GIJOE CASTING - The Baroness (official) [Archive] - HissTank.com

havoc

11-20-2007, 12:57 PM

seriously, why does hollywood always f**k everything up so badly? i'll never understand how retarded they are. out of all the actresses, they choose her? i know they're going to screw this movie up completely. it's joe vs cobra. WHY IS THAT SO F**KING HARD? either make the movie right or don't make it at all and stop with all the political correctness bs. hopefully this will be the worst of the casting but i doubt it. first they completely screw up transformers and now it looks like gi joe is next in line.

OUTBACK

11-20-2007, 01:23 PM

havoc, i might be afraid you are right....

Compulsive Collector

11-20-2007, 02:16 PM

First of all, Sienna Miller really isn't a bad choice. Has anyone seen Layer Cake? Secondly, that's the only part of the Variety announcement to which anyone should pay attention.

This publication hasn't gotten ANYTHING right about the movie thus far!! (Other than repeating what others have already published) either make the movie right or don't make it at all and stop with all the political correctness bs. I posted the following in another thread, but since it's being discussed in two different places, I'll repeat it here:

Wasn't Variety the same place to report George Clooney as Duke? No, that wasn't Variety.

Hasn't there been a statement to the effect of "no big names?" There hasn't been anything official to that effect, only speculation, but Sienna Miller really isn't a big name.

I'm not sure about that article; it still has the Brussels-HQ nonsense, which Hasbro has explicitly denied. Not sure about trusting any more of its info if it has basic, month-old stuff wrong. Okay, here's the thing... The staff writer at Variety who would be responsible for getting this information out isn't following this movie, knows nothing about G.I. Joe, and never read Hasbro's press release concerning the project. He/she simply referenced the last material Variety had on it to complete the "story". Anything else is reading too much into it.

gunslingercbr

11-20-2007, 02:28 PM

There was another thread on this a few minutes ago, and I'll say this again; I don't trust that Variety article, b/c it still has the bogus Brussels information, which Hasbro's press release specifically denied. If they don't even have that right, why should I believe an official casting from them?
because one has nothing to do with the other. the Brussels thing is a mistake. reporting this casting can't be a mistake, either it is true or an outright lie, neither of which correlate to any mistake based on an early press release Variety is using as their source of info for the movie. Variety doesn't make things up, publicists and agents contact them with news and they report it, so what mistake are you intimating was made, that maybe they misunderstood who they were actually told was cast, because your position depends on a mistake being made. and I am not sure how anyone could make such a mistake that would be necessary to for you to actually believe your position.

as Compulsive Collector has said, you are really reaching on trying to deny this, but I suppose if it makes you feel better to convince yourself otherwise, you are free to do so.

and the Brussels info isn't bogus, it was an early concept of the movie that has been changed, so it was accurate at some point and can never be described as bogus -- merely outdated.

Irid70

11-20-2007, 03:50 PM

1. Sorry, I didn't realize Variety was infallible.

2. Whether or not Sienna Miller is cast as the Baroness has nothing to do with how I feel about myself. The two are entirely unconnected. I just don't see a newspaper account, even from a trade paper, as utterly reliable. Certainly not as reliable as, say, a statement from Paramount. I'm willing to bet Variety makes its fair share of mistakes. All newspapers do. They also report things that aren't confirmed as if they were.

3. If you have read my posts on the subject, you'll also note that I have said I think it's a fine choice. I've seen her in two roles where I thought she was fine, "Layer Cake" and "Stardust." Granted, neither were huge roles, but she did well enough in both. The point is, I'm not running about raving that the sky is falling because, gasp, they cast a skinny blond English actress as Baroness, as others are. Just saying I'm not buying the news as entirely official yet.

4. Nothing exists in a vacuum. If Variety doesn't have up to date information about the movie that is freely available on Google in about 2 minutes worth of research, explain to me again why I should trust their reporting? They've been wrong before. Every newspaper has. A blurb in variety ain't an official press release.

5. You have a semantic point about bogus vs. outdated. You're correct. However, it does get tiring to read that Brussels stuff absolutely everywhere when the one, single, real official piece of information about the plot of the movie is that G.I. Joe isn't headquartered there.

