So I think I have this whole thing figured out.

After reading 12 reviews in the last week, all of which were positive, I decided to decipher the qualities of this movie that people seemed to like. And it's quite simple:

These people don't really now G.I. Joe.

In other words, the movie's worth is being appraised by people who have a zero-to-minimal understanding of the franchise. The majority of the self-professed "die hard fans" (I'm looking at you, Harry Knowles) cite, as their credentials, that they "watched the show" and "had the toys."

However, I dare defend that the heart of G.I. Joe was the continuity of the comics. It's there that Joes lived and died, relationships were defined, and a host of memorable moments of military drama played out. Having a relationship between Ripcord and Scarlett is clearly not in line with what fans of G.I. Joe have in mind, no matter what the naive critics may say.

Likewise, the uncaring ease at which critics accept the movie's international force as opposed to a distinctly American collective flies in the face of what G.I. Joe is about. Again, while this may not affect the quality of the movie, it affects the quality of adaptation.

Sadly, I feel that the only way that I can potentially enjoy this movie is if I pretend I know nothing about G.I. Joe walking into the cinema.

Which begs the question; why call it G.I. Joe?

Your answer would be "for name recognition"

And I would posit, "but they are marketing the film towards people who don't know it."

---
A terrible interpretation of an idea I can live with (see Masters of the Universe Movie). But that's different than putting a name on something with no connection.

It's like releasing "Inglorious Basterds" and calling it "Thundercats".

Wah, wah, wah. Cry me a river, Ebert.

"No! People seem to enjoy a movie I haven't seen but I know I'll hate! I'm surrounded by idiots! Blarg!"

So what you're basically saying is the only people who have the "right" to properly criticize this movie are the die-hard, old school fans who still own a complete USS Flagg?

I would hate to put words in the bloggers mouth, Grenadier, but I think what he meant to say was "I really hate these cynical adaptions of nerd franchises. I hate the contempt these adaptions show for the original material, the contempt it shows to the fans, and the contempt it shows to the general public. I hate the fact that apparently, that contempt is merited. But most of all, I hate the philistines who act like I'm an arrogant elitist because I object to movies that are utter shit. I hate the cunts who are too stupid to realize they should be ashamed of liking crap like the Transformers movies and this abomination. I hate the twats that don't realize they should hide their love of this kind of movie the same way that they would hide an abiding love of kiddy porn or horsefucking, as a shameful abomination no normal human being could enjoy."

Not to put words in his mouth or anything.

The thing is, critics trashed Transformers, but it still made a shit-ton of money, because the people who have decided to see GI Joe are not the type of people who are going to be swayed by reviews. This is why GI Joe will open on a couple dozen screens in my city and (500) Days of Summer won't show up for another month or so. And that's fine. I may read a negative review of the latest Harry Potter, and it won't stop me from going. The thing that bothers me the most is the Andrews Air Force base remark, which makes me think that the studio sees all film critic as liberals who are against the war so they're against the troops, and I now fear that GI Joe will just be a 2 1/2 hour version of that suck-ass Kid Rock music video about soldiers they used to play before the movies.

Weird, that's how I felt about 300.

@ Toxic: You are so right on, brother. My sentiments exactly.

@ Grenadier: NOW YOU KNOW!

And knowing is half the battle!!

Here's how I'm seeing it: Some movies are made 'for the fans', and others are simply not. X-men 1 was made 'for the fans'. It did well, nerds got the rest of their family to see and enjoy a film based on properties they've known and loved for some time. X-Men 3 was NOT made for it's fans. At this point, they had a successful franchise. So now the purpose is to make as much money as possible. To hell with the hardcore fans, we already have their comic money each week, and already satisfied their needs with the first movie. Now it's our turn to get new little kids buying comic, getting royalties from the Hank McCoy slurpee, and an X-Burger from the King.

I believe Transformers said 'you know what, the hardcore fans have their old show. we want to make money now. we're not going to make a transformers movie exactly like the cartoon. no need to build a 'transformers 1' to satiate the fans, and then wait to REALLY make our money once part 3 comes out, to do what we really want to do and get as munch money as possible.'

And it worked. They made a boat load of money. The hardcore fans hated the sequel, but the folks who went out in droves to see part 1 didn't care about the hardcore's opinion either. They wanted more of the same, and they got it. And the studio raked in the dough, without having to waste time on the 'hardcore' movie.

And now they've moved to another property with GIJoe. They're making a movie BASED on the property some know and love from their past. And like the article says, it will most likely make a boatload of money. Does it deserve it? In the eyes of the hardcore fans who were expecting something different, obviously not. In the eyes of the movie studios and theaters who will rake in the dough this weekend? Sheer brilliance. And let start counting down to the next property.

So the fans can either wine, and 'expect' to hate a movie before they see it. They can get miserable, and hate the fact that a movie is 'destroying' their childhood memories. And they can walk around being generally unhappy.

Alternately, they can think of the film as an alternate reality 'property' movie. An alternate telling with names and characters. In this world, GIJoe IS a worldwide organization. Destro doesn't have a mask for the majority. Cobra Commander has a clear helmet. Ripcord is comic relief that bangs the hot redhead. Duke and Baroness once dated or something. Snakeyes has the outline of a mouth on his mask. Wolverine wears black leather. Wade Wilson had surgery to put swords in his arm. Lois lane is engaged to Perry White's nephew and had Superman's child. Daredevil scares a guy onto subway tracks. And Galactus is a cloud.

Your other stories are still there. Why not see what these new tales have to offer? Just go in with this mindset: Hollywood is NOT giving me a movie of my childhood memories. And they never will. So let's just have a good time.

And there's a better chance that you'll enjoy yourself and walk around with a smile all day, rather than moping around on the internet arguing about how pissed off you are at hack directors and greedy movie studios.

