Jump to content

Anyone Else Not Liking The Accelerator


Nguyen_Dragon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I bet the Baroness will save the movie... The only character that seems to have been done right...

 

 

No, my friend from what i've read on the old internet........she's just as screwed up as the rest of them. (Origin wise that is) She's the only one with an all black outfit originally.......that's why she looks "normal."

 

Damnit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the biggest thing that bugs me about all of the changes that were made for the movie is what I suspect is the biggest reason behind them all - the all important international box office numbers. Most major blockbusters today are counting on a significant portion of international sales for their profits. The producers are afraid that the audiences in France, Russia, Japan, India, and wherever wouldn't pay to see US military characters, but they loved Batman and Iron Man so let's throw something that looks kinda like those at them.

 

BINGO!!!

 

 

I would have preferred a live action G.I.Joe movie to have been made when America wasn't so un-cool and hated by the rest of the world. :(

 

This was not the time to capitalize on the story of G.I.Joe and it's ARAH characters. Even in the Super Hero movies nowadays, the U.S. military are portrayed as arrogant buffoons, trying to take out their own super hero dude, and they end up getting wasted. Probably why the International folks love'em? G.I.Joe thrived in the Reagan years...I don't think we're going to be seeing that mentality for our military (as real, as American and definitely not as HERO'S) anytime soon if ever again? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not the time to capitalize on the story of G.I.Joe and it's ARAH characters. Even in the Super Hero movies nowadays, the U.S. military are portrayed as arrogant buffoons, trying to take out their own super hero dude, and they end up getting wasted. Probably why the International folks love'em? G.I.Joe thrived in the Reagan years...I don't think we're going to be seeing that mentality for our military (as real, as American and definitely not as HERO'S) anytime soon if ever again? :(

 

I've gotten flamed for this before, but I think there is a mentality that you're not allowed to make a patriotic US war movie at any point in history after World War II. Everything set in the eras from Vietnam to the present is about incompetent and corrupt military leaders and politicians, and the only "heroes" are those who spend the whole movie philosophizing about pacifism, free will and the "real" meaning of freedom and liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not the time to capitalize on the story of G.I.Joe and it's ARAH characters. Even in the Super Hero movies nowadays, the U.S. military are portrayed as arrogant buffoons, trying to take out their own super hero dude, and they end up getting wasted. Probably why the International folks love'em? G.I.Joe thrived in the Reagan years...I don't think we're going to be seeing that mentality for our military (as real, as American and definitely not as HERO'S) anytime soon if ever again? :(

 

I've gotten flamed for this before, but I think there is a mentality that you're not allowed to make a patriotic US war movie at any point in history after World War II. Everything set in the eras from Vietnam to the present is about incompetent and corrupt military leaders and politicians, and the only "heroes" are those who spend the whole movie philosophizing about pacifism, free will and the "real" meaning of freedom and liberty.

 

I hear ya brother! ^_^

 

I've been blasted, beat down and flamed for my political retrospectives on G.I.Joe as well. You're okay to offer up WHY something about G.I.Joe might not be popular, or go over so well, with the International community, and why it's necessary to make concessions in the mythos of G.I.Joe to accommodate the political sensitivities of the worlds view towards American politics or our military, because it's just "good business sense" as well as being PC, but should you DARE to challenge those reasons...you're just stirring up political arguments and nobody wants to hear it.

 

Taking the concept of A REAL AMERICAN HERO out of G.I.JOE for political reasons, is like taking COWBOYS & INDIANS out of a Western....for political reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not the time to capitalize on the story of G.I.Joe and it's ARAH characters. Even in the Super Hero movies nowadays, the U.S. military are portrayed as arrogant buffoons, trying to take out their own super hero dude, and they end up getting wasted. Probably why the International folks love'em? G.I.Joe thrived in the Reagan years...I don't think we're going to be seeing that mentality for our military (as real, as American and definitely not as HERO'S) anytime soon if ever again? :(

 

I've gotten flamed for this before, but I think there is a mentality that you're not allowed to make a patriotic US war movie at any point in history after World War II. Everything set in the eras from Vietnam to the present is about incompetent and corrupt military leaders and politicians, and the only "heroes" are those who spend the whole movie philosophizing about pacifism, free will and the "real" meaning of freedom and liberty.

