|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
08-26-2009, 03:30 AM | #521 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
Who helped you type that?
Seriously, you want to debate? Tell me why Gi. Joe was a GREAT Movie. That's all, I won't call you names or question your judgment, I won't say you're wrong, just explain to me what I'm missing. This thread is clearly for those who hated the film, yet you come here to pick fights, so tell me why we're all wrong, stuck in the past, and closed-minded. Seriously, of all the films in the history of cinema, do you really want to be defending this one? why do I defend the movie? I liked it, it entertained me, it was pitched as it should be to a 8 - 12 year old age group (it could have been multilayered but wasn't which is a shame), the snake eyes and storm shadow part was quite good really in keeping the essence of the back story but in a simple way, the characterisation was mostly right with Destro and Scarlett being good examples and the Doctor as the best one, the plot was solid enough as a vehicle for the set pieces, the overall design was good. But, a lot of the acting was poor, the movie fails to have a central point that connects with the audience (so it's filled with action but the drama fails to connect with the audience (I'll expand here - the scene where the baroness collapses should make you cry. You've seen her in love, you've seen her crying at the funeral, you've seen her regret at duke not talking to her after the funeral - yet all that scene acts as it a plot point - there's no actual decent drama in it)). The cgi is average too. Quaid and Pryce deliver performances that are greatly distracting, the design of the joes outfits are not distinctive enough and lack character, Tatum's acting isn't that bad but he's not a great lead for a movie and is outshined by Wayans in almost every scene, and finally the directing is flat and uninspired... I'm not defending the movie blindly - I find some of the criticism unfair as a lot of the issues are found in the comics and other genre films. However there's a lot to like about the movie and a lot to dislike. The qualifying point here is that the movie doesn't have a vast majority saying it's good or bad - there's two camps, more so than almost any movie recently that I can recall. It's a deeply flawed movie that nevertheless gets a lot right. Whether the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa, seems to swing people one way or the other. Or rather, personally I liked more than I disliked, and I'm more irked by what I see as unfair criticism, especially from fans who don't apply the same rules to ARAH, than defending the actual movie itself. Criticisms are good, and healthy, but they should at least be fair and applied within the context of GI Joe as a whole. Last edited by babyjelly; 08-26-2009 at 04:43 AM.. |
08-26-2009, 04:35 AM | #522 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
fine then, i'll make this point again...they are about as neccessary as nipples on the Batsuit...
your arguement lends itself to say, why stop at lips with the fully molded suit, lets put hair in the mold, and fingernails, and ears...yeah its silly, but also is saying that the lips were needed cause the suit was molded to his body... and the rubber face mask in the comic was a flesh tone human looking face, not black rubber...they were TRYING to make it look human as to blend in...are you saying they were trying to make the RoC visor pitch black mask look human?...or that if it didn't have lips we would be uncertain that he was even human (with his superheroics though, it does raise questions)...they had no problem leaving lips off of the Vipers...was the audiance under the impression that they were not human?... point being, they were indeed silly, and as neccessary as nipples on the batsuit... Production wise I'm not sure what they thought - was it a homage? Were they unaware of the lips on the figure and thought they were doing something new or 'cool'? Not sure... In universe - presumably Snake Eyes has that look for a reason - though it's never explained in the movie. Is is designed tounsettle people? Is an impassive face scarier/less human/more supernatural than a blank face (eg Michael Myers). Is it designed to humanise or dehumanise him??? I'm not sure. However the crux of your veiwpoint is that alongside it looking silly (I agree there and would have preferred a blank face look personally) it's not realistic... One thing that would give a lot of haters validity in their arguments would be to ask - 'Is this criticism something that can't be applied to the body of ARAH GI Joe?' For example - Scarlett's movie costume - criticised by one person as 'Why does the flak jacket have c-cups?' Well the main counter argument here is that firstly comic and toy Scarlett has