GI Joe: Rise of Cobra Discussion and Reviews [SPOILERS]

[Gruson]

Was Brenden Frasier Flint?

 

[Mesa]

i'm sure if they changed it to Desert Storm or Iraq people would still bit## about that as well.

I was going to say the same thing. Some people just can't be pleased. Same one's who complain all day long about Vader's helmet being too long, or too round, or too black, or not black enough.

I didn't get a response from my comment about Vartan not turning blue in the movie. Would that have been better if that were worked in?

 

[Darth Snoopy]

As a Star Wars fan, I find this remark offensive. No one, no one is worse than we are at ^^^^^ing and moaning.

I stand corrected. My apologies good Sir.

...but GI Joe fans still b**** & moan too much.

 

[Mesa]

Took you almost 3 hours to come up with a better second reply?????

They were good movies because they respected the source material. They should have done the same with Joe.

LOTR strayed from the source material plenty. Lurtz was a whole new character not in the books. Tom Bombadil was left out (fortunately).

Same with Iron Man. Jarvis was the frickin house, not an actual butler.

Sometimes you have to make changes in order to put something on the big screen.

 

[FQRizzo]

LOTR strayed from the source material plenty. Lurtz was a whole new character not in the books. Tom Bombadil was left out (fortunately).

Same with Iron Man. Jarvis was the frickin house, not an actual butler.

Sometimes you have to make changes in order to put something on the big screen.

There is a difference when you change things to make them flow more organically. To me G.I. Joe seemed to change things just for the sake of changing them.

 

[thenammagazine]

well, they couldnt make him a vietnam survivor now could they, he would then be 60 ish years old now so some things HAD to change if they made it in near present day timeframe...

I don't think seeing him fried from a fire in a Black Hawk helicopter in Iraq (I or II) or Afghanistan or hell, even Somalia, would've been much different than the original incident that scarred him and what I'd call a "necessary" update for him to fit into the modern military. Him only taking a vow of silence means there was absolutely no reason for him to be wearing the Snake Eyes costume other than to "look cool" which makes his character even more irrelevant.

To be fair though, while the movie let the viewers believe that the vow of silence was the reason he didn't talk (and wore the outfit?!), it didn't say that it wasn't more than that.

There is a difference when you change things to make them flow more organically. To me G.I. Joe seemed to change things just for the sake of changing them.

 

[jlprjlpr]

Hasbro succeeded in this film. All the kids that were there seemed to enjoy it, didn't notice any bad acting, weren't concerned over how well the movie adhered to any source material (comics, old cartoon show, vintage toys), and I'm sure will be asking them to buy all the new GI Joe toys that are coming out.

EXACTLY! It was a fun reboot that will produce lots of cool new toys.

 

[Khev]

There's a strange dichotomy of extremes in this thread. I agree with pretty much every criticism against this movie (seriously, how could you not?), except the one that says it was unwatchable or not fun. Stealth was unwatchable. xXx was unwatchable. Same with the Fantastic Four movies. I don't think that was the case with ROC.

IMO, if you can stomach TPM you could handle (and even enjoy parts of) ROC. TPM changed the Force on a fundamental level (midichlorians) and both it and AOTC did a 180 on the origins of some pretty significant characters (Vader, Boba Fett, C-3PO), etc. Most of the PT Jedi seemed like rejects from Babylon 5, not a SW flick. TPM even had the stupid comic relief character, and so on. If you could get over those things, and I know a lot of ROC detractors have, then you could still enjoy it. ROC makes many changes in the tradition of TPM but made up for some of them with its pacing, action sequences and some of the performances.

I know Miller can't act but I did pretty much enjoy every moment her and SS were on screen. He did the best he could with what was given to him and when they showed up the story always took a huge leap forward (usually due to a greatly over the top action sequence). Lots of their scenes really did feel like GI Joe to me. Like when they escaped from the Pit in an updated CLAW or showed up in the same drill pods Destro used to tunnel through the ice in the Revenge of Cobra miniseries.

I definitely don't get why the fans of the film are blasting the notion of a more serious and better written GI Joe epic though. I enjoyed ROC well enough but can you seriously say you don't want Iron Man quality writing and acting in a Joe flick? Come on!

 

[Kuzeh]

Earlier I said I don't understand how people get so worked up over a movie...
here are some more thoughts on this...

In the 80's, blockbusters were a success over a 3 month period... nowadays it's opening weekend and you're done... things move too fast now... info is everywhere in seconds.
So word of mouth has a lot to do with how we "perceive" movie success... and it's basically all down to dollars and a weird sense of "belonging" by fanboys...

Apparently now it's "cool" to highbrow movies based on cartoons and comics...
Don't get me wrong, to me, a good movie is a good movie, regardless of the genre, but the problem lies on what people think movies "should" be, while sitting on their desk and not doing anything about it...

Last year, when I posted often @ an Alien/Predator site, a few very hardcore members were on a personal vendetta against the Strauss Bros for doing AVP:R and were spreading hatred all over the place...
my suggestion:
If a crappy movie really affects you THAT much, DO something about it... Write letters to the studios, organize rallies, picket outside of the studio's HQ, instead of just spreading crap on a forum... DO something... don't be a tool...