 

I hear ya brother! ^_^

 

I've been blasted, beat down and flamed for my political retrospectives on G.I.Joe as well. You're okay to offer up WHY something about G.I.Joe might not be popular, or go over so well, with the International community, and why it's necessary to make concessions in the mythos of G.I.Joe to accommodate the political sensitivities of the worlds view towards American politics or our military, because it's just "good business sense" as well as being PC, but should you DARE to challenge those reasons...you're just stirring up political arguments and nobody wants to hear it.

 

Taking the concept of A REAL AMERICAN HERO out of G.I.JOE for political reasons, is like taking COWBOYS & INDIANS out of a Western....for political reasons.

 

 

Wow, totally agree with everything above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suits suck! A co-worker of mine recently saw the Joe trailer on TV and knows I'm a Joe fan. Today he asked why I hadn't mentioned it, he said he thought I'd have said something about it by now. I basically told him, they've changed it up too much and it doesn't seem very "joe" to me.

 

VH and BradMan, I hear ya. I really wish that'd have done an origin story set in the early '80s and maybe have some flashbacks to Stalker, SE and SS during Vietnam, etc. I've said it before on the forums, but the tens years in the future really bugs me, especially with the cars on the road look just like they do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author titled this wrong. It should have been Anyone LIKING the accelerator suits?

 

The problem with them is that, as people said, it makes them less of a "badass". But, no, not in the way you think.

 

The idea is more ingrained into the idea of the underdog and 'everyday" hero mentality. That one man can make a difference. G.I. Joes were that "one man". And it isn't just G.I. Joe, it is EVERY ACTION MOVIE EVER MADE.

 

Be it John Wayne, John McClane, Shipwreck or Han Solo, what's more cool than to see the good guy go up against the "faceless hordes" of the badguys ("Indians" or Nazis, German Terrorists, Cobra or Stormtroopers) and kick a little ass?

 

How many of those action movies had guys wearing armor or otherwise being "invinsible"? Sure, Eastwood's "Man with no name" did, but that proved he was a badass (so to speak).

 

One ironic thing pops into my head that in the mythos, it was COBRA that came up with the idea of "accelerator suits" (well, maybe not "accelorator" but armor like it non the less), but each suit was as expensive as a jet fighter, hence why only COBRA COMMANDER wore one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VH and BradMan, I hear ya. I really wish that'd have done an origin story set in the early '80s and maybe have some flashbacks to Stalker, SE and SS during Vietnam, etc. I've said it before on the forums, but the tens years in the future really bugs me, especially with the cars on the road look just like they do now.

 

Do cars on the road today look that much different from the cars on the road 10 years ago?

 

Nevermind that setting the movie in the early 80's brings about the opposite problem: "If the movie is set in the early 80's, why do all the cars look like they do now?"

 

Unless they basically cop out like X-Men Origins: Wolverine did and barely make even a token effort to have it look like it's taking place in the late 70's/early 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VH and BradMan, I hear ya. I really wish that'd have done an origin story set in the early '80s and maybe have some flashbacks to Stalker, SE and SS during Vietnam, etc. I've said it before on the forums, but the tens years in the future really bugs me, especially with the cars on the road look just like they do now.

 

Do cars on the road today look that much different from the cars on the road 10 years ago?

 

Nevermind that setting the movie in the early 80's brings about the opposite problem: "If the movie is set in the early 80's, why do all the cars look like they do now?"

 

 

That's probably taking BrotherShane's comment a little too literal? I think the issue is more baout how they made the excuse for the difference in appearances as being set BEYOND what we previously saw of these characters, and then they've added in propeller-LESS flying machines and super duper ACC suits and yet they best they could come up with for a COOL vehicle (for i nthe movie and in the toys) is an SUV with spikes on the front of it?

