Jump to content

Toy Fair 2009: G.I. Joe - The Rise Of Cobra Figures And More


The Wire

Recommended Posts

"Hey....there seems to be an interest in popular 80's toylines, in particular G.I.Joe, so let's exploit that interest and make a MOVIE about them, but let's not make it like the fans remember it, or would want it, but instead...let's make it DIFFERENT so people who DON"T collect the toys or follow the characters from the cartoons or comics, can enjoy it as well?"

 

 

Is that the line of thought on something like this? I thought they'd at least wait until a true to detail version of the G.I.Joe ARAH story was created for the big screen before jumping in with the Tim Burton crap of re imagining a popular story line?

 

Take a look at all of the major 80's toy properties that became movies: He-man, Transformers, GIJOE, or for that matter movies like the Flintstones, Super Mario Bros, Popeye, Superman, Batman etc.........have any of them ever been true to detail? Nope, all of them have endured changes.

 

He-Man, TMNT, Flintstones, SMB, Popeye, Street Fighter, or most other toys/games to live action movie on the big screen.....were el' STINKEROO! Burton's Batman wasn't exactly my favorite and many of the Superman sequels stunk up the place as well. I never collected or followed the Transformers so the movie was okay IMO and then of course Hulk wasn't exactly too great, with the 2nd offering being a tiny bit better.

 

They didn't "endure" much in the ratings department, so maybe the issue of not staying true to the "details" hurt them in the end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Hey....there seems to be an interest in popular 80's toylines, in particular G.I.Joe, so let's exploit that interest and make a MOVIE about them, but let's not make it like the fans remember it, or would want it, but instead...let's make it DIFFERENT so people who DON"T collect the toys or follow the characters from the cartoons or comics, can enjoy it as well?"

 

 

Is that the line of thought on something like this? I thought they'd at least wait until a true to detail version of the G.I.Joe ARAH story was created for the big screen before jumping in with the Tim Burton crap of re imagining a popular story line?

 

Take a look at all of the major 80's toy properties that became movies: He-man, Transformers, GIJOE, or for that matter movies like the Flintstones, Super Mario Bros, Popeye, Superman, Batman etc.........have any of them ever been true to detail? Nope, all of them have endured changes.

 

He-Man and Super Mario aren't very good movie examples to cite when you're talking about 80's properties going to the big screen, in relation to how well they may possibly turn out. @smilepunch@ @loll@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lol@ Heck, I didn't even know Blade was a comic book character, I just liked the movie. I'd be willing to bet MORE people have at least SOME knowledge of G.I.Joe though, so while there will definitely be some people who just heard of G.I.Joe for the first time ever, and end up really liking the movie based on zero pry knowledge and no expectations out of it except whetehrs it's action packed or not, I don't think it's going to be in the 99% range?

 

Its a safe bet that most of the folks seeing this movie will not have read all the comics, seen all the cartoons, or bought many of the toys--they will have had a "cherry-picked" association to GIJOE--unlike us died-in-the-wool fans. They might have read a few comics, seen a dozen or so cartoons and owned about as many of the toys--their knowledge of the GIJOE property will be based around that.

Its highly doubtful they will share the same depth of knowledge as you and I.

So knowing or caring about a character like Ripcord being white or black is going to be VERY low on their radar. They will be more concerned about whether or not he's entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He-Man, TMNT, Flintstones, SMB, Popeye, Street Fighter, or most other toys/games to live action movie on the big screen.....were el' STINKEROO!...They didn't "endure" much in the ratings department, so maybe the issue of not staying true to the "details" hurt them in the end?

 

Actually, TMNT was one of the better movies of the above mentioned. It probably stuck closest to the source material of all of them as well.

 

And speaking of Street Fighter...I saw a preview for a new Street Fighter movie called "The Legend of Chun Li" or something like that last night. All I could think was "Oh no...not again!" I probably won't even give it a chance, just based on how horrific the one of the 90's was. Hopefully this new GI Joe movie won't leave the same impression on people after they see it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lol@ Heck, I didn't even know Blade was a comic book character, I just liked the movie. I'd be willing to bet MORE people have at least SOME knowledge of G.I.Joe though, so while there will definitely be some people who just heard of G.I.Joe for the first time ever, and end up really liking the movie based on zero pry knowledge and no expectations out of it except whetehrs it's action packed or not, I don't think it's going to be in the 99% range?

