opinions and you are right, you have your right to voice yours as much as anyone else. we also have the same right to disagree with you. thats cool too. honestly the only part of the whole movie opinions that get me upset is when I hear someone...anyone say. "its already crap, they have no idea what they are doing, I can do better then them, I will never see this crap" I am more of a "give it time" kinda guy, wait and see. just either way, calm down dude.I dont want you to shut up, I want you to keep voicing your opinion. your right, this is exactly what those red herrings are for, to get an opinion out of people who might see the movie. ALOT of things got changed and added to the transformers movie becuase of people speaking out on message boards. the whole Megatron/optimus prime fight was almost lifted from the original cartoon movie. they did that for the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arrow, you're exactly on the money when you said to look at and learn why the writers / producers / directors make the choices they do. They need to re-envision things . . . it, like you said, is at the core of the creative process.

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

Let"s take this down a path to continue the discussion here, and ( hopefully) see if somethings can be learned/shared.

 

Let's use Transformers and Spiderman as examples here, primarily because they are excellent examples.

 

Why they change things?

 

Here's why:

In terms of designs, its mostly its for visual texture.

In terms of storytelling, is for relevancy to the widest possible demographic AND for thematic story points.

 

In the former: Because of the larger, more immersive field of view on a movie screen any ojects on the screen need to have defined textures to aid the viewer's visual sense.

In a sense, this is a cheat, because what's often being shown on screen is not "real" but must be made convincing.

Hold onto that word "convincing" for a bit.....

Using models, CGI, effects, forced perspective sets and other camera tricks and techniques-the idea is to get the viewer to believe/accept what they see on screen and therefore be receptive to the storypoints the creators want to make.

Once the viewer is in that receptive state, then almost ANY kind of story can be told- and be believed.

But they have to get the audience into that state.

 

One of the ways is via visual acuity, or in other words: detail.

The more there is to see in a large expanse of space, the easier it is to engage the mind.

Large blocks of colour, or shapes, do not engage the human mind as well as smaller intricate blocks of colour or shapes do.

When something is intricate, our minds immediately try to sort it out, and that automatic function is constant and pervasive.

(For toy collectors like us, this is likely one of the primary reasons we collect toys--because they are miniature objects, hence they tend to be intricate).

 

In movie terms, this means that the more detailed or texture an object is, the more its believed IF its an object outside of the normal human visual lexicon.

In other words, every day people like you and me we accept off hand because we know those thing instinctively, but the Battlestar Galactica ( for example) is something OUTSIDE of our normal visual experience.

Consequently, the model of the Battlestar needs to be very intricate and detailed to convince the audience its not a mere 6 foot long model, but is a 5000 foot long starship.

 

The forced visual perspective provided by that detail SUGGESTS to us that this object COULD, by our perceptions, be real. And with that suggestion we get sucked into the story.

This is why movie effects switched from the smooth-sided V-2 style rockets to the intricate detail Star Wars-style models. It became a matter of convincing audiences.

 

Now, with the Transformers, most of the original toys and robots were large blocky shapes. They did have a lot of surface texture of visual detail.

As obvious CGI models, making them believable would be very difficult because they are such basic shapes. Scale would be next to impossible to define with such basic shapes too.

Remember, the majority of the audience doesn't know much about TFs nor are they anal about their appearances.

Making the TF's a mass of intricate shapes, gears, struts, plates and hoses etc.....tricks the eye and mind into believing they are larger than we think, that they actually function because they appear to be actual machines of a kind, and thus we get the sense.........the suggestion again......that, hey, maybe these really are giant robots!

 

Remember, basic psychology says that the human mind has great difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality.

For this reason, the re-design on the TFs was required because using them straight from the toy/cartoons designs would not work on a live actions screen.

 

 

Now, Spiderman.......

His suit has a tesselated texture to it for the same reasons.....large solid colours on a character like that do not work well on screen. It looks like "regular cloth" not the "special garb" a superhero would ( should?) wear.

Compare the Chris Reeve Superman costume with the Brandon Routh Superman costume--in terms of texture, the more believable one is Routh's--simply because it has more to see.