I mean, of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you whine and whine about the same thing over and over again, well, maybe the movie is not the problem...

Now, I'm, as a lot of people here, a kid of the 80's,
I watched He-Man, Thundercats and of course Transformers and G.I. Joe...
I'm in no way a hardcore fan, but I liked these shows a lot...
with that said, I hated Transformers 2... and enjoyed G.I. Joe...
I knew they weren't going to be masterpieces, but it all came down to this:
TF2 is annoying as hell... G.I. Joe, was more fun IMO and was closer to the source material's "spirit" if you will...

I'd love to have great movies of all my favorite franchises, but if it doesn't happen,
I don't care... there's more important things in life than an average movie...
I like to enjoy life, be happy, pick up the positive, discard the negative...

 

[Deeznutz6]

There's a strange dichotomy of extremes in this thread. I agree with pretty much every criticism against this movie (seriously, how could you not?), except the one that says it was unwatchable or not fun. Stealth was unwatchable. xXx was unwatchable. Same with the Fantastic Four movies. I don't think that was the case with ROC.

IMO, if you can stomach TPM you could handle (and even enjoy parts of) ROC. TPM changed the Force on a fundamental level (midichlorians) and both it and AOTC did a 180 on the origins of some pretty significant characters (Vader, Boba Fett, C-3PO), etc. Most of the PT Jedi seemed like rejects from Babylon 5, not a SW flick. TPM even had the stupid comic relief character, and so on. If you could get over those things, and I know a lot of ROC detractors have, then you could still enjoy it. ROC makes many changes in the tradition of TPM but made up for some of them with its pacing, action sequences and some of the performances.

I know Miller can't act but I did pretty much enjoy every moment her and SS were on screen. He did the best he could with what was given to him and when they showed up the story always took a huge leap forward (usually due to a greatly over the top action sequence). Lots of their scenes really did feel like GI Joe to me. Like when they escaped from the Pit in an updated CLAW or showed up in the same drill pods Destro used to tunnel through the ice in the Revenge of Cobra miniseries.

I definitely don't get why the fans of the film are blasting the notion of a more serious and better written GI Joe epic though. I enjoyed ROC well enough but can you seriously say you don't want Iron Man quality writing and acting in a Joe flick? Come on!

Well said Khev, a simple improvemnt in the acting on SOME of the characters would have went all way
I to enjoyed, Baroness, SS and Destro, most of my complaints are with the Joes, IE Duke and Hawk.

 

[IrishJedi]

How Violently Does G.I. Joe Suck?
By Foster Kamer

G.I. Joe wasn't screened for critics because Paramount wanted to market the movie to Middle Amerikkka without being judged. Critical reviews are finally coming in. They're going to be bad, it's just a matter of how bad. And how bad?

Roger Ebert says G.I. Joe wasn't as bad as Transformers 2. But it still sucked ass:

"G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" is a 118-minute animated film with sequences involving the faces and other body parts of human beings. It is sure to be enjoyed by those whose movie appreciation is defined by the ability to discern that moving pictures and sound are being employed to depict violence. Nevertheless, it is better than "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."

Richard Corliss from Time thinks the entire thing is self-parody, and furthermore calls out the - and I'm paraphrasing - ^^^^^ass bloggers that were shown the film for being cornered into studio hype:

One of the few smart things about G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was the decision by Paramount Pictures to refuse to screen the movie for the press. The studio's previous summer toy story, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, had earned a sheaf of pans, then took in more than $800 million in its first six weeks of release. Hoping lightning would strike twice, but without the annoying critical thunder, Paramount showed G.I. Joe, which it hopes will be the first in a lucrative series, only to a few reliable bloggers. Less docile scribes like me had to catch a public screening last night at midnight. As the old line goes about some long-ago lemon: The movie wasn't released - it escaped.

Shots ring out! Rolling Stone's Peter Travers-king of the publicity pull-quote-got all poopie-pants when the movie wasn't screened for him! Watch his tantrum, as he first summarizes the film, then recommends a better Paramount movie:

The goal is stop arms dealer McCullen...from destroying the world with warheads packed with cockroaches. Well, they looked like roaches to me. McCullen calls then nanomites. No one really bothers to explain how these nanomites morph from insects into green slime. And this in a movie that helpfully tells us, via subtitle, that Paris is in France...There is an antidote if you see G.I. Joe and feel unclean. Get a copy of Team America World Police, the 2004 puppet musical from South Park's Trey Parker and Matt Stone. It totally skewers the 'America ^^^^ Yeah' idiocy on parade here.

