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

[TheRaySays]

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.

Wow. This rant doesn't do you any favors. You sound like some elitist ignorant crank.

The Iron Man story was "butchered"? And you an "actual fan"? Wow. I'm pretty sure I could stump you with basic facts about Iron Man's less-than-impressive origin. Let's not pretend like it's something sacred. Go back and read it again, this time with some perspective.

Let's face it. Comics are comics. Cartoons are cartoons. And movies are movies. What works in one medium doesn't generally work in another. Sure, a painter might be inspired by the symphonies of Beethoven, but you can't dance about architecture.

And don't get me started on the "sold out" argument that's naive at best, sociopathic at worst. Nobody makes a film to NOT sell tickets, unless you're Uwe Boll. It's fine to take exception with the ham-handedness of the eBay product placement, or FedEx in Cast Away, but to paint ALL ("every single") genre films with such a broad brush makes you sound like a bitter douche.

I don't mean to skirt so close to flaming, and I don't know you as a person at all. It's just your argument is tired, weak, and cliche, and it is SOLELY your point of view I take serious exception with. When you trim out the hyperbole, you actually have some pretty valid criticisms of Transformers the film. It's your fanboy frothing that obscures them.

[maninblack]

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.

Um, sorry. No. You lost me when you brought out the "true fan" card.

The live-action Transformers is a separate product from all the other Transformer product lines that have been produced the past 25 years. And practically each product line has their version of the popular guys like Optimus Prime, Megatron, etc. Why should the live-action movies be slavishly following a previously established product line, when the Transformers as a brand practically gets rebooted every few years?

And what's all this malarkey about "butchering" the source material? Marvel's Ultimate comics line reimagined established characters, and it's selling well enough. Are the people who buy Ultimate "fake fans" then?

Shakespeare has his work reinterpreted quite often when turned to film. Why should comics or cartoons be subject to different rules when adapted for the big screen?

[Mick]

Shakespeare has his work reinterpreted quite often when turned to film. Why should comics or cartoons be subject to different rules when adapted for the big screen?

Because Shakespeare and everyone who saw his plays at the Globe were all dust when motion pictures came out.

[maninblack]

Shakespeare has his work reinterpreted quite often when turned to film. Why should comics or cartoons be subject to different rules when adapted for the big screen?

Because Shakespeare and everyone who saw his plays at the Globe were all dust when motion pictures came out.

I wonder how many of the duels of the time were between "true fans" arguing about how fake the Scottish brogue of the MacBeth cast were

[Colly]

I have it on good authority that Shakespeare thought Pete Postlethwaite was amaaaaaazing in Romeo + Juliet. Fact.

[apsham]

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.

Oh dear god, way to make anyone debating against Maxx look like a total friggin' moron. I think he wins based off this alone.

But seriously, it's one thing to have an issue with a movie and then it's another thing entirely to be a giant anal prick about changes made in movies. Holy hell, comics mess each other up all the time.. it's called a fucking alternate universe and it's done on a regular basis. What the heck is the difference if it's a film? (Other than the obvious, hurr hurr it's a book and that's a film thing?). The Marvel wiki has it right, at least the last time I saw it.. it separates the characters in the movies into different profiles.. JUST LIKE they do with the alternate dimensions and version of the characters from the books.

Transformers were made to sell toys, and yeah... an awesome continuity came out of that. I hate the Transformers movies.. but that's mostly because I just plain didn't like it.. didn't appeal to me. Not because it wasn't "OMG RETRO TRANSFORMERS" naw, just not my kind of movie. Also, I fucking hate Shia.

[zero]

After reading this (beware Transformers 2 spoilers), I'm beginning to wonder if GI Joe could actually be any worse than Transformers.

[thatblindgeye]

I watched about half of the new Transformers and really have no desire to see the other half. Nothing good about it thus far as its all "BOOM! BOOM! ROBOTS!" and nothing else. The only good thing is that Megan Fox actually looks better in this film than the first, but still only in a "fuck her then leave her" sort of way. I agree with that blog you posted, Zero: She has the looks and acting ability of a pornstar.

[livid]

I watched about half of the new Transformers and really have no desire to see the other half. Nothing good about it thus far as its all "BOOM! BOOM! ROBOTS!" and nothing else. The only good thing is that Megan Fox actually looks better in this film than the first, but still only in a "fuck her then leave her" sort of way. I agree with that blog you posted, Zero: She has the looks and acting ability of a pornstar.