always had a shaped outfit curving around her breasts. Secondly, the first movie figure is actually the most realistic portrayal (and the early comics show her in a green uniform when back at the base which was 'more realistic') In the grand scheme of GI Joe design, there's far graver crimes against reality than Snake Eyes rubber lips. Big Boa, Crystal Ball, Gung Ho, Dodger, some of the Dreadnoks etc etc. I don't expect a real world level of reality when watching and reading GI Joe. The fact that the lips look a bit silly in the end is a better criticism. If people hate the movie for a lack of realism, I can't see how they can begin to enjoy any other aspect of the GI Joe universe either. Last edited by babyjelly; 08-26-2009 at 04:40 AM.. |
08-26-2009, 01:20 PM | #523 |
Hisstank.Com General
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Y-Town, Michigan
Posts: 11,745
|
[QUOTE=babyjelly;989347
why do I defend the movie? I liked it, it entertained me, it was pitched as it should be to a 8 - 12 year old age group (it could have been multilayered but wasn't which is a shame), the snake eyes and storm shadow part was quite good really in keeping the essence of the back story but in a simple way, the characterisation was mostly right with Destro and Scarlett being good examples and the Doctor as the best one, the plot was solid enough as a vehicle for the set pieces, the overall design was good.[/QUOTE] Ok Doc, so you liked it but didn't love it, is that accurate? The characterization was "mostly right"? A few pages back, I said when I hear people defend ROC, they seem to say one of three things- 1. "I liked it but it could have been better." -Which is pretty much what you just said. 2. "It was great seeing Gi. Joe on the big screen!" 3. "My Kids loved it!" -which you didn't say, but you did say-"It was pitched as it should be to a 8-12 yr old age group." Very similar Doc, very similar! Just one more thing, ROC was rated PG-13, so was the Dark Knight, which was based on a comic book. I'm not saying as some have, that ROC should have been that dark, but with a PG-13 they could have been darker. Now folks say- "what do you expect, ROC is based on a cartoon based on a toy, based on a comic, blah blah." Batman had years of comics, toys, cartoons, etc. And yet The Dark Knight was a dark, scary, entertaining, $ making flick. |
08-26-2009, 01:35 PM | #524 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
Ok Doc, so you liked it but didn't love it, is that accurate?
The characterization was "mostly right"? A few pages back, I said when I hear people defend ROC, they seem to say one of three things- 1. "I liked it but it could have been better." -Which is pretty much what you just said. 2. "It was great seeing Gi. Joe on the big screen!" 3. "My Kids loved it!" -which you didn't say, but you did say-"It was pitched as it should be to a 8-12 yr old age group." Very similar Doc, very similar! Just one more thing, ROC was rated PG-13, so was the Dark Knight, which was based on a comic book. I'm not saying as some have, that ROC should have been that dark, but with a PG-13 they could have been darker. Now folks say- "what do you expect, ROC is based on a cartoon based on a toy, based on a comic, blah blah." Batman had years of comics, toys, cartoons, etc. And yet The Dark Knight was a dark, scary, entertaining, $ making flick. Second time around I have to say I felt like something was lacking. The reasons you posted that you thought people said were fine, it was more the fact that you openly suggested that you didn't care to check the discussions from the people who liked it in the first place (though it's perhaps more obvious now that you did yourself an injustice saying that because clearly you are willing to share and discuss views). To be honest there aren't many reasons beyond 'I liked it' or 'It was a good action flick' because it isn't good art, it isn't good drama, it isn't well acted, it lacks sophistication. But in saying all that it doesn't mean it's bad. Reason being when I went to see it I didn't expect a whole lot of those things. Dark Knight is clearly in a different league - the source material is infinitely better for a start. RoC is a fair representation of GI Joe, which has been fortunate to have some stand out issues in the comics. However the vast majority of criticisms against the film can be applied with more extreme examples in the comics or cartoons. There are sillier examples of plotting, design, dialogue in the comics.