Jump to content

Channing Tatum Interview.....


RobbieDigital

Recommended Posts

I am VERY MUCH against war, yet I collect war toys. Its not a dichotomy I need to explain to anyone, nor do they need to "get it" to appreciate that I clearly enjoy my hobby and embrace a heartfelt belief at the same time.

 

People expect others to be consistent ( in fact, consistency is a prized trait in many cultures) but how realistic is that expectation?

Honestly, its not, because the real world and real people often come with a lot more varied motives and drives. Acknowledging that is just understanding that people are "human".

 

 

I think what he meant by profound meaning was the whole concept behind GI Joe, as a special mission force selflessly defending human freedom against Cobra, an evil terrorist organization determined to rule the world no matter the cost. There's alot of nobility and idealism to that goal, and I think can see what he was trying to say.

 

And as far as liking war toys but not liking war... I can get behind that idea. ;)

 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I feel that GI Joe has profound meaning and is very distinctive in voice, which is why it bothers me that he is fine promoting Stop Loss,

 

Uhhh........profound meaning?

 

Its "good guys versus bad guys"...a simple premise intended for a toy-line.

Anything else is just tacked on.

 

I am VERY MUCH against war, yet I collect war toys. Its not a dichotomy I need to explain to anyone, nor do they need to "get it" to appreciate that I clearly enjoy my hobby and embrace a heartfelt belief at the same time.

 

People expect others to be consistent ( in fact, consistency is a prized trait in many cultures) but how realistic is that expectation?

Honestly, its not, because the real world and real people often come with a lot more varied motives and drives. Acknowledging that is just understanding that people are "human".

 

Apparently, he thinks it's okay to be in a movie like "Stop Loss" which is drenched in political agenda and is fictitious, but has a moral conflict with a fantasy war movie. It's interesting that these morality based decisions only seem to come up with hollywood types when it comes to the war.

 

Or maybe its a role with an interesting character or story that expands the actor's abilities and perceptions in a way that is different and refreshing to that actor--and adds to their performance portfolio?

Still though, why would he say this about GI Joe. "Originally, I passed on the movie because I was afraid of playing a fantasy war movie. In a time of war, I was like, 'It's just not right.''

 

But not say that about Stop Loss? The Stop Loss role was so interesting to him that he would do it even though he thinks war movies in a time of war is not good. But then again he questions whether he should do GI Joe even though it could really boost his acting career like it did with Shia and Megan Fox.

 

The whole quote ("Originally, I passed on the movie because I was afraid of playing a fantasy war movie. In a time of war, I was like, 'It's just not right.'') and his way of thinking really does not make any sense.

 

I think that is what most of this is about. I think he might be better off keeping his mouth shut and just do his job.

 

I am VERY MUCH against war, yet I collect war toys. Its not a dichotomy I need to explain to anyone, nor do they need to "get it" to appreciate that I clearly enjoy my hobby and embrace a heartfelt belief at the same time.

 

People expect others to be consistent ( in fact, consistency is a prized trait in many cultures) but how realistic is that expectation?

Honestly, its not, because the real world and real people often come with a lot more varied motives and drives. Acknowledging that is just understanding that people are "human".

 

 

I think what he meant by profound meaning was the whole concept behind GI Joe, as a special mission force selflessly defending human freedom against Cobra, an evil terrorist organization determined to rule the world no matter the cost. There's alot of nobility and idealism to that goal, and I think can see what he was trying to say.

 

And as far as liking war toys but not liking war... I can get behind that idea. ;)

 

Tom

That was what I got from that when I read it.

 

I also like war toys but not war too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhh........profound meaning?

 

Its "good guys versus bad guys"...a simple premise intended for a toy-line.

Anything else is just tacked on.

Dude, have you never listened to the cartoon theme song? "We'll fight for freedom where ever there's trouble... GI JOE! A Real American Hero, GI Joe is there..." To say that has not been deliberately fused to the brand as the meaning of GI Joe is ignorant at best. Oh, and did you see the beginning of my sentence where it said "Personally?" This is getting a little rediculous, but the point is: it is my opinion, and I have justification for feeling so.

 

I am VERY MUCH against war, yet I collect war toys. Its not a dichotomy I need to explain to anyone, nor do they need to "get it" to appreciate that I clearly enjoy my hobby and embrace a heartfelt belief at the same time.

