GOD
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
 |
... Yea we gave feedback. Not sure if they will use it though. The guy running the screening said most people thought it sucked. It really was god awful. |
Doogs
said:
 |
Really... Would you want them to even bother to change the trailer...? It sounds to me like the problem goes much deeper than just making a better trailer. They likely need to make a better movie and I'm sure it's far past that point to fix. The worse the trailer, the less likely someone is to fall for the hype and check out what sounds like a potentially crappy adaptation. So, hooray for the bad trailer and boo to a bad movie. |
judu
said:
|
... I have seen this article posted by a user on a celebrity site millionaireloves.com,very useful.lol...maybe you can go there and check some more interesting articles |
Uncapie
said:
 |
... Wow, sounds like Paramount has a tuna on their hands. A real stinker-roo that they are hiding. This site has a core audience for the film and yet, Paramount doesn't want anyone to see the trailer! Its must be a bad movie if they're afraid of anyone showing a promo for it! Its like they're saying to the public,"We don't want you to see our trailer. See the movie instead and buy the toys. Too bad if it sucks. We got your money. F- you!" I'll skip this flick just on principle now and since when did the Paramount legal department start sending photos of themselves to post in place of the "G.I. Joe" trailer? |
TheFridge
said:
 |
... "Our apologies, but at the request of the studio, this trailer review has been removed." Hang on a minute. I can understand taking down the picture at their request, as that is their intellectual propery right and they can decide who uses it, but what's with taking down a review at their request? I thought the whole premise of this site was that you were going to report the truth regardless of what the studios want people to hear. Now, I've been an active contributor here from the beginning and I can honestly say that the writers usually hold up to this ideal, and for this reason I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not trying to be critical, but it just seems a little like you are caving in to the pressure like you said you wouldn't. Like I said, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here, as there is probably a lot I'm not aware of from reading such a brief explanation, but I thought I'd just give my thoughts. |
GOD
said:
|
... Fridge...you are right. The review will be back up momentarily, along with a full explanation with what happened. |
GOD
said:
|
... And now that we fully understand the law, I promise we will never be bullied ever again!!! F*CK the man!!! |
Sheriff Woody
said:
 |
... Couldn't have said it better. I'm glad that you are standing up for the movie goers who expect quality to go along with these classic titles. It's time that Hollywood realize that it's not enough to cut and paste a classic title on a piece of crap and expect top dollar in return. Who do they think they are anyway ... Oscar De La Hoya? |
zombot
said:
|
... as long as studios secretly show footage, people will secretly report on it. and secretly, it's what the studios want. to test the waters. early reviewers an sites are just the scapegoat- so that when the studios don't like what they hear, they can order you to pull it under some sketchy law. if the report was on how awesome GI JOE was looking, none of this would have ever happened. |
Cottage
said:
|
... It is true the web is used to market movies, but generally bloggers are invited to see rough cuts or given leaks for that reason. And unfortunately sometimes people use the web and "leaks" to settle professional scores, influence stock prices, or just to gain notoriety for themselves. Was there supposed to be a confidential release signed?-and the reviewer cleverly avoided it...thats on shaky moral and legal ground if you ask me. Aren't trailers -or in this case-ads generally designed by outside the studio firms, or at least not by say the director or editor themselves? Is a test for a one minute commercial really the best judge of a project? But the real key is this-if you are a fan of a certain comic and its announced thats its being made into a movie, don't you REALLY already know only a small portion of story (likely not your favorite) will be told, the production will be aimed a general, international audience so the casting won't meet your expectations, and that the costumes and look of the movie will never be as good as your imagination or that of the original graphic artist. But if you are lucky, a huge amount of interest will again be directed toward your favorite comic, new fans turned on to it, and there will be increased appreciation of classic comics, action figures etc despite cheesy Happy Meal promotions? Why disappoint yourself and not just take the project for what it is, thats what most fans do when something from another source is turned into a movie. I just don't get the hate and criticism directed at anybody who dares take on a movie based on comics. |
kitty
said:
|
... And how do you know that Jason just did not think that the trailer sucked? Who are you? The thought police? Or maybe he should be like AICN and say that the trailer was amazing! |