Would the earlier version of the suit work today?

Probably not.......simply because the visual acuity of audiences today is different from 1979.

The large blocks of blue and red on the earlier costume seem cartoonish compared to the way textures are handled today.

 

Spiderman's costume operates under the same principle. The web pattern has a mettalic sheen for the same reasons: visual texture. The blue part of the tights for again, the same reason: visual texture.

A tessalted body suit suggests that the suit has some level of protection above regular cloth.

The same example applies to the X-men leather jumpsuits in the X-men movie. Leather biker cloths have a measure of proection about them, and audience will know enough to draw that association.

The logic follows there, even if they are not "comic accurate". The comics costumes simply would not work in that respect-thout any changes.

 

 

Now, as for story points...

Often times the source material is muddled, and tightening up the stories and backstories provides for stronger thematic tones.

Batman's parents were killed by Joe Chill in the comics, but by a young Jack Napier ( Joker) in the movie.

It makes a tighter story to have the nemsis of Batman also be the catalyst for his creation, even though they are two separate characters in the OTHER stories.

Joseph Campbell talks about all kinds of reasons why mythic story structures in movies have real-life relevance.

Tying those two seperate points together makes for a more relevant and easily understood parable--which is the primary focus of a two hour movie.

 

See, this is the all-abiding consideration here: a movie has a defined time limit in which to tell the story.

ALL of the relevant issues for that story need to be told in that time to sate the audience.

If those issues are not addressed, most audiences consider the story to have failed.......unless a sequel is know to be forthcoming. Fans insist upon total blind adherence to the stories THEY know, without understanding that those stories are often very hard to follow. These are not just stories for the fans anymore.

 

If a certain character has to play the role of a jester ( as in mythic structure) then they need to have certain qualities addressed, and if that role serves other characters in the story ( to set up pathos or tragedy etc) then there's a ulitmate reason for them being in there.

If Ripcord is the class-clown for the GIJOE team, then he's doing so to address some kind of story point, and if he's got a prominent enough role in the story then he's doubtlessly serving OTHER characters in some way.

This might not be how he's been used before, but this is how he's being used in THIS story.

 

See, that's the thing..........story is King. The parable being told with this vehicle ( GIJOE) is intended to be a relevant story for the audiences that see it. Its not some mindless romp between good and evil army guys that no-one but toy geeks will understand.

It HAS to have some common ground with people that know NOTHING about GIJOE.

The conflict between Snake Eyes and Stormshadow is LESS important than the root mythic story of two men in conflict over a mistake in their past. That is what audiences will identify with--they will not give a hill of beans that its about the Arishkage clan and COBRA Commander's family and Billy, and , and.....and.....

That's BS that only a toy geek cares about.

It'll be addressed, I'm sure, but not to the degree of minutae that hardcore fans will want. The overall root story will dictate how geeky this movie is in its details.

 

Battlestar Galactica works on immesurably deep levels now in the new TV series because they took the very simple premise from the original and expanded it. Sure, its got a lot more sex and mature themes, but in doing so, its got a LOT more relevance for the audience.

Its not just Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict running around with 40 pounds of hairspray on their heads yelling "frak" all the time.

Its telling modern stories, with modern themes, but with a timeless overtone on a mythic scale.

GIJOE has to transcend the stark simplicty of an 80's toy-line and become something relevant.

For that.........they are gonna change things.

 

 

 

If you've read all the above, that's about , oh........a week's worth of Film Theory and Cinematic Psychology classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've read all the above, that's about , oh........a week's worth of Film Theory and Cinematic Psychology classes.

 

and it only took about 10 minutes to read @joker@

 

Put yer feet up, sip a cold drink, and its not so baaaaad....

 

It was beautiful. Even more so with the aforementioned cold drink.

 

I've never delved into the cinematic psychology, but it makes a lot of sense (obviously.)

 

Great way of explaining Transformers etc, in terms of the translation between cartoons / print media and live action film. The extra detail and "other worldly" appearance gave the audience a sense that the TF's were not from this world. If they'd looked like robots that we are used to seeing or ones that draw from current technology / design the point wouldn't have been as strong. Plus, if they had kept the cartoon/print design we'd have a Transformers movie that would look like the old, really bad, Japanese robot films.