Who are you talking to? I'm against it too, but as sad as it is, it becomes necessary for the assurance of the freedoms of others at times. What's amazing though, is that through war heroes are born who dare to make sacrifices for the benefit of others. That's what I am inspired by.

People expect others to be consistent ( in fact, consistency is a prized trait in many cultures) but how realistic is that expectation?

Honestly, its not, because the real world and real people often come with a lot more varied motives and drives. Acknowledging that is just understanding that people are "human".

Wow, that sounds like a plug for a certain presidential candidate... How can you trust someone if you don't believe they're consistent? While it may be difficult for the weak, I know many people who show their beliefs by their consistent actions. You might as well say self-discipline is unrealistic.

 

Or maybe its a role with an interesting character or story that expands the actor's abilities and perceptions in a way that is different and refreshing to that actor--and adds to their performance portfolio?

Yeah, we all buy that. @hmmm@ @hmmm@ @hmmm@ He admittedly factors the message of a movie in his consideration for a role, as stated before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, he thinks it's okay to be in a movie like "Stop Loss" which is drenched in political agenda and is fictitious, but has a moral conflict with a fantasy war movie. It's interesting that these morality based decisions only seem to come up with hollywood types when it comes to the war. Personally, I feel that GI Joe has profound meaning and is very distinctive in voice, which is why it bothers me that he is fine promoting Stop Loss, but has to think twice over GI Joe. It raises the question, what is Tatum against promoting? Is he worried about children thinking war is fun? If that is all that he means, I can accept that. However, violence and death will still be there. So, unless he can point out his distinct reluctancies, I have reason to believe that he was worried that the GI Joe movie was going to endorse fighting against real threats like the kind of terrorism we see today, thereby justifying the war we are now in. I don't see a problem with that, but he might.

 

I fail to see how that he can be criticized for such a position and don't think that is a fair interpretation. in a time when a real war is going on, and real Americans are losing their lives, it is obvious his statement infers he initially found it off-setting to make a fantasy war movie that takes the concept of war lightly and turns it into something essentially fun to sell toys. if you can't tell the difference between that concept and a film with a political message, and why he wouldn't want to go from making one to the other until he understood the concept of the Joe movie better, well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're right, it is fun to speculate. but if you want to know the answer, read the stickied movie thread, it gives away the entire movie.

 

Meh, no thanks. I've already got my mind pretty set that this is a new Joeverse, so I'm not going to go in expecting too much -- and reading a spoiler of the whole movie would be counter-productive to my enjoyment of what homages are in place, and whatnew mythos or changes they make. Thankfully, I've been attuned to that with past superhero movies and shows: the media of comic and movie are far too different.

 

In comics, the publishers' goal is for the reader to come back month after month, year after year. If a villain becomes popular, the publisher has to make certain there's a way for that villain to return periodically. Resolutions are temporary; the status quo of the comic book world is that each resolution needs to set up the next conflict. Also, a franchise builds upon its characters, also to attract and maintain long-time fans. You simply cannot stray too far from the icon, or those fans will balk and turn away from the comic. We've seen this before: Azrael Batman, Heroes Reborn to name some examples that aren't fresh, hot-button topics. :) The advantage in these long-running characters is that you do not have to introduce them to the reader each and every issue.

 

In movies, the parameters are quite different. The producers have two hours and change to tell a single story, with a beginning, a conflict, and a definite resolution. In this age of planned trilogies, you can have a leeway of some foreshadowing of a future villain in the first installment(s), but even ten years ago, you had to have a resolution. Look at the older generation of DC movies: Chris Reeve's Superman: He saves the day, and Lex goes to jail (caveat: before the popular opinion of revolving-door criminal justice). In Tim Burton's Batman (and later directors of that series): If you were a villain, you were likely going to die by movie's end. Joker? Dead. Penguin? Dead. Two-Face? Dead. Also, the movie's limited time has to introduce the characters in the first reel to a far wider spectrum of audience than have read the comic. Backstories will simplify because of this. Look at how slowly we found out that GI Joe was 'Six Degrees of Snake-Eyes.' It took almost two years to realize that Snake-Eyes was a ninja. We were introduced to the car crash that killed Snakes' family in what, #26? What issue did Cobra Commander finally reveal that it was his brother driving that car, hm? After #100, I'm pretty sure -- over six years later. You don't have that luxury of time in a movie.