Cottage
said:
|
... Actually, I am the audience that the film is directed to: a non comic fan, who will come see the movie for the cast or word of mouth/reviews. I could care less how Snake Eyes is supposed to look or fight, to be honest and am more interested in whether the film is entertaining not how great the CGI is.I read a lot entertainment and movie blogs when favorite actors or actors are cast in movie, and I have noticed a real trend for comic book fans to s*** on a project from the moment it is announced, instead of being excited that something they love is going to get wider exposure. Fans of novels, plays or television series that get made into movies rarely express the same negativity and vitriol that comic book fans do. Generally a movie NEVER lives up to the source material, but always enhances the exposure to it. I am not the thought police, I presume those in attendance were given a way to give their feedback, so Jason had an opportunity to speak his piece and share his impressions, which are valid because they are his. But by posting them against the wishes of the production, other sites have linked to him and in absence of information about this long awaited project may color people's thinking-long before the actual movie is seen. My nephew had an opportunity to go out to the Microsoft campus and test games while quite young, around 7 or so. He took his confidentiality agreement very seriously at that young age and wouldn't even tell his Mom about the game, because he knew that a lot of real people were working hard to create something he and others would enjoy when it was fully ready. |
kitty
said:
|
... "Actually, I am the audience that the film is directed to:" So it's directed at retards? |
Gay54321
said:
|
... Cottage- You say you are a "a non comic fan" but then you know more about G.I. Joe then most people here. So do you work for the studio? |
Cottage
said:
|
... No, I don't work for the studio-wish I did, think I could market this movie better than they are. I am laid off as a matter of fact -worked in a non profit for years-nothing remotely communications or entertainment related, but I am a news and entertainment news junkie. Because I am laid off, I have way too much time to spend online- I am a fan of one of the actors in this project-and having seen a couple of other favorites sign on to comic book projects in the past that were savaged from the get go on the internet, I started to see a real pattern in how comic book "fans" treat movies made about their favorite subject. And movie will never make it, if just aimed to fans of the source material-its got to be changed a bit for a general audience, any movie these days has to have an international cast etc.. certain things are given. But honestly, does anyone really disagree that comic book fans are the harshest critic of comic book based projects? |
Return of Fag Boy
said:
|
... That attorney at Paramount sounds like a fag! Glad the article is back up! I don't think I'll see the movie though. Looks too faggy even for my faggy tastes. |
Anti-Cottage
said:
|
Im a Blog whore Hi. I dont work for the studios, thats why all my comments are completely pro-studio, completely un-objective. I even avoid swear words, and carefully capitalize my sentences. Dude. You are a complete whore, working for (either directly, or indirectly) the promotion of GIJoe. Your comments come across as completely manufactured bs from an office chair. insipid, spineless, generic pro studio nonsense. Why not just allow this guy to think that the film looks like shite? stop telling him how he's made a mistake with his opinion. it's so annoying to see studio paid employees (or contractors/ whatever) try and infiltrate genuine people's personal forum's and soap boxes. infact, im so annoyed by reading your propoganda that i am now going to create an anti GI Joe youtube video and uplaod it. and include your comments. asshole. |
zom-bot
said:
|
cottage cheese reading the obvious studio defense tactics above, a cold smarmy voice came into mind, like one of the great corporate-asshole type characters from Kids in the Hall. Hilarious. NO cottage, they made GI JOE for a reason. To get money from the 30 year olds who grew up playing with the very specific toys of the 80's. from all production shots i have seen, it has nothing to do with the GI JOE's of the 50's, 60's or 70's. If there was not a needy man-boy fanbase that they knew they could tap, it would NOT have been made. 'hey let's make a movoe based on a cult toy and cartoon of the eighties, but make it so that everyone from a 3 year old to grandma can understand it.' bullshit. our point is, if you are going to go after the bank of the new millenium man-child, at least get that shit RIGHT. it's a wise investment. it insures sequels and massive merchandise possibility. with a sht movie you are maybe obliged to get one sequel out- based on the massive box office of the initially curious...but by the time you wisenfucks put out the second one, no one cares because they were burned so hard by the first one. but you have to stick to your contracts, and of course a third one is shat out direct to video. we just want corporate hollywood to learn from their many, many mistakes. IF YOU MAKE A FANBOY MOVIE,GET IT RIGHT OR GET EATEN ALIVE. and i could care less about GI JOE. i was a lego kid. |
