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

Discussion in 'Archive: SF&F: Films and Television' started by Quiet_Mandalorian, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Gobi-1 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 22, 2002
    star 5
    I saw it for a second time and loved it even more. This is just a ridiculously entertaining film. It's very much like Star Wars crossed with X-Men crossed with James Bond and I enjoyed every minute of it. Most of the criticism I've read is legitimate, and I won't call the film great, but I had so a good time watching it it was easy for me to over look some of the weaker elements. To me this is very much action figures come to life and has a bit of a gee whiz vibe that I've always loved. It also had a bit of old school James Bond with evil lairs, henchmen and mad scientists. G.I. Joe succeeds where Transformers 2 fails. It's just a fun movie about toys.

    My favorite film of the summer after Star Trek. Star Trek is a smart/fun film and G.I. Joe is a dumb/fun film and I loved both.
  2. -Phoenix- Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 2005
    star 5
    I kind of agree with Gobi on this one, although it seems like we'll be chased out of here for it.

    I liked it. I really did. Not because it was a good movie, but because it was a fun movie. I went in with no expectations or G.I. Joe fandom to be a hurt by a poor movie, and I came out liking G.I. Joe far more than I did before. It was EXACTLY a live-action cartoon, or some kind of adventure I would have made up with my toys when I was younger. Because G.I. Joe is for kids. And that made sense to me. Channing Tatum was the worst part of the movie though. All he ever did was NOT shoot Sienna Miller.

    All in all, again, logic aside, it was FUN. I just let myself go along for the ride.
  3. Quiet_Mandalorian Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2005
    star 5
    Have to disagree with you. The G.I. Joe cartoon was, and kids' imaginary adventures are, generally far more logical and dramatically sensible than this film. Heck, Cobra-La made more sense. :p

    You lot are making me think of that old MAD satire of ad-men.

    See the Average Amazing Clod
    He is the Eighth Wonder of the World
    He has a 40-year-old body and a 10-year-old brain
    The ad-men write ads for him
    They want to "approach him on his level"
    If this keeps up, soon the Average Amazing Clod will be even more Amazing
    He will have a 40-year-old body and a 5-year-old brain!
  4. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    Translation: Anyone who disagrees with Quiet_Mandalorian and who likes the GI JOE movie has a 10-year old -- or even a 5-year-old -- brain! Great, thanks for insulting us! Perhaps it will occur to you someday that personal aesthetic tastes are not dictated strictly by intelligence, but also by cultural and environmental influences throughout one's lifetime. I haven't read the Hama comics, see, and so I have no expectations about the specific character relationships, or the level of serious drama that fans of the comics are lamenting the loss of. Instead, I love the toys and have wonderful memories of playing with them and inventing my own storylines around them, totally irrespective of the card-backs, the comics or the cartoon characterizations. The filmmakers here appear to be have had a tough time integrating elements from various different incarnations of the line: the cartoon, the comics, the card-backs, the European line. So long as they have produced an entertaining and well-crafted sci-fi/military action movie, I'll be pleased. I'm not expecting nor do I want Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan. I want adolescent power-fantasy fun, because to me, that's what GI JOE is. This does not make me a brainless idiot as Q_M would seem to have it. If I want intellectual storytelling I can read Tolkien, Adams, Shakespeare, Follett, Irving; or I can watch any number of thoughtful, adult-oriented films. If I want goofball charm and exciting action, I now have GI JOE.
  5. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    For the record, so far in this thread, GenAntilles, Robimus, Gobi-1 and Phoenix have expressed liking or even loving the movie. Kimball_Kinnison and myself have both expressed an open mind and excitement about seeing it. Quiet_Mandalorian, Black-Tiger, Koohii and 2ndQuest dislike the movie. Quiller appears to be tepid on it, neither hating nor loving it. JEDI-SOLO and Jedimarine appear to be taking a pass on it, or are waiting for DVD.

    I've made this list to show that while the film does indeed have its detractors, it also has its fans and those who are on the fence about it. This is far from the universal loathing its critics seem to believe is being leveled at it.
  6. Spider-Fan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    I enjoyed the film. Not to any intellectual degree but purely for stupid escapist entertainment. I know that makes me a hypocrit when it comes to my opinions expressed about Bay's Transformers, but in my defense I was never a GI Joe fan so I wasn't aware of the franchise potential as I was with TF. Thus I could just shut the brain off and enjoy. no I will fully agree that its a ridiculously crappy movie but that doesn't mean you can't have fun with it. :p

    I do have a few issues with it...namely the under-use of Eccleston but that's more of a matter of personal taste (I heart Eccleston). Second I kept waiting the whole movie to see this badass showdown between Snake Eyes and Shadowstorm but found that fight to be lacking. I mean this is Darth Maul. :p That scene should have blown me out of my seat...instead I found myself checking the time. Oh and of course Cobra Commander looked ridiculous.
  7. Raven Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 5, 1998
    star 6
    My own review on the previous page says I enjoyed it, at least more than I disliked it.
  8. Quiet_Mandalorian Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2005
    star 5
    Translation: Merlin wants everyone to let Paramount know that they have nothing to fear by making shoddy movies. Just slap a license on it and everyone who spent their hard-earned cash to see it will take a perverse pride in asserting that it "wasn't that bad!"