 

Anyhow, I went off tangent. It's fun to speculate, but for me, not to have the thing spoiled. And remember, they are currently shooting the film. There is such a thing as 'daily rewrites'. A scene that sounds decent on paper may look completely wrong on film. You also know that "alternate ending" that some films add on DVD? That's often the result of a 'daily rewrite' -- or a test screening that polled poorly. The spoiler can still change.

 

I totally agree. I can live with some changes. The story could still be good, rewrites or not. I am still strongly looking forward to this movie. Snake eyes uniform looks cool, I can't wait to see the rest. Still my beef is that with the hollywood process they will no doubt kill of the enemy at the end. BUT with this it is the Big Main baddies that I will have a problem with them offing. Those are the main and constant enemies. I don't care if the troops get taken out as that is their purpose, they are fodder. I am not too keen on the nanotech melted helmet, but will give it a wait and see aproach, and see what they actually do. I do prefer the helmet as a heritage peice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree. I can live with some changes. The story could still be good, rewrites or not. I am still strongly looking forward to this movie. Snake eyes uniform looks cool, I can't wait to see the rest. Still my beef is that with the hollywood process they will no doubt kill of the enemy at the end. BUT with this it is the Big Main baddies that I will have a problem with them offing. Those are the main and constant enemies. I don't care if the troops get taken out as that is their purpose, they are fodder. I am not too keen on the nanotech melted helmet, but will give it a wait and see aproach, and see what they actually do. I do prefer the helmet as a heritage peice.

sure, you may see some dialogue changes and additional things added or taken out, but the structure, exposition and the plot points of the movie are set in stone.

 

and the melted mask is one of the best things in the movie IMO, not just because it is a cool way to bring the concept of a metal face to life like in the cartoon, but the meaning behind it is brilliant in how it is a direct analogy to his ancestor being a prisoner in the mask and subservient to the French -- something McCullen holds very dear to his heart and is a fueling fire of his hate and motivations, and now he, too, has been imprisoned in a mask by his new ruler, Cobra Commander and is now subservient himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right, I didn't think of it like that. Now with that, for in the future, how does his son Alexander don the mask? Thats probably too far in the future from this timeline (if it will even be in the movie timeline).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right, I didn't think of it like that. Now with that, for in the future, how does his son Alexander don the mask? Thats probably too far in the future from this timeline (if it will even be in the movie timeline).

I'm confident the Alexander McCullen concept will never see the light of day in the move series -- it just isn't relevant to the story.

 

I'm hopeful it is put to bed completely with the end of the DD series with a fresh start in the comic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how that he can be criticized for such a position and don't think that is a fair interpretation. in a time when a real war is going on, and real Americans are losing their lives, it is obvious his statement infers he initially found it off-setting to make a fantasy war movie that takes the concept of war lightly and turns it into something essentially fun to sell toys. if you can't tell the difference between that concept and a film with a political message, and why he wouldn't want to go from making one to the other until he understood the concept of the Joe movie better, well...

 

While you are most likely correct as to his meaning, I find it more offsetting that the during such times, the "Real American Hero" aspect of GI Joe appears to be diminishing, and a brand which was a wonderful tribute to the soldiers out there is being stripped of identity for the sake of those ashamed of our nation's actions. While his worries of trivializing real war are noble, by accepting a role for a character of a brand which people are trying to make politically correct and more like X Men, is demeaning. I don't expect him to know much of GI Joe, but if I had the chance to speak with him, I'd tell him why it's so important that the message remain the same as what was sung in the original cartoon theme song. After all, war has been going on somewhere constantly since and before GI Joe. I'd much rather see actors questioning whether or not they should be in GI Joe because the seriousness was taken out of it, and by seriousness I mean anything that one might draw parallels to American soldiers with. The comic has always been full of grit. While the cartoon was not as gritty, it still bled red, white, and blue. And for the record, GI Joe has never taken war lightly. So if I criticize Tatum for anything, it is his conclusion that it is okay to be a part of GI Joe because it's not serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how that he can be criticized for such a position and don't think that is a fair interpretation. in a time when a real war is going on, and real Americans are losing their lives, it is obvious his statement infers he initially found it off-setting to make a fantasy war movie that takes the concept of war lightly and turns it into something essentially fun to sell toys. if you can't tell the difference between that concept and a film with a political message, and why he wouldn't want to go from making one to the other until he understood the concept of the Joe movie better, well...