* No doubt a far better, grittier movie could be made for us. Hell, even a better director of that script would have been better for us, but that's not what we got. I still enjoyed it, I just don't think it was art. I'm an Action Force fanboy at heart anyway - Duke and Scarlett aren't 'my' team - Flint and Jaye are. A mixture of lacking the same emotional investment some of the ARAH fans have, and the lower and more realistic expectations I had, meant that the film wasn't a culture shock. When I went to see Dark Knight, I expected a good action film with tense drama, great acting and some sophistication. It delivered mostly. When I went to see GI Joe, I wnated some cool set pieces, melodrama, and something akin to the toys I used to play games with as a kid on the big screen. It delivered on that front, just not on anything higher... *Jaye's death in 'Rise of the Red Shadows' is more dramatic, and has a greater emotional impact, than the Baroness scene in RoC - this is an example of a GI Joe story written for fans, and works really well. This was never going to be the case with a Sommers movie though. In saying that the main IDW title it pretty dull pulp stuff, whereas the Cobra miniseries is easily better than the main IDW story or RoC, but would never get past the execs at the studio who would greenlight a Joe movie. Last edited by babyjelly; 08-26-2009 at 01:42 PM.. |
08-26-2009, 04:08 PM | #525 |
Hisstank.Com General
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Y-Town, Michigan
Posts: 11,745
|
The saddest thing about ROC is what could have been.
I wasn't expecting Oscar worthy acting, good art, or sophistication, and as I said, I didn't want it as dark as The Dark Knight. But look at the original filecards- Zartan is a paranoid schizo, most of the Cobra gang were certified wackos or just in it for the $, which in some ways is even more disturbing. That's pretty dark stuff. I think ROC should have been more tongue in cheek, but the humor shouldn't have come from zany one-liners from Ripchord, it should have come from the inherent cheesy-ness of GI. Joe. I mean come on, you have an Arms dealer walking around with a metal head. Now I'm not saying Shipwreck should have been in ROC looking like one of the Village People, ROC obviously should have been brought into the 21st Century, but putting these cartoon characters into the 21st century could have some humorous results. The whole point of the Accelerator Suits was to explain why these guys can do superhuman things, to hell with those suits, they're the best of the best right, have all the joes doing crazy backflips because we are obviously throwing reality out the window b/c it's a movie based on a toy. That's one problem I didn't have with the movie, Snake-Eyes can do all the crazy flips and implausible stunts he wants, he's a ninja. Couldn't you have crazy, over-the-top action, a decent story, a little edginess, AND a few laughs? |
08-26-2009, 04:30 PM | #526 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
The saddest thing about ROC is what could have been.
I wasn't expecting Oscar worthy acting, good art, or sophistication, and as I said, I didn't want it as dark as The Dark Knight. But look at the original filecards- Zartan is a paranoid schizo, most of the Cobra gang were certified wackos or just in it for the $, which in some ways is even more disturbing. That's pretty dark stuff. I think ROC should have been more tongue in cheek, but the humor shouldn't have come from zany one-liners from Ripchord, it should have come from the inherent cheesy-ness of GI. Joe. I mean come on, you have an Arms dealer walking around with a metal head. Now I'm not saying Shipwreck should have been in ROC looking like one of the Village People, ROC obviously should have been brought into the 21st Century, but putting these cartoon characters into the 21st century could have some humorous results. The whole point of the Accelerator Suits was to explain why these guys can do superhuman things, to hell with those suits, they're the best of the best right, have all the joes doing crazy backflips because we are obviously throwing reality out the window b/c it's a movie based on a toy. That's one problem I didn't have with the movie, Snake-Eyes can do all the crazy flips and implausible stunts he wants, he's a ninja. Couldn't you have crazy, over-the-top action, a decent story, a little edginess, AND a few laughs? LOL - I remember thinking the same thing about Snake Eyes - the dude doesn't need a suit (he was the one who stopped the van). Completely implausible, but unlike so many movies, it never pretends to be plausible. I hope a better director is onboard for the sequel. |
08-26-2009, 05:08 PM | #527 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: earth
Posts: 1,433
|
|
08-27-2009, 12:25 AM | #528 |
Cobra Soldier
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 43
|
This page of debate is exactly what I've commented on all along. A majority of the people who say they liked this movie say the same thing: it was good for the kids, had mediocre acting, the effects could have been better, they could have done this and that better, the Snake Eyes thing was okay, etc., etc.