 

<_< sorta lame-o.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VH and BradMan, I hear ya. I really wish that'd have done an origin story set in the early '80s and maybe have some flashbacks to Stalker, SE and SS during Vietnam, etc. I've said it before on the forums, but the tens years in the future really bugs me, especially with the cars on the road look just like they do now.

 

Do cars on the road today look that much different from the cars on the road 10 years ago?

 

Nevermind that setting the movie in the early 80's brings about the opposite problem: "If the movie is set in the early 80's, why do all the cars look like they do now?"

 

 

That's probably taking BrotherShane's comment a little too literal?

 

I don't see anything in his post to indicate he meant it anything other than literally. Unless he clarifies otherwise, I suspect you're the one trying to derive "deeper meaning" from the statement.

 

I think the issue is more baout how they made the excuse for the difference in appearances as being set BEYOND what we previously saw of these characters, and then they've added in propeller-LESS flying machines and super duper ACC suits and yet they best they could come up with for a COOL vehicle (for i nthe movie and in the toys) is an SUV with spikes on the front of it?

 

<_< sorta lame-o.

 

Something tells me we haven't quite seen everything from the movie yet. Something also tells me the SUV in question probably doesn't have the spikes on it in the movie, and is instead more of a covert vehicle with hidden weaponry...really kind of useful for an urban location. But hey, that's just me.

 

There's also that Night Raven, which I happen to think is pretty cool, despite incessant whining by some folks that it's not a pitch-perfect recreation of the original. The Dropship has some potential, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suits don't bother me at all. It's not like they're all wearing them all the time. I'm mean we're also talking about a terrorist foce that is using people as troops against their owm wills. As for the the movie not having the Real American Hero tagline, well it doesn't bother me either. Joe was only marketed as RAH here in the states anyway. They aren't calling the TF movie Transformer G1: Revenge of the Fallen but that basicly what it is (meaning that they're using a version of the G1 characters, though that could be debated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not reading through the entire thread, just in case there are spoilers (not that I'm expecting much), but as far as the suits go, I don't have a problem with them as long as they're just another one of GI Joe's gadgets to be used in a specific mission. If they're ALWAYS being used, yes, that will bother me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do cars on the road today look that much different from the cars on the road 10 years ago?

 

Nevermind that setting the movie in the early 80's brings about the opposite problem: "If the movie is set in the early 80's, why do all the cars look like they do now?"

 

 

That's probably taking BrotherShane's comment a little too literal?

 

I don't see anything in his post to indicate he meant it anything other than literally. Unless he clarifies otherwise, I suspect you're the one trying to derive "deeper meaning" from the statement.

 

Maybe? However, BrotherShane's wish for how he would have LIKED the movie to been made (set), has nothing to do with THIS movie and the vehicles THEY have in it. It was hypothetical, so if BS's ideal scenario was in place instead, I'm pretty sure the vehicles would be appropriately in place, to the time period he wished for? Hope that makes sense? ^_^

 

I think the issue is more baout how they made the excuse for the difference in appearances as being set BEYOND what we previously saw of these characters, and then they've added in propeller-LESS flying machines and super duper ACC suits and yet they best they could come up with for a COOL vehicle (for i nthe movie and in the toys) is an SUV with spikes on the front of it?

 

<_< sorta lame-o.

 

Something tells me we haven't quite seen everything from the movie yet. Something also tells me the SUV in question probably doesn't have the spikes on it in the movie, and is instead more of a covert vehicle with hidden weaponry...really kind of useful for an urban location. But hey, that's just me.

 

It's not even a issue to question (or something to be told) it's easily SEEN here...

 

roctruck.jpg

 

 

 

There's also that Night Raven, which I happen to think is pretty cool, despite incessant whining by some folks that it's not a pitch-perfect recreation of the original. The Dropship has some potential, too.

 

ooooh STOP your whining! @smilepunch@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the the movie not having the Real American Hero tagline, well it doesn't bother me either. Joe was only marketed as RAH here in the states anyway.

