G.I. Joe might be "biggest bomb in many a moon"

[TheRyno]

It's not even that I hate Shia Lebeouff, I hate that they're not giving me a choice whether or not to like him considering he's in EVERY FUCKING MOVIE. Spielberg apparently sees him as the next big thing, so hopefully he can cultivate some talent and we'll have a Leonardo DiCaprio situation where Shia actually turns out to be a damn good actor. If not, we're looking at the next Matthew McConaughey - some douchebag that Hollywood keeps forcing upon us.

I feel the exact same way about Seth Rogan. I don't care if he is funny. The fact that he's in about every other movie lately just kills it for me. And I'm starting to feel the same way about Elizabeth Banks as well, which sucks because I think she's super talented. But she's wasting her talents in crap that she doesn't need to be in.

[darkrayne]

From what I've read on the movie and having seen pictures and the trailer, here's what I think so far:

The good:

Casting Dennis Quaid as Hawk. Top notch choice.

Except for some minor things (like the Arishkage clan symbol being on his uniform and sword), Snake-Eyes looks damn near perfect.

Sienna Miller as the Baroness. Another good choice, and I'm glad they went with using her as a brunette instead of actually giving her black hair.

Larry Hama has a cameo. Sadly, its not as Tunnel Rat, though. (the character Tunnel Rat's appearance - at least for the original action figure - was based on Hama)

The bad:

Marlon Wayans. Ugh. Easily my least favorite of the Wayans brothers.

Going off that, making Ripcord an African-American instead of using a well known member of the team who is African-American, like Stalker or Roadblock. (I can only hope they did this because Ripcord gets killed off)

Where the hell are the actual G.I. Joe uniforms?! Except for Snake-Eyes, they're all wearing something akin to urban camo (with G.I. Joe incorporated into the design) or those blasted accelerator suits, which are bad enough but make them look like black versions of Master Chief from Halo when they have the helmets on. (And they really should have given Hawk a helmet or something, because he looks about as much like Flint as he does Hawk with the black beret)

Tommy from 3rd Rock From The Sun as Cobra Commander. I'm guessing the casting director was either off his or her meds or high on Bolivian marching powder that day. (And from what I've read - haven't seen any actual pics - they've changed the helmet design and its going to look stupid)

The meh, aka I can live with it, but wish they had done better:

Storm Shadow's outfit. Wish they had gone with something more classic instead of something based on what he's been wearing in the comics lately.

Christopher Eccleston as Destro. Should have gone with someone more buff, since he makes Cobra Commander look like a wimp when standing next to him in the comics.

My prediction: This movie is going to piss me off. I was a HUGE G.I. Joe fan back in the day, and things look like it may stink on ice. I don't think it'll be a total bomb, but it won't make enough money to warrant a sequel.....unless they do a direct to video one, and you know how shit those usually are since they have lousy budgets and are usually written by total hacks.

If this much is actually wrong with this fucking movie... gahhh!! This movie is going to piss me off as much as it does you... I dont even want to go see it...

I know that sometimes things are better than the reviews.. the new Star Trek actually made me very happy ( and Im an Old school Trekkie), but this one really really seems like its gonna spit down the throats of us old fans..

[the machine]

Tommy from 3rd Rock From The Sun as Cobra Commander. I'm guessing the casting director was either off his or her meds or high on Bolivian marching powder that day. (And from what I've read - haven't seen any actual pics - they've changed the helmet design and its going to look stupid)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is probably the best actor in the film. 3rd Rock was a long time ago.

Beat me to it. He's one of the best young actors in film today; I've seen both Brick and The Lookout and he's wonderful in both of those, and his involvement was the only thing that gave me pause in regards to whether it had hope of being a good movie. But I'm pretty sure he just wanted to make a big blockbuster for once judging from interviews on the subject that he's given.

Thirded. Levitt is an incredible young actor, and I have no doubt that when it comes to acting based on toys, he will be more than acceptable.

Also, I personally dislike Marlon Wayans, but you guys do know he has done serious work before: like the terminally depressing Requiem for a Dream. I doubt he'll be playing his character from Scary Movie.