False Mustache, you are exactly right

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0909861/

Paramount is promoting this at military bases and during Country music events with an ad campaign saying it's unpatriotic not to like this movie.

@u_nick:
I loathe people who think like you! Mainly because I can't bring myself to think that way.

I will continue to wallow in my own stew of misery.

@ Toxic

Yeah, okay, but here's what I don't understand. I'm supposed to respect Rob and everyone else's opinion about how much they thought RotF and RoC pander to the stupidest of the stupid masses who populate (nay, infest) theaters these days, but when I admit to liking it I get met with responses like, "Oh, you ENJOYED it?! HA HA HA! You goddamn RETARD! It must be nice never being thirsty, what with all that water in your head!"

Sorry, here's the original story

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-gijoe3-2009aug03,0,2087870.story

This isn't an issue just of making a good G.I. Joe movie, it's about MAKING A GOOD MOVIE. Period.

If you took the words "Transformers 2" out of all the awful things written about that movie, it would still sound like an awful awful movie. Summer popcorn flicks do not have to be awful films, even if people will flock to awful just to see explosions.

@everyone saying give these films a chance, they don't have to be your childhood memories, etc., I point you to Star Trek, which was not our childhood memories up on screen, but a reimagining THAT WAS GOOD. A G.I. Joe with many changes is fine - but a slapsticky Wayans brother in a movie already tells me that it will be shite, whether it has "Joe" stamped on it or not.

I can honestly say that Dragonball: Evolution has been better than 2 films this year. If G.I. is how I expect it to be, DB: E may just be better than 3 movies this year.

http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww79/Kidou_Senshi_Gandamu/yamdance.gif

Heeeeell yeah Yamcha.

Granadier, see my comment above.

There is nothing to enjoy in these movies except the special effects. You should be ashamed of liking it, at least in a non-ironic way. I haven't seen TF2 because I saw TF1, and if TF1 is the better one, I will avoid TF2 as if it had the some sort of genetically engineered bubonic plague. The movies lack any sort of plot, characterization, action, or any other admirable quality (except for the special effects team). There is no redeeming feature to these movies. It's what you would get if you have Ed Wood 150 million bucks. It's not even like I hate it. It's that I spent two hours watching a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It's great that you liked the movies, but you need to realize that not all opinions deserve respect, and thinking that this type of movie are of high quality indicates that you are a moron or immature. It's like finding out that a grown adult has never been potty trained or something. And that's why people make fun of you. Because you deserve it.

And I don't need shit to be Citizen Kaine to like it, or at least respect that people do like it. But it has to have some kind of heft to it.

Grenadier — I think you're confusing my use of "good" as "enjoyable" when in fact I mean "quality." If you liked TF2, that's fine. I obviously didn't, and have difficulty imagining how people did. But I don't begrudge you your opinion.

However, I would say it is definitively a bad (as in quality) movie, whether you liked it or not. It does not have a good story, nor does it tell that meager story well. I'd say even the action, its primary goal, often falls flat because none of it makes any sense. (If you're one of the folks who says you have to turn your brain off to watch TF2, then I think by proxy you've agreed that it is a bad movie.)

My guess is that GI Joe will be the same. You may disagree with critics, but as a whole, they're supposed to inform society of what is quality. When a studio refuses to let critics see a film, it's because they don't feel their film will be seen as good/of quality.

This has no bearing on whether you will enjoy it or not. Certainly, it looks like GI Joe's going to make a ton of money. So I'd rest easy, knowing that you're likely going to be on the winning side of this.

I don't even think this will make more than $33 million on opening weekend.

How is there more than one side to this?

"Here is a property- there are elements that make it awesome. Take the property, use those awesome elements, and try -Try!- to make a good movie. It can be done without being a slave to the past 20+ years of material (see, Iron Man, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, X-Men, X2). You have a gigantic budget."

Then what happens? "You know what? Instead of making a movie about transforming robots...what if we made it about Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, and the UNITED STATES MILITARY (FUCK YEAH!)!!!"

"Man...how the Fuck am I going to sell a ninja, all in black, with a visor, that kicks all sorts of ass Always, but never speaks? I mean, I know there are like fifty volumes of comics that managed to do it...and cartoons, and cartoon movies, and...ah! I know! BLACKFACEMOUTH ON MUTE NINJA. Plus! Cargo Pants & one of the Wayans."

If this is supposed to be accepted as a "different reflection" of the property- just Make A New Property. Fucking, make it "G-Force 2: New Guinea".

There are too many examples of people doing it right (and too many Billions of dollars- Billions!- involved)to excuse this shit.

I think this is not going to be screened for critics because critics love to rip on certain types of movies, and not judge them based on what they are. What I mean is, in a critic's mind "Schindler's List is a good movie, then G.I. Joe is a really crappy movie. Therefore Schindler's gets 5 stars, G.I. Joe gets 1 star."
The audience tends to go into a movie like G.I. Joe not comparing it to Academy Award winners, but instead asking "does this have action with explosions, does it have cool CG effects, and will it entertain me?" G.I. Joe will accomplish what it sets out to do, which is allow the audience to eat its popcorn and shut their brains off for two hours while watching the flashing lights.

Clark — That is incorrect.

You only need to look at Iron Man and The Dark Knight to see examples to the contrary. Both films were loved by critics and audiences; they worked for both nerdy, nitpicky fans and people who didn't give a shit; they were enjoyed both by kids and adults. These two summer and comic book films spoke to everybody, not down to the lowest common denominator.

There's no reason why anyone should have to settle for a shitty film with lots of flashing lights when it is demonstrably possible to have a great, intelligent, cool, exciting, entertaining film... with flashing lights.

@u_nick:

Although I disagree with you. I respect that your opinion comes from a place of thoughtfulness.

