"Yo Joe!" G.I. Joe Discussion Thread

Nah, the toys weren't based on the cartoon but rather the other way round. The cartoon was made to advertise the toys just as you contradicted yourself by stating. But to say that it's a good thing to base the movie on the camp cartoon just because you liked it as a little kid is like me saying Batman Begins should've been like the 60's series because I liked it as a little kid. What I might have thought was great when I was little doesn't mean I like the same crap now.

 

Black-Tiger, you are not empowered to decide who is a fan of a given property and who is not, as you attempted to do when you said:

Black-Tiger, I call myself a GI JOE fan because I've been collecting the toys since 1973. I collected the 12" figures through the 70s and the 3-3/4" figures through the 80s. I watched the show religiously in the 80s even though I thought it was silly and not as high quality as I would have liked. I never read the comic, even though I am a comics artist and reader, because military comics have never appealed to me. That is a personal decision, but it does invalidate my fanhood as you would have it. Your elitist attitude is at odds with the all-inclusive core of the GI JOE ethos. I am entitled to my preferences as you are. You are a GI JOE fan, and so am I. End of discussion.

 

The character is basically a Mary Sue (as is the movie's version of Duke, but that's another story). His abilities are essentially dictated by the plot, and his stalker-ish pursuit of Scarlett is meant to be innocuous.

This is just disappointing

As is Scarlett. Marlon Wayans' Ripcord is exactly the sort of character she'd smack upside the face in the cartoons and comics, and the character's warmth and humour have been replaced with a generic "ice-queen" stance, seemingly solely so that Ripcord can "warm her up", thus further demonstrating his Sue-ishness.

Indeed.

I disagree.

Using the formula is ruining a good thing.

He was creepy.

I?ve heard otherwise.

You?ve got to be kidding?

 

Oddly, you'd think that in being politically correct, they'd want the megalomaniacal leader of the world's most dangerous terrorist organization to look like a KKK member. I mean, Destro's action figure is basically dressed like an SS officer, after all...

By that logic, The Dark Knight should have been based on Super Friends.

Not only that, but the cartoons were actually based on the comics, but watered down in part by the limitations of the writers (Scarlett ended up with Duke because they didn't feel they could pull off a romantic relationship between a woman and a mute man) and partly because of the general inadequacies of cartoons in general, so the violence, cynicism and soul-searching of the Marvel comics were essentially ditched in favour of Pinky and the Brain-style hijinks like Cobra Commander attempting to hijack G.I. Joe orbital bases with weaponized Furbies or take over the world by promoting the Dreadnoks as a hair-metal band with (blindingly obvious) subliminal messages in their lyrics.

 

I think the excuse that Cobra Commander's hood looks too much like a KKK clansman is lame. However I see no reason why CC chrome mask cannot be used. It's vaguely Nazi-esque, no more so then Darth Vader's helmet so I don't know what the problem is. Cobra Commander is a leader of a terrorist group. He should look like one.

 

So, if you call yourself a "Star Wars fan" if you just like the old cartoons like Droids and Ewoks, does that really make you a "Star Wars fan"? As has been stated the figures and the comics came first and the cartoon was just a cheesy kiddie friendly advert for the figures. And when I say "kiddie" I mean "Sesame Street" kiddie!

Yes, but do you expect logic from PC people? And ironically the US military "Fritz" helmet is, as the name suggests, very close to the design of the WWII Stormtrooper helmet, but you never hear PC people questioning that. Anyway, why make the comparison between CC's hood and the KKK? Why not make the comparison with the druids? Shows where PC people's minds are half the time.

Yes, I saw those episodes with the Tribbles and the Cobra "Cold Slither" pop group as well. Made me cringe.

Cobra Commander: I know, let's forget about tanks, planes, missiles, troops and ships, let's take over the world by starting a pop group instead!

 

They're fun, in a goofy sort of way, but they're definitely not a sound basis for a big-screen movie adaptation that wants to take itself even partly seriously.

That's really the problem, I think (besides the basic lack of respect for the characters and situations, of course). The comic book was deadly serious, the humour mostly black, and the increasingly bizarre characters Hasbro dreamed up were handled rather cleverly through the device, on the one hand, of Cobra Commander's continual frustration with the sort of loony (though useful) minions his organization tended to attract, culminating rather memorably in an explosive outburst upon being presented with Raptor, and on the other, with the constant bemusement of numerous Joes at the type of people and accompanying equipment the military unloaded on them.

By contrast, the cartoon, though it did have its subtler moments, generally played everything completely and utterly straight, even exaggerating the already rather far-fetched technology and situations, and Cobra Commander could berate Destro for "mooning like a love-sick school-boy" over the Baroness rather than helping him ready the giant vortex generator, or whatever, without a hint of irony.