Uncapie
said:
|
... Paramount should be notified of this lawyer's bullying tactics. Better yet, just because this guy was such a jerk, boycott the movie. |
frank
said:
|
... I would like to ask everyone on this board to blog this story on there favorate website. We really need to get the word out that the studios won't to shut people up |
Cottage
said:
|
... I am sorry if I offended anyone, I did not intent provoke anger and name calling, its just disappointing to see actors I like get their costumes and movies trashed on the internet months in advance because they don't meet expectations. Thats all. Movies have been made of my favorite books, and while they rarely stand up to the source material I can usually live with what was done. All movies are made for the millenium new male-what makes the movie a hit is if the women (like me) go to it. In fact, the studios seem shocked the movies aimed at women are succesful. That all being said, the movie may be terrible, who knows. Just doubt a one minute trailer-undoubtedly made by somebody other than the filmmaker is a good judge of it. I will register, and if Jason wants to contact me I will try to confirm to him that I am not a studio hack. As I shared before I am not a studio employee, contractor, or anything remotely like that. I am a laid off social worker living off savings at the moment-I spent most of my life working long hours to help people. I am not lawyer- don't have an office and have never met anyone at Paramount. As I said, I have way too much time on my hands after sending out resumes everyday, and I read a lot of gossip and news blogs, because always have been a news junkie (pre internet I used to read several actual newspapers a day). If there is a way to get paid for this-please someone let me know who to contact, what you call it, etc, because I really could use some income. Jason's point of view as I noted above was valid-it was his, but if you search around the internet it is getting some notice and there have been links to other blogs. If he purposely avoided signing a confidential release of information, and was asked at the screening not to share information, I don't think thats the same as infringing on people's rights- I guess everyone's code is different. I do agree if no one was asked to sign a confidential release-then good bleeding heart liberal that I am-the Paramount Lawyer was completely out of line. As I said above Jason's |
Cottage
said:
|
... welcome to contact me, and please share some info about how I turn this into money. |
Vic Mackey
said:
|
... Frank Said -"I would like to ask everyone on this board to blog this story on there favorate website. We really need to get the word out that the studios wont to shut people up " I just bloged it on 2 other sites! Cottage - I was thinking of working for a movie studio. Do they pay well? How much do you get? YOU ASSHOLE!!! |
AHogan
said:
|
... Wow. Lot of douche bags on this wonderful new site. What makes you people think a movie, based on an action figure that you played with as a child, would meet your entertainment standards 20 years later? Assholes. Grow up. It's a G.I. Joe movie. |
cottage
said:
|
... Vic, call me a bitch if you like, not an asshole, although I am not sure what I have done that warrants such name calling. Suggesting someone deserves to have a request for confidentially honored? Writing well and with appropriate capitalization? (which apparently makes me a studio employee or designate-which I am not. I am unemployed with too much time on my hands). Vic, are you a Chiklis fan? Regardless of what you think of FF movie, the hits that he and Julian McMahon took from fans and critics-before the movie even was finished, as a result of costume/script decisions their Fox overloads made was just sad. I would hate to see such things happen to Dennis Quaid, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Christopher Eccleston etc, thats all. For that you call names? AHogan, you are right, its a great new site, with some really nice stuff on it. |
nukinator
said:
|
... Yo cottage if there was a requirement to sign a confidientiality agreemnet than why does paramount show it to people who don't sign it. if i say there is something you need to do to see something and you wont do it then i would refuse to show it to you but if i show it to you even though you dont do what i say then im dumb ass. i dont think he was given anything to sign. he is legit. |
zom-bot
said:
|
... congrats nukethefridge.com an probably your longest and most controversial post!  you've been baptized! |
django
said:
|
... Great stuff there nukethefridge! You have what it takes! I love this site! This has been one fun talkback! Keep up the great work! |
maria
said:
|
... Looks like the studio.fag stopped posting here. Good.....he should show harry at aicn the trailer, he will love it. |
Uncapie
said:
|
... I wonder if "cottage" isn't the attorney who harassed the owners of this site and he's trying to damage control. He's the only one that wanted to be contacted and his views look like he's on a fishing expedition the way they're written. I smell a rat. |
