BLOGS
While all of the attention is on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen right now, this August will see another 1980s toy property come to the big screen: G.I. Joe. Sadly, you may not recognize anything but the name, because visually it seems to have very little in common with the most popular version of its mythos, and unsubstantiated rumors have been circulating that the director, Stephen Sommers, has been pulled from editing the film. How did this happen? How did G.I. Joe, one of the most basic, straightforward concepts in 1980s children's television, become such a nightmare?
1. Hiring Stephen Sommers.
Moneywise, Sommers looks like a great idea -- the first two Mummy movies made $350 million at the box office and helped the Rob Cohen-directed third installment make another $400 million by itself. And Van Helsing made $300 million worldwide. Stylistically, though... oh, boy. Rachel Weisz gave the Mummy movies a certain charm, we suppose, but they were mostly slapsticky comedies. And Van Helsing was just a huge mess: overly dramatic Frankenstein monsters and Draculas wailed about how sad they were, and Van Helsing got a wacky sidekick. Even watching the two minutes of G.I. Joe footage that've been released, you get bad jokes, awful CGI, and unrealistic violence and ridiculous costumes. It's no wonder that angry fans have gleefully spread the slightest hint that he'd been axed, although having producers with no real idea of what a G.I. Joe movie should look like certainly didn't help. Speaking of those costumes...
2. Not using the classic costumes.
The two most popular versions of G.I. Joe that have ever existed were the original 1960s military man (and his bearded 1970s adventurer counterpart), who wore green fatigues and various mission-related gear, and the 1980s cartoon and comic characters, who each had their own distinctive, usually military-inspired uniform. Now, while the names of the 1980s characters are used, as well as the name of rival organization Cobra, the number of characters in the film who resemble their 1980s counterparts can be counted on one hand: Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow and the Baroness. The rest of the Joe team have all been dressed in skin-tight black body armor, and while the X-Men movies made excellent use of that kind of redesign, the only corollary in G.I. Joe is Sigma 6, a short-lived anime version that aired a few years ago and was eventually scrapped. (That's likely where the "Delta Six" accelerator suits in the movie come from as well.) While some kids certainly watched it, it couldn't have been that big a success, or it would have stuck around -- so why not base the film on the most popular version? The one twenty- and thirtysomethings (and any kid with an Internet connection) are instantly familiar with? If the movie looks like this because Sigma Six was on TV when development started, that's going to be a huge hit in terms of the nostalgia factor.
3. Hiding Destro's mask and Cobra Commander.
Because, seriously? We love Christopher Eccleston, but if you'd told us that he was the burly, deep-voiced, chrome-masked arms dealer we saw on TV, we wouldn't have believed you. Without Destro's steel mask, he's just the ninth Doctor, so holding back images of it seems like a bad idea, especially when there's already so little in the trailers that makes us think of G.I. Joe. And we know this is the rise of Cobra, and the terrorist organization doesn't really exist yet, but a Joe movie commercial that doesn't at least hint at the existence of Cobra Commander feels wrong, somehow. Although considering that, for his apparently brief appearance in the film, they've scrapped the menacing hood from his costume in favor of various disfigurement-enhancing masks, maybe the less we see of him the better.
4. Letting the computers do the work.
Ask anyone, and they'll tell you that practical effects are much more realistic-looking than CGI effects. Because they're, duh, real. So when we see two guys running around in these "accelerator suits" dodging missiles and climbing up buildings like spiders, it really takes us out of the moment. Also, accelerator suits? The G.I. Joe I remember didn't need no stinkin' accelerator suits. We'd rather that money went towards creating some of the distinctive vehicles the Joes used to use to get around -- although, again, it would have been better if they'd just built them from scratch.