I do find one large disagreement with your logic.

I agree wholeheartedly that an adaptation of an existing property cannot cater to the existing fan base. That's suicide.

Correction, you can do that if your a small budget project made purely for a small audience like "Free Enterprise", but you can't for a big budger film.

"Star Trek" and "The Dark Knight" are good examples of going away from the source material to make it accessible.

On all of this we agree.

But Star Trek and Batman are different than G.I. Joe in an important way.

Star Trek changed some of the details - some fans would aruge important details. Pike being older than Kirk, meeting Romulans earlier than previously established, etc. But it was on a spaceship that looked pretty much like the Enterprise and it had a Scottish engineer struggling with the engineers, and a pointy eared Vulcan who struggled with his human counterparts and his own internal struggle. And more than those literal concepts, the core relationships were recognizable.

When I watched the trailers for Star Trek I didn't need the title at the end to tell me it was Star Trek.

I won't go over the same diatribe on Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, but the same applies there. When I see the Joker and the Batmobile in a movie trailer, I pretty much know it's a trailer for Batman.

G.I. Joe does more than stray from the details of the source material. On the contrary, it does the opposite. It loses any part of the essence of what G.I. Joe was and makes up for it, by keeping a couple proper nouns intact.

Disclaimer. I'm not really a G.I. Joe fan. I watched it after school as a kid and kind of liked it OK. But I would recognize it if I saw it.

I didn't recognize the commercial. The commercial had nothing visually, or emotionally, or stylistically that reminded me any more of G.I. Joe than it did of.... Yogi Bear except that there were guns.

When I saw the trailer for G.I. Joe, I did need the title at the end, because I wouldn't have known it was G.I. Joe if not for the title.

We are talking about films, not trailers, but humor me a moment more speaking of trailers. One of the memorable moments in the Trek trailer was the 10 year old yelling he was James Tiberius Kirk. That was a fun moment revealing that this was Star Trek. Great moment because it felt like something Kirk would do. I think the equivalent moment in the structure of the Joe trailer was when someone (Destro?) asked what Hawk said the name of his organization was and he replied "I didn't" with a smile. Umm. OK. Were we supposed to wet our pants and say "Oh shit! It's G.I. Joe" because it certainly was structured that way. And we didn't.

----
So what you may ask. So what if they strayed so far from the source material. Doesn't it matter if it's a good movie?

I would say yes. I would totally agree. I am not offended that the "sacred" G.I. Joe ideas didn't make it to the big screen. I'm offended that this unrelated film is using the title G.I. Joe. It's false advertising to me, because this isn't G.I. Joe. Maybe it's a good movie, but it's not G.I. Joe. Don't pretend it is.

I'd be just as offended if this movie wasn't called G.I. Joe, but was called "My Little Pony" or "She-Ra". I wouldn't be offended at all if it was called "Accelerate!" or something else.

The big question Joe raises - perhaps more than Transformers is why? With Transformers, there was an attempt to bring in the mainstream audience based on name-rec from Transformers even if it meant pissing on Transformers (no pun intended). I find that disgusting.

But Joe is different. Joe is openly distancing itself from anything Joe. It's not going to Comic-Con. It's not working with Joe fans. So what's the point?

The only thing this film has in common with G.I. Joe is the title and the names of some characters. That was done to get some name recognition, but now they are doing anything they can to downplay that name recognition. It's simply poor planning.

The closest thing I can relate to this is "Enterprise" (please don't let this turn into an Enterprise argument. I'm speaking nothing to the quality of the show, only it's marketing campaign).

In 2001, Paramount wanted to raise their ratings by making Trek more appealing to the general public than to it's dwindling fan base. They built an ad campaign saying that this new Star Trek was different and that Star Trek fans wouldn't like it because it was so different. and then they only ran those ads... during Star Trek. Who were they hoping to reach?

Well that kinda sucks given I’m one of the few in the geekdom who actually wants to see this movie…Still gonna go see it and I’m gonna flame the $hit out of it just like I did Disgraceformers2 if it sucks, but maybe just maybe this is a preemptive strike…Watchmen didn’t do so good with critics, yet it’s one of the few movie adaptations to ever be overtly faithful to the source material, so after the lambasting Trans2 got maybe you don’t let the urge to di$$ yet another cartoon-movie sink in…I’m sure everybody is ready to shoot darts at this thing just based on how $hitious Bay’s movie was…

I guess this brings up another question, why oh why did Transformers 2 not do the same thing? All the people that watched that $hit in pre-production and nobody felt the need to X the critics screening? That $hit might have tripled the first movie buy now if it wasn't for the first weekened $hitstorm in the criticworld, lol…

The Watchmen was TOO faithful. But that movie has very little to do with Transformers or G.I. Joe. I didn't especially like the Watchmen, but it was obviously several leagues above this crap. The Watchmen guys were trying to make a good movie, it just didn't come together. The Transformers and GI Joe guys are just in it for the payday.

[b]@toxic[/b] - I'm talking about the critics response though to comicbook movies this last year, where Watchmen didn't really set the bar high in their minds, the Transformers 2 murdered that bar and anally raped you with it, and now G.I.Joe comes down the pike...I'm saying I hope the motivation behind not screening this $hit has more to do with that and not just gaying it past the critcs...Baseless hope I guess...

As for Watchmen, it's one of those rare films where I can totally understand why a general audience member didn't like, but I loved it...Not every part of it, but the concept of it all digested is pretty awesome...Then to go back and look thru the source material after watching it, the movie did it proud IMO...

I hate neckbearded fucks. It's like your mission each day is a new way to cry about a movie you haven't even seen.
Now it's automatically shitty because they haven't screened it for critics,yet the reviwers who have seen it,liked it.