 

Its not just Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict running around with 40 pounds of hairspray on their heads yelling "frak" all the time.

Ha!

 

Maybe the lack of hairspray in the current series bothers some people @hmmm@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now, explain how all those Bullwinkle changes made HULK, DAREDEVIL, ELEKTRA, The First Punisher and HE MAN, better and HUGE BLOCKBUSTER SUCCESSES. I don't care how many books are written, a bad story is a bad story.....and a bad movie. Yall are worried about the AVERAGE CONSUMER knows about the background. Well I'm sure Grandma or little Billy can tell you about Batmans parents, all they know is a guy puts on a BLACK RUBBER suit and fights badguys for 2 hours. He's cool, but when Grandson/uncle JO BOB does it....he's a freak. So if ALL knowledge they get is coming from the MOVIE, all I'm saying is make it accurate to educate them and give the fans less to complain about. Do you think Lil Billy gives a rat's butt about Uncle Ben or Harry or anyone else who didn't get an action figure? They are there to see Spidey fight badguys. However RAIMI managed to keep very close to the original story of Spidey, made necessary changes, developed characters and still made a Successful Franchise and kept most of the fans happy 2 sequels later. Or was that just because BRUCE CAMPBELL was in all 3?

 

There's an old addage that says......"Just because you Can, Doesn't mean you should."

 

Here's what I'm talking about....Transformers, again, I know. Bumblebee is The autobot little brother who we are to identify with and care for. He couldn't talk, his face showed little emotion, He looked cool but that's it. Nobody CARED when he got captured and tortured. Heck nobody cared when JAZZ was torn apart. Even the autobots just were like "OH WELL, when's lunch?" Because there was no HUMANIZATION to them we didn't care for them the way we were meant to. HOWEVER Because of the Fan Service....When Prime sported his AXE/Sword, When Cullen's voice rang out with "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings", When Megatron flung his Flail/mace, When Prime stood TOE to TOE with his foe and said "ONE SHALL STAND, ONE SHALL FALL." Every fanboy got some satisfaction and maybe shed a tear. That was worth it. I Liked Transformers, but here's what they could have done. I'm fine with the new modern vehicles and changes. They could've Humanized the faces a bit to help us identify and care for these ALIEN robots. Had Bumblebee been able to interact Verbally, he would have been a stronger character and not a mime. We might have cared more about Jazz and he either might NOT have been killed or at least we would have cared more that he Sacrificed himself. I liked it but was left still unquenched and wanting.

 

I love Marlon Wayans, he's great. So my beef is not with Marlon. My Question is WHY RIPCORD and then WHY CHANGE RIPCORD. Let's bring in a character that everybody knows only to REFORMAT him entirely. Why not just create a NEW character to start with. We have had new Good characters that have stayed with the joes like, Tunnel Rat and Jinx. Both introduced in GI JOE the MOVIE and are still members today. Heavy Duty came from season 3.

 

I'm not a HUGE Snake Eyes fan. I like him, I just am tired of every 3rd figure being Snake Eyes. I have met Ray Park, Very good guy, I pulled for him to play the part since it was first talked about. But aside from TOAD, he never gets the speaking parts, poor guy.

 

And finally, YES GI JOE is part Sci FI, so create the universe where it can all still happen, like it did in STREET FIGHTER. I don't question why Batman always has the exact tool he needs at exactly the right time, or further, why he pulls enormous gadgets out of those tiny little pouches on his belt. Believing is Seeing as much as Seeing is Believing.

 

Christopher Walken is COBRA COMMANDER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never delved into the cinematic psychology, but it makes a lot of sense (obviously.)

 

Its more or less my own term, but its something that all storytellers do after a fashion.

In order to get a specific reaction from the audience, the creator needs to get into their heads to figure out what triggers those reactions.

 

Filmmakers do not role the dice when it comes to emotional plays with the audience--they are trying to get a specific reaction using the scene tempos, acting, lighting, music etc. Its not really scientific, as far as I know, but its a gut-instinct kind of thing--honed with practise.