 

Its a safe bet that most of the folks seeing this movie will not have read all the comics, seen all the cartoons, or bought many of the toys--they will have had a "cherry-picked" association to GIJOE--unlike us died-in-the-wool fans. They might have read a few comics, seen a dozen or so cartoons and owned about as many of the toys--their knowledge of the GIJOE property will be based around that.

Its highly doubtful they will share the same depth of knowledge as you and I.

So knowing or caring about a character like Ripcord being white or black is going to be VERY low on their radar. They will be more concerned about whether or not he's entertaining.

 

I think you are underestimating just how popular GI Joe was with my generation. Most of the kids in my neighborhood had TONS of GI Joe figures and vehicles. Will they remember Ripcord? Probably not...so point taken there. However, I think you'd be surprised how many people in the 25-30 range have quite a few childhood related GI Joe memories, even though many of them are probably tucked away in the back of their brains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He-Man and Super Mario aren't very good movie examples to cite when you're talking about 80's properties going to the big screen, in relation to how well they may possibly turn out. smile2.gif guitar.gif

 

What?? Do only good movies count as examples?

Feel free to point out the better versions of these of films.........LOL!

Let's face it: the toy/cartoon-to-movie properties field FAR more turds than they do gems--and its only been in the last few years have we gotten the gems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are underestimating just how popular GI Joe was with my generation. Most of the kids in my neighborhood had TONS of GI Joe figures and vehicles. Will they remember Ripcord? Probably not...so point taken there. However, I think you'd be surprised how many people in the 25-30 range have quite a few childhood related GI Joe memories, even though many of them are probably tucked away in the back of their brains.

 

Right, but how many of them owned all the toys, read all the comics....watched all the cartoons, ate the cereal, farted in the underwear, drooled on the bed linen? Probably a lot less than you might remember.

We are a dangerous crowd for opinions on this kind of thing, because we are all so into it, and its such a big part of our lives that we distort its prominence in light of the whole.

The folks that I know of that had the toys when they were kids had, at best.....a dozen or so figures. Most had just a couple. Most watched maybe 3/4's of a season's worth of the cartoon ( 16 episodes or so), read maybe a dozen or so issues of the comic ( out of 155 issues). They do not have the encyclopedic knowledge we have.

 

Most of the general knowledge will be that COBRA COMMANDER was the head bad guy, a bit of a bumbling nit-wit with a screeching voice. Duke and/ or Flint are the squared jawed hero guys, with the booming, manly voices and take-charge demeanour. Destro will be the guy in the metal mask and the Baroness is his squeeze.

Snake-Eyes will be a bit of the mystery to some fans, and a bit of a fantasy realized to others--because in the cartoons he was a no-body, and in the comics he was the start of the book most of the time.

The cartoons portrayed many of the character at odds with other interpretations.

Duke and Scarlet were an item in the a cartoon, Spirit and Storm Shadow were pitted against each other more than Storm Shadow and Snake-eyes were--and the comics were very different.

There's no consistency there, so what is canon?

That depends on the association one has with GIJOE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He-Man and Super Mario aren't very good movie examples to cite when you're talking about 80's properties going to the big screen, in relation to how well they may possibly turn out. smile2.gif guitar.gif

 

What?? Do only good movies count as examples?

Feel free to point out the better versions of these of films.........LOL!

 

@loll@ I guess we might be expecting, maybe just a little..TOO much? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah poor Hasbro. :rolleyes: I bet they cry themselves to sleep about it?

 

Now as far as snaring other markets go.....they've got this little thing called an imagination they could utilize, instead of trying to milk the ever lovin' LAST drop of profitability out of good ol' G.I.Joe and just come up with something entirely NEW and improved all on it's own, and start fresh with absolutely ZERO expectations from any "fanboys" to hurt their feelings over, with all their incessant complaining and whining, that all you self appointed Hasbro apologists feel the need to run around crying about and trying to rationalize the irrationality of it... ad nauseam.