5. Taking the America out of it.
Obviously, a movie is going to bring in more money if it can appeal to a global audience. All of Sommers' films have made more than half of their revenue from overseas box office. But in pursuing that global audience, they may have lost their focus. When the film was first announced, "G.I. JOE" was revealed to be an acronym, for "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity." The headquarters was said to be in Belgium, and the international cast -- Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Saïd Taghmaoui and Karolina Kurkova -- seemed to represent a global fighting force. Now, the G.I. Joe brand has had its international versions (it's called Action Man and Action Force in the U.K.), but the core fan base in America (half your box office, remember) knows G.I. Joe as a "Real American Hero," the cartoon's catchphrase and primary theme song lyric. Since then, the headquarters has been moved back to America, and the "Real American Heroes" line has been spoken in all of the trailers, but I think we'll continue to see the residual effects of globalization throughout the film, particularly in the film's massive Eiffel Tower action sequence.
What do you think of the G.I. Joe movie? Anybody actually looking forward to it, even after all we've seen?
11 Comments
Add a comment
Search thousands of recaps and more
BLOG ARCHIVES
The Moviefile
November 2009
17 Entries
October 2009
27 Entries
September 2009
30 Entries
August 2009
28 Entries
July 2009
34 Entries
June 2009
27 Entries
May 2009
24 Entries
April 2009
23 Entries
March 2009
18 Entries
February 2009
30 Entries
January 2009
56 Entries
December 2008
51 Entries
November 2008
61 Entries
October 2008
102 Entries
September 2008
86 Entries
August 2008
99 Entries
July 2008
116 Entries
June 2008
95 Entries
May 2008
86 Entries
April 2008
67 Entries
March 2008
14 Entries
Blog Categories
A Festival for the Rest...ival
14 Entries
Accidents Do Happen
42 Entries
Adventures in Fakery
52 Entries
Animation Desensitization
54 Entries
Box Office Tally
55 Entries
Coming Soonish
7 Entries
Cool Nerds Guide
2 Entries
Director? I Hardly Knew Her!
122 Entries
DVDs Unwrapped
22 Entries
For Your Amusement (Park)
7 Entries
Foreign Relations
31 Entries
Galleries (and Other Picture Postcards)
23 Entries
Girls on Film
47 Entries
I Voted for GORE!
78 Entries
I Want My DVD
54 Entries
I've Got Two Tickets to Merchandise
32 Entries
Indie, Indie, Come Back Home
4 Entries
It Came From New York
4 Entries
It Came From San Diego
11 Entries
It's a Major Award!
38 Entries
Legal Eaglese
18 Entries
Let's Blame the Media!
47 Entries
Let's Go To The Video!
26 Entries
Letterbox of Recommendations
13 Entries
Lights, Camera... Action Jackson!
88 Entries
Little TV Shows That Done Hit the Big Time
62 Entries
Martial Artistry
6 Entries
Momentous Occasions
22 Entries
More On Movies
0 Entries
Musicalifornication
36 Entries
Obituaries Without Pity
19 Entries
Oscars and Grouchery
6 Entries
Pros and Controversy
15 Entries
Reviews of Movies We Haven't Seen Yet
25 Entries
Reviews of Movies We've Actually Seen
85 Entries
Scary Monsters & Super Creeps
47 Entries
Sci-Fidelity
93 Entries
Script From the Headlines!
53 Entries
Separate but Sequel
191 Entries
Strike Watch
14 Entries
Stupid Cinematic Celebrity Sayings
33 Entries
Taste the Reading Rainbow
68 Entries
The Art of the Cannes
6 Entries
The Biz
115 Entries
The Casting Conch
165 Entries
The History, Booooyyyyy!
62 Entries
The Kongs of Comedy
125 Entries
Theatre With an "R" and an "E"
9 Entries
Top of the
0 Entries
Top of the MWoP
4 Entries
Trailer Trashing
54 Entries
Trailers Without Pity
21 Entries
Video Games Killed the Movie Star
20 Entries
We Call Do-Over
142 Entries
We Watches the Watchmen
33 Entries
What's Up, Documentary?
7 Entries
When Animal Movies Attack
7 Entries
You Got Comic Book in My Movie
194 Entries
You Know, For Kids!
93 Entries
They screwed up a simple concept because at this point, it's too simple of a concept. Group of special forces fight bad guys. By the 4th X-men movie, 116th war movie, Starship Troopers, Team America: World Police and the rise, fall and rise again of Rambo...there is nothing interesting left to say about that. Sometimes a cartoon should just stay a cartoon.