 

While you are most likely correct as to his meaning, I find it more offsetting that the during such times, the "Real American Hero" aspect of GI Joe appears to be diminishing, and a brand which was a wonderful tribute to the soldiers out there is being stripped of identity for the sake of those ashamed of our nation's actions. While his worries of trivializing real war are noble, by accepting a role for a character of a brand which people are trying to make politically correct and more like X Men, is demeaning. I don't expect him to know much of GI Joe, but if I had the chance to speak with him, I'd tell him why it's so important that the message remain the same as what was sung in the original cartoon theme song. After all, war has been going on somewhere constantly since and before GI Joe. I'd much rather see actors questioning whether or not they should be in GI Joe because the seriousness was taken out of it, and by seriousness I mean anything that one might draw parallels to American soldiers with. The comic has always been full of grit. While the cartoon was not as gritty, it still bled red, white, and blue. And for the record, GI Joe has never taken war lightly. So if I criticize Tatum for anything, it is his conclusion that it is okay to be a part of GI Joe because it's not serious.

I think you are confusing the issue. it isn't that the movie isn't being taken seriously, it is that the movie isn't about war at all, which is what he thought it was initially, which is a fair assumption being that it is called G.I. Joe. after he read the script he realized it wasn't a war movie, it is a sci-fi military super hero adventure, therefore it has no relation whatsoever to the very serious subject matter of war and doesn't diminish the seriousness of the situation that is taking the lives of our brothers and sisters for the sake of selling toys.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong about your stances, just that your sensitivity to it is perhaps clouding your ability to fairly evaluate what he is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how that he can be criticized for such a position and don't think that is a fair interpretation. in a time when a real war is going on, and real Americans are losing their lives, it is obvious his statement infers he initially found it off-setting to make a fantasy war movie that takes the concept of war lightly and turns it into something essentially fun to sell toys. if you can't tell the difference between that concept and a film with a political message, and why he wouldn't want to go from making one to the other until he understood the concept of the Joe movie better, well...

 

While you are most likely correct as to his meaning, I find it more offsetting that the during such times, the "Real American Hero" aspect of GI Joe appears to be diminishing, and a brand which was a wonderful tribute to the soldiers out there is being stripped of identity for the sake of those ashamed of our nation's actions. While his worries of trivializing real war are noble, by accepting a role for a character of a brand which people are trying to make politically correct and more like X Men, is demeaning. I don't expect him to know much of GI Joe, but if I had the chance to speak with him, I'd tell him why it's so important that the message remain the same as what was sung in the original cartoon theme song. After all, war has been going on somewhere constantly since and before GI Joe. I'd much rather see actors questioning whether or not they should be in GI Joe because the seriousness was taken out of it, and by seriousness I mean anything that one might draw parallels to American soldiers with. The comic has always been full of grit. While the cartoon was not as gritty, it still bled red, white, and blue. And for the record, GI Joe has never taken war lightly. So if I criticize Tatum for anything, it is his conclusion that it is okay to be a part of GI Joe because it's not serious.

I think you are confusing the issue. it isn't that the movie isn't being taken seriously, it is that the movie isn't about war at all, which is what he thought it was initially, which is a fair assumption being that it is called G.I. Joe. after he read the script he realized it wasn't a war movie, it is a sci-fi military super hero adventure, therefore it has no relation whatsoever to the very serious subject matter of war and doesn't diminish the seriousness of the situation that is taking the lives of our brothers and sisters for the sake of selling toys.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong about your stances, just that your sensitivity to it is perhaps clouding your ability to fairly evaluate what he is saying.

I thought I conceded the point already to the likely intent of his words, however, I did not justify them. While what you said above may very well be his reasoning, his reasoning is therefore flawed. Unless he intends to make Stop Loss without any profit, or just to cover for his time, he is making money off of the "very serious subject matter of war." Profit for him or for toy companies, who cares? It's okay for him to have a war movie and make money off of it, but not toy companies? He should't be worried about if it was about war or not, but what the message was, reguardless if it sells toys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey by the way, isn't anyone else a little concerned about the laser- i mean "pulse" rifles!? Are you kidding me? If there was one thing(and there were many) that was stupid about the cartoon, is that the guns shot laser beams! Why would you choose to include that in the movie? aye carumba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what Yahoo has.

 

 

By Jesse Spero

 

LOS ANGELES, Calif. -- Hot on the heels of the success of "Transformers," Paramount is bringing yet another 1980's toy to the big screen, but instead of otherworldly shape-shifting robots, get ready for a real American hero!

