This Movie Is Going To Suck

delta · 07-01-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Rage

Curiosity in turn suggests you have doubts about the %100 certainty of your original claim.

I hope your right that the movie won't "suck". Also yes I am curious as hell what it will turn out like. I hope I speak for everyone when I say, none of us want it to "suck". We all want it to be good, and that is why we are concerned.

The thread is called 'this movie will suck'. I agree that is jumping to conclusions. Perhaps it should be called "we are concerned that this movie might suck", but that's just too much of a mouth full.

Deckard · 07-01-2008, 09:36 PM

well as i stated in the opposing thread i think ( myself included in this) that a major reason for the dispisement of this movie is that many of the Franchise series that have come out as of the last few years with very few exception have literaly sucked. now to add to this films already growing hatred the fact that the current joe toy line is proposed to be scrapped in favor of the movie line which many many people already don't like adds even more fuel to the fire.
Now that being the case it is rather unfair to judge this film before it comes out. I see that point. Valid point. But trailer or no trailer, people nowadays scrutinize every aspect of a film and so far what has been released. shown leaked press released what have you has not given the impression that this gi joe film is going to be what was originally interpreted to be a more true to form gi joe movie that many of the die hard fans who grew up with this franchise were expecting it to be. Now many others seem to be open minded about the changes, i for one not really being one of them, do not agree with damn near any of the changes, cast, director costumes etc. I feel they jipped us and lied to us to get us hyped about the film then pulleed the ol' bait n switch. not to mention bout the only two people in this film even worth a crap (ray park who looks a lil chunky in the rubber suit and Chris Eccleston) are not going to be enough to save this film. However i do astonishingly have one positive point to make....at least UWE BOWL ( Both bloodrayne films and the LOTR knock off in the name of the king) isnt directing it. Can i get an amen?

delta · 07-01-2008, 11:05 PM

Got that right about the director. I watched the Original Frankenstein last night. Boy it's great. How did Sommers screw that up? I mean in the Van Helsing Movie.
Frankestein's monster was never the "bad guy" in that film. It was the doctor. The doctor was an unethical mad man. If anything Frankenstein's monster was the VICTIM.

Not to mention what he did to the Mummy. Sommers supposed masterpiece. Boris Karlof is spinning is his grave over what that bastard did to his characters!

Deckard · 07-01-2008, 11:10 PM

lol. I actually found the mummy films entertaining if for no other reason brendan frasier. van helsing was NOT anything related to his origin but again an entertaing film. now Uwe Bowl on the other hand cranks out crap after crap. at least sommers can manage to somewhat entertain.....somewhat. i mean i dont think hes a horrid director just not right for this movie. Maybe doug Liman who did the bourne films woulda been a better choice.

Deckard · 07-02-2008, 12:06 AM

well we must all remember the director DIDNT wqrite the scripts so lets place blame were it truly belongs...on the people who wrote this thing.

Deckard · 07-02-2008, 02:13 PM

So in the other thread people are saying they are going to support this upcoming film because it will help revitalize GI JOE and bring us even more characters and vehicles. Good point thats is possible. However the more likely scenario is that in supporting THIS movie and toy line the signal being sent will be...oh this is the version of GI JOE that everyone wants as lets make a white doc, a white stalker, a white roadblock, a black flint, a muslim lady jaye, an alien dr mindbender etc etc etc. Theres nothing wrong with wanting to see what made the original line great in a modern day adaptation. To say oh they shouldnt make any changes is yes absurd because if they were all true to their 80's origins none of em would be on the team they'd all be desk jockeys by now since most were already 30 summin to beginf with. But did no one see the punisher? his origin wasnt NAM IT WAS DESERT STORM. Could using a more recent war be out of the question? could actually getting the look, origins and style of what made these characters so great too much to ask without them changing EVERYTHING to the point that the only thing this has in common with gi joe is a few characters names and the title. I understand that things succumb to pollitcal crooectness but when they do, such as this movie obvisouly has, instead of saying oh lets support it so they keep the line going, which hasbro has already said the modern classic style line is being put on "hiatus", essentially cancelled, to make way for the crappy movie stuff, lets NOT support something just because it has the label of gi joe when its truly not the franchise we were expecting it to be. why support something crappy when they should be making it they way it was told to us it would be?