    I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm merely putting the "just turn your brain off and enjoy it!" defense in the proper perspective.

    Irrelevant. Your "personal aesthetic tastes" are directly contributing (by however small an increment) to the general lowering of standards and dumbing-down of entertainment media.

    Which makes your impassioned defense of a film that bears no visual resemblance (and by your testimony, that would be the only one that mattered) to any of those toys you played with as a child all the weaker.

    If that's the case, you have no ground to claim that you enjoyed this film, because it was not by any measure a well-crafted film. The characters were lifeless, the dialogue uninspired, the editing painful, the special effects lackluster, the script absolutely laughable... The list goes on.

    I do find it amusing how none of the film's defenders can seem to imagine a medium between such extremes.

    How very hypocritical of you.
  9. Spider-Fan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
  10. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    That's not what he was saying. If one looks at the movie and tries to consider what kind of audience it was targeted at, 5-10 year old boys sounds about right. It has a very narrow target and isn't like other kid or juvenile fare where it can widely appeal beyond that target base.

    It's not as bad as, say, a Power Rangers movie where it's going to almost entirely stay within that demographic, but neither is it Transformers or ID4 where it appeals to a broader audience. It's a film that is less likely to appeal to the over-10 crowd than most brainless popcorn flicks, in other words.
  11. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    You know, movies are a lot like books (and other forms of entertainment) in that they come in a wide variety of types.

    One of my favorite categories of books is what I call "Bubblegum for the Mind". It's the mindless, fun, unrealistic type of story that I don't have to sit and think about in any way, shape, or form in order to enjoy. For example, some of my favorite BftM comes from old scifi serials and space operas (particularly the works of E. E. "Doc" Smith, like the Skylark of Space or the Lensman books). I also tend to include most Star Wars books in the BftM category.

    Now, I haven't seen GI Joe yet. (I'm waiting to see it with my fiancée who lives over an hour away. We'll probably go this weekend.) But from the descriptions here, I'd say that it sounds like a cinematic version of "Bubblegum for the Mind". And there's nothing wrong with that.

    You can complain that it encourages lowering the standards for future films, but not every film has to meet your lofty standards. If you don't like it, then don't go see it! But it's not your place to tell others how they should spend their time and money, nor is it your place to tell others that they are wrong for enjoying their Bubblegum.

    Kimball Kinnison
  12. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    Kimball_Kinnison, you've eloquently stated what has been on my mind since I began to read Q_M's desultory ad hominem arguments against anyone who disagrees with him. There is not much I can add to your succinct and righteous last paragraph:

    If I can make any addition here at all, it's simply to remind Q_M that taste is purely subjective. Q_M and perhaps Koohii feel that the standards of Hollywood films are dropping, and that we who support these "shoddy" films with our money and our fanship are directly contributing to this sorry state of affairs.

    I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion. We've had this debate before, I think, but in brief, I for one perceive a general advancement in cinematic excellence over the last 10 years, rather than a decline -- especially in sci-fi/fantasy films. There is no negative trend toward dumber or crappier genre movies, in my estimation. From LOTR to Serenity to Iron Man to Potter, SFF films are getting better with each new series and each new installment. I'm hoping that GI JOE holds true to that trend, even if it does so in a "gosh-wow eye-candy roller-coaster" kind of way.

    In closing, Q_M, if you had paid closer attention to my posts which you so viciously attacked, you would have noticed that I have not even seen GI JOE yet. I am defending others' rights to enjoy it without Q_M's brow-beating and insults, and I am defending the movie based on the various trailers and several complete action sequences I've seen. To my eye it looks extremely well-made in terms of production design, shot composition, cinematography, editing, and integration of CGI with live action. It doesn't look "shoddy" or sub-par in any of these key elements of film-making. Beyond this, if the storyline is dumb or incredible, or the characterizations ring false, then you will hear me complain about it in a future post.
  13. Spider-Fan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    Its Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything is crap, be it genre, trend, or medium. Its a simple reality of Hollywood.
  14. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    And yet you, Spider-Fan, liked GI JOE, so the "90% crap rule" does not appear to apply here. At all events, I heartily disagree with this overreaching generalization, but as it's a sidebar point so I'll defer debate about it at this time.