This film seems to have clumsily attempted to merge these two conflicting approaches to the property (along with a smug, smirking sense of self-conciousness), and failed spectacularly.

 

So it's just another example of changing something merely because they could, you think?

 

I just want to be clear that I did not post this, though Black-Tiger attributed it to me above.

 

The answer is "yes" -- of course a fan of Droids and Ewoks would be considered a STAR WARS fan. Those are STAR WARS properties; fanship of them makes one a SW fan. Not the same kind of fan as someone who only likes the movies, perhaps, or as someone who likes the movies and the EU books, but a fan nonetheless.

Again, your own personal predilections do not authorize you to decide who is and is not a fan of a given series or property. Why is this so hard to grasp? You're not in charge of this decision.

At all events, the Droids/Ewoks analogy does not translate here on a 1:1 basis, since with GI JOE the figures came first, the comics and cartoon series afterwards. I collect the toys from the 70s and 80s, and I used to watch the cartoon show even though I thought it was silly. I've only perused the comics (though I am a fan of Hama's other books from the 80s -- CRAZY Magazine and The 'Nam). In all of this, I'm a steadfast fan of GI JOE and my opinion counts, even though I am a different kind of fan from you.

 

I have been one of the many voices saying "give the movie a chance" "wait until you've actually seen it" and such. Well, I've seen it.
Rather than give you my rather predicable comments, I think my girl-friend's will be more objective. She had no previous exposure to the material, and no expectations or baggage. She loves a good action movie. She is also much more forgiving than I am, and will watch and judge movies for "the momments".

"I spent the whole time from about 10 minutes in thinking 'My god, this is 2 hours of my life I'm never going to get back.' While some movies are so bad, they're good, or some are so dumb that they're funny, this wasn't one of those. It was awful, from start to finish. I can't think of anything good to say. You can blow (stuff) up all you want, but if you don't have characters to care about, it doesn't matter. And what's with the guy they cast as the lead? He's the only actor I've run into whose voice is more boring than Bill Paxton. 'Channing Tatum'? What the hell kind of name is that. The ninja stuff could have been cool, but they gritted up the film and messed with the camera speed so you couldn't see it. And the section in Paris was almost interesting, but they kept doing the same thing over and over, and made it totally lame. And the flashbacks... Someone says something and they go into a lame flashback sequence that looks totally the same, and doesn't make the characters any more interesting. What's the target audience, 10 year old boys with a guns fetish? Even they are going to get bored with this thing. It was bloated, over-long for what it was, and the effects weren't even decent eye-candy."

She went on at some length regarding the short-comings of the actors, directors, and other details.

And she didn't have the background details of the characters, how they'd been changed, or other expectations to deal with.
I did. Even making allowances for all the changes, rewritten histories, and whatnot, I have to say there was very little needed aside from a couple of minor in-jokes to make one notice that this movie sucked.
While not as bad as, say, the live-action Transformers movies, this is definately a turd. The worst part is that it could have been good, but utterly failed to live up to any ove its potential.

 

Yes, but the man in charge of writing the comics, Larry Hama, also wrote the file-card profiles for the toys, and some of his ideas (the Baroness for example) ended up making their way into the toy line, while the cartoons were essentially a more kid-oriented adaptation of the characters and situations established in the comics, making the comics the authoritative G.I. Joe canon, and (especially considering its tone and thematic bent) a far more logical source of ideas for a film adaptation than the cartoon, hence my Dark Knight analogy.

 

What did she think of the Scarlett/"Ripcord" thing?

Indeed.

 

In some detail. The ice-bitch character didn't work for her. And someone who'd made it into her 20s and was still a frost queen would have mangled a punk like Ripcord to shreds. Furthermore, she wouldn't have been shaken up like that by a close call.
Um, and never loosing? Did she not have to go up against Snake-Eyes? Who had never been hit in training before? Then how could she have won that?
And how did Ripcord ever survive in the military to begin with. Someone like that shouldn't have made it out of basic training with that kind of attitude, never mind officer training to be able to make it as a pilot. Maybe if they'd actually made him play a serious character, Wayans might have been OK.

I tried. I Really did. I wanted to give this movie a chance. I wanted to give it the benefit of a doubt. Wow, what a mistake. I think I have to list "The Mummy" as the only good Stephan Summers movie.

 

Quiet_Madalorian:

Thats a lot of ire you've got for my opinions of this flick, yet you offer no explanation as the why you claim isn't like the cartoon? That was your statement. Changing to now say that your statement was valid based on that the cartoon was based on the comics is silly. You never mentioned the comics, only the cartoon.