Still, this looks like it will be either god-awful or hilarious.

[Maxx]

Tommy from 3rd Rock From The Sun as Cobra Commander. I'm guessing the casting director was either off his or her meds or high on Bolivian marching powder that day. (And from what I've read - haven't seen any actual pics - they've changed the helmet design and its going to look stupid)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is probably the best actor in the film. 3rd Rock was a long time ago.

Beat me to it. He's one of the best young actors in film today; I've seen both Brick and The Lookout and he's wonderful in both of those, and his involvement was the only thing that gave me pause in regards to whether it had hope of being a good movie. But I'm pretty sure he just wanted to make a big blockbuster for once judging from interviews on the subject that he's given.

Thirded. Levitt is an incredible young actor, and I have no doubt that when it comes to acting based on toys, he will be more than acceptable.

Also, I personally dislike Marlon Wayans, but you guys do know he has done serious work before: like the terminally depressing Requiem for a Dream. I doubt he'll be playing his character from Scary Movie.

Still, this looks like it will be either god-awful or hilarious.

Have you seen a Sommers film? His character is going to be the poor attempt at comic relief, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten a Wayans brother.

[Skummy]

Mmmmm yeah, perfectly enjoyable film. You wanted giant robots fighting, you got it. It was never going to be some oscar worthy film, it was a fun popcorn action flick and a good one at that.

GI Joe however, will be godawful.

The transformations were terrible, and the product placement unforgiveable. The bad acting and shite story just helped to bury it. You could barely figure out what was going on half the time.

Let's not forget the painful dialogue.

And the "fun popcorn action flick" excuse doesn't hold up when a movie like Iron Man came out a year later. That was a fun popcorn flick. That's a movie that showed us that you can make a movie where shit blows up, but still have a script that isn't flat-out insulting.

One had decades of great character development to base itself off of, the other was based off a line of toys and a cartoon. I'd say for what Transformers had to work with, it was quite well done.

Which would be a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that there was already a Transformers movie that was infinitely better than the dross the live-action film dealt us.

[Maxx]

Mmmmm yeah, perfectly enjoyable film. You wanted giant robots fighting, you got it. It was never going to be some oscar worthy film, it was a fun popcorn action flick and a good one at that.

GI Joe however, will be godawful.

The transformations were terrible, and the product placement unforgiveable. The bad acting and shite story just helped to bury it. You could barely figure out what was going on half the time.

Let's not forget the painful dialogue.

And the "fun popcorn action flick" excuse doesn't hold up when a movie like Iron Man came out a year later. That was a fun popcorn flick. That's a movie that showed us that you can make a movie where shit blows up, but still have a script that isn't flat-out insulting.

One had decades of great character development to base itself off of, the other was based off a line of toys and a cartoon. I'd say for what Transformers had to work with, it was quite well done.

Which would be a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that there was already a Transformers movie that was infinitely better than the dross the live-action film dealt us.

Yes, how could the studio not just make a live action version of an 80's animated film that bombed at the box office. Shame on them for not thinking that was the right direction to go in.

I mean, that's what you seem to be inferring, that they shouldn't have had any trouble making a good Transformers film because they already made a good animated movie in your opinion. The animated film was a continuation of the series, it dealt with already established characters and was set in a universe that had been extensively explained in the series, so it didn't have to spend any time on those issues.

The live action film however, was a completely new entity, establishing a new franchise and a new universe. It had to develop characters, it had to establish the universe it was set in. Its ridiculous to even compare them.

My point was, it would have been pretty difficult to screw up Iron Man, as the character was well developed and had a rich history. Its not hard at all to figure out how you're going to tell his origin story as its been done and discussed several times in comics.

For Transformers, they had an 80's cartoon to base it off of, given that, they did a wonderful job and made an enjoyable film.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Maxx

[maninblack]

Mmmmm yeah, perfectly enjoyable film. You wanted giant robots fighting, you got it. It was never going to be some oscar worthy film, it was a fun popcorn action flick and a good one at that.

GI Joe however, will be godawful.