It might be worth noting that one of the film's major set-pieces has the Eiffel Tower getting taken down by a missle-turned-green-slime in a piece of Anti-France porn sentiment that's even outdated for hicks by like, six years. This movie sucks so bad, even Young Republican Kyle Smith of the New York Post - who ragged on Do The Right Thing as patently wrong - hated this movie. His review sucked, but here's some more of what it's like:

That movie [The Mummy] and this one share a director, Stephen Sommers, who also inexplicably places the Joes' HQ beneath the Great Pyramids (hell, sand worked before), uses the guy who played the Mummy as a baddie named Zartan, and even dusts off Brendan Fraser, who pops up in the Joes' training center but has nothing to do but watch G.I. Joe for five minutes.

Unfortunately, insanely, perpetually crunchy New York Press film critic Armond White has yet to see it, but expect fireworks when he does (he will probably call it a masterwork of brilliance; this is the same guy thought Up was terrible). Others have weighed in on how much this movie sucks, and you can read their Metascores here. It's almost depressing how shamelessly ready these studios are to pump out sincerely mediocre fare. This is the kind of thing that makes Funny People look like Citizen Kane. Then again, any movie where you can watch the bottom line on an entire industry get lower in front of you might be worth the nine bucks to see. Probably not, but still: impressive.

https://defamer.gawker.com/5332929/

 

[IrishJedi]

Was Brenden Frasier Flint?

No. He was Sgt. Stone, which just further cements the fact that the filmmakers couldn't care less.

LOTR strayed from the source material plenty. Lurtz was a whole new character not in the books. Tom Bombadil was left out (fortunately).

Same with Iron Man. Jarvis was the frickin house, not an actual butler.

Exactly. And you know why most people don't have a problem with those changes? Because the movies were actually GOOD and overall stayed true to the characters.

Some of you are just not getting it...

 

[Deeznutz6]

No. He was Sgt. Stone, which just further cements the fact that the filmmakers couldn't care less.


Exactly. And you know why most people don't have a problem with those changes? Because the movies were actually GOOD and overall stayed true to the characters.

Some of you are just not getting it...

Bingo, key roles were not played by hacks **coughchanningtatumcough**

 

[Khev]

No. He was Sgt. Stone, which just further cements the fact that the filmmakers couldn't care less.

It would have been worse if they let him play a "real" Joe, IMO.

Bingo, key roles were not played by hacks **coughchanningtatumcough**

Yep. Casting Fillon instead of Tatum would have improved the picture 1000000000000000000000000000%. Having SE actually interact with the characters via hand gestures, waves, etc. in the heat of combat more what have improved it another 100000%.

 

[IrishJedi]

Bingo, key roles were not played by hacks **coughchanningtatumcough**

More importantly, those films were also not written and directed by hacks.

I don't think seeing him fried from a fire in a Black Hawk helicopter in Iraq (I or II) or Afghanistan or hell, even Somalia, would've been much different than the original incident that scarred him and what I'd call a "necessary" update for him to fit into the modern military. Him only taking a vow of silence means there was absolutely no reason for him to be wearing the Snake Eyes costume other than to "look cool" which makes his character even more irrelevant.

I'd probably want to be in disguise, too, if I was running around with the likes of Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans.

Or if my military unit was called "G.I. JOE" but was based in Egypt.

 

[galactiboy]

Exactly. And you know why most people don't have a problem with those changes? Because the movies were actually GOOD and overall stayed true to the characters.

Some of you are just not getting it...

That's so true, when a movie is actually good changes are no biggie. But when its just one big ol' crapfest the changes make people even more annoyed.

 

[Khev]

More importantly, those films were also not written and directed by hacks.

No argument there. Sommers may have even replaced Schumacher as the biggest hack of all time. Cohen is still "worse," but Sommers is the bigger hack. Case in point? I actually found myself genuinely impressed with the cinematography in Duke's "East Africa" flashback. Well no wonder, they were actually inserting Ridley Scott directed footage from Black Hawk Down! I kid you not, they acknowledged it in the credits.

Does that make ROC the most expensive movie in history to pass off stock footage as its own?

 

[Kuzeh]

Or if my military unit was called "G.I. JOE" but was based in Egypt.

Unlike the U.S. Marines, Navy and Army with bases all over the world...

 

[thenammagazine]

Irish, probably the most meaningful, depressing, yet hilarious part of that quote was:

Then again, any movie where you can watch the bottom line on an entire industry get lower in front of you might be worth the nine bucks to see. Probably not, but still: impressive.

 

[IrishJedi]

That's so true, when a movie is actually good changes are no biggie. But when its just one big ol' crapfest the changes make people even more annoyed.

Exactly. Like I said, they just don't get it. So it's easier for them to scoff us off as "anal fanboys" even though they're the ones defending a movie that is nearly universally loathed (unlike the LOTR and IRON MAN examples).

No argument there. Sommers may have even replaced Schumacher as the biggest hack of all time. Cohen is still "worse," but Sommers is the bigger hack. Case in point? I actually found myself genuinely impressed with the cinematography in Duke's "East Africa" flashback. Well no wonder, they were actually inserting Ridley Scott directed footage from Black Hawk Down! I kid you not, they acknowledged it in the credits.

Does that make ROC the most expensive movie in history to pass of stock footage as its own?

Now THAT is some funny stuff. You can't even make this up, folks.