Toxic-
Go fuck yourself. "Thinking that this type of movie are of high quality indicates that you are a moron or immature. It's like finding out that a grown adult has never been potty trained or something. And that's why people make fun of you. Because you deserve it. "
Cute quote,but it only applies on the net,where everyone's safe behind a screen. I real life,you're the one getting made fun of. You're in the EXTREME minority. You're the one waaahing like a baby because your cartoon got changed.
STFU and go back to your Magic cards.

One thing to keep in mind about the Star Trek reboot is that in essence, it is kind of an alternate reality.

If you happened to read the Star Trek:Countdown comic prequel to the movie, the Spock we all know and love is now considered "Spock Prime" and traveled into a black hole using red matter that sucked his ship (named "Jellyfish" and was built by Geordi Laforge) and Nero's Romulan drilling ship (that was retrofitted with Borg weapon technology)into the past.

So in essence, it is easier to accept the new Star Trek that JJ Abrams depicts than it is to accept a Bayformers or new GI Joe movie that seems far and away from what they should have been.

I don't have a problem with new ideas, as long as they stick to the original characters and how they were meant to be presented. Keeping their looks as close as possible is a plus, but I understand the need for a more updated modern look. However, I totally disagree with how the Transformers look or GI Joe using accelerator suits. I can't tell a Bayformer's head from his ass and the accelerator suits are too stupid for me. I want to see authentic military fatigues, not Halo armor.

Unfortunately, what we hardcore fans know and love doesn't always translate into what these artsy directors envision.

On the other hand, JJ Abrams didn't even like Star Trek in the beginning, knew nothing about the franchise and turned out - in my opinion - an awesome updated rendition of the original series.

These are just my opinions though.

"I'm offended that this unrelated film is using the title G.I. Joe. It's false advertising to me, because this isn't G.I. Joe. Maybe it's a good movie, but it's not G.I. Joe. Don't pretend it is."

Then, what is "G.I. Joe"?
Does the movie answer that question?

Must it have Soldiers, Vehicles, and Cobra in it to be G.I. Joe?

Living in LA I know that movie making is sadly just a business. My kids always ask if they are going to make a sequel for a movie they like, and unfortunately my response is always "it depends on if they make enough money on the first one". GI Joe is going to suck if you know the original source. They don't care - they have all their marketing tie-ins with Toys R Us and McDondlds/BK/Whoever. Kids (who make a majority of spending decisions for a family) don't know the original so they'll think it's cool and drag the family to see it. Luckily it's off my kid's radar so I think I'll miss this one.
If it's going to trouble you- don't go. Otherwise, all you'll get is high blood pressure as you struggle not to scream at the bigscreen.

One of the best debates and reasonable dialogues I've seen here.

I think everything has pretty much been said. There's really yet to be a movie that wasn't screened for critics that was good. I remember something on Rotten Tomatoes about it once and the average RT Meter after critics got to see it was around 10 or 20%.

For the record I fully endorse Bill Binder, Toxic and Rob's statements.

I fully believe that you can have excellent popcorn movies, as well as very bad ones. The structure and execution of the plot, development of characters, as well as visual appeal all count for something. Just because a person is able to "shut off their brain" while watching a bad movie and come out enjoying it, doesn't really make it a good movie. It does however imply that if you were to "turn your brain on" and watch the same movie, that same person might not enjoy the same movie.

I'm sure this will be just like Transformers, where I'm aghast that such a crappy movie made so much money, thereby begetting more crappy movies.

@ Toxic

You're right--not all opinions should be respected. So I'll choose to not respect your opinion that only "immature morons" could possibly enjoy Revenge of the Fallen, and by extension Rise of Cobra.

@ Rob

I'll agree with you on some points. I've never once said Revenge of the Fallen was a perfect movie; way too many testicle jokes and a "wait, what?!" storyline, but it LOOKED awesome (in my opinion).

It doesn't matter to me that I'd be on the "winning" side of this argument--it just feels like someone who waits until the playoffs to decide which NFL team he's going to support.

@ Kid Nicky

Hey now, don't knock Magic: The Gathering.

Okay, I'll add my two cents in.

I have no doubt whatsoever that GI Joe is going to be a fun film. I've gotten that vibe since I saw the very first trailer for it. I just regret that it isn't going to be at all faithful to the Marvel comics that I grew up with.

Snake Eyes with a mouth molded into his mask? Meh. Big deal. Marlon Wayons as a joke-cracking Ripcord? I think it's a bad idea, but I can live with it. Personally I think Wayons would have been much better cast as Stalker, a character much more important to the Joe mythology (and, y'know, BLACK), but still not TOO much of a turn off. Scarlet ending up with Ripcord? Now THAT kinda ticks me off. Scarlet and Snake Eyes as a couple has always been a big part of what I like about the original comics The idea that these two characters who were so deeply entrenched in their service to GI Joe that nobody else outside the team could ever understand either of them, so they naturally gravitated to each other from the beginning. Duke and the Baroness having once been engaged? What? Huh? No reason for that at all apart from ratcheting up the sexual tension (something Sienna Miller needs no help doing all on he rown in that black fetish outfit). Cobra Commander being a human crunchberry??? Yeah, I'm against that one. Mostly because I really loved the way his origin was depicted back in the comics. How can you not like that the world's most dangerous terrorist was a disgruntled used car salesman?

Okay, I'm rambling. Let me put it this way: There have been a few different versions of GI Joe. There was the original Marvel/Devil's Due comics. The 80's cartoon. Sigma Six. Valor vs. Venom. The WWII era GI Joe/Transformers crossover. Etc. None of them had a grip on me like the original series, but I still accept all of them as different versions of the same cool idea. That's how I'm going into the movie this Friday; appreciating that there will be a lot of differences from what I grew up with, but that it is STILL GI Joe.