The transformations were terrible, and the product placement unforgiveable. The bad acting and shite story just helped to bury it. You could barely figure out what was going on half the time.

Let's not forget the painful dialogue.

And the "fun popcorn action flick" excuse doesn't hold up when a movie like Iron Man came out a year later. That was a fun popcorn flick. That's a movie that showed us that you can make a movie where shit blows up, but still have a script that isn't flat-out insulting.

One had decades of great character development to base itself off of, the other was based off a line of toys and a cartoon. I'd say for what Transformers had to work with, it was quite well done.

Which would be a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that there was already a Transformers movie that was infinitely better than the dross the live-action film dealt us.

Yes, how could the studio not just make a live action version of an 80's animated film that bombed at the box office. Shame on them for not thinking that was the right direction to go in.

Quoted for emphasis. The '80s cartoon movie eventually became a cult classic, but it didn't make money when it came out. Heck, you could say it was little more than a movie-length commercial promoting the next wave of Transformer toys to replace the ones they killed off.

I mean, that's what you seem to be inferring, that they shouldn't have had any trouble making a good Transformers film because they already made a good animated movie in your opinion. The animated film was a continuation of the series, it dealt with already established characters and was set in a universe that had been extensively explained in the series, so it didn't have to spend any time on those issues.

The live action film however, was a completely new entity, establishing a new franchise and a new universe. It had to develop characters, it had to establish the universe it was set in. Its ridiculous to even compare them.

My point was, it would have been pretty difficult to screw up Iron Man, as the character was well developed and had a rich history. Its not hard at all to figure out how you're going to tell his origin story as its been done and discussed several times in comics.

For Transformers, they had an 80's cartoon to base it off of, given that, they did a wonderful job and made an enjoyable film.

Agree with Maxx. Transformers has been around for 25 years, but the brand's been rebooted several times with new toylines and cartoons. It's like how we get a new Gundam or Batman cartoon every several years. Can't be helped really, as Transformers' main market has always been children, and those customers are going to eventually outgrow Transformers.

I certainly am not a fan of the live-action Transformers movie, but it could have been a lot, lot worse than what it is. It brought Transformers a lot of mainstream publicity. And story-wise...there's been worse fiction published for Transformers before the movie was ever given the green light.

Sadly, the level of venom some hardcore Transformer fans have for the movie and Michael Bay could rival Republican looniness towards Obama; "Michael Bay raped my childhood" continues to get a lot of mileage.

So much so I thought they were just saying "GI JOE GONNA SUX" to make themselves feel better about the Transformers sequel

[the machine]

Have you seen a Sommers film? His character is going to be the poor attempt at comic relief, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten a Wayans brother.

I didn't make up the idea. I don't think it's going to be entirely comedy-free but I also don't think he's going to do a wacky voice and be high in every scene, either.

Here's some support:

“It wasn’t about ‘Hey, let it be the me comedy show’,” promised Wayans. “It is G.I. Joe. It’s supposed to be badass action. So you commit to it - and I found the fun in being a badass, for once in my life.”

source: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/04/27/marlo...n-gi-joe-movie/

And more, from the producer:

IESB: Let's go to the most recent announcement that kind of surprised a lot of people. Wallace Weems, Ripcord, played by Marlon Wayans. Tell me that he nailed the audition because it's so out of the box here.

LDB: Well, let's talk about Marlon for a second. A lot of people are fans of his from the comedic point of view obviously for all the right reasons, but what I think everybody forgets about is how damn good he was in Requiem for a Dream as an actor. And, when we were trying to figure out who would be the right element to make this combination work of Duke as the leader and Ripcord as the best friend who sorta gets Duke in trouble all the time and Duke has to bail him out all the time and have fun with him, we needed a guy who's gonna be funny and we needed a guy who was going to be a good actor. And we went to Marlon and said, "We'd love to talk to you." And he's a gigantic GI Joe fan and immediately asked, "is Cobra in it, is Destro in it?" I mean before he even got to read the script he was so much fun to talk to because he understood what it was. So he got it immediately, and when we did the test, you know, we all looked at each other and the studio and there isn't one person who didn't think it was a no-brainer. So, from our point of view, he's playing a military character who's got some real good quips but he's got to be good, he's got to be physical, and I mean Marlon is a strapping guy, he's got good size to him. So, I think the fans will feel, when they see him, that he is playing the solider that they anticipate anyone from the G.I. Joe group to be.

source: http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_c...1&Itemid=99

[ROC]

That said, Di Bonaventura is comparing REQUIEM FOR A DREAM with G.I. Joe, which of course is another issue entirely.