Compulsive Collector

11-20-2007, 03:54 PM

I just don't see a newspaper account, even from a trade paper, as utterly reliable. Certainly not as reliable as, say, a statement from Paramount. I'm willing to bet Variety makes its fair share of mistakes. All newspapers do. They also report things that aren't confirmed as if they were. This isn't the kind of thing Variety would generally publish if it was a mistake on their part. Someone gave them this information, but whether or not the source, which could easily have been her agent looking to get her name in the trade after a reading with the director, is reliable, that remains to be seen. This story has been picked up all across the internet, though, so if we don't see a denial/correction/update within a couple of days, I'd say it's a safe bet that she's been cast.

Irid70

11-20-2007, 03:59 PM

True, you do see it everywhere. Though on a link to Empire, from Variety's own site as I looked for the original Variety article, Miller was reported as "in talks" to star in the movie, not cast. I have no idea of the reputation of Empire as compared to Variety. I have read that one should take anything one reads in Variety with a block of salt.

Then again, you can read on the internet that the Earth is flat, Elvis is runing the Illumaniti with the Pope and Castro, and that there are actually 48 hours in every day, 24 of which we are brainwashed into forgetting. The point? Nothing is official until the people making the movie say it is.

G.I.Eddie

11-21-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irid70
Hasn't there been a statement to the effect of "no big names?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Compulsive Collector
There hasn't been anything official to that effect, only speculation, but Sienna Miller really isn't a big name.

the last line is my favorite bit...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117975666.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

From the Variety article;

"...partly because it isn't chasing big-name stars."

actually, there has been an "official" announcement of "no big-names"...don't ya'll remember?...it came from the same place that this Baroness casting news came from, hmmmm?...it seems kinda hokey to me that there has been a casting roughly two years away from the release date...we'll see

Compulsive Collector

11-21-2007, 09:35 AM

it seems kinda hokey to me that there has been a casting roughly two years away from the release date I don't know why. The movie is scheduled to begin principal photography in February, so they have maybe three months.

xFlintx

11-21-2007, 09:53 AM

I woke up this morning and put on Good Day New York and they actually reported this casting as a major news story! I don't know how she'll play the part, but I thought the fact that it was reported was cool enough.

G.I.Eddie

11-21-2007, 10:11 AM

I don't know why. The movie is scheduled to begin principal photography in February, so they have maybe three months.

good point...on top of it apparently being reported on T.V., it's starting to sound pretty true

flash70

11-21-2007, 01:04 PM

Man I really wanted a luscious looking actress...perhaps Megan Fox...But sienna miller...I don't know man...she doesn't have the right body chemistry.:(

General Hawk

11-21-2007, 01:56 PM

. first they completely screw up transformers and now it looks like gi joe is next in line.

Transformers made more than 700 million dollars internationally. We can only hope they "screw up" G.I. Joe that badly.

Justin

Compulsive Collector

11-21-2007, 02:24 PM

Transformers made more than 700 million dollars internationally. We can only hope they "screw up" G.I. Joe that badly. And? Titanic did $1,845,034,188 internationally. I guess we should hope for a story about Flint and Lady Jaye on the sinking U.S.S. Flagg, right? Since when are box office receipts indicative of quality filmmaking?

I'd prefer a good movie that takes in a modest $400 million during its theatrical run to another waste of time like that.

G.I.Eddie

11-21-2007, 02:45 PM

Since when are box office receipts indicative of quality filmmaking?

I'd prefer a good movie that takes in a modest $400 million during its theatrical run to another waste of time like that.

i don't think anyone could have ever come up with a better arguement...perfect, PERFECT!, example

havoc

11-21-2007, 02:46 PM

And? Titanic did $1,845,034,188 internationally. I guess we should hope for a story about Flint and Lady Jaye on the sinking U.S.S. Flagg, right? Since when are box office receipts indicative of quality filmmaking?

I'd prefer a good movie that takes in a modest $400 million during its theatrical run to another waste of time like that.

exactly. tf's made all that money because of its name alone. the tf's franchise is known worldwide and has a huge and loyal following, me included. the actual movie sucked ass and that's a huge understatement imho but i've done enough tf's movie/bay bashing for now. i just have this feeling that the joe movie will be even worse and they'll screw it up even more and that's a scary thought.