Yo Joe!!

Doc

I will not being paying money to see this movie. As one person who boycotts a movie makes absolutely no difference at all, its usually rather hard for me to say no to my friends when we wanna go out on a friday night and see something stupid on purpose. However, this time . . . I'm gonna stay away. I just don't feel good about even giving one cent to these folks behind the G.I.Joe movie. Giving any money to them to me says "yeah, I approve". For me to say that would make me sort of ill. So, I'm not even gonna buy it on DVD when it comes out either. Not even gonna rent it.

Now, I know a ton of you who hate what you're seeing are gonna go see the movie anyways. But really, do you wanna be donating money to the system that made it? I know its easy to say that your ticket doesn't mean a thing in the vast ocean of cash this thing will make. But is your curiosity of how bad the thing may be worth validating the studio in even the smallest iota?

I say, don't spend any money on it. And if you really gotta.....gotta gotta see it to see how it came out. Just wait to borrow a friend's copy. Download it from some bootleg site. Whatever.... just don't pay for it.

Come on you fellow crazy fan boys. Stand strong with me. :)

@ darkmagician66699

"I don't have a problem with new ideas, as long as they stick to the original characters and how they were meant to be presented."

Then they're NOT new ideas then, are they?

I have a problem with new ideas. If they're gonna call something G.I. Joe, which is the name of an old concept, then the idea should match the name.

Slapping an established name on something, then crying fowl when people expect the established concept is just stupid.

I'm pretty much with Doc. I have been a fan/collector since 1982 and I still collect. Though I have some reservations about some of the decisions (I think Sienna Miller is miscast as the Baroness and Marlon Wayans Could end up being the Jar-Jar of the franchise), I am cautiously optimistic. I don't like some of the designs, the Vipers for instance, but if the good outweighs the bad I will be satisfied. Not Happy...satisfied. I have read that there are many plot threads that may lead to a sequel, so unless Snake Eyes or Duke become some warrior chosen by god and Scarlett isn't some re-incarnated princess a la Mummy 2, It can only get better. I hope.

@ Grenadier

You are persistent to keeping bitching at us, aren't you?

Twist my words around. Let me correct my statement for you idiot, since you keep digging at everyone and now chose to poke your finger into my eye and tried to skull-fuck me.

When I stated that I have no problems with new ideas, I mean, for example, that I can accept a Wayan playing Ripcord - even though he was actually a white guy and had no real bearing on the Joe team anymore than Recondo did. I can accept the mouth on Snake Eyes mask, since I think I have actually seen this done in some of the comics from the past. I can accept that Stalker and Roadblock were totally over-looked and they brought back Breaker - who actually died in the Marvel comics series - instead of Dialtone or Mainframe. And what of Doc? Or Rock n' Roll, Grunt, Clutch, Flash, Flint, Steeler, Beachhead? There were so many better mainstay Joes to choose from that made GI Joe what GI Joe stood for. Again, Stalker was HUGE oversight and unless a Wayan can play a serious part, then it needed to go to someone like Wesley Snipes or Samuel Jackson.

What I cannot accept is the re-writing of origins, such as was mentioned above about Cobra Commander and his "Crunchberry Goodness covered in nuts and honey" face. I cannot accept that they rewrote the history on Snake Eyes and Scarlet serving in Vietnam together and being together ever since. I cannot accept that GI Joe officially means "General Infantry" or "Government Issue" instead of "Globally Integrated Joint Operating Entity" and how they totally left off "A Real American Hero" along with the red, white and blue stripes so we wouldn't offend the world outside of our own country. It might as well just be called "The Man from U.N.C.L.E" or the new "Mission Impossible Team" since it's based in Brussels. I cannot accept the fact that Hollywood takes every written novel, toyline, video or rpg game, or any numerous original works and make it something that THEY think is better. I am sure that directors consider themselves the artists of the film world, but there were millions of people before all this that helped create a generation of supporters filling companies pockets (like Hasbro) who would for once like to see something not get butchered into some high budget, special effects mess with no plot, no characterization, no regard for the past and no reason to be filmed if they don't care about the franchise to begin with. These guys read the internet and know what the people want, but they aren't going to spend a cent to give it to you the way it should be. Unfortunately, I fear there are more non-nerds/fans in the populace emptying their wallets on these duds than there are fanboys. And the movie companies know it!

Grenadier, epic fail for busting out a variation on "well that's your opinion". When dealing with a troll of my caliber its probably best to ignore me. Failing that, insult my mother.

I mean I can see people liking the Watchmen movie, but it was really TOO faithful; adding things that they didn't have the time to explain (Bubastis, Hooded Justice being gay) that it would have been better to ignore in the movie. Regardless, it was ok.

DOC DOC!!! You got to help me get back to the future!!

I have a question relating to this movie in a sideways kind of way...

Didn't anybody at Hasbro say "Wait, you're going to dress the good guys in black and silver and the bad guys in black and silver and even the unique individuals will all be dressed the same? Won't that make for one boring as fuck and damned confusing toy aisle?"

I went to TRU today and saw their display up and everybody fucking looks the same from ten feet away. The only one that stands out is Storm Shadow and he looks even fucking stupider than the guys in black!

I can only imagine the conversation...

"Mommy! I want this guy!"

"Don't you have this one already, Tommy? I'm not buying you the same figure again."

"No mommy! He's different. Wait! Come baaaaaack! Nevermind I'll get a Bakugan instead."

Darkmagician-
"I want to see authentic military fatigues"
Have you ever watched an episode of G.I. Joe? Maybe some of their clothese were authentic,but overall it looked like an animated version of a gay pride parade. Shipwreck?!?!
LOL @ Sommers being an "artsy director"

Dave H-
If you feel the need to "scream at the big screen" because they made a cartoon different to be live action (OH MY GOD THEY CHANGED TEH ACRONYM!!!!1ONE!),you may have some sort of problem.