smatt584
said:
|
Did i miss something? I hate to jump onto the Cottage-bashing wagon here, but is it just me or do his posts seem to read into this review a tad too much to even apply to it or even to any of the comments that were posted prior to his. He starts out saying that the reviewer "cleverly avoided" signing a non-disclosure agreement, which it's pretty obvious they didn't even know about, hence they took the review down at first when they never had to (seriously, damn man it's called reading comprehension, what were your SAT's like?). Then he goes on a rant about how "The real key to this" is that the "fans", (all said while criticising the reviewer/review, mind you, which is a pretty thinly veiled criticism of the two if you ask me), shouldn't be pissed that the material is not respected as far as costumes and story/plot are concerned? The reviewer didn't insult the story or the costumes in the posted review at all! Not only that, but neither did the other comments thus far. What the fuck are you talking about? His criticisms in this review are valid. Green goo destroying the Eiffle Tower? People dodging missiles with jump-spins?!? Double-Dragon? Let me guess, was it all in slow-motion? That has nothing to do with obsessive fanboy dissappointment, that just sounds like more stupid Hollywood shit and i don't care what kind of a job you have, your criticisms of his review are non-applicable seeing as how you cant link your points to anything in the review at all and being that we've got almost nothing from the studio thus far except a couple of photos, this is what we go by and this sound fucking horrible. I'm glad to know it. Of course, this doesn't surprise me since the director is a no-talent hack, i mean has anybody seen Van Helsing? Or either of his Mummy movies? This film was doomed from the start. Here's hoping that the movie is better than it sounds, which seems like it would be a minor miracle at this point if these are deemed the best bits they have for a preview. Doom, dooom , dooooooomm. |
Uncapie
said:
|
... The sets looked nice in "Van Helsing." See, there's something positive(Thank you "Ed Wood!").  |
lamagra
said:
|
... Hey! Everyone should email Harry Knowles over at aintitcool.com with this article. Let’s see if he blogs it! His info here!!! HARRY KNOWLES, HeadGeek harry @ aintitcool.com mail: P.O.Box 180011, Austin, TX 78718-0011 USA tel: (512) 784 6876 |
cottage
said:
|
... Hi! I was sort taking the big picture view, initially when I engaged this was "civil rights/free speech" discussion, and then I wanted to know why the hate for the comic book movie always appears. To recap what I said: its not clear if there was supposed to be confidential release signed or not at this test screening, if not, Jason's cool, and Paramount is out of line- I never said he avoided signing, he has never discussed the specifics right? I said his views WERE valid as they were his, and he had a chance to share them with the studio through the screening feedback process that he was attending. The discussion I thought I was participating in was not whether Jason had the right to an opinion or whether it was a good opinion, it was whether he had a right to post a negative review online when obviously it was the intention of those hosting the screening to have feedback be internal. For my second theme,I then went on to note that comic fans always seem to hate comic movies because they don't meet their expectations, I thought that they should be happy new attention will drawn to classic comics, action figures etc even if they hate the movie. (For example the fans of the book Marley and Me probably didn't anticipate their favorite dog story to be sullied by Aniston and Wilson but you don't see on the internet vitriol that seems to accompany the announcement of every comic book movie project, crapping on the director, script, cast, costumes, CGI almost immediately etc, fanboys are not the audience that will turn a movie into a blockbuster.Just sayin..) I said the movie might not be good-who knows, just hard to tell from a test commercial, probably made by an advertising firm or marketing department-not representative of the creative talent. I was called several unattractive swear words and accused of being a studio hack because I capitalized and punctuated correctly, that has a way of making you forget your job hunt situation! There were several posters who disagreed with my point of view-and some made some good points. However, I am not a studio hack or surrogate, f**, asshole or even a guy. Anyway, its the holiday season, I am in a good mood, this seems like a quality site, you all have given me an idea for a new job hunt strategy, I just hope the vulgarity, name calling and swearing stop.I am always up for a good discussion...  |
Return of Fag Boy
said:
|
... You write in a masculine tone, Cottage and are sooooooo defensive! You SURE you're not a man or another fag like me? What a shame. |
GOD
said:
|
... To clear up any confusion...there was never a non disclosure agreement offered up for me to sign. Nor was one even mentioned. If I had signed one, I would never have printed this review. Plain and simple. |