 

 

"G.I Joe" is currently in production and set for a summer 2009 release, but fans are already getting a sneak peak at some of the action.

 

 

[ Dennis Quaid & Sienna Miller Talk 'G.I. Joe' - Play it Now ]

 

Paramount has released two photos of the fan-favorite character Snake Eyes, played by Ray Park, of Darth Maul "Star Wars" fame. Snake Eyes holds an impressive title according to "G.I. Joe" director Stephen Sommers.

 

 

"He's the world's greatest ninja, but he's also next-generation. He's not afraid to use a sword one second, and a split-second later he's pulling out his Glock," Sommers told USA Today. "His chief nemesis is arguably the world's other great ninja, Storm Shadow. The two grew up together, were blood brothers and now are mortal enemies."

 

 

[ 'G.I. Joe' - Check Out the Photos ]

 

Access Hollywood caught up with Channing Tatum while promoting the Iraq war drama "Stop-Loss." Channing, who plays G.I. Joe's leader, Duke, admitted he was apprehensive about stepping into another war film, but says "G.I. Joe" is not your typical combat filled movie.

 

 

"'G.I. Joe' is now a war film," Channing told Access. "I was afraid it was going to be a real war film, and actually it's nothing like that-- it's 'X-Men' with 'Mission Impossible.'"

 

 

[ All Access: G.I. Joe - Movies - Sienna Miller ]

 

As for "G.I. Joe" sticking with its comic book and cartoon roots, Channing couldn't agree more, saying, it's a comic book "to the tenth degree."

 

 

(CLICK HERE to see the cast of 'G.I Joe')

 

 

[ Access Extended: Sienna Miller's 'Interview' - Play it Now ]

 

Channing's co-stars, Dennis Quaid and Sienna Miller, are also pumped to dive into this summer blockbuster.

 

 

"'G.I. Joe" goes back to when I was a kid, and I thought it would be a lot of fun to be a part of this," Dennis Quaid, who will play Commander Hawk, told Access. "It's a huge popcorn action movie, and a little bit of a cartoon in a sense. The way it's going to be done… it's going to be really exciting."

 

 

[ 'G.I. Joe' - Check Out the Photos ]

 

Access wasn't only talking to the good guys. Sienna Miller, who will portray the diabolical lady of Cobra, The Baroness, revealed the lengths she's going to in order to nail her iconic character.

 

 

"[The film] requires a lot of physical training," Sienna told Access. "I have a black wig, guns, and leather… it's all very fantastic!"

 

 

Sienna admitted to Access that getting the part of the Baroness down took hard work, even a little homework.

 

 

"I've got a rubber gun at home that looks so real. I'm learning how to spin it. I've had it in my car while driving, and I'm terrified I might be pulled over because it looks like a proper gun," Sienna added.

 

 

(CLICK HERE to see Dennis Quaid & Sienna Miller talk "G.I. Joe.")

 

 

Rounding out the all-American heroes cast is Rachel Nichols from "Alias," playing Scarlett (cross-bow included), Marlon Wayans as paratrooper Ripcord, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje from "Lost," as Heavy Duty, and Said Taghmaoui of "Vantage Point" fame as Breaker.

 

 

On the Cobra side of the fight, Byung-Hun Lee will play Storm Shadow, Snake Eyes ninja nemesis, Arnold Vosloo from "The Mummy" will play the chameleon-like Zartan, Christopher Eccleston will play the evil chromed-domed Destro, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt from "Stop-Loss" has been cast as the leader of the evil Corba army, Cobra Commander.

 

 

The film is reportedly an origins story. It could explain why Destro has a chromed head and why Snake Eyes doesn't speak, among other outlandish details of "G.I. Joe" that the cartoon never explained.

 

 

"For people who know nothing about it, it'll make sense," Sommers told USA Today. "And to people who love this stuff, it'll show where they all came from."

 

 

As for the famous "G.I. Joe" catch phrase --"Now I know, and knowing is half the battle" - which was used in the PSA's that followed the 1980's cartoons, popping up in the 2009 film, a rep from Paramount told Access, "You'll have to wait and see!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how that he can be criticized for such a position and don't think that is a fair interpretation. in a time when a real war is going on, and real Americans are losing their lives, it is obvious his statement infers he initially found it off-setting to make a fantasy war movie that takes the concept of war lightly and turns it into something essentially fun to sell toys. if you can't tell the difference between that concept and a film with a political message, and why he wouldn't want to go from making one to the other until he understood the concept of the Joe movie better, well...