As too my knowledge of the franchise, it is incomplete, but my take on the Storm Shadow/Snake Eyes tale is influenced greatly by issue number #26, but this is something of an adjustment on it, maybe.

Either way it seems pretty close to me, but if you want to nitpick you can. Your right. It's little different, just like the other changes that I enjoyed. I actually liked the cartoon and the comic and the fact that Sommers took idea's from both may well upset you, but the comic doesn't trump the cartoon. I suspect the cartoon itself is far more widely known than the comic anyway.

Do note that I in no way made any attempt to put down your opinions(or provide snark toward your veiws) in regard to the franchise or movie, I simply questioned why you felt that it wasn't like the cartoon which I think was a valid question.

Even the comic's more serious tones are still pretty silly and I suspect you knew going into this film that the theme was going to be more cartoonish(and kid friendly) more than anything else if based on nothing more than viewing the trailers. My impressions from that cartoon are just as valid as your respect for the comic. Where everything started doesn't really matter.

There have been a ton of cartoonish Batman films that came out of the gate before we ever got to see Dark Knight. Some were good and some were not, but its the success of those earlier films that likely helped get the Dark Knight off the ground in the first place. That said Dark Knight in no way aims a Hasbro's target audience.

Maybe if this is a success you will get your wish in the future. It's a longshot I know, but this film doing well can only mean more good things for G.I.Joe in the future.

 

Watched the movie, personally it was a typical action / special effects movie. My main complaints are the same I have for most of these types of movies, why does the guy use the ineffective machine gun tell it runs out of bullets then pulls out the super duper gun that can destroy everything duh.

Beyond that I really enjoyed the special effects and most of the fight sequences. Did not feel the trailers ruined the action in France. found the plot did a fair job moving you along and unlike other beging movies did not spend too much time introducing you to the GI, Cobra people. Still yes some of the flashbacks were redundant and not needed.

Slip/Scarlet worked fine for me, Duke/Baroness did not seem to work as well.

I also feel they messed up with the way they ended it mostly the part with the president. I also would have thought it would have been better with a few less GI joe's maybe..

Still it did a good job getting you interested in the main characters and setting up part two, and with the weekend box office I imagine part two will happen.

 

Please inform her she has restored my faith in humanity.

Exactly. Consider the scene where the noobies are being fitted out with those expensive, highly advanced (but apparently fragile) powered armours. Heavy Duty informs them that the suit's interface responds to their thoughts. "Ripcord"'s HUD immediately starts flashing pictures of Scarlett. Meanwhile, Duke is quietly flipping through the displays.

That's right, Duke, the guy who just came from a close encounter with the girl he was once supposed to marry who is now an international terrorist who tried to kill him, is patiently learning how this thing he's supposed to use works, while Ripcord can't take his mind off a woman he only just met.

But really, I just love how the character is one giant, name-grabbing deus ex machina. Need to "defrost" an ice-queen? Ripcord is there. Need a character to somehow know how the enemy found the secret base? Ripcord. Need to get close to a girl in a vulnerable moment when all of the team-mates who should logically be providing emotional support, especially the one she claims is like a brother to her, have somehow vanished off the face of the Earth? Hey, it's Ripcord! Need to commandeer an exotic, highly advanced combat aircraft that no one's ever even seen before, let alone trained on? Ripcord can do it.

And of course, there's his miraculously overcoming his incredible lack of coordination in the accelerator suit (why did they let him and Duke use those things in the first place?) to snatch Scarlett out of the air when she gets blasted off of her motorcycle (Duke and Snake Eyes apparently can't be bothered) and land in what looks like the finisher to a ballroom dance routine. Good grief...

I just don't understand it at all. How did it go so wrong?

Okay?.

 

I?ve got a lot of ire for this ?flick? in general, but if you scroll up, you?ll see that I?ve already explained why it isn?t like the cartoon, not that I want it to be like the cartoon, mind you.

So close, and yet so far?

Wrong on both counts, I?m afraid. In the first place, I?m not opposed to the borrowing of ideas from the cartoon per se but rather with the choice and execution of said material. Secondly, the comics are higher canon. As I said before, the cartoon was merely an (often laughably silly) adaptation of the comic books.

I suspect that that is entirely irrelevant.

And?

Considering your apparent lack of familiarity with the comic I find that assertion rather suspect.

No, they?re not. I'm trying to make a point here about the effective adaptation of the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero setting into a feature film, and how Rise of Cobra fails to do so. Your fondness for the cartoons is not important.