I was at the store today and they had these 12 inch G.I. Joes there that you could push a button on their "Dog-Tags" and they would say stuff.

Stormshadow: "Hello Brother" - "He's Here, I can sense him" - and noises *TING TING SWOOSH*

Duke: "Take that Cobra!*BONK* - "And That!*BOIOIONG* - "Lets March Joes!*FEET MARCHING*

Snake Eyes: *WHOOSH* - *SWISH SWISH CLANG* - *SMACK SMACK BOING* (and I swear to God)... one time when you push the dog-tag, his eyes light up LED Green and they flash to some shitty Break-dancing music!

I. Am. Not. Kidding.

Not every blog is kissing this movies ass...

http://www.drdeathonline.com/2009/08/gi-joe-rise-of-cobra-is-going-to-be.html

o Joe!

You netnerds didn't even touch on the fact that Cobra Commander and Baroness are brother and sister. And a dark haired Duke that couldn't that couldn't hold eat an MRE without pukin' I'm seeing this movie for free. Who's with me?

I was debating which movie to drag my husband to: GI Joe or District 9. I watched some of the GI Joe cartoon when I was a kid, but wasn't really into it. I recently saw some of it on DVD (the complete set kick-ass btw) and really enjoyed it, ridiculous though it is. The fact that they're not screening this for critics has me worried. Now, it might be fun and entertaining and not the best movie, but given that most movies that aren't screened suck balls, I don't have much hope. Maybe I'll get TF2 and GI Joe one night from Netflix and have me a Rifftrax night, cause it looks like I'll be seeing District 9 in the theaters.

I was debating which movie to drag my husband to: GI Joe or District 9. I watched some of the GI Joe cartoon when I was a kid, but wasn't really into it. I recently saw some of it on DVD (the complete set kick-ass btw) and really enjoyed it, ridiculous though it is. The fact that they're not screening this for critics has me worried. Now, it might be fun and entertaining and not the best movie, but given that most movies that aren't screened suck balls, I don't have much hope. Maybe I'll get TF2 and GI Joe one night from Netflix and have me a Rifftrax night, cause it looks like I'll be seeing District 9 in the theaters.

Right now it's only tracking at about a $20-25m opening weekend which would kind of be a disaster.

I'm really not liking that some of the backstory has been needlessly overcomplicated into some bizarre incestual circle jerk. Every time I even try to convince myself that okay, maybe the promotional material is just poorly thought out something new gets revealed that just makes me want to punch a landmine.

Star Trek did the exact opposite and I enjoyed the hell out of that movie. So far G.I.Joe is looking like less a summer blockbuster and more like a winter drinking game.

Also, Sam Jackson as Doc would have been at least a step in the right direction.

And a dark haired Duke that couldn't that couldn't hold eat an MRE without pukin'

I know I spent a good deal of energy defending the film, but the more I think about it, the more things like this prey on my mind. Duke's bright blond flattop is almost as iconic as Scarlett's red tred tresses or Snake Eyes' distinctive visor, so why couldn't they have just given Channing Tatum a dye-job, especially when they took the time to turn (blonde) Rachel Nichols and (blonde) Sienna Miller into a redhead and a brunette, respectively. Why not have Stalker (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in the film? Why hire Marlon Wayans and let him play, well, Marlon Wayans? And especially why the Hell would they try and pair him up with Scarlett? Those few reviews yet written which dare say more than "Marlon Wayans is great, honest" seem to agree that the character sticks out like a sore thumb, and non-romance between him and Scarlett is awkward and perfunctory.

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/f-you-haters-el-guapo-saw-g-i-joe-and-loved-it-7551

http://chud.com/articles/articles/20306/1/REVIEW-GI-JOE---THE-RISE-OF-COBRA/Page1.html

And another one (spoiler heavy):

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=688498

Am I the only guy here who actually likes Sommers? His movies are total camp, and rather enjoyable because of it. Now turning an established franchise into camp may not be the best move, but can you think of anyone who screamed 'it's not faithful to the origional 'The Mummy!' Seriously, do yourselves a favour, lay off the RAGE for a few days to avoid having an aneurysm, watch the movie (or don't), then discus it (and RAGE if you must). I admittedly had a glimmer of hope for this movie, but it not being screened for critics has pretty much bashed it. At least keep an open mind until you see the movie. I can think of numerous movies I ended up enjoying with crappy trailers. Calm. Down. A. Little.

It's pretty Critics are going to completely miss the point of this movie (happen to Speed Racer)

also
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalBacklash

Not screening for critics? Bloody hell. That's never a good sign.

Well, I'll be seeing it on Friday morning and posting up a review on my blog *blatant plug* that afternoon.

I will watch it once, pick up some figures and custom them.
I will not buy the movie blu-rays and any movie adaptation comics...no matter how hot Megan Fox is, I meant Sienna Miller...

I'll hold my real opinion until I see the film, but Ripcord and Scarlett? FUCK! I mean Cobra-fu-fu-fu-fu-fuck! Why? Why Ripcord and Scarlett? Did they have to piss on me? Why? Shit damn fuck! I'd even take Duke and Scarlett even though I prefer Snakes and Red. Damnit! FUCK!

Indeed. I could literally feel a part of me dying when I first read they were planning that.

Let's just start having Nerd-Ins at these horrible movies based on our beloved, childhood memories. Let's explain to people that they deserve more than the crap they are being fed thinking that they somehow experienced what their kids/parents knew when we were young. I can't see any other way. Maybe be like Nerd witnesses and going door to door.