 

While you are most likely correct as to his meaning, I find it more offsetting that the during such times, the "Real American Hero" aspect of GI Joe appears to be diminishing, and a brand which was a wonderful tribute to the soldiers out there is being stripped of identity for the sake of those ashamed of our nation's actions. While his worries of trivializing real war are noble, by accepting a role for a character of a brand which people are trying to make politically correct and more like X Men, is demeaning. I don't expect him to know much of GI Joe, but if I had the chance to speak with him, I'd tell him why it's so important that the message remain the same as what was sung in the original cartoon theme song. After all, war has been going on somewhere constantly since and before GI Joe. I'd much rather see actors questioning whether or not they should be in GI Joe because the seriousness was taken out of it, and by seriousness I mean anything that one might draw parallels to American soldiers with. The comic has always been full of grit. While the cartoon was not as gritty, it still bled red, white, and blue. And for the record, GI Joe has never taken war lightly. So if I criticize Tatum for anything, it is his conclusion that it is okay to be a part of GI Joe because it's not serious.

I think you are confusing the issue. it isn't that the movie isn't being taken seriously, it is that the movie isn't about war at all, which is what he thought it was initially, which is a fair assumption being that it is called G.I. Joe. after he read the script he realized it wasn't a war movie, it is a sci-fi military super hero adventure, therefore it has no relation whatsoever to the very serious subject matter of war and doesn't diminish the seriousness of the situation that is taking the lives of our brothers and sisters for the sake of selling toys.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong about your stances, just that your sensitivity to it is perhaps clouding your ability to fairly evaluate what he is saying.

I thought I conceded the point already to the likely intent of his words, however, I did not justify them. While what you said above may very well be his reasoning, his reasoning is therefore flawed. Unless he intends to make Stop Loss without any profit, or just to cover for his time, he is making money off of the "very serious subject matter of war." Profit for him or for toy companies, who cares? It's okay for him to have a war movie and make money off of it, but not toy companies? He should't be worried about if it was about war or not, but what the message was, reguardless if it sells toys.

who said it had anything to do with money or profit? you are confusing the issue again. it has to do with respecting the dire life and death scenario that our soldiers are going through every day and not making light of it, which this movie does not because it has nothing to do with war at all. I'm not quite sure how you keep associating profit and morals with such a simple premise. you are simply reaching to criticize him needlessly for having some semblance of respect for the seriousness war -- which is a significant aspect of what Stop-Loss is about, so making such a movie in no way compromises him, his morals or his character in any way.

 

I don't know the guy, he could very well be the most pompous, self righteous, hypocrite in the world, but nothing he said that is being discussed and you are criticizing him for intimates such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey by the way, isn't anyone else a little concerned about the laser- i mean "pulse" rifles!? Are you kidding me? If there was one thing(and there were many) that was stupid about the cartoon, is that the guns shot laser beams! Why would you choose to include that in the movie? aye carumba

no, not at all. we're talking about a movie essentially dependent upon advanced technology and fantastical weaponry. A pulse cannon that can crumple an armored Humvess into a wad of aluminum foil with a single blast is fun and exciting stuff. if you are looking for something lss fantastical and more realistic, this movie ain't for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey by the way, isn't anyone else a little concerned about the laser- i mean "pulse" rifles!? Are you kidding me? If there was one thing(and there were many) that was stupid about the cartoon, is that the guns shot laser beams! Why would you choose to include that in the movie? aye carumba

no, not at all. we're talking about a movie essentially dependent upon advanced technology and fantastical weaponry. A pulse cannon that can crumple an armored Humvess into a wad of aluminum foil with a single blast is fun and exciting stuff. if you are looking for something lss fantastical and more realistic, this movie ain't for you.

 

I like the idea of LASERS as weapons for the Joes, simply because it justifies the whole idea of them using beyond-leading edge equipment in their battles against COBRA ( who probably will instigate by using the same kinds of high-tech weapons first)

COBRA is a threat only because they used such gear-otherwise there'd be no need for such a "special" mission force to counter them.

If they used conventional weapons......then they'd logically only need conventional vehicles like Hummvees and Bradleys, and that would take away a lot of the magic that is GIJOE.