    (BTW, we can add Spider-Fan and Raven to the ranks of those who enjoyed GI JOE; the movie's fans now outnumber the movies' critics, at least in this Forum.)
  15. Spider-Fan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    I enjoyed it in so far was it was free and entertained me briefly, but that doesn't exclude it from being crap. Its a terrible film that's so bad its strangely fun. :p I had fun because it sucked and I could MST it...like Snakes on a Plane. :p I also wouldn't say I was a fan. I wouldn't go back for seconds nor would I buy it.
  16. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
    I saw it this afternoon. It was extremely fun.

    I agree. Not every film can be The Godfather, and its rediculous to expect that,

  17. Gobi-1 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 22, 2002
    star 5
    I believe that ship already sailed with Transformers 2.
  18. Raven Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 5, 1998
    star 6
    Do you regret having bought a ticket? If you could travel back in time and tell yourself to avoid seeing the movie, would you?
  19. Spider-Fan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    I didn't buy it. It was offered to me for free so I took up the offer. If I was required to buy one I never would have seen the film.
  20. Black-Tiger Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2008
    star 3
    I never said I hated the movie, just that I hated what I thought they were making it into from watching the clips, a live action version of the cartoon. First time I saw the movie, as a whole, was last night. I went with low expectations, just to be safe. You know what? A lot of it wasn?t too bad, at least on some of the ideas and design side of things. Those stunts, uh, don?t mention the stunts. Didn?t I mention Matrix in a previous post? If the stunts are impossible for either a human or vehicle, like people spinning in mid air and doing impossible jumps, or doing impossible spins and riding at breakneck speeds through heavy city traffic like I saw that motorcycle do, then it just becomes another Matrix movie rather than a regular action movie. Speaking of action. It was so in your face and fast paced it would?ve made even GL reach for his puck bag! It was so ?fast and intense? I just couldn?t keep track of what was going on! What with there being too much action and there being too many characters and their origins being explained at the same time the film felt bloated; too much going on at once for the film to be able to breath. The characters felt like cardboard cutouts because the film didn?t have enough time to focus on any one character. It felt like the film was trying to do too much in too short amount of time. Script? What script?! Too much in your face CGI and dozens of character backgrounds for any time for script! Well, to be fair what there was wasn?t bad, like the surprise background of CC. But I was very surprised that they allowed people to be skewered, spiked and generally killed in numerous bloody ways.

    The film was a tad too light hearted for my liking, at times almost becoming cheesy. Oh, and where the hell did Brendon Fraser come from! His relatively big name made me wonder if he was playing a major Joe of the future. With his dark beret, dark hair and looks I wondered if Fraser was playing Flint. But nope, I?ve just looked and he plays the relatively new character of Sgt. Stone. Pity, ?cause Fraser has the looks to be Flint. Arnold Vosloo would?ve been a good match for Zartan, that is if his acting hadn?t been so cheesy. Christopher Eccleston?s Scottish accent was unconvincing and even a tad cheesy. I hated Destro?s bio mask. I hated Snake Eyes? smile in his mask. Most of Cobra Commander was handled well, especially his unexpected and surprising back-story. Still hate that fishbowl they?ve made for him though, rather than the hood or helmet. Seeing that I was anticipating the cartoon I was expecting him to be a live action of Dick Dastardly, but he wasn?t that bad and far from the bumbler that he was in the cartoon. His f***** up voice box was pretty good too. Not too hot on making the Baroness a good girl either, although I seem to remember that in one of the more sober cartoon episodes she was an ally of the Joes in an alternate reality, the girlfriend of Steeler if memory serves. As for Duke, he was as plastic as his figure alter ego.

    I thought a lot of the designs were good and that they put themselves out to copy a lot of the Joe and Cobra equipment (can?t wait to see the supped up Tomcat of Joes?!). I was impressed by the Vipers, the black Vipers being very similar in design as something I was intending to design for a project of my own, and the fact that they were genetically enhanced humans too. I still hate those robot outfits of Joes?, which kinda remind me Captain Freedom?s junk outfit from Running Man. Would?ve been much better if they made the outfits more like Iron Man?s movie outfit if they had to have them at all. I liked that they included some conventional real life weapons in the movie, like the Apaches at the beginning.
  21. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
    Actually, Fraser was originally cast as Gung-Ho, the Joes' resident Marine.
  22. Black-Tiger Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2008
    star 3
    Wiki says he's Sgt. Stone.
  23. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
    Yeah, but if you read the movie's wiki page it said Brendan Fraser was ORIGINALLY going to play Gung-Ho and that they created a new character for him instead.
  24. RK_Striker_JK_5 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2003
    star 7
    There's no other GI Joe thread, so apologies for asking this here. I recently got a seven-figure boxed set, and one of the figures was Zap. It mentions him being one of the 'thirteen original Joes'. Anyone know what the list is of these thirteen? Thanks in advance. :)
  25. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    Check it out!

    According to that link, the "Original 13" are:

    Breaker, Clutch, Flash, Grand Slam, Hawk, Grunt, Rock-N-Roll, Scarlett, Short Fuze, Snake Eyes, Stalker, Sleeper and Zap.