I was looking forward to the GIJOE movie and willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Then i saw the accelorator suits. I have no great desire to watch a movie about people dressed like american football players from the future. And this might be off topic but Scarlett is not a character i ever understood. I always found Lady Jaye to be the most compelling female member of the JOE team and a better role model for girls.
I think that it runs the risk of being cheesy if they have the characters have all the individual quirks of the cartoon and comics, but I think that is a risk easily overcome if you keep it in mind. Throw in a line by their boss saying that even in the military, the best get to be ...eccentric. And then cut to one of them doing something weird and in character at a meeting, like carrying a crossbow or having a pet wolf.
I do think instead of accelerator suits, having pimped vehicles would be cool. Christian Bale's Batmobile is essentially a GI Joe vehicle, so they are making a mistake by not including a few of those suited for extreme conditions (urban, water, tundra, dessert) and selling a ton more toys than uniform black suits.
The problem seems to be trying too much to fit in. Every stinkin' action movie in the last few years features a "cool black uniform" for the good guys. Joe's distinction could have been cameo, and when that goes away, the comparisons start.
While action movies don't have to be smart, they need to be easy to recognize. And that includes deciphering black-clad toys on the store shelf. Its called "branding."
Yeah, I wanted to see it because, well, I was interested. Plus, I like Channing Tatum and there is this cute Korean actor (whose face we'll probably never see) in it. Then I read that Stephen Sommers was the director and my enthusiasm dropped several levels. I didn't like 'The Mummy' series; the first one was the closest I came to liking any of it. He's a crap director. No Cobra Commander, what?! I wondered where he was! Then there is Sienna Miller... chicka, is like the kiss of death for a cinematic enterprise. I call her 'the jinx' because no movie does half as well as it might with her in it, at least none that I know of.
There is a huge list of things that can (and will) go wrong with this movie. I personally find the worst thing about it to be the concept of the accelerator suits and it goes from there. I've never liked Channing Tatum, and probably never will, so I find him to be a horrible Duke. However, I do feel that Dennis Quaid will be an excellent Hawk, so he may the "best" thing to come out of this movie. Yo Joe?
I'm just going to see "G.I. Joe - The Movie", 1987 version.
"He finds the bombs, I drive the car. We tried it the other way, but it didn't work..."
The fact that my precious Joseph-Gordon Levitt is in this makes me want to cry.
I totally agree. At first I was excited because I wanted to see my indie darling kick ass in a summer blockbuster, but looks like this one will be just embarrassing.
You guys are funny. You're making SUCH an issue of the Accelerator suits?! Yes, the original cartoon series didn't have it, but then the cartoon series was in the 80's. Who want to see soldiers set in current times with 80's tech??! Come on guys.
I've read an article where one of the film's producers or key persons said that they did research on cutting edge military and just had gotten back from a US Army lab where they are INDEED working on tech that is quite similar to the accelerator suits. It's nanotech based, so guys lighten up.
I'd much rather see cutting edge miltech than a strict adherence to GI Joe with some guy and a parrot on his shoulder.
The concept that they're spec ops was good, but the cartoon make the unit a bit campy.
If I may address these concerns:
1. Would you prefer Ang Lee? Or how 'bout Tarantino? Yeah, that would be fun: lots of '70s pop culture references, using the F-word and N-word like vowels, and long lingering shots of Sienna Miller's bare feet--that'll top Grindhouse!
Anybody who claims that they can tell directors from a hole in the ground is a lying, pretentious dilettante who couldn't even get into Dov S-S Simens' Two-Day Film School.
2. It's the 21st century. We're not seven years old anymore. The F-14s that they based the Skystriker on have long since been retired. Plus there's that pesky Future Force Warrior thing the Army's currently playing with.
3. This is how it all began. Give it time.
4. Do you have any fracking idea how expensive and difficult it is to film practical?
5. I take it you never read a Tom Clancy novel called Rainbow Six.
Bottom line: DON'T BE A FANBOY!