Sorry, I've seen Humvees and Bradleys roll about already, I want to see something........I haven't seen before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey by the way, isn't anyone else a little concerned about the laser- i mean "pulse" rifles!? Are you kidding me? If there was one thing(and there were many) that was stupid about the cartoon, is that the guns shot laser beams! Why would you choose to include that in the movie? aye carumba

no, not at all. we're talking about a movie essentially dependent upon advanced technology and fantastical weaponry. A pulse cannon that can crumple an armored Humvess into a wad of aluminum foil with a single blast is fun and exciting stuff. if you are looking for something lss fantastical and more realistic, this movie ain't for you.

 

I like the idea of LASERS as weapons for the Joes, simply because it justifies the whole idea of them using beyond-leading edge equipment in their battles against COBRA ( who probably will instigate by using the same kinds of high-tech weapons first)

COBRA is a threat only because they used such gear-otherwise there'd be no need for such a "special" mission force to counter them.

If they used conventional weapons......then they'd logically only need conventional vehicles like Hummvees and Bradleys, and that would take away a lot of the magic that is GIJOE.

Sorry, I've seen Humvees and Bradleys roll about already, I want to see something........I haven't seen before.

exactly. what would be better on screen, Scarlett firing a regular crossbow (why would she carry a cross-bow into battle in the first place, even if it has explosive arrows or something), or a laser guided laser crossbow that can home in on its target? the latter is far cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was taking place a little in the future too. There could be weapons like this in five years, who knows.

the movie isn't even attempting to be plausible, merely visually exciting and fantastic.

 

this is a movie meant to sell toys and stimulate children's imaginations-- leave your believability at the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was taking place a little in the future too. There could be weapons like this in five years, who knows.

 

They have stuff they can ( and may already have) field right now.

Watch any episode of Futureweapons on the Militray Channel to get a good idea.

 

One that I think is cool is the OICW (Objective Infantry Combat Weapon) that looks more than a little like the Pulse rifle from Aliens.

Its a integrated over-under 20 or 30mm grenade launcher mated with a ( I think) 5.56 assault rifle. Kind of like a M203 on steroids.

The novel thing about the rifle is that it has some electronic functions --in addition to mag fed cartridges for the launcher and rifle--and the shooter can cue in commands to the rounds.

For example, they can set the distance on a fuze on a proximity round--so it can detonate OVER a trench fulla hidden bad guys. Great capability for troops to have.

 

The other thing about LASERS, is that they have reportedly been used offensively in combat for about 20 years now. Apparently in the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq used LASERS against lines of advancing Iranian troops--aimed at eye-level with the intent to blind them.

From what I remember reading, Doctors without Borders reported a stream of eye injuries ( burnt retinas) in Iranian during the conflict.

Obviously that's got less "pizzazz" then shooting a LASER bolt at someone and blowing chunks off them, but its an interesting bit of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was taking place a little in the future too. There could be weapons like this in five years, who knows.

 

They have stuff they can ( and may already have) field right now.

Watch any episode of Futureweapons on the Militray Channel to get a good idea.

 

One that I think is cool is the OICW (Objective Infantry Combat Weapon) that looks more than a little like the Pulse rifle from Aliens.

Its a integrated over-under 20 or 30mm grenade launcher mated with a ( I think) 5.56 assault rifle. Kind of like a M203 on steroids.

The novel thing about the rifle is that it has some electronic functions --in addition to mag fed cartridges for the launcher and rifle--and the shooter can cue in commands to the rounds.

For example, they can set the distance on a fuze on a proximity round--so it can detonate OVER a trench fulla hidden bad guys. Great capability for troops to have.

 

 

The company behind this weapon (or one very similar in design) is currently showcasing it here in Hawaii this week. The 203 portion of the weapon is also detachable, and can be used without the rifle. They are also showcasing a bunch of equipment that we will begin to see in the next few years in the Army. We are always upgrading our equipment. Ask any soldier thats been in more than a few years, and they'll tell you how many times they've had to draw new gear because the other stuff was considered obsolete. So, it's not too far fetched that a special missions unit would have the most advanced stuff available for the time. Of course, as mentioned before, there really doesn't need to be any real explaination for it. This movie is not trying to be realistic, it's trying to be a summer blockbuster action flick that sells Hasbro a ton of toys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey by the way, isn't anyone else a little concerned about the laser- i mean "pulse" rifles!? Are you kidding me? If there was one thing(and there were many) that was stupid about the cartoon, is that the guns shot laser beams! Why would you choose to include that in the movie? aye carumba

no, not at all. we're talking about a movie essentially dependent upon advanced technology and fantastical weaponry. A pulse cannon that can crumple an armored Humvess into a wad of aluminum foil with a single blast is fun and exciting stuff. if you are looking for something lss fantastical and more realistic, this movie ain't for you.