delta · 07-02-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deckard

So in the other thread people are saying they are going to support this upcoming film because it will help revitalize GI JOE and bring us even more characters and vehicles. Good point thats is possible. However the more likely scenario is that in supporting THIS movie and toy line the signal being sent will be...oh this is the version of GI JOE that everyone wants as lets make a white doc, a white stalker, a white roadblock, a black flint, a muslim lady jaye, an alien dr mindbender etc etc etc. Theres nothing wrong with wanting to see what made the original line great in a modern day adaptation. To say oh they shouldnt make any changes is yes absurd because if they were all true to their 80's origins none of em would be on the team they'd all be desk jockeys by now since most were already 30 summin to beginf with. But did no one see the punisher? his origin wasnt NAM IT WAS DESERT STORM. Could using a more recent war be out of the question? could actually getting the look, origins and style of what made these characters so great too much to ask without them changing EVERYTHING to the point that the only thing this has in common with gi joe is a few characters names and the title. I understand that things succumb to pollitcal crooectness but when they do, such as this movie obvisouly has, instead of saying oh lets support it so they keep the line going, which hasbro has already said the modern classic style line is being put on "hiatus", essentially cancelled, to make way for the crappy movie stuff, lets NOT support something just because it has the label of gi joe when its truly not the franchise we were expecting it to be. why support something crappy when they should be making it they way it was told to us it would be?

Got a little lost there.
I don't think the Transformers movie has helped the Transformers toy line. In sales yes, but in substance no. I don't really care if there is more Joe toys on the shelf if they are bad. The Joe line (as apposed to the Transformers line) has the benifit of interchangable parts. Parts that I can use to further "My" Joe verse. I'm looking forward to seeing new playsets, vehicles ect..

They COULD switch the wars they were in. Not that Nam' was a very favorable war, but Desert Storm, and the war on terror are a little too close to home for a kids film now a days.

I personaly woulden't care how political they made it, but I can see why they avoided doing so. It's a touch subject to say the least.

Deckard · 07-02-2008, 04:31 PM

perhaps but this really isnt a kids film. War movies almost never are and if their target is children boy have they shot an airball. A movie like this is and should be, more for the older generations from teens opn up and right now the wars, while perhaps close to home, would be a much better rigin than saying snake eyes is a frenchman, or that storm shadow is korean. Im all for a change for the better but they changes they've made thus far seem to be for the worse.

Zefram · 07-02-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deckard

However i do astonishingly have one positive point to make....at least UWE BOWL ( Both bloodrayne films and the LOTR knock off in the name of the king) isnt directing it. Can i get an amen?

Sweet Jesus, everybody likes to crap on Boll! Let me tell you something, I rented Bloodrayne and Vampirella (by Roger Corman) and let me tell you, Corman (one of my favorite B movie directors of all time, the guy who trained freakin' James Cameron!) got his ass beat up and down the street in that competition.

Admittedly, it's the only one of his movies I've seen, but damn! You'd think the guy was the anti-christ! He's at worst, a half-decent B-movie director who has some kind of knack for getting theatrical release. His work isn't great, but it compared to some crap on DVD, it's not a bad rental.

Hell, I'd rather watch Bloodrayne again than the bloated, over-hyped sack of motion-sickness that was Cloverfield.

Deckard · 07-02-2008, 05:13 PM

corman can at least make his movies entertaining. Boll just manages to muck up things about as bad as Paul WS Anderson does with any franchise he ever gets his hands on ( Resident evil Mortal kombat 2 AVP). Hell boll is so bad i found out theres a worldwide petition to get him banned from ever directing another film. Thats gotta say something. Corman never got a petition against him lol. And i do enhoy come of cormans films...c;mon ya gotta love deathrace 2000. :>