I don't think Marlon Wayans is the worst part of this movie and really, most of the time, the casting does not ruin a movie. No, the DIRECTING usually has a great deal to do with that. As much as I joke around about my hatred of Chris Klein and whatnot, most actors don't suck at their job. And even if they do, a filmmaker can get him to be in a great role that plays to their strengths. Hell, before Requiem, Marlon Wayans was in DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: THE MOVIE. So Darren Aronofsky is probably a better director than Courtney Solomon simply by virtue of quality of film.

And I'd even say that Stephen Sommers is not bad. But...he's not exactly endeared himself in the past five years.

[EndOfAnEra]

That said, Di Bonaventura is comparing REQUIEM FOR A DREAM with G.I. Joe, which of course is another issue entirely.

Erm, he's not comparing anything. He's reminding everyone that Marlon has some depth to him.

[Maxx]

LDB: Well, let's talk about Marlon for a second. A lot of people are fans of his from the comedic point of view obviously for all the right reasons, but what I think everybody forgets about is how damn good he was in Requiem for a Dream as an actor. And, when we were trying to figure out who would be the right element to make this combination work of Duke as the leader and Ripcord as the best friend who sorta gets Duke in trouble all the time and Duke has to bail him out all the time and have fun with him, we needed a guy who's gonna be funny and we needed a guy who was going to be a good actor. And we went to Marlon and said, "We'd love to talk to you." And he's a gigantic GI Joe fan and immediately asked, "is Cobra in it, is Destro in it?" I mean before he even got to read the script he was so much fun to talk to because he understood what it was. So he got it immediately, and when we did the test, you know, we all looked at each other and the studio and there isn't one person who didn't think it was a no-brainer. So, from our point of view, he's playing a military character who's got some real good quips but he's got to be good, he's got to be physical, and I mean Marlon is a strapping guy, he's got good size to him. So, I think the fans will feel, when they see him, that he is playing the solider that they anticipate anyone from the G.I. Joe group to be.

Yes from the sound of that Marlon's performance will be much closer to his work in Requiem than it is to any of his shitty comedies.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Mmmmm yeah, perfectly enjoyable film. You wanted giant robots fighting, you got it. It was never going to be some oscar worthy film, it was a fun popcorn action flick and a good one at that.

GI Joe however, will be godawful.

The transformations were terrible, and the product placement unforgiveable. The bad acting and shite story just helped to bury it. You could barely figure out what was going on half the time.

Let's not forget the painful dialogue.

And the "fun popcorn action flick" excuse doesn't hold up when a movie like Iron Man came out a year later. That was a fun popcorn flick. That's a movie that showed us that you can make a movie where shit blows up, but still have a script that isn't flat-out insulting.

One had decades of great character development to base itself off of, the other was based off a line of toys and a cartoon. I'd say for what Transformers had to work with, it was quite well done.

Which would be a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that there was already a Transformers movie that was infinitely better than the dross the live-action film dealt us.

I rather liked the live-action film, even if the scenes with Fox and LaBeef were really, really irritating and often intensely embarrassing (although Taub was the high school teacher, and I love me some Taub), but yeah, the animated movie was just a million times better. For one, I could tell which Decepticons were which when they were in their natural forms, and I found that bloody difficult in the live-action one.

[Bryan Blade]

I think the battle at the end was horrible because (a) you couldn't tell who was who half the time as someone already pointed out and (b) Half of the transformers the bad 1's anyway were killed by the US Army now shouldn't it have been Autobots killing them not the US Army...Especially Devastator he went down rather tamely i thought because of some silly rail gun off the coast..Oh and it was about an hour too long

[maninblack]

I dunno man, railguns can shoot shit up to seven times the speed of sound (thanks Wikipedia). A projectile flying that fast should fuck up almost anything.