 

Certain movies and stories do a better job hitting those emotional touchstones than others.

 

I'll give you an example:

Iron Giant makes me tear up when the Giant flies up into space to intercept the missile.

Everytime, without fail--and I've seen that movie dozens of times.

Same with Wrath of Khan.

 

The reason that is is they set us up.

They carefully build up a rapport with the characters, set up a series of events were you get to know them and care about them, and then have a situation that threatens to split them up......or kill one of them. Cue the right music, the right dialogue, a small laugh at the right moment.......

<grabs tissue.......>

We react accordingly.

They can do this with horror flics and scare the pee out of us, or action flics and make us cheer the bad guy was he's ripping the heads off of Commies for his Mommy.

Its all deliberate and carefully crafted.

 

Now how they will handle this with GIJOE? Expect the usual touchstones you see in a action flic.

The set up is with rapport through camaraderie, patriotism, justice, personal rights etc......and the villainy that threatens to depose all those things. Add in a likely valiant sacrifice, and heroic rescues and deeds........

Its not THAT simple, but you get the idea.

what I'm saying is that these folks making this GIJOE movie, more often than not, KNOW what they are doing and they will try to do it so it addresses as many of the things we all care about.

The trouble with hardcore fans is they are often far more anal about the minutae of things and, I feel, lose sight that the story is meant for everyone, not just them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Marlon Wayans, he's great. So my beef is not with Marlon. My Question is WHY RIPCORD and then WHY CHANGE RIPCORD. Let's bring in a character that everybody knows only to REFORMAT him entirely. Why not just create a NEW character to start with

 

Its just like I said: if you understand storytelling, then you'll know that characters are often just the TOOLS used to tell that story.

Ripcord's personality is..........what? How well is this established? Does he have distinct and individual quirks? Does he have any of those things??

 

No, he's a cipher.

His dimensions as a character are shallow and very undefined in the comics and cartoons. He's the ripest type of character to be reinterpreted because he's essentially a NOTHING character.

COBRA COMMANDER , Shipwreck or Snake-Eyes are more defined as characters because they've had more "face -time" in the stories that feature them.

Making Ripcord a goof or black is fine, because nothing's really been done with him before.

There's no NEED to be anal about that character being black because........his skin colour doesn't matter with who the character is intended to be in THIS story. He just happens to be black here.

Creating a wholly new character is pointless because an existing character can be fleshed out more.

Is that so hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the emotion factor was very well-played in the transformers film, especially w/ bumblebee. It was obvious when I saw it in theaters that people felt sad when he was captured; he was able to show emotion through his eyes, movements, etc., and he didn't even need words. Heck, I was kinda upset when he got his voice back at the end of the film.

 

If movie-goers didn't feel anything while watching that film, why did the film do so well? I do agree w/ you about jazz, though; for his death to have really meant something they needed to've played up his character more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see both sides of the argument here. I understand Slaughter's passion. He's like me, you, and every other fanboy that's loved G.I. Joe since 1982 and has watched every cartoon episode and comic issue. Like everybody else, he wants to see something that stays true to what he sees as the definitive version of G.I. Joe. But I also understand ARROW's view; he's the older, experienced veteran of the business that's seen several incarnations of several properties, both as a professional AND a fan, and whom has weighed what he loves against what is done through the filter of the creative entertainment business. Whether he likes it or he doesn't, he understands why things were changed for the sake of interpretaion, marketability, etc.

 

I say you must adhere to both when pursuing the development of beloved properties; you MUST acknowledge the source material in some form. Otherwise, if a given property is popular enough to warrant a film version, then why produce a movie based on it when you're just gonna make it unrecognizeable to hardcore fans? It's like they sit around and say, "Hey! The '80s are hot again! What '80s property can we gear-up for a new movie that'll capitalize on the current rush of nostalgia and rake in the big bucks?" BUT...at the same time, I can understand the studios need to make a film appealing to the widest audience possible, not just the concentrated, relatively small and anal fanbase.