So, why was this movie so good that those of you who said this type of stuff thought it was so great? You all basically give this flick a mediocre rating which means it was so-so (i.e. mediocre. LOL). A good movie is one where you think there was enough there to justify seeing it again, even though a few kinks (not major problems) existed. Ditto for the Batman: Dark Knight comparo. That's what I've been saying, too. Both the Joe's and Batman have been toys, t-shirts, bedsheets, comics, toothbrushes, and about a million other things that these 2 property's license issuers can sell the rights to. One aspect of each property appeals to kids, and the other parts (i.e. movies and comics) lean more towards the adults. This was not a masterpiece film. On the list of all the great films ever made, this is a drop in the ocean. On the same list, many will make excellent arguments explaining why the Dark Knight was one of the best...ever. THAT is/was an important film. After Pulp Fiction, movies changed, and after Dark Knight, a lot of comic books themselves have done the same as well as other comic based movies, so why not G.I. Joe? With all the fast paced, slick edited, gritty espionage/military thrillers that have come out over the past ten years, I would have thought G.I. Joe would have taken the best parts of those movies, expanded upon them, and invented a few new tricks of its own; it didn't. It didn't take any cues from those movies, nor did it use the best parts of the comics, cartoons, and the friggin' file cards from the figures! Maybe, they'll pull a "Hulk", and redo this fiasco. Either that, or "clarify" some stuff by rewriting certain parts, or something, or something, or something. We could all go on and on debating this. Let's just hope Paramount listens to all the good and bad comments and gets its $#!t together. The box office receipts should be their first clue as far as its suck status goes. I mean, (Paramount's) Star Trek had a few moments that could have been done better (in my opinion), but even the stuff I wasn't real jazzed about (destroying Vulcan) didn't ruin everything for me (especially considering the movie is an alternate Star Trek timeline). There have been numerous incarnations of Gundam, Robotech, and even G.I. Joe, but this one just didn't work. You have to compare it to the comics and the other forms this franchise has been available in order to grade this movie fairly. On its own? It doesn't cut it. Compared to what has come before? Ditto. Next. Last edited by krypto1000; 08-27-2009 at 12:28 AM.. |
08-27-2009, 04:38 AM | #529 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
This page of debate is exactly what I've commented on all along. A majority of the people who say they liked this movie say the same thing: it was good for the kids, had mediocre acting, the effects could have been better, they could have done this and that better, the Snake Eyes thing was okay, etc., etc.