 

Please do explain why it's "irrational" to retool a concept/line that has NOT proven to be remotely as strong as it was twenty years ago for an audience that wasn't even born when the cartoon was airing and the comics were on supermarket shelves and convenience store spinner racks? More so, explain what's so "irrational" about keeping some concepts from a pre-existing mythos, and discarding others...particularly when those "familiar" elements just might be enough to pull in former "casual fans" of the property who now (amazingly enough) just might have children of the perfect "target age" for the toys, etc...? Lastly, explain what's so "irrational" about seeking out a new audience that you've been unable to gain even with an "authentic" recreation of the "classic" mythos? Especially when you're a Toy business that's trying to make more money, as is the goal of all for-profit businesses.

 

I hope you're earning something besides just brownie points for all this effort you put into to being the superior intellect of all that is PC in the toy collecting world? If you don't like what others have to say about your choice hobbies and interests, here's an idea....STOP GOING TO PLACES WHERE YOU HAVE TO READ THEM!

 

We were all collecting these toys LONG before the Internet was around, and did just fine with it in a vacuum.

 

So why don't you take your own advice? If you don't like hearing opinions you don't enjoy, or don't enjoy seeing your own opinions and preconceived notions challenged, chewed up, spit out, and otherwise opposed, perhaps internet message boards aren't the place for you. I enjoy a good debate, and I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise. While I'm not sure I'd call this a "good" debate, I'm afraid it still takes more than a large post count, a little name calling, and a condescending attitude to bully me into silence.

 

Moving on....

 

When it comes to the subject of 80's properties being adapted into films, there's exactly one, and only one film that's responsible for what we're seeing with the G.I. Joe film: Transformers. Hasbro and Hollywood don't care about Masters of the Universe, Super Mario Brothers, or anything else that came before. It's all about "what have you done for me lately?" Lately, Transformers pulled in hundreds of millions in box office receipts and likely even more in merchandise revenue. It managed to do this despite taking considerable liberties with the source material and characters therein (and notably did so in spite of a torrent of fan complaints about said changes prior to the film's release). Now Hasbro and Hollywood are trying to do the same thing with G.I. Joe using pretty much the same formula. Will lightning strike twice? There's no way to know right now, but if one thing was proven by the success of the Transformers film and merchandise, it's that a partially-disgruntled pre-existing "hardcore fanbase" is not a significant detriment to financial success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to the subject of 80's properties being adapted into films, there's exactly one, and only one film that's responsible for what we're seeing with the G.I. Joe film: Transformers. Hasbro and Hollywood don't care about Masters of the Universe, Super Mario Brothers, or anything else that came before. It's all about "what have you done for me lately?" Lately, Transformers pulled in hundreds of millions in box office receipts and likely even more in merchandise revenue. It managed to do this despite taking considerable liberties with the source material and characters therein (and notably did so in spite of a torrent of fan complaints about said changes prior to the film's release). Now Hasbro and Hollywood are trying to do the same thing with G.I. Joe using pretty much the same formula. Will lightning strike twice? There's no way to know right now, but if one thing was proven by the success of the Transformers film and merchandise, it's that a partially-disgruntled pre-existing "hardcore fanbase" is not a significant detriment to financial success.

 

Yes, I think its clear that the green-light for GIJOE came on the success of the first Transformers film--the property had been languishing in development hell for over a decade prior.

The key thing here is that the property is going be changed in its "window dressing"--and frankly, it needs to be.

It works fine in its comics form, in cartoon form and even in CGI..........but translating those forms directly to live-action will not work. GIJOE is shallow, campy military fantasy--a very simplistic good-vs evil premise, something that works fine for a toy-line and a cartoon, but comes up short for a live-action movie.

The questions that "fans" really need to soul-search in themselves are as to whether the veneer is the whole of GIJOE.

Does COBRA Commander need the hood to be COBRA Commander? He's been seen without it in several incarnations in both toys, comics and cartoons--and been accepted as such.

Does Destro need to wear the steel mask all the time to be Destro?

Does Zartan need to wear the mask and hood to be Zartan?

Does Ripcord need to be causcasian?

Does GIJOE need to be an exclusively American special mission force?

Again, all of these things are just surface gloss--none of them fundamentally change the core premise of a good guy military unit at odds with a bad-guy terrorist force.

We've already seen different incarnations of these characters, we've seen the core concept molded into addressing contemporary matters.

This movie is doing the same thing as has been done before, but the most critical thing is that its being realized as a movie.