I'm not going to knock on anyone bitching and whining about this film because if a franchise/series I cared about got bastardized on the big screen i'd be foaming at the mouth too.But I dunno, say what you will about Sommers, but the first Mummy movie was awesome, at least give the film a chance to see if its as big of a fuck up as you guys say it is, because right know its pretty much all hyperbole, if you see the film and it's shit, your opinions are more than justified. just saying.

Buy the way Rob that was a kick ass rant.

G.I. Don't Know.

Sommers did The Mummy, which I liked. Probably the only movie from him that I liked.

This movie looks like a bust. It might be more fun to watch than Transformers though.

Just a question for those of you who think the "The Mummy was awesome!": How old were you when this came out? 'Cause I saw it as an adult and thought it was cheesy and boring even then. Just wondering.

"audiences enjoy everywhere from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland"

Drab military personnel like a movie that portrays them as totally badass superheroes? Who knew?

HOO-RAH

Huh.. I love this place more for the fun comment reading than most anything. (FFF always makes for a fun comment surf and makes me more paranoid to actually read the FF.) Anyway to my point.

I'de seen the Joe's a few times as a kid though I never actually watched much of the show and I think the only action figures I had were the two ninjas but I could still recognize most of the characters from the show. That said no idea what this was when I first saw it. My first though was Awesome...ish weird Mass Effect movie... Why isn't it in space...? And where is Wrex? And hadn't a clue till the ninja's came up. The idea's behind some of this stuff just come up as strange. I understand that just making a movie for fan's isn't going to do much but I don't get the point of calling this G.I. Joe. I mean it might make more money and maybe better reviews if they tried to call this an original property. Might of even made a better looking movie. Honestly nobody would care what Cobra Commander's face looked like if he wasn't cobra commander. (Still not getting why they didn't just use the shiny metal faceplate thing if the hood was to scary of a PR problem for them.) Or the Accelerator Suit things if it wasn't the Joe's running around jumping missiles and such in them. It had the making to be a half decent action movie, Not spectacular or ground breaking but decent if they took some time to polish up the story and such if it didn't try to pass itself off as G.I. Joe.

Tell me if I'm wrong but if the movie wasn't G.I. Joe, It was actually an original property with original characters, not duke or cobra commander, But the same movie and plot and effects and ect. It would actually seem like a better movie and you would be more likely to go out and see it. I would at least.

My point, The name G.I. Joe is more of a weight dragging it down then anything. Children don't know what G.I. Joe is. Its not on TV anymore (At least on any channel I have) and the only way they would see it is if their parents own it so they don't care if Duke is Duke if his name is Bill, So they will still drag their parents to see it with them. The general majority who just wants to see stuff explode and ninja's fight will see it. They too don't care if the one ninja has his mouth molded on his mask or not in the comics and will still pay to see the movie. So why call it G.I. Joe? Nobody who cared about the series will want to see it more than once, if even, and everyone else will still go see it because they don't know, or don't care. It seems like a smarter option to just make it its own series. Less people will hate it, more people might see it and its generally less problems all around for it and any sequels it spawns.

Tell me if I'm wrong but if the movie wasn't G.I. Joe, It was actually an original property with original characters, not duke or cobra commander, But the same movie and plot and effects and ect. It would actually seem like a better movie and you would be more likely to go out and see it.

Very well then: You're wrong. ;)

I'm not kidding, either. Those few reviews that go deeper than "it's a fun popcorn movie so just turn your brain off" generally seem to agree that there are certain elements in the film that just don't make a lot of sense to the overall detriment of the film, and quite often, these are exactly the places where the script has deviated from established backstory.

My point, The name G.I. Joe is more of a weight dragging it down then anything.

No, the series of strange and inexplicable changes that seem to have been made just for the Hell of it are.

After the drubbing that Bayformers:Revenge of the Faulty took from the critics for being big on action and scant on story
I'm really not at all surprised. This multi-national UN Joe crap is kinda weak on the face of it. I'm going to see it,but I don't expect to blown away. It's riding high on Rottentomatoes.com for now but I suspect it will plummet,once the critics and fanboys get a hold of it.

I don't know about you, but on opening day, I'm actually gonna find something to do that's more american than what this movie does. Taking a big shit first thing in the morning is a lot more american than this new GI Joe movie is!

The international thing? No big deal. If you're a hyper-patriotic American who's offended that they changed that, you need to take yourself a tad less seriously.

(Plus, they made Scarlett Canadian, so good on 'em for the changes.)

There's still stuff that I know will annoy the fuck out of me - Ripcord landing Scarlett because Marlon Wayans was probably "too big of a star" to not hook up with the hot chick is probably #s 1 - two hundred and something on that list - but the Accelerator suits receive minimal use, and that was my biggest gripe.

Admittedly, the whole origin of Cobra Commander thing is ludicrously bad, but, hey, it's Hollywood. I was frankly expecting a LOT worse.

(Plus, they made Scarlett Canadian, so good on 'em for the changes.)

As a Canuck, I find it somewhat amusing, but more random in a stupid way. I mean, they apparently think it's fine and dandy to make the Southern Belle from Atlanta Georgia a Canadian from Alberta, but they're still calling her Shana "Scarlett" O'Hara. Way to miss the point, guys.

There's still stuff that I know will annoy the fuck out of me - Ripcord landing Scarlett because Marlon Wayans was probably "too big of a star" to not hook up with the hot chick is probably #s 1 - two hundred and something on that list

Marlon Wayans a "star"? Since when, exactly? Nothing about that casting decision or the ridiculous shit the character gets away with makes any sense.

"I mean, they apparently think it's fine and dandy to make the Southern Belle from Atlanta Georgia a Canadian from Alberta, but they're still calling her Shana "Scarlett" O'Hara. Way to miss the point, guys."

Well, if you've got a redhead with the last name O'Hara, giving her the code name "Scarlett" doesn't exactly stretch the realm of plausibility no matter where she's from, y'know?