 

Having said that, I personally enjoy it when creative changes are made, for whatever reason. It's like with Transformers. Bumblebee was changed from a VW Bug to a '79 Camaro. Hmm. Okay. It was a pretty radical and unexpected change. But then people involved said that the character's basic spirit was intact, and they were right. I was pleasantly suprised. And in the process he looked more like a bumblebee somewhat, albeit a bad-@$$ war-machine battlebot version of a bumblebee... (lol)

 

Same goes for Optimus Prime. They made him a long-nose Peterbuilt and gave him flames. Cool! Does he represent my beloved G1 1984 original Optimus Prime toy? Vaguely, in robot mode maybe, when you squint, but very, very cool neverthelss IMO. Megatron's not a gun anymore? Hmm. He's a Cybertronian warplane instead?! And he's still a maniacle power-hungry psychopath? Even better.

 

My point is, the character's were mostly true to their initial, original versions and personalities, but with way cool, updated looks. And the story was great and entertaining. That's all I really want from the G.I. Joe film. As long a Snake-Eyes is a mute, masked, bad-@$$ commando/ninja, and Roadblock is a big as a house and can weild huge armor-piercing machine guns, Scarlett is a red-headed, bad-to-the-bone communications expert, and Cobra Commander is a masked, would-be diabolical world conquerer, and the story is awesome, then great. Keep the basis of each character pretty-much spot on, and you can make changes to their respective looks all you want. (As long as we're not talking neon-green and pink clown costumes...) (lol)

 

I will make one final observation in Slaughter's defense: How many of you are familiar with The Chronicles of Narnia books? If you know the book "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", you'll find when comparing it to the film, the movie veers very, very little from the original text. The Penvensies weren't tweaked into modern, hip American children, Professor Kirk wasn't changed into a zany, Doc Brown wannabe, and the Narnia animals didn't burp and/or fart every other scene like so many Disney/animated characters seem to do anymore to garner big laughs from the kiddies. It remained stictly true to the source, with a large and very long-running fanbase that reaches all the way back to the mid-to-late 1940s, and it turned out to be a huge blockbuster. Something to think about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say you must adhere to both when pursuing the development of beloved properties; you MUST acknowledge the source material in some form. Otherwise, if a given property is popular enough to warrant a film version, then why produce a movie based on it when you're just gonna make it unrecognizeable to hardcore fans?

I do agree with this.

I say that because really ignoring the source material gives us a movie like Catwoman.

I don't think GIJOE is going to run down that path though....

 

I will make one final observation in Slaughter's defense: How many of you are familiar with The Chronicles of Narnia books? If you know the book "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", you'll find when comparing it to the film, the movie veers very, very little from the original text. The Penvensies weren't tweaked into modern, hip American children, Professor Kirk wasn't changed into a zany, Doc Brown wannabe, and the Narnia animals didn't burp and/or fart every other scene like so many Disney/animated characters seem to do anymore to garner big laughs from the kiddies. It remained stictly true to the source, with a large and very long-running fanbase that reaches all the way back to the mid-to-late 1940s, and it turned out to be a huge blockbuster. Something to think about...

 

How much did they excise from the book to realize that story into a two hour movie?

I've never read the book, but I'm reasonably sure there's more "read" to it than what's found in a 2 hour move...

The translation of something from one medium to another almost always results in differences.

 

Y'know......on the Bumblebee thing..........I did not realize that the character was a VW Bug before hand. I just accepted him as the Camaro from the get-go in the movie. To me, Bumblebee was always just a "yellow car", and I've been exposed to the Transformers property since the beginning. I don't consider myself a fan per se, but I have prior exposure to TFs. I'd guess most folks seeing that movie had a similar association, if one at all.

GIJOE is going to be the same way, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much did they excise from the book to realize that story into a two hour movie?

I've never read the book, but I'm reasonably sure there's more "read" to it than what's found in a 2 hour move...

The translation of something from one medium to another almost always results in differences.

 

Actually, the book is a LOT shorter than most people realize. If anything, I got the impression that they tried to make it "more" than the book, in order to give it a sort of LotR appeal...