General Hawk

11-21-2007, 03:19 PM

Interesting you say that, because in the wide collectors' circles I've travelled in, I've heard a wealth of positive commentary on the Transformers film. I saw a ton of negative press before anyone saw five minutes of footage, but once folks actually gave the film a chance, there were scores of rave reviews from collectors about what a fun film it was.

I agree, lots of monetary returns are not an indication of quality, but lots of monetary returns also equals a lot of publicity and a much larger realm of importance in Hasbro's eyes. Whether or not the film is Oscar-worthy, if it makes 500 million dollars, that will only mean good things for the G.I. Joe brand going forward.

It just blows me away that people are so quick to lambaste the film in this thread simply based on the choice of a single cast member, but this is the internet, and I guess I should just be prepared to see the film torn apart for the next 18 months regardless of whether or not anyone has actually...you know... seen it.

Justin

Compulsive Collector

11-21-2007, 03:35 PM

Interesting you say that, because in the wide collectors' circles I've travelled in, I've heard a wealth of positive commentary on the Transformers film. I saw a ton of negative press before anyone saw five minutes of footage, but once folks actually gave the film a chance, there were scores of rave reviews from collectors about what a fun film it was. I've seen it, and I'd like to have my two hours and change back. Even if I'd gone into having never heard of Transformers, knowing nothing about the toys, cartoons, or comics, I'd have still hated it. All the CGI and explsions in the world can't save a film that never had a decent script, which is why I'm glad Stuart Beattie was hired to write the screenplay for this project. At least it has a chance.

It just blows me away that people are so quick to lambaste the film in this thread simply based on the choice of a single cast member, but this is the internet, and I guess I should just be prepared to see the film torn apart for the next 18 months regardless of whether or not anyone has actually...you know... seen it. I actually think she's a decent choice for the Baroness, and certainly much better than what a lot of fans were suggesting.

OUTBACK

11-21-2007, 04:18 PM

i guess it coulda been worst....

modeling_man

11-21-2007, 04:23 PM

I wish they'd make a 25th anniversary cartoon series...one that isn't made by DIC. They can sell so many more toys/figures with a series that spans over 30 episodes than with a 1.5 hour movie. It just seems so high risk to make a movie.
B

General Hawk

11-21-2007, 04:23 PM

I've seen it, and I'd like to have my two hours and change back. Even if I'd gone into having never heard of Transformers, knowing nothing about the toys, cartoons, or comics, I'd have still hated it. All the CGI and explsions in the world can't save a film that never had a decent script, which is why I'm glad Stuart Beattie was hired to write the screenplay for this project. At least it has a chance.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I have a different one. I loved the film, watched it three times, and bought an HD DVD player simply so I could watch the HD version of the movie in the comfort of my own living room. It was nothing Earth-shattering or life changing, but it was a damn fun two + hours. Of course, in my opinion.

My only point in comparing the two films is that regardless of what the outcome of the TF movie was it's tough to deny that at least the studio took the project seriously and made a significant effort to not just produce licensed drek, but to at least attempt to make a quality film. There was a ton of promotion, some big names involved, and it was obvious that Dreamworks took the film seriously.

That's all I hope for with G.I. Joe. It would be easy for Paramount to slap something out as a shameless licensed piece of garbage, but if Paramount can handle the G.I. Joe property with the same effort, promotional dollars, and studio backing as they did with Transformers, I think it means terrific things for the brand as a whole, even if the actual movie doesn't do much for me.

I actually think she's a decent choice for the Baroness, and certainly much better than what a lot of fans were suggesting.

I agree. I'll admit up front that I've never seen anything she's appeared in, but I see no glaring reason why she couldn't fit the part. The only issues I can see is that she doesn't fit some kind of pre-conceived stereotype that many fans out there seem to have over who should be the Baroness, regardless of someone's acting ability. In my opinion, it takes more than being a Brunette and shooting guns to fit this part...

Justin

Compulsive Collector

11-21-2007, 04:57 PM

My only point in comparing the two films is that regardless of what the outcome of the TF movie was it's tough to deny that at least the studio took the project seriously and made a significant effort to not just produce licensed drek, but to at least attempt to make a quality film. There was a ton of promotion, some big names involved, and it was obvious that Dreamworks took the film seriously. See, I think they would have been more demanding of the story if that had been the case. I don't mean something worthy of an Oscar, but something less juvenile than golden shower humor and Optimus Prime saying "my bad". It seemed to me that they got a guy who makes shallow popcorn films, something that passed for a script, and let ILM do most of the work.