GOD
said:
|
... The name calling stuff is never cool, I wish it would stop. But as anyone who has been around this site for awhile knows..we don't censor anyone. It is up to individuals to defend themselves. Unless of course it becomes threatening in tone. That is the only rule of posting here...do not threaten others. Oh and I don't think comic book fans hate all comic book movies. They only hate bad ones. I think the majority of us loved "Dark Knight," "Iron Man," Superman - The Movie" and "Spider-man 2." But when Hollywood puts out garbage ones like "Punisher" "Elekta," the Joel Schumacher "Batman" movies, etc...we call them for what they are - garbage! |
Cottage Industry
said:
|
G.I. Ho The simple fact of the matter Cottage, as you whine on and on about fans being harsh critics, is that comic books movies are *usually* never given the care or attention they deserve. They're usually slapped together to make a quick buck because they think fans will go to see anything based on a comic book. If more movies were treated and made like Iron Man or Dark Knight, we wouldn't have anything to complain about. More often than not, they're treated and made like the upcoming DragonBall-Z movie or, apparently, G.I. Joe, as crap. |
cottage
said:
|
... Well, if there was no confidentially or non disclosure agreement, then anyone is free to write anything I would say. Moving making has become too safe and generic, global casting, script by committee, material from other sources its all about the "quick buck" and opening weekend. I don't think a particular genre is singled out. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on my other point. I still maintain comic fans are overly quick to critize every aspect of a production when announced-more so than other genre or source fans-when I would think the overall benefit to the fandom would at least make people hopeful. Dark Knight and Iron Man were exceptional movies; just like there are exceptional movies made from books -and then you have the Da Vinci Code fail. However, the Da Vinci Code did entertain, most fans of the book liked it, it drew a lot of attention to the books, the theories etc-so was it a wasted effort? |
GOD
said:
|
... Anyone is free to write what they want, not because you say, but because the law says so. Title 17, Section 107 (U.S.C.) says that as long as you are giving a critique or review of something you are entitled to do so without issue. Plain and simple. The law is the law. Look it up. |
Uncapie
said:
|
... One thing we all can agree on is that this has been an interesting talk back. Everyone conversing with one another on a central theme creates thought, which leads to ideas. I'd say, God should contact Steven Somers and interview him. Let's hear what he has to say on the subject as its his film. We want the best for all film makers on this site as everyone loves film the way we do or else we wouldn't be writing about. Personally, I would enjoy a well made "G.I. Joe" movie. I also think Dennis Quaid is a good choice for "Hawk" as he's a good actor and a nice guy. I believe Steven Somers set out to create a good, entertaining film, but for one lone self-absorbed, ego-fed attorney at Paramount who has probably hurt this film publicity-wise more than help it, there is much damage to be undone on his part. He acted on impulse instead of gathering the facts. Like the KGB; guilty until proven innocent. Go to the Gulag, comrade! If it was me; I'd fire the idiot for sabotaging his company's product. Christmastime? Tough. The world needs ditch diggers too. Constructive criticism is important in any project and this is what Jason set out to do; offer his opinion(Yes the trailer sucked. Let's make it better.). As far as I know, that also falls under Freedom of Speech in the United States and since he never signed a non-disclosure agreement, he has every right to review the trailer. Had the ambulance chaser at Paramount come to us and said, "How can we make this better?" instead of using thug tactics and veiled threats, it would have turned out a more positive experience for the attorney. |
heyitsbeth
said:
 |
Too bad most of the articles here are hard to find later. It would be easier to keep conversations going. This one is being kept on the front page manually or it would be on the 2nd page by now. Maybe the site will eventually have a forum section for discussing stories, that will make it easy to keep conversations going longer? |
Prophecy
said:
|
Smarter Fans At the core of this discussion is the opinion of the site owner. He felt the trailer was shite and I'll trust that judgment. The bad thing for the studios is that us fans are getting smarter by the hour. When we view a trailer it becomes instantly obvious if it's shite. The studios want us to be retards, swallow the kool-aid and fork over our hard earned cash for any flick. No, no. Those days are changing. If the studio puts out a horrid trailer us fans can not only smell it a mile away, we spread the word over the interweb [made up of a series of tubes from my understanding] and cut into the movie's profit margin. My advice to studios: Hire better writers, greenlight only worthy scripts, put qualified directors in charge and make better films. |
