|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
01-09-2012, 05:55 PM | #2011 |
#voteblackjack
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northwood, NH
Posts: 35,747
|
Quote:
It can't, at least not directly. Sure, you could have small surgical strikes or unconventional offensive operations here and there, but the way you maximize the force-multiplication potential of a (largely infantry-based) organization that small against an exponentially larger enemy force would be to use them as reconnaissance and battlefield surveillance assets, and hand off the responsibility of acting on the gathered intelligence to a larger combat element.
The Joes are, be necessity, a small force. Cobra, well mostly hidden, has alot more assets then the Joes do. So the Joes are fighting a larger enemy that they aren't really equipped take on. Small, surgical strikes that barely make a dent. I like the idea of the underdog, the Joes having to rely on their skills more then anything.
__________________
Join the New England G.I. Joe Collector's Group: Battleforce New England Join the March of Cobra. Read the epic adventure on Kindle Worlds and visit the page to learn more. https://www.facebook.com/marchofcobra/ |
01-09-2012, 07:26 PM | #2012 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
I think the "small SF-like unit" vs. "army man" dichotomy in the Joe fiction and designs is where a lot of the problems in crafting a realistic GI Joe is rooted. Larry Hama obviously had it in his head that the Joes were something of a fictionalized Special Forces-like detachment, as evidenced by how he wrote the early stories and file cards. Ron Rudat's toy designs though, even (and especially) the early ones were firmly rooted in the traditional post-World War II "army man" toy archetypes: a tanker (Steeler), a mortarman (Short-Fuze), a dogface (Grunt), a "bazooka soldier" (Zap), a machine gunner (Rock 'n' Roll), etc.
Even early on, there was already some degree of disconnect between the fiction behind the characters and the designs of the characters, which I guess was an unforeseen but natural problem when there isn't a lot of coordination between the guy designing the toys (Hasbro's Rudat) and the guy writing up the backgrounds for the characters based on the toys (Marvel's Hama). This disconnect is probably best exemplified by Rudat's anecdote that he designed the toy that would become Low-Light as a SEAL sniper, so he was a little surprised that the character was eventually designated by Hama as an Army marksman. This also shows that Rudat and Hama had strong service preferences based on their backgrounds—Rudat comes from a Marine Corps/Navy family while Hama was a former Army combat engineer—and could possibly explain why there was sudden and disproportionately large infusion of "maritime" themed characters and vehicle sets between 1983 and 1986 (Rudat left Hasbro in 1987, but many of his designs would be used by Hasbro in the years after his departure). |
01-11-2012, 12:34 AM | #2013 |
G.I.Joe medic
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Litchfield, ME
Posts: 3,171
|
I think that's why the Special Missions stories appealed to many of us Joe fans, since they didn't always have to be fighting Cobra. It seems like what made those stories work was the emphasis on small teams and character development, rather than big battles or introducing the new vehicle/character of the month.It really portrayed the Joes as part of the larger SpecOps community, going on missions other units couldn't or wouldn't take. Sure, they fought Cobra, but sometimes it was the Oktober Guard, or Nazis, or Col. Sharif's forces. It's too bad that concept couldn't have been adopted as the main title.
|
01-11-2012, 02:21 AM | #2014 |
-.-. --
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CLASSIFIED
Posts: 218
|
Quote:
Thanks for sharing your ideas, hard work and literal blood, sweat and tears with all of us. I know you've inspired lots of other enthusiasts (not just me) to craft a more realistic take of our joeverses. Thanks again, and I'd love to see your original work and ideas
Take care my friend. |
01-12-2012, 10:57 PM | #2015 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Thanks
|
01-12-2012, 11:45 PM | #2016 |
W.O.R.M.S. Commander
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Back in the US of A! (NoVA)
Posts: 10,649
|
It's too bad Steeler didn't get more love. Was Steeler one of Hama's original characters from his Fury Force Concept?
I think Tatum Channing would have made a better Steeler in ROC. It would have worked just the same and there could have been the Baroness Romance tie in from World without ends for the fanboy in all of us. Plus the character they wrote for Duke just seems more like Steeler in some ways. Young Buck Officer, a little attitude.
__________________
Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. |
01-13-2012, 02:06 AM | #2017 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
Funny thing about the old 1981 Larry Hama Steeler sketch (click here, he's the third one from your left, standing), if you ignore the bared arms and if you squint a little, he almost looks like Big Ben. I've got a higher res scan of the sketch and it even looks like he's wearing a Falklands War-era British Army cold weather cap with an upturned bill, just like the one worn by Big Ben in the original toy design. The Fury Force version of Steeler being British would make some sense, since Fury Force was supposed to be at once a part of SHIELD (an international organization) and a "modern" version of the old WWII-era Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos (which was also staffed by operatives from different Allied nations). |
01-13-2012, 12:26 PM | #2018 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,236
|
Quote:
Bounce away!