Like everything else, it remains a take-it-or-leave-it thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know guys. I feel like I'm from the school of thought that finds it interesting when they make some creative changes or take artistic license with a given property. I'm currently going through one of my periodic Transformers obsessions (lol), and I was watching the special features material on Disk 2 of the Transformers live-action movie, and Steven Spielberg said it best for me when he said it's always interesting when someone takes something you're familar with and re-imagines it in a new and very different way. And that's also how I personally view the new G.I. Joe film. Yeah, on some level it would be exciting to see beloved characters brought to life on the big screen as very strict and literal translations from the toys. But then, on another level I think it would be like the costumed characters that show up at mall openings and parades; it looks like a cartoon brought to life. And I think that's what would have happened if we had seen our favorite Joes and Cobras translated to the big screen in their original costumes and uniforms.

 

Now that's not to say they couldn't have tweaked their original looks enough to be modern and relevant, yet have them retain some core elements to make them look like their classic versions. They could have, and that would have been cool too. And really, Snake-Eyes is just that in the new movie; he looks enough like his original version, at least Version 2, to be instantly recognizeable, yet he's been slightly updated so as to look a little modernized.

 

But like ARROW alluded to, as long as they retain the core of what these characters are all about (Duke's the field commander, Scarlett is in covert ops, Snake-Eyes is a Commando/Ninja), then they can change whatever else they want, as long as it looks and feels cool.

 

I always fall back on the Transformers film as a reference, for obvious reasons. Early on I would see these really slick-looking, organic designs for the film versions of the characters, and of course in some cases they didn't even resemble the originals, but I kept an open mind nonetheless, and I ended-up loving the film, drastic changes and all. I mean, if you look at it another way, just think of updated G.I. Joe figures we all just had to have as kids. Maybe someone just absolutely loved the original Snake-Eyes. He always had this very commando-ish look. He had a standard military-looking black-ops uniform and gear, and he was just cool and mysterious. Then all of a sudden we get this new RE-IMAGINED version in 1985. "What? He's wearing what looks like a medieval knight's visor now?! He carries a sword all of a sudden?! He has a pet wolf even?! COOL!!" Hardly as military-looking as the original, but most if not all of us went nuts for him. We didn't threaten to boycott Hasbro whenever we got Cobra Commander in what looked like silver and blue Darth Vader armor. It seemed that at least to me most people just rolled with it, and some of us even actually liked it.

 

I think we just get so caught up in the excitement of finally seeing G.I. Joe realized as a live-action film that we think it should stricly adhere to whatever classic conventions we think are definitive. But if Hasbro had done the same thing, then we wouldn't have gotten cool variations of our favorite characters over the years. Now you can make the argument that there's a difference; the toyline was a toyline, not a major motion picture they're doing for the first time in history. That's true, but the basis of my argument is the same.

 

Another example: What if Luke Skywalker appeared in every Star Wars movie in his Tatooine farmboy clothes? Yeah, that was his original classic look, but how boring would that have been to see him in that same costume in every situation? Now given, the Joes and Cobras haven't been given the chance to appear in their original classic looks, but honestly, I think they would have looked so outdated in their original uniforms. Scarlett for one would have looked ridiculous in her one-piece bathing-suit and gray/dark-blue leotard-combo, in high-heeled boots no less!! (lol) (Frankly, now that I think of it, wouldn't she have looked infinitely cooler had the peach/flesh-colored parts of her uniform been like an olive green like the rest of the team, along with combat boots? But anyway...that's neither here nor there really...)

 

Now if someone would show me pictures of the black-ops suits the team is wearing in the movie, and they would say to me, "This is what the military is wearing these days. It's cutting edge." I'd say, "How freaking cool is that?!" I think that's something else to consider, the fact that G.I. Joe was always meant to be a secret military counter-terrorist team that utilyzed the most up-to-date weapons and technology available, and that's what I see in this new movie.