 

I like the idea of LASERS as weapons for the Joes, simply because it justifies the whole idea of them using beyond-leading edge equipment in their battles against COBRA ( who probably will instigate by using the same kinds of high-tech weapons first)

COBRA is a threat only because they used such gear-otherwise there'd be no need for such a "special" mission force to counter them.

If they used conventional weapons......then they'd logically only need conventional vehicles like Hummvees and Bradleys, and that would take away a lot of the magic that is GIJOE.

Sorry, I've seen Humvees and Bradleys roll about already, I want to see something........I haven't seen before.

 

I disagree - the best thing about GI Joe was that it was a successful MIX of both sci-fi elements and real-world military equipment. That kept it "realistic" enough to have an edge other properties didn't have. You could have a laser trooper like Sci-Fi or Flash mixed in with guys like Grunt or Footloose, who carried run of the mill M-16s. Some of the vehicles were a bit more fantastic but were still a realistic olive drab or camo, at least when the line was at its best. GI Joe lost that edge when it started getting too fantastic, leading to crap like Star Brigade and Eco Warriors.

 

So I'm not dismayed TOO much by talk of lasers and pulse rifles. As long as EVERYONE doesn't end up looking like a Colonial Marine from Aliens and we DO see Hummers and Bradleys among the VAMPs, etc, I'm happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't have a huge issue with the guy until I heard of his film "Stop Loss" which paints the military as some crafty, sneaky, unsympathetic machine that manipulates soldiers and ruins their lives. It's one big lie of a movie, and it bothers me that this guy - who is the star of that film - is playing a character who is supposed to symbolize the good and noble aspects of the military.

 

You understand that its just "acting", don't you?

 

An actor can play a gay murderer in one film, and a upstanding preacher in their next......its not a reflection of them as a person---its just a portrayal they've been hired to depict. You are the one imposing your reference and values on the actor......is it necessarily fair to do that because their working reality is clearly different than your perceptions?

I have a feeling you didn't read what Channing said very thoroughly, as he obviously thinks it's more than just acting; @wink@

Tatum says, "Originally, I passed on the movie because I was afraid of playing a fantasy war movie. In a time of war, I was like, 'It's just not right.' Then when I read the script [i realized] it's 'X-Men.' That's all it is. No one's taking it too serious. [Director] Stephen Sommers is a big kid with a really large erector set."

Apparently, he thinks it's okay to be in a movie like "Stop Loss" which is drenched in political agenda and is fictitious, but has a moral conflict with a fantasy war movie. It's interesting that these morality based decisions only seem to come up with hollywood types when it comes to the war. Personally, I feel that GI Joe has profound meaning and is very distinctive in voice, which is why it bothers me that he is fine promoting Stop Loss, but has to think twice over GI Joe. It raises the question, what is Tatum against promoting? Is he worried about children thinking war is fun? If that is all that he means, I can accept that. However, violence and death will still be there. So, unless he can point out his distinct reluctancies, I have reason to believe that he was worried that the GI Joe movie was going to endorse fighting against real threats like the kind of terrorism we see today, thereby justifying the war we are now in. I don't see a problem with that, but he might.

 

The fact he appeared in a movie doesn't mean he's entirely OK with any and all messages it sends. Christian Bale was in American Psycho. Does that mean he's "okay" with murder to the tune of classical music? Maybe his character in the film stands for something else, and that's what he wanted to back.

 

If he's being cautious about a fantasy war movie, he's being like the rest of the world since 9-11. He said he changed his mind after reading the script. If his agent called him up and asked if he wanted to do G.I. Joe, he wouldn't be remiss in thinking immediately about the fact no one dies in G.I. Joe, that in the cartoons it was lasers and the bad guys always ejected from their blown-up planes and everyone lived to fight another day. Maybe he didn't want to be a part of something he thought was going to be a lighthearted take on something that's not lighthearted, then realized what it actually was when he read the script.

 

I could be wrong, too, but I'm not going to pass judgment on him or assume anything he stands for from one sentence in an interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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