Uhhh...what were you expecting exactly?

That's what Michael Bay movies are. Big explosions and not a whole lot of story.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Livid Soprano

[Toe]

I...enjoyed Tranformers 2. I like movies with depth and character development, but I sometimes I enjoy movies like Transformers for the explosions and action scenes.

[livid]

Yeah I like mindless action movies too. I was just underwhelmed by the first one and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Guess it doesn't help that when went to see it, it stopped halfway through because of thunderstorms and stuff.

[LL!]

It was God's way of trying to save your eyes.

[Nottavictim]

I'm guessing GI Joe is simply trying to be an action movie, ramped up with stupid gimmicks, like that suit deal. That idea looks awful. I'd say a covert military drama could be all kinds of fun, but it looks as if Michael Bay's brother is directing this one. They should take one of those Marvel comics and make a movie out of that, like the one where Cobra sets up in a smalltown.

[Mick]

At least we'll still have GI Joe: The Movie, in spite of the man character being made up for the film and none of the regulars having any major role at all.

[apsham]

I'm guessing GI Joe is simply trying to be an action movie, ramped up with stupid gimmicks, like that suit deal. That idea looks awful. I'd say a covert military drama could be all kinds of fun, but it looks as if Michael Bay's brother is directing this one. They should take one of those Marvel comics and make a movie out of that, like the one where Cobra sets up in a smalltown.

You're actually looking at the guy who did Van Helsing and The Mummy movies.

[Nottavictim]

I'm guessing GI Joe is simply trying to be an action movie, ramped up with stupid gimmicks, like that suit deal. That idea looks awful. I'd say a covert military drama could be all kinds of fun, but it looks as if Michael Bay's brother is directing this one. They should take one of those Marvel comics and make a movie out of that, like the one where Cobra sets up in a smalltown.

You're actually looking at the guy who did Van Helsing and The Mummy movies.

Van Helsing is the only DVD gift I've thrown out.

[zero]

I watched about half of the new Transformers and really have no desire to see the other half. Nothing good about it thus far as its all "BOOM! BOOM! ROBOTS!" and nothing else. The only good thing is that Megan Fox actually looks better in this film than the first, but still only in a "fuck her then leave her" sort of way. I agree with that blog you posted, Zero: She has the looks and acting ability of a pornstar.

Uhhh...what were you expecting exactly?

That's what Michael Bay movies are. Big explosions and not a whole lot of story.

Well in all fairness, the first movie sucked, but judging by what I've read about the sequel, it makes the original look like Casablanca.

[ROC]

I'm still curious why anybody hasn't brought up that the new movie has insane amounts of odd crude humor that makes the peeing bit in the first one seem justified.

[livid]

I watched about half of the new Transformers and really have no desire to see the other half. Nothing good about it thus far as its all "BOOM! BOOM! ROBOTS!" and nothing else. The only good thing is that Megan Fox actually looks better in this film than the first, but still only in a "fuck her then leave her" sort of way. I agree with that blog you posted, Zero: She has the looks and acting ability of a pornstar.

Uhhh...what were you expecting exactly?

That's what Michael Bay movies are. Big explosions and not a whole lot of story.

Well in all fairness, the first movie sucked, but judging by what I've read about the sequel, it makes the original look like Casablanca.

But why would you go into a Michael Bay movie expecting something different than big explosions? That's what all Michael Bay movies have been and nothing else. I don't get how he wasn't expecting the movie to be just that.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Livid Soprano

[Nimrodic]

I watched about half of the new Transformers and really have no desire to see the other half. Nothing good about it thus far as its all "BOOM! BOOM! ROBOTS!" and nothing else. The only good thing is that Megan Fox actually looks better in this film than the first, but still only in a "fuck her then leave her" sort of way. I agree with that blog you posted, Zero: She has the looks and acting ability of a pornstar.

Uhhh...what were you expecting exactly?

That's what Michael Bay movies are. Big explosions and not a whole lot of story.

Well in all fairness, the first movie sucked, but judging by what I've read about the sequel, it makes the original look like Casablanca.

But why would you go into a Michael Bay movie expecting something different than big explosions? That's what all Michael Bay movies have been and nothing else. I don't get how he wasn't expecting the movie to be just that.

Then what does that make Armageddon? That movie had a story and not so many explosions aside from the opening asteroid scene.