And Wayans is a "star" in the Hollywood sense where if you appear in enough movies that make money in spite of themselves, you're deemed a star, as depressing as that is. And since he's a "star", that means he gets to get the girl and not the mute guy.

I can just picture an Ari Gold-esque agent saying stuff like "you won't get my client in your movie unless he gets a romantic subplot... yeah, there's that redhead character in the script... what, who cares if she's supposed to be with the other guy... what's he supposed to be, Asian? That won't help your demos any. You don't get a guy like Marlon Wayans for free, you know!"

Well, if you've got a redhead with the last name O'Hara, giving her the code name "Scarlett" doesn't exactly stretch the realm of plausibility no matter where she's from, y'know?

So why take her out of Atlanta and stick her birthplace in Western Canada and continue calling her Scarlett O'Hara? If the only thing that mattered was having a crossbow-weilding redhead who was not American, for whatever reason, why not say she was, for example, a Frenchwoman from Normandy named Marillon "Scarlett" Bouchard or something to that effect?

Changes are being made for the sake of change itself, seemingly, and that's never a good thing.

And Wayans is a "star" in the Hollywood sense where if you appear in enough movies that make money in spite of themselves, you're deemed a star, as depressing as that is.

That's not a "star". That's a Hollywood working stiff (and one who apparently begged to be given a part in the film, not the other way around).

And since he's a "star", that means he gets to get the girl and not the mute guy.

No, it doesn't. The comic relief does not "get the girl". The comic relief gets killed to inspire the hero to keep on fighting. ;)

I can just picture an Ari Gold-esque agent saying stuff like "you won't get my client in your movie unless he gets a romantic subplot... yeah, there's that redhead character in the script... what, who cares if she's supposed to be with the other guy... what's he supposed to be, Asian? That won't help your demos any. You don't get a guy like Marlon Wayans for free, you know!"

Who exactly would want Marlon Wayans in the first place? The guy's pretty much low-man on the Wayans family totem-pole, and that's saying something.

Getting back to the original point about screening movies for critics and not whether Marlon Wayans is a star. I thought he was good in "Requiem for a Dream", but that's another story. ;)

Anyway, isn't the whole point of screening a movie early for critics so you can get good reviews out there, and try to convince the general public that the movie is good?
Usually, if a commercial is run *without* any critics' quotes, then you know it's a stinker of a movie. Did the trailers for TF2 include an quotes from critics?

Logically, this means that the only reason not to screen a movie early is so critics don't slam it and turn people away. This also means the studio can get their high opening weekend numbers and not worry about the expected fall-of the following weekend.

Keep in mind that studios get something like 99% of the ticket price during the first weekend and their percentage drops each week after that. So, it's in the studios financial interest to get people into the theaters on opening weekend.

Plus, this it gives them bragging rights to say their movie made $60 million in one weekend. Sure, TF2 made a gazillion dollars in its first "weekend", but its "weekend" started on Wednesday, not Friday, it opened in every theater possible (does anyone have the exact count), and ticket prices are around $10 to $15. With these factors, it's hard for a major movie to *not* make $50 million in its opening weekend.

On the other hand, studios want to pick and choose their early critics to make sure they good reviews... and there will always be someone who will give them a good quote, if for no reason than to see their name listed as the source of the quote.

So, like, since Scarlet is from the Great White North, eh? Like, shouldn't she be wearing a Calgary Flames or Toronto Maple Leafs jersey with no panties somewhere in this hoser of a movie?

Here, have another beer and a doughnut, eh?

What a bunch of hosers, eh?

I think the big problem with this movie is that it's based on the crappy 80's G.I. Joe and not on the ORIGINAL G.I. JOE!!!!!

Getting back to the original point about screening movies for critics and not whether Marlon Wayans is a star. I thought he was good in "Requiem for a Dream", but that's another story. ;)

And another (wildly different) characterization. "Ripcord" on the other hand seems to pretty much be a retread of the same character Marlon Wayans has played in every other movie he's ever been in, and my heart bleeds for G.I. Joe franchise for it.

@ Templar:

So what yer saying is that Marlon should be a pot-smoking, cross-dressing 'Joe?! In that case, Gung-Ho and Shipwreck should have both been a part of this movie!

I've been trying to keep an open mind and not bash this movie before I see it. However, I just saw a commercial with the following dialog
Marlon Wayans: What's that?
Bigger Black Guy: camo-suits (new cool invention)
Marlon Wayans: Heh, I gotta get me one of those.

Yuck...

Seems that there are bigger stars in this movie than Marlon Wayons, yet we just can't seem to get past the fact that they stuck this retard in the movie. I think if they wanted a black guy for Ripcord, Eddie Murphy could have done a better job. Don Cheadle. Ice Cube. I'll bet even Micheal Vick could have done a better job! Oh wait - Micheal Vick should ahve played Mutt with his dog Junkyard.

Don't be hatin' on me about ranting because a black guy is playing Ripcord, but Ripcord was white. Would it have made a lick of sense to make Doc, Stalker, Roadblock, Avalanche or Heavy Duty to be played by white guys?

Let's just hope that Dennis Quaid adds a hint of decency to his portrayal as Hawk. Someone has to carry this movie.

@Yakub Shabazz

I was probably around 13 when The Mummy came out, but the last time I saw it was back when I was in my late teens and my opinion of it didn't go down at all. Yes it was pretty cheesy, but in a good way(yes its possible). It has a really old-fashioned, fun "Raiders of the Ark" feel to it that I really enjoyed.

All I'm gonna say is that if Marlon Wayans could be cast for this movie, then they should have damn well given some part to Bruce Campbell. Nobody kicks ass like Campbell!!!

Give me some sugar baby and feel my boom-stick!!!!!