So, why was this movie so good that those of you who said this type of stuff thought it was so great? You all basically give this flick a mediocre rating which means it was so-so (i.e. mediocre. LOL). A good movie is one where you think there was enough there to justify seeing it again, even though a few kinks (not major problems) existed. Ditto for the Batman: Dark Knight comparo. That's what I've been saying, too. Both the Joe's and Batman have been toys, t-shirts, bedsheets, comics, toothbrushes, and about a million other things that these 2 property's license issuers can sell the rights to. One aspect of each property appeals to kids, and the other parts (i.e. movies and comics) lean more towards the adults. This was not a masterpiece film. On the list of all the great films ever made, this is a drop in the ocean. On the same list, many will make excellent arguments explaining why the Dark Knight was one of the best...ever. THAT is/was an important film. After Pulp Fiction, movies changed, and after Dark Knight, a lot of comic books themselves have done the same as well as other comic based movies, so why not G.I. Joe? With all the fast paced, slick edited, gritty espionage/military thrillers that have come out over the past ten years, I would have thought G.I. Joe would have taken the best parts of those movies, expanded upon them, and invented a few new tricks of its own; it didn't. It didn't take any cues from those movies, nor did it use the best parts of the comics, cartoons, and the friggin' file cards from the figures! Maybe, they'll pull a "Hulk", and redo this fiasco. Either that, or "clarify" some stuff by rewriting certain parts, or something, or something, or something. We could all go on and on debating this. Let's just hope Paramount listens to all the good and bad comments and gets its $#!t together. The box office receipts should be their first clue as far as its suck status goes. I mean, (Paramount's) Star Trek had a few moments that could have been done better (in my opinion), but even the stuff I wasn't real jazzed about (destroying Vulcan) didn't ruin everything for me (especially considering the movie is an alternate Star Trek timeline). There have been numerous incarnations of Gundam, Robotech, and even G.I. Joe, but this one just didn't work. You have to compare it to the comics and the other forms this franchise has been available in order to grade this movie fairly. On its own? It doesn't cut it. Compared to what has come before? Ditto. Next. GI Joe's comics were good. Nowhere near the quality and sophistication of Batman comics at their best, though better than average for a toyline tie-in (largely due to Hama). It was, though, a comic based on the toyline - Hasbro throw a mix of toys out, the writers have to accomodate. Beyond issue 21 and a few other issues there is not really anything in GI Joe that is top quality art or drama for an adult audience. There's nothing in the cartoon that's beyond mediocre, and the comics are solid, but lack drama. At least the movie tries: Scarlett IDW characterisation: 'She's a bit oversensitive towards Duke and even calls him a jerk!' Scarlett Movie characterisation: 'She's a bit of an ice maiden who shy's away from emotion, hides her wounds out of shame, was brought up by her father to be a perfectionist and can't handle defeat, but slowly learns to overcome those limitations as Ripcord helps her to get in touch with her emotions better.' The biggest problem with the movie is that it's based on GI Joe too much - and hence it's about Joes fighting Cobra (or proto-Cobra here), and not about characters and drama and sophistication. Actually, in many cases, the film does a better job at drama than the source material, it's just not the complete overhaul and updating some would have liked. (Which is exactly what you are saying, and I'm not disagreeing there - it could have been more sophisticated, but it wasn't and it actually is similar in tone and simplicity to the ARAH comics and cartoon.) I really do think the aim of the film was solely to sell toys to kids and relaunch GI Joe as a toy brand. Those that expected that have likely accepted the movie better than those looking for something more. I don't look to GI Joe for my fix of adult drama, though I do love the toys. Last edited by babyjelly; 08-27-2009 at 05:03 AM.. |
08-27-2009, 05:44 AM | #530 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 1,230
|
Quote:
I really do think the aim of the film was solely to sell toys to kids and relaunch GI Joe as a toy brand. Those that expected that have likely accepted the movie better than those looking for something more.
The problem with releasing a film that a 10yo will like, but adults don't (well ok there are some people who do, but there you go) is that when the film is reviewed it will get a poor review, and then parents may not bother taking their kids to see it (unless they get pestered to go and watch it, and over here at least, I've not seen any adverts for the toys. I don't watch kids TV though, so they may be there ) |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For the people who did like the new G.I. Joe: RoC movie sign here! | Sweetstick99 | G.I. Joe Live Action Movie | 472 | 07-05-2021 11:34 AM |
Custom of my most hated Joe | cyclonus8 | G.I. Joe Customs Finished Projects | 7 | 05-22-2009 12:12 AM |
New Movie Figure Images on People.com | FallenPrey | G.I. Joe News and Rumors | 113 | 02-13-2009 12:19 AM |
most hated modern era figure... | MLos1 | G.I. Joe Toys Modern & General Discussion | 63 | 09-02-2008 04:00 AM |
People w/High Expectations of The Movie......... | Sysiss | G.I. Joe Live Action Movie | 47 | 01-21-2008 02:30 AM |
|
|