 

But it was STILL tagged as A REAL AMERICAN HERO here in the states. The toys still sold around the world, the other countries just changed the name of it to suit their need, and that same practice takes place with movies as well. Many titles get a change if it's necessary.

 

I just hope they don't have the regular branch of the military portrayed as the bufoons that Hollywood typcially portrays them as, and as the true CULPRITS behind the "RISE OF COBRA" and they portray the G.I.Joe team as a anti-(American)military type group (rebels for their OWN cause, that started out like Tony Stark and then saw the light?) that has to come in and not so much save the mean ol' U.S. (and the WORLD) from Cobra, but from the rotten politicians in Washington as well? Always seems to go that route today? Those darn meddling Americans got us into a FIX again, and they had to call on G.I.Joe to get our butts out of it! <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's probably taking BrotherShane's comment a little too literal? I think the issue is more baout how they made the excuse for the difference in appearances as being set BEYOND what we previously saw of these characters, and then they've added in propeller-LESS flying machines and super duper ACC suits and yet they best they could come up with for a COOL vehicle (for i nthe movie and in the toys) is an SUV with spikes on the front of it?

 

<_< sorta lame-o.

I don't like the vehicle either because it makes for a lame toy, but in the movie it makes sense. it isn't as if MARS doesn't have advanced vehicles also that they utilize in combat, but this is a vehicle meant to be used in public. if you are trying to get from point A to point B in public without arousing suspicion, it makes more sense that you have a car that belongs on the road and not some super-duper high-tech vehicle. so, why does it have weapons? just in case what happens in the movie happens and they are discovered.

 

as far as the accelerator suits go, when I read the script that scene was the worst part in it, the idea just didn't read well. but watching them, both in the teaser trailer and a bit more in the new trailer, I think they come off pretty well and had I seen that when I was 7-11 years old, there wouldn't have been another element in the movie to get me more excited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's probably taking BrotherShane's comment a little too literal? I think the issue is more baout how they made the excuse for the difference in appearances as being set BEYOND what we previously saw of these characters, and then they've added in propeller-LESS flying machines and super duper ACC suits and yet they best they could come up with for a COOL vehicle (for i nthe movie and in the toys) is an SUV with spikes on the front of it?

 

<_< sorta lame-o.

I don't like the vehicle either because it makes for a lame toy, but in the movie it makes sense.

 

 

ACTUALLY...I'm probably on that page with ya! The imagine of the toy was more disappointing than the seeing it in the actual movie.

 

 

 

it isn't as if MARS doesn't have advanced vehicles also that they utilize in combat, but this is a vehicle meant to be used in public. if you are trying to get from point A to point B in public without arousing suspicion, it makes more sense that you have a car that belongs on the road and not some super-duper high-tech vehicle. so, why does it have weapons? just in case what happens in the movie happens and they are discovered.

 

Stop making so much damn sense..why don't YA?? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's probably taking BrotherShane's comment a little too literal? I think the issue is more baout how they made the excuse for the difference in appearances as being set BEYOND what we previously saw of these characters, and then they've added in propeller-LESS flying machines and super duper ACC suits and yet they best they could come up with for a COOL vehicle (for i nthe movie and in the toys) is an SUV with spikes on the front of it?

 

<_< sorta lame-o.

I don't like the vehicle either because it makes for a lame toy, but in the movie it makes sense.

 

 

ACTUALLY...I'm probably on that page with ya! The imagine of the toy was more disappointing than the seeing it in the actual movie.

 

 

 

it isn't as if MARS doesn't have advanced vehicles also that they utilize in combat, but this is a vehicle meant to be used in public. if you are trying to get from point A to point B in public without arousing suspicion, it makes more sense that you have a car that belongs on the road and not some super-duper high-tech vehicle. so, why does it have weapons? just in case what happens in the movie happens and they are discovered.

 

Stop making so much damn sense..why don't YA?? :P

 

 

See THAT'S why I thought it would be appropriate to go the M.A.S.K. route. We already have Matt Trakker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the aircraft we've seen for the film looks to be from the future, right? My complain was they're using a Hummer that looks very much of the present. You would have thought they would have looked at concept cars and made a vehicle designed off where vehicles may be headed ten years from now.