[HeartlineTwist]

I dunno man, railguns can shoot shit up to seven times the speed of sound (thanks Wikipedia). A projectile flying that fast should fuck up almost anything.

I think it was the fact that what should have been a really epic fight with all of the Autobots having to team up to take the fucker down is ended by a fucking railgun which took like....no effort.

[Gene Kiniski]

I dunno man, railguns can shoot shit up to seven times the speed of sound (thanks Wikipedia). A projectile flying that fast should fuck up almost anything.

I think it was the fact that what should have been a really epic fight with all of the Autobots having to team up to take the fucker down is ended by a fucking railgun which took like....no effort.

Which in theory would make the Autobots look extremely weak and inferior if it required all of them to take out a lesser of the enemy (Decepticon) team, would it not? I mean, if Megatron could just snap a lesser of the Autobots completely in half without any real effort what is to say that a something that travels at seven times the speed of sound couldn't blast right through a smaller, less important (storyline-wise), Decepticon?

[maninblack]

Oh I'm not disagreeing that having Devastator taken out by a railgun was cutting short what would've been a helluvan action scene. I think the in-story rationale they had was that the railgun was an experimental new weapon, and it hit Devastator at a critical point.

I read on a Transformer forum that the production cost for one CG transformation equalled Shia LeBeouf's salary. So maybe there were more practical considerations as to why Devastator was taken out relatively quickly.

[Gongsun Zan]

I dunno man, railguns can shoot shit up to seven times the speed of sound (thanks Wikipedia). A projectile flying that fast should fuck up almost anything.

I think it was the fact that what should have been a really epic fight with all of the Autobots having to team up to take the fucker down is ended by a fucking railgun which took like....no effort.

Which in theory would make the Autobots look extremely weak and inferior if it required all of them to take out a lesser of the enemy (Decepticon) team, would it not? I mean, if Megatron could just snap a lesser of the Autobots completely in half without any real effort what is to say that a something that travels at seven times the speed of sound couldn't blast right through a smaller, less important (storyline-wise), Decepticon?

How would it have made the Autobots look weak? Devastator was several times the size of even Optimus Prime. If anything, they made Fallen and Megatron look like completely pussies next to Optimus Prime.

[ROC]

I always thought they didn't put the Autobots over because of all of those damn humans. Who wants to see ole' Turistas guy Tad Hamilton in my robot flick?

[tycoon]

The live action film however, was a completely new entity, establishing a new franchise and a new universe. It had to develop characters, it had to establish the universe it was set in. Its ridiculous to even compare them.

which is what hollywood has done with every single comic book/cartoon movie that have made. I dont know why it is so acceptable to destroy a story that has worked for decades and created generations of fans. They always abandon all their fans when something becomes a movie. The amount of innaccuracies in x-men, spider-man, hulk, iron man, fantastic four, transformers, etc is unforgivable. fucking ebay brought the transformers here...nice commercial placement there.

My point was, it would have been pretty difficult to screw up Iron Man, as the character was well developed and had a rich history. Its not hard at all to figure out how you're going to tell his origin story as its been done and discussed several times in comics.

umm...somehow they still did it. dont get me wrong it was a decent action movie until you remember its the Iron Man story they just butchered right in front of you. but like you said, its a re-imagining and wasnt meant for me, an actual fan.

For Transformers, they had an 80's cartoon to base it off of, given that, they did a wonderful job and made an enjoyable film.

um, as if giving them decades of comics to reference was going to make them stay more true to the story and not fill it with hidden commercials? also they had much more than just one cartoon. there were alot of them and even more in japan. and they had a comic book too with that cartoon you mentioned. I also had a line of books and some were even "choose your fate" type things...so lets not say they didnt have much to work with, they just ignored it all.

the only, and i mean only, thing about transformers that resembles anything a transformers fan might recognize is the names. GI Joe, I suspect, will be the same as all those that came before it.

Edited July 1, 2009 by tycoon