GOD
said:
|
... I think the key is the studios need to make better stories. Period. I will forgive a film with less than stellar special effects if the story is a great one. The problem is that most studios and filmmakers today (Spielberg, Lucas...I'm talking to you) think the audience just wants to be Wowed. They forget about story and think that whatever magic tricks they pull out of their hat will make up for the lack of a good script. In most cases it doesnt. In some cases audiences are suckered in by the wow factor of a well edited trailer and the film makes a killing. But fans got burned and they have a long memory I believe. |
woooo
said:
|
... i have seen the sizzle real they show reporters and it was not this trailer. the one i saw was great and im really looking forward to this. scenes i saw included heavy duty firing a huge railgun on the side of a helicopter and opens up with zartan getting an injection saying "lets do this". i know none of you will believe me but its legit. |
JoJo
said:
|
GOD, I think you and your lawyer need to re-read Title 17, Section 107 ...particularly the part that says "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — ... (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It could reasonably be argued that your blog on this supposed trailer you saw falls under point 4 here. |
lamagra
said:
|
... "GOD, I think you and your lawyer need to re-read Title 17, Section 107 ...particularly the part that says "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — ... (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It could reasonably be argued that your blog on this supposed trailer you saw falls under point 4 here. " Another studio guy? WOW!!! Hey fags!!! He saw a trailer....IT SUCKED...Then he stated his opinion on this site.! End of story!! Now FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
cottage.
said:
|
... BTW Jason- Take down that 'Cobra' picture you have up there. That picture, and all Cobras, belong to me. Plus I do not wish to be affiliated to G.I. Joe!!! |
JoJo.
said:
|
... One more thing. Does anyone here now any hairy guys? Preferably I'm into hairy buttholes. Thanks in advance! |
Indiana
said:
|
... Big new!!! Heres my review of G.I. Joe!!! 1. Magic Kingdom for Sale (2010) (announced) 2. When Worlds Collide (2010) (pre-production) 3. Airborn (200  (pre-production) 4. G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009) (post-production) 5. Revenge of the Mummy: The Ride (2004) ... aka Revenge of the Mummy (USA: short title) 6. Van Helsing (2004) ... aka Van Helsing (Czech Republic) 7. The Mummy Returns (2001) 8. The Mummy (1999) 9. Deep Rising (199 10. The Jungle Book (1994) ... aka Libro de la selva, El (USA: Spanish title) ... aka Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book (USA: complete title) 11. The Adventures of Huck Finn (1993) ... aka The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn 12. Catch Me If You Can (1989) Producer: * In Production * 2000s * 1990s 1. Magic Kingdom for Sale (2010) (announced) (producer) 2. When Worlds Collide (2010) (pre-production) (producer) 3. Airborn (200 (pre-production) (producer) 4. G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009) (post-production) (producer) 5. The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior (200 (V) (producer) ... aka Scorpion King - Aufstieg eines Kriegers (Germany) 6. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (200 (producer) ... aka Die Mumie - Das Grabmal des Drachenkaisers (Germany) ... aka The Mummy 3 (USA: informal title) 7. Van Helsing (2004) (producer) ... aka Van Helsing (Czech Republic) 8. Van Helsing: The London Assignment (2004) (V) (executive producer) ... aka Van Helsing Animated 9. The Scorpion King (2002) (producer) ... aka The Scorpion King (Germany) 10. Oliver Twist (1997) (TV) (co-executive producer) 11. Tom and Huck (1995) (executive producer) ... aka The Adventures of Tom and Huck ... aka Tom Sawyer Any questions? |
Rick
said:
|
Wow I for one will never be returning to this site. Its pretty sad when all these supposed grownups resort to bashing and name calling over a toy. And then lets not forget the lame host of this site who has the audacity to title himself god and says its okay for the visitors of his site to use obsenities, my nine year old son refered me to this site. I will make sure he dosnt return to it. I dont want him to grow up and think that this is civilized behavior. Grow up people they were toys not a religion. |
Indiana
said:
|
... "Wow I for one will never be returning to this site. Its pretty sad when all these supposed grownups resort to bashing and name calling over a toy. And then lets not forget the lame host of this site who has the audacity to title himself god and says its okay for the visitors of his site to use obsenities, my nine year old son refered me to this site. I will make sure he dosnt return to it. I dont want him to grow up and think that this is civilized behavior. Grow up people they were toys not a religion." You make some great point Mr.Sommers! BTW - I don't care what people say, Van Helsing was great!!!! |
Rick.