 

Slaughter made a good point with the TF movie. Personally I hated it. Ugly characters aside, it was just plain boring, and only entertaining on a superficial, dumbed-down level. Would I have liked G1ish bots better? Yeah, I think so, but I don't know if that would have saved the movie anyway. I don't think it would have made less money or anything, though.

 

If movie-goers didn't feel anything while watching that film, why did the film do so well? I do agree w/ you about jazz, though; for his death to have really meant something they needed to've played up his character more.

 

You know the quote, right? "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator." Yeah, it appealed to people, the same way America's Funniest Home Videos appeal to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much did they excise from the book to realize that story into a two hour movie?

I've never read the book, but I'm reasonably sure there's more "read" to it than what's found in a 2 hour move...

The translation of something from one medium to another almost always results in differences.

 

Actually, the book is a LOT shorter than most people realize. If anything, I got the impression that they tried to make it "more" than the book, in order to give it a sort of LotR appeal...

 

Slaughter made a good point with the TF movie. Personally I hated it. Ugly characters aside, it was just plain boring, and only entertaining on a superficial, dumbed-down level. Would I have liked G1ish bots better? Yeah, I think so, but I don't know if that would have saved the movie anyway. I don't think it would have made less money or anything, though.

 

If movie-goers didn't feel anything while watching that film, why did the film do so well? I do agree w/ you about jazz, though; for his death to have really meant something they needed to've played up his character more.

 

You know the quote, right? "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator." Yeah, it appealed to people, the same way America's Funniest Home Videos appeal to people.

 

That’s a pretty arrogant assumption to make. Your basically telling us, because you didn’t like the movie, it was a bad movie, and the only reason it did well is because it appealed to the lowest common denominator? I’m sorry but my only response to that is, get over yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a pretty arrogant assumption to make. Your basically telling us, because you didn’t like the movie, it was a bad movie, and the only reason it did well is because it appealed to the lowest common denominator? I’m sorry but my only response to that is, get over yourself.

 

 

Its not an arrogant assumption, as most of the entertainment product produced is aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator, which is the largest segment of the population.

Not without reason that TV shows like Baywatch and Wheel Of Fortune out-drew any other tv program running--they are aimed at the lowest common denominator.

The stuff IS product first after all, if it engages people on other levels then its considered a bonus.

The Transformers movie had all of the requisite elements that attract a lowest common demoninator audience: Visual interest ( robots), hot gal, car chase, driving musical beat, simple story and clear-cut characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the quote, right? "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator." Yeah, it appealed to people, the same way America's Funniest Home Videos appeal to people.

I do agree in a way, but then we are talking about giant robots that beat the crap outta each other; it ain't gonna be the robotic equivalent of King Lear; that should be a given. I mean, you're not gonna get an oscar-worthy story out of it; it's a kid's property, same as gijoe. I think we got what we should have expected, as far as that goes (not saying it's the direction everyone wanted, but no matter what it would be a low brow production).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the quote, right? "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator." Yeah, it appealed to people, the same way America's Funniest Home Videos appeal to people.

I do agree in a way, but then we are talking about giant robots that beat the crap outta each other; it ain't gonna be the robotic equivalent of King Lear; that should be a given. I mean, you're not gonna get an oscar-worthy story out of it; it's a kid's property, same as gijoe. I think we got what we should have expected, as far as that goes (not saying it's the direction everyone wanted, but no matter what it would be a low brow production).

 

Oh, I agree, but just because it's "that kind of property" doesn't mean it can't have a well written story. Spider-Man is a kid's property, basically, and it was treated with some depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bumblebee was originally a VW BUG, but when Hasbro started doing the ALTERNATORS, VW wouldn't allow any VW vehicles. The alternators made good changes to old favorites and the movie could have gone with this type of look and it would have been fine. NOW, that being said, The MOVIE offered FAN SERVICE by Showing Bumblebee next to a Yellow VW BUG in an Homage shot. I'm fine with Some changes like PRIME becoming a Long Nose Peterbuilt, since you don't see many FlatFace Macks anymore.