If you define two as ?a ton?. Prior to Joel Schumacher?s embarrassing pair of outings, we had Batman, Batman Returns and the animated Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, none of which could be called cartoonish in the sense that Batman and Robin or G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra are.

The problem, of course, is that Batman is a much more widely known property than G.I. Joe, with a much more grounded public perception of the character. This film is not going to do good things for the image of the G.I. Joe franchise.

 

Quiet_Mandalorian:

I sense this has more to do with anger toward me for liking the film, seeing similarities from the cartoons I've watched and comics I've read. Mostly you seem to want to put me down, make fun of my use of words and just be needlessly confrontational. So be it. The thread is yours.

 

#1 at the box office.

And probably well on it's way to a low budget, straight to DVD sequel.

And even if it's low budget director were more true to the source, it won't matter.



Anyone who went and saw this:
would you mind sharing just how much the ticket cost you? (or equivalent if you used a pass...money will still go to the distributor)

I'd love to know just how much of a contribution our board community made to this.



Summers knows how to cash in on first week people, that's for sure...perhaps that's where the talent ends.

For the sake of us all, and all the other properties waiting out there to be potentially abused by this director...relegate this guy to "Uwe Boll" status and get him out of the major theatrical release business.

 

Looks like I won't be going to see this one at the movies based on some of yalls comments. It was that bad, really?

Oh yeah an just because I am a dumbass......can someone explain to me what PC stands for?

 

Yes, it really was that bad. Really, really bad. If you are truly massochistic, put it on your netflix queue (or however you rent your DVDs) so you can shut it off once you become disgusted with it, but don't waste your time and money at the theater.
Depending on context, Personal Computer or Political Correctness. In this conversation, it was the extreme distortion of reality in favor of "inoffensive" language. Like calling a bum "homeless" or "temporarily disenfranchised."

How the movie is NOT like the cartoon: The cartoon would focus the action on a few characters each episode, who would work together as a team, with other side characters adding their specialized knowledge when called upon. The movie is a bunch of individuals bumbling around in an embarrassing display of ineptitude while they try to figure out what is going on. The cartoon took fairly simple, childish plots, and told the story in the space of 22.5 minutes (multi-part stories might be as much as 110 minutes). The movie took a fairly simple, childish story, dumbed it down, glitzed it up, and dragged it out to over 2 hours. The cartoon understood chain of command and regulations against dating in the same chain of command. The movie ignores that entirely in favor of rediculous love triangles. The cartoon was an advertisement for toys with stuff "blowing up". The movie is an attempt to make a soap-opera with action and a military theme. The cartoon appealed to children (mostly boys) from 6 to 16. The movie appeals to... I have no idea. Maybe 10? The cartoon was aestetically pleasing, with the action (limited as it was by FHE and the animation style and budget) clearly visable and enjoyable. The movie relies on gimicky camera effects to hide the fact that there is no substance to their action choreography *(or that they have no confidence in their choreographer). The cartoon armed everyone with lasers. The movie has bullets, lasers, and electro-sonic superweapons with nifty FX glommed onto them. The cartoon never killed anyone (all pilots safely eject from their planes, no one shoots the parachuttes, all laser fire is set to stun, not cauterize, only one person was ever seriously hurt). The movie kills a couple of significant characters before even bothering to give them names so we knew who they were. (I don't mind killing them off, but at least give us something to care about!) The cartoon had fairly talented actors, many of who were able to voice multiple characters. The movie had some top-notch actors to balance out the raw, talentless newbies, but all of them delivered the same, gut-wrenchingly poor, low-level performances that could spell the dooms of their careers. The Cartoon understood that the scots spoke "Gaelic", not "Celtic". The idea that Lady Jaye might be distantly related to Destro was far less rediculous and contrived than the mess surrounding Duke, Baronness, and other characters I won't mention for the sake of spoilers. (in case anyone actually cares). The movie borrows from the Cartoon, the Comic book, and the "Action Force" line (how G.I.Joe was marketed in England, Austaralia, Ireland, Canada, and much of Europe.

I guess the only thing I can think of that might explain some of the really bad decisions is that FOX wanted to make GIJoe as successful as the X-Men movies, but didn't understand what made those movies work.

As has been mentioned, changes were both necessary and inevitable. That most of the characters were vietnam vets is no longer topical or likely (they'd be in their late50s by now, not peak age for field operatives). But the changes made here... Yu7ck. Totally wrong and un-called for. They don't fit the established characters, they don't fit the new versions of the characters, and1/2 the time, they are made not because the plot of the movie demands them, but because the movie industry formula demands them. They feel forced, unnecessary, and bog down a movie that is already over-inflated.