 

To be fair to the purists though, I do think this movie was "green-lit" back when Sigma 6 was wildly popular with the kids, and the Reloaded comic series had come out. I do see some definite parallels; of course the new suits look like Sigma suits, and the "super suits" look like that weird but cool Sigm 6 Duke that came with that huge cannon. Also, Storm Shadow's design looks to be somewhat based on his Reloaded look, and Snake-Eyes looks almost identical to the version in the painted back-cover of one of the earlier Devil's Due comics. (I can't remember just now which issue that was, but anyway...) To be honest though, I for one really liked the Sigma 6 take on G.I. Joe. It leaned more towards the sci-fi elements of the mythos, but I really enjoyed it. (Wish I hadn't have sold them all...) (lol)

 

Guys, at the end of the day, really, it's just a movie. And when I want to see a movie, I want to be entertained. Just like with Transformers, to give yet another example; it was a big, bloated popcorn blockbuster of a movie with a very weak, non-complicated plot. But sometimes, that's exactly what I want to see when I go to the movies, something that's just cool to watch. Not something that's a profound, moving, artsy statement that I think some people are wanting or expected with G.I. Joe. Like Transformers, it just looks like a cool, fun movie. And I can't wait. If I want to see the classic versions of Joes and Cobras, I'll always have my comics and figures. As with Transformers yet again; it's like an alternate universe version of what I know, and that's just plain ol' interesting to me, to see it interpreted in a different yet cool way. It's like I have the toy version, the comic version, and now the film version, and to me each one is different and interesting. If nothing was ever changed about a given character amongst different mediums, it would get old and be so very boring I think.

 

I for one am wildly excited about what I've seen so far. Will I be disappointed when I actually see it, or will it far exceed my expectations like Transformers did? Who knows at this point really? But based on what I'm seeing so far, I really can't wait. Heck, I've even warmed-up to Storm Shadow's new look in the film. At first I thought it was hideous and laughable. (lol) But now...I don't know what it is about it. Maybe it's the white-leather look it has, or maybe it's so different it looks cool. You know, like how you think someone is so ugly that they're actually handsome or beautiful really in some way? (lol) The only thing I'm really upset about right now is that whole "you can only get the cool version of Hawk if you buy the PITT playset/vehicle" debacle. Argh!! I'm getting upset all over again just thinking about it... @grumpy@ (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredible ARROW; that's the shortest post I've ever seen you make. (So says the pot to the kettle...) (lol) Seriously man, thanks. That's a huge compliment coming from you my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah poor Hasbro. :rolleyes: I bet they cry themselves to sleep about it?

 

Now as far as snaring other markets go.....they've got this little thing called an imagination they could utilize, instead of trying to milk the ever lovin' LAST drop of profitability out of good ol' G.I.Joe and just come up with something entirely NEW and improved all on it's own, and start fresh with absolutely ZERO expectations from any "fanboys" to hurt their feelings over, with all their incessant complaining and whining, that all you self appointed Hasbro apologists feel the need to run around crying about and trying to rationalize the irrationality of it... ad nauseam.

 

Please do explain why it's "irrational" to retool a concept/line that has NOT proven to be remotely as strong as it was twenty years ago for an audience that wasn't even born when the cartoon was airing and the comics were on supermarket shelves and convenience store spinner racks? More so, explain what's so "irrational" about keeping some concepts from a pre-existing mythos, and discarding others...particularly when those "familiar" elements just might be enough to pull in former "casual fans" of the property who now (amazingly enough) just might have children of the perfect "target age" for the toys, etc...? Lastly, explain what's so "irrational" about seeking out a new audience that you've been unable to gain even with an "authentic" recreation of the "classic" mythos? Especially when you're a Toy business that's trying to make more money, as is the goal of all for-profit businesses.

 

I hope you're earning something besides just brownie points for all this effort you put into to being the superior intellect of all that is PC in the toy collecting world? If you don't like what others have to say about your choice hobbies and interests, here's an idea....STOP GOING TO PLACES WHERE YOU HAVE TO READ THEM!

 

We were all collecting these toys LONG before the Internet was around, and did just fine with it in a vacuum.

 

So why don't you take your own advice? If you don't like hearing opinions you don't enjoy, or don't enjoy seeing your own opinions and preconceived notions challenged, chewed up, spit out, and otherwise opposed, perhaps internet message boards aren't the place for you. I enjoy a good debate, and I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise. While I'm not sure I'd call this a "good" debate, I'm afraid it still takes more than a large post count, a little name calling, and a condescending attitude to bully me into silence.

 

 

Hey, you're the one doing all the b!tching and complaining about the many fans of G.I.Joe and how unappreciative of Hasbro and everything they don't do for them, you think they are, not me. I like the company here of most my fellow comrades in the G.I.Joe collecting commuinty and put myself on an equal and even plain with them, whereas YOU seem to think you're just a wee bit superior in your approach to something as serious as toy collecting and like to be a pompous ass about it and mock and criticize actual PEOPLE, on their subpar ideas and comments, when most of us here are only griping and discussing TOYS and MOVIES. Big difference.