 

I'm not trying to be a total @$$. For the record I loved Daredevil, Elektra, Hulk, HE MAN, the first Punisher......I'm just happy to see Comic/Cartoon movies being made. I'm saying they failed with general audiences because the story was changed....nay...."DUMBED DOWN FOR GENERAL AUDIENCES" just because. Daredevil could have fought the HAND, He Man should have stayed on ETERNIA, and Hulk should have saved RICK in the Desert. Again, Spidey and Ninja Turtles kept a close anchor in the origins and built on from there. Now 3 sequels later they are still a success.

 

I'm thrilled to see a GI JOE Movie, but MAKE it a GI JOE movie. Don't take the premis of GI JOE and twist it into some mutant form of an Idea of it's former self. DO SIGMA 6 for all I care, just stop changing characters and back stories. Destro is not COBRA's leader. He is an Arms Dealer who associates with his best client and then starts his own IRON GRENADIER army. Everybody go back and watch "LIGHTS, CAMERA, COBRA!" I found this interesting and Relevant. THe Director wants his GI JOE movie to be as ACCURATE as possible so he gets REAL Joe and Cobra Equipment.

 

Speaking of....Did anybody notice that "COLD SLITHER" had a subliminal Music machine....Like the Josie and the Pussycats story. And "There's No Place like Springfield" had Shipwreck wake up with a Wife, Daughter and the perfect Life, and he couldn't remember. SOUNDS LIKE "Family Man" starring Nick Cage. Interesting how GI JOE inspired other HOLLYWOOD works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I'm talking about....Transformers, again, I know. Bumblebee is The autobot little brother who we are to identify with and care for. He couldn't talk, his face showed little emotion, He looked cool but that's it. Nobody CARED when he got captured and tortured. Heck nobody cared when JAZZ was torn apart. Even the autobots just were like "OH WELL, when's lunch?" Because there was no HUMANIZATION to them we didn't care for them the way we were meant to.

 

My wife cries at that scene when he is tortured, she can barely watch it honestly.

 

 

as fir the lowest common denominator arguement....we are talking about a comic book movie you know. the women in comics have tight clothes and huge boobs for a reason :) Iff that isnt lowest common denominator I dotn know what is.

 

the reason some of those movies worked isnt becuase it ONLY applied to that lowest common denominator, I thought transformers was well written, and yes, had alot of fan service, which I am very happy to get. did it go for that apeal, yes, did it have other redeeming qualities....well as this arguement is showing, it depends on your point of view

 

for the record, I agree with you on he man, and street fighter. I think daredevil was decent, but the directors cut that is out there is much better. and the hulk....ok, I agree on that one and am glad we are getting another movie to make up for it.

 

Speaking of....Did anybody notice that "COLD SLITHER" had a subliminal Music machine....Like the Josie and the Pussycats story. And "There's No Place like Springfield" had Shipwreck wake up with a Wife, Daughter and the perfect Life, and he couldn't remember. SOUNDS LIKE "Family Man" starring Nick Cage. Interesting how GI JOE inspired other HOLLYWOOD works.

 

I wouldnt say those episodes inspired those ideas...I am not sure that is what you are saying either. the idea of a machine that hypnotises people has been around in sci fi long before gijoe used it. So has the idea used in "theres no place like Springfield" they are very well established ideas in sci fi, used quite abit, I think the original strar trek used both but dont ask me to qu=oute episodes...I dont have a clue where.

 

As for narnia...correct they played it almost the same as the book. as DPRIME said, they may have even added some to make it longer

 

ok, just to make this arguement worse.. :) look at Lord of the Rings. things were changed, Arwen was given a bigger part, Tom Bombadil is erased, and Faramir is now tempted by the ring, little changes, some of which really annoy LOTR fans (the faramir thing bugs me) but they were changed for reasons, and the movies even with those changes were still excellent.

 

Remeber, in Spiderman they did change alot. gwen stacy wasnt supposed to be in the third movie, she was supposed to die in the first. Mary jane wasnt supposed to be there at all. Why did they change it? becuase more people know of mary jane then Gwen. it worked didnt it?

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.

Loading...
 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