I think it means terrific things for the brand as a whole, even if the actual movie doesn't do much for me. That's a great point. If the new Transformers animated series is good, then at least something positive will have happened as a result of Michael Baybots.

I'll admit up front that I've never seen anything she's appeared in I wholeheartedly recommend renting Layer Cake over this long weekend, especially if you like crime thriller films.

Irid70

11-21-2007, 05:08 PM

I wholeheartedly recommend renting Layer Cake over this long weekend, especially if you like crime thriller films.

I second that. She doesn't have a very big role but she's a pretty good actress. Heck, there was supposed to be Oscar buzz around her for "Factory Girl" last year, but that film fell kind of flat. While you're at it, go ahead and read the novel "Layer Cake," upon which the film was based. Just read it this weekend, thoroughly enjoyed it.

General Hawk

11-21-2007, 05:13 PM

Thanks for the recommendations, guys, I have actually been meaning to see Layer Cake for a while, but had just never gotten to it yet. I'll make it a point to do it this weekend. I'll call it "research"... ;)

Justin

swafus

11-21-2007, 05:48 PM

As someone who grew up with Transformers (and G.I.JOE), I have wanted to see these 2 properties brought to the big screen for more than 20 years. I saw Transformers opening night and 3 times after. I think it could have been much better than it was from a "fan" standpoint especially the character development and the voice acting. I also cringe every time I see anthony anderson in anything. The guy is as funny as a root canal. Fart jokes and stupid humor are a byproduct of all Bay films. Love him or hate him, the guys movies make the studios big $.

As a big summer action movie about giant robots from another world that beat the crap out of each other? It was great!! The fact that we even got a transformers movie is damn near a miracle considering the sheer size of that project. Not alot of directors can handle something like that and make it work. This is why I'm not hating the Stephen Sommers hiring. The guy can handle big budgets and makes stuff "go bang real good"!! Beattie is a pretty good script writer and Sienna Miller will be a good Baroness.

I AM SWAFUS!!....AND THIS I PROCLAIM!!!

Derek2783

11-22-2007, 11:10 AM

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a79057/sienna-quits-blockbuster-movies.html

Another bit of "evidence" (I'm grimacing and laughing at myself as I call it that) that the Variety article is wrong...

Compulsive Collector

11-22-2007, 01:07 PM

I think Hasbro posting an announcement on the official site pretty much confirms that it's true.

Compulsive Collector

11-22-2007, 01:17 PM

the voice acting I thought Megatron's voice would really bother me, but considering he was barely even in the film, I didn't care by the time he was involved. What was that, an hour and forty-five minutes into it? And Frank Welker still does his Megatron voice perfectly, as evidenced by his recent return to the role in Robot Chicken. What a waste.

Fart jokes and stupid humor are a byproduct of all Bay films. Love him or hate him, the guys movies make the studios big $. That's true, but I still think he was a terrible choice. The concept had so much that would have appealed to blockbuster audiences, and I don't think the money-making aspect of Bay was necessary. I mean, look at how well Raimi did with Spider-Man. I'm not saying the work was perfect, but it was better than what Bay brought to the table here, and putting a fan in charge of the project resulted in quite the cash machine.

Beattie is a pretty good script writer He's done some very good work, which is why I'm cautiously optimistic about the project.

General Hawk

11-23-2007, 07:58 PM

Heh...so I got a chance to watch Layer Cake as I had intended. Great movie, actually. Sienna Miller wasn't in it much, but she left an impression. ;)

Actually I was pretty impressed. Even from the little amount she was in the film, she doesn't seem to be the typical shallow Hollywood starlet...not that I can really tell from the 15 minutes she was on screen.

Funny thing is...the movie really reminded me about how many people were universally panning Casino Royale just hearing the news that Daniel Craig was the star. He didn't look the part, didn't act the part, and was just a horrible move in the wrong direction.

Then the movie came out, people actually saw it and gave it a chance, and most came out impressed, regardless of their pre-conceived notions.

Justin