 

Save your egotistical BS with me, I couldn't careless what a blowhard like yourself thinks about the fans, I'm here to try and chat about new Joe toys with some buds, and if you don't like the group, then get the hell out of here. It's toys...not politics! There's no right and no wrong WAY to do it. If you're getting some jollies out of "chewing up and spitting out" what fans think about toys and movies made about them, then you've got more serious issues to worry about than some "bully" like me calling you out on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, Figg? Can o' worms! ^_^

 

What have I done? :o

Sparked a healthy, spirited discussion. Go back to sleep.

 

 

Should've kept with the 'mouth shut' philosophy...

 

 

Ya cannot learn if ya don't deconstruct sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, Figg? Can o' worms! ^_^

 

What have I done? :o

Sparked a healthy, spirited discussion. Go back to sleep.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm just being silly as I usually am.

 

As far as the Ripcord being black, I don't care. Seriously. To me it's as silly as if someone where to complain that the guy playing Storm Shadow is Korean instead of Japanese (or Japanese-American).

 

Wayans is playing American, that's all. Some people loved Duncan as Kingpin (I thought he was great), some couldn't get past the fact he was black, some didn't like him in the role for another reason. To anyone that didn't like Duncan as Kingpin let me ask this: Name one (1) white actor who would have been better in the role?

 

That is a little bit of apples to oranges as there's many an actor out there who'd be better at playing Ripcord than Wayans, but not because he's black, but because he's a sucky actor. IMO anyway.

 

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, Figg? Can o' worms! ^_^

 

What have I done? :o

Sparked a healthy, spirited discussion. Go back to sleep.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm just being silly as I usually am.

 

As far as the Ripcord being black, I don't care. Seriously. To me it's as silly as if someone where to complain that the guy playing Storm Shadow is Korean instead of Japanese (or Japanese-American).

 

Wayans is playing American, that's all. Some people loved Duncan as Kingpin (I thought he was great), some couldn't get past the fact he was black, some didn't like him in the role for another reason. To anyone that didn't like Duncan as Kingpin let me ask this: Name one (1) white actor who would have been better in the role?

 

That is a little bit of apples to oranges as there's many an actor out there who'd be better at playing Ripcord than Wayans, but not because he's black, but because he's a sucky actor. IMO anyway.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Everybody is going to have their different takes on this kind of stuff, based on our own persnickety expectations or preferences over what would seem "better" or cool. That's the fun of the chatter about it, between us. I don't care if it's logical or not, it's an emotional investment and interest we share with the stuff.

 

I don't care for Wayans as an actor myself, and I'll be seeing nothing but his mentally dim-witted-azz, one-dumbensional character he always plays in these Scary Movie films. It has nothing to do with him as Ripcord, it's just HIM as any G.I.joe in this movie at all. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Unless it's Damon, the rest of the Wayans (and company) , with the possible exception of Carrey, are relegated to 'In Living Color' allumni appearances.

 

Furthermore, I also agree you'd be hard pressed to find an actor who could literally fill the role of Kingpin, as Duncan did. Plain and simple, as much as I dont like it, there's no one else who could have done the part without CGI. Unless you get King Kong Bundy, but I don't think he could have done the 'smart' aspect of the role justice.

 

The thing is, I just would not have called this guy 'Ripcord'. It would have been so much easier to give him another name. Even if they had to make one up. (Hell, was he THAT important to have in the film where they couldn't?)

 

Same can be said for Breaker, too. And I don't see how 'Stalker' is any kind of derrogetory, either. I think that'd be a fine role for him to play!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But sometimes, that's exactly what I want to see when I go to the movies, something that's just cool to watch. Not something that's a profound, moving, artsy statement that I think some people are wanting or expected with G.I. Joe.

 

I may be bitching and griping about little things here and there, but this is what I really want. Something that is just fun and entertaining.

 

When early information about the movie started coming out, I started having Street Fighter flashbacks, and feared the worst for this movie. However, after seeing the Superbowl trailer, if the actual movie is anywhere near as cool as that trailer looked, I'll probably enjoy the movie. It won't be the GI Joe that I know and love, but it will still be a fun movie to watch.

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
×
×
  • 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