This whole exercise actually made me appreciate so much more what Hama did with what he was given. He had to have been frustrated immensely by having to keep the suits at Hasbro happy whilst also trying to balance the needs of continuity (both in the comic and the "background story" he was writing in the file cards) and some measure of acceptable internal logic and a reasonable sense of quasi-realism. And there was the pressure of working on the best-selling comic book of the mid-1980s (also, being a licensed comic book, the GI Joe creative team had less time to produce an issue than a team working on a Marvel property comic book, they had to finish everything a week or two earlier because the suits at Hasbro needed to approve everything before Marvel could send the proofs to the printers)... some of the fans would absolutely crucify him for the smallest thing... I remember some asshole kid named Shane (I forget his last name, but he signed his nickname as "Cool") writing a letter to Postbox: The Pit (the letter was printed in issue #91, I believe) and absolutely eviscerating Hama, and even threatened to get his lawyer dad to sue him over some stupid thing he had about the stories not being realistic enough. I do think that at some point, you could see where Hama probably just said "Screw it" and pretty much set himself on auto-pilot: I'd say it was soon after the Cobra Civil War storyline in the late 1980s (you have to re-read the Cobra Civil War story again if you haven't read it in years... the first time I re-read it as an adult, it dawned on me that Hama wrote it as a tongue-in-cheek satire/parody of the Vietnam War, with the GI Joe-backed Serpentor faction as the stand-in for South Vietnam and the Fred VII faction as the stand-in for North Vietnam). I have to say though, finally coming to terms with GI Joe being "Hasbro's" and not "mine" (or even "Larry Hama's") has really helped marginalize my inner fanboy and the ugly tendencies that come with it. No more private fan-raging at whatever new GI Joe-branded trend-chasing thing Hasbro or its licensees shove out and expect us to buy. I'm still a fan of the Hama-era ARAH comics and toys of course, but I'd like to think of myself as a reasonable "fan-man" now and not a rabid fanboy. Well, I nominate this thread to be serve as the "Ask Zulu" thread, then It can't, at least not directly. Sure, you could have small surgical strikes or unconventional offensive operations here and there, but the way you maximize the force-multiplication potential of a (largely infantry-based) organization that small against an exponentially larger enemy force would be to use them as reconnaissance and battlefield surveillance assets, and hand off the responsibility of acting on the gathered intelligence to a larger combat element. EDIT: BTW, just in case I haven't been clear in my rambling posts these past couple of days, I don't think it was "wrong" for me or anyone else to want a realistic GI Joe (as much as "realistic GI Joe" means anything), although the notion of it does strike me now, with hindsight, as being incompatible all along with the original intent of the property. It's just that I couldn't do it in a way that satisfied all my criteria for what would be a realistic GI Joe that still remained—in my opinion (and I can't stress this enough, this is personal preference, and not me saying that everybody else is wrong or whatever)—reasonably faithful to the ARAH toy designs and comic books. Troynos pointed out that he's beginning to love the property more than the merchandise, and I have to agree that organizing and rewriting the backstories for characters, starting in Vietnam, for me at least has been a lot more satisfying than collecting. I don't know why I don't post more in this thread, but I'm always impressed by your work and thoughtfullness. |
01-13-2012, 08:22 PM | #2019 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
You hit the nail on the head, Z. This is why I think we all have created our own little worlds to explain or rationalize the discrepancies and to correct the inaccuracies in GI Joe. Even as a kid, I cringed when they stretched reality by having non-aviators fly skystrikers or other such anomalies, or when the organization seemed lopsided by having too many artillery guys, and few to no officers and things of that nature.
Thanks a lot. I really should be opening up this thread for people to share their own ideas and visual concepts for their "personal GI Joe" in the wake of my going in a wholly different, non-Joe direction. Post away, guys. |
01-14-2012, 01:59 AM | #2020 |
W.O.R.M.S. Commander
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Back in the US of A! (NoVA)
Posts: 10,649
|
I think the 12 inch figures capture this to an effect. They are just figures representing real jobs in the military.
I always wished they would create a Medal of Honor figure line or Bronze and Silver Star, Navy Cross. But I suppose the bio for these guys may be somewhat alarming for mothers of 4 year olds. They could gear it towards 12 and up? I mean they make figures for blood bath video games, so why not honor our REAL AMERICAN heroes of the past? Maybe even charge a slightly higher price so some of the proceeds could go to the wounded warriors fund.
__________________
Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cobra hiss concept art | gijoe071681 | G.I. Joe Customs General Discussion | 4 | 01-18-2011 12:16 AM |
Custom Cobra Commander from Gentleman's Concept Art | Kambei | G.I. Joe Customs Finished Projects | 14 | 04-12-2009 02:45 PM |
Concept Art For Cobra Commander REleased. | lerath666 | G.I. Joe News and Rumors | 27 | 07-08-2008 11:20 PM |
Sgt. Slaughter Triple T box and Cobra officer filecard | Novacaine | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 1 | 04-26-2008 12:55 PM |
|
|