 

Of course, unless GM is doing a little product placement similar to what they did in Transformers?

 

Either way Hasbro seems to be in the wrong with the details 1.) Wrong vehicles for "the future" or 2.) wanted that product placement ca$h!

 

As for the Wolverine reference, that bothered me. They used older cars to fit the time period(s) but the characters fashions seemed to be of the present. The same thing may have happening if the Joe film was set in the past as well.

 

I know it's probably a minor part of the film, but it makes the "future" seem a little less futuristic. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the aircraft we've seen for the film looks to be from the future, right? My complain was they're using a Hummer that looks very much of the present. You would have thought they would have looked at concept cars and made a vehicle designed off where vehicles may be headed ten years from now.

 

Of course, unless GM is doing a little product placement similar to what they did in Transformers?

 

Either way Hasbro seems to be in the wrong with the details 1.) Wrong vehicles for "the future" or 2.) wanted that product placement ca$h!

 

As for the Wolverine reference, that bothered me. They used older cars to fit the time period(s) but the characters fashions seemed to be of the present. The same thing may have happening if the Joe film was set in the past as well.

 

I know it's probably a minor part of the film, but it makes the "future" seem a little less futuristic. IMO

 

 

Well, I made a comment in another thread about how the Cobra Hummer looked to "reallistic" to be a Cobra vehicle. It looks like it would be more a Joe vehicle.

 

They coulda just MADE all the vehicles like other movies do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the aircraft we've seen for the film looks to be from the future, right? My complain was they're using a Hummer that looks very much of the present. You would have thought they would have looked at concept cars and made a vehicle designed off where vehicles may be headed ten years from now.

 

Of course, unless GM is doing a little product placement similar to what they did in Transformers?

 

Product placement is a possibility, but the fact of the matter is that common vehicles on the road in 10 years probably aren't going to look that much different from what's on the road now. They've had the "slick" looking concept cars floating around for decades now...but few if any of them ever make it to the street in large numbers. Much like the Accelerator suits are an "amplified" version of concepts the US military is already working towards, the Cobra/MARs "Hummer" looks to be an amplified version of the "Super Urban Combat SUV" that's also in development. It too is a fairly nondescript looking SUV with hidden weaponry and security features.

 

Either way Hasbro seems to be in the wrong with the details 1.) Wrong vehicles for "the future" or 2.) wanted that product placement ca$h!

 

As for the Wolverine reference, that bothered me. They used older cars to fit the time period(s) but the characters fashions seemed to be of the present. The same thing may have happening if the Joe film was set in the past as well.

 

I know it's probably a minor part of the film, but it makes the "future" seem a little less futuristic. IMO

 

I tend to look at it this way: They can either spend several million more dollars "inventing" future cars and/or CG'ing them into scenes, or they can have another action sequence. "Near Future" movies have often had a tendency to go overboard with the "futuristic civilian tech" and end up looking rather silly for it when time catches up. We don't know for sure what cars are going to look like 10 years in the future (so it's basically impossible not to get that "detail" wrong), but if you look at cars 10 years ago compared to cars now, it's probably not going to be radically different. Heck...as long as some people keep cars, plenty of the vehicles that are being sold today will still be roaming the streets in 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to look at it this way: They can either spend several million more dollars "inventing" future cars and/or CG'ing them into scenes, or they can have another action sequence. "Near Future" movies have often had a tendency to go overboard with the "futuristic civilian tech" and end up looking rather silly for it when time catches up. We don't know for sure what cars are going to look like 10 years in the future (so it's basically impossible not to get that "detail" wrong), but if you look at cars 10 years ago compared to cars now, it's probably not going to be radically different. Heck...as long as some people keep cars, plenty of the vehicles that are being sold today will still be roaming the streets in 10 years.

 

 

Either way they can just ignore the plot by blowing stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Find Action Figures on Ebay

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


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

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

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