said:
|
... I’m a Catholic priest and an alter boy referred me to this site. I must say that I am appalled by all the G.I. Joe bashing that is going on . I will NEVER come back here again! |
gijew
said:
|
nukethefridge is full of doggy dew hey you guys are full of cr*p by saying the film is complete first off i work for paramount and the movie is in post production meaning all the cgi and editing is being done right now.. Now we are done filming but the movie itself isnt done.. I was also at the screening and this guy is a total d-bag the trailer was awesome.. I think you need to get over that its somthing new.. I heard you complain on your way out and i heard you telling everyone you work on this site.. Your a piss ant and nothing more.. I was siting next to you and saw the excitment in your face and it wasnt till after when you started talking trash.. You only do this to get attn to your site.. Grow up and grow some balls you fat scum d-bag |
David
said:
|
I happen to agree I happen to agree with RICK, the first entry, the second entry shows how lacking this website is in integrity, and basic decency. To let people talk this way is in itself appaling. The person who impersonated RICK must be living a sad and lonely existance in his mothers basement, trying to find time both playing and masterbating to his G.I. Joe toys and playing on his computer. I appluad the comments that were left by RICK and think more people should think in this way. The world is going into the toilet because of morely inept people, and this website is just allowing it to happen and hidding behind the right to free speech, which had to be explained to him by a lawyer. I dont need a lawyer to explain this to me I know what my rights are. I also know that slander is not covered by the right to free speach. This might be something that the host of this website might want to consider. |
David
said:
|
What has been slander By definition Slander is a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. Now calling a person names is a form of slander i.e. A false and malicious statement or report about someone. There are slanderous comments all over this page. If you really cant see it, well that just goes to show you the moral vacum this site creates. Did you ever hear your grandparents speak in this way? I would suspect not. This country is vering away from what made it great. And that was the moral compass that guided it. Proof can be found in what has been said about other people because their opinions differed. Oh you dont agree with me then you must be a fag. I dont think the founding fathers had this in mind when they wrote the constiution. I dont think they were sitting around a table saying lets make sure that people have the right to call other people fags for having a differant opinion. Or insinuating that a person is a pediphile because he dosnt want his son to see the things that are said on this site. At least someone is showing that they are guided by a moral compass and not joining the slanderous bandwagon. |
mighty crom
said:
|
Oh No, G.I.Joe! Paramount is going to find out that NOT sticking to the comics, designs and storylines of G.I.Joe is going to bite them in the @$$! Just wait and see.. For example: "WATCHMEN" Zack Snyder is sticking close to the graphic novel as much as possible, and any Fanboy can tell you it's going to be THE HIT of the Summer. Paramount has only one thing going for them right now and that is "STAR TREK". From what I've seen, gathered and heard...They need to edit and re-cut footage to make G.I.JOE: The Rise of Cobra to work, or else yet again Hollywood botches up a great fanfare franchise that'll end up selling as a DVD for .99 Cents at the local Dollar store. |
Josh
said:
|
... I'll have to see it for myself to decide what I think. I'm not the kind of person to just go on word of mouth. I have to actually see the trailer. |
Shipwreck
said:
|
Can't take reality Rick: I totally support your decision to censor the viewing habits of your 9 year old. A child should not be allowed to run through the internets on their own. David: Are you serious? Did my grandparents talk like this? No, they were racists and used a number of words that I do not use. They were misogynists and used a number of words I do not use. They were also chauvinists and felt that people should adjust their language in the presence of a lady. I don't believe any of that. I think that people should express themselves however they fucking feel like. That remains true no matter who is present. The only time I guard my tongue is around the capitalists that control my income. That is a tactical decision as I need to pay rent and yes, I die a little each time that I have to curb my tongue to appease some asshole who can't handle the ugly reality of how people are and act. I say continue crying about bad language so you can ignore how our world is going to shit anyway. Also, how do you know that someone was impersonating you? God: Thank you for the site where there are no ridiculous posting rules. You are appropriately named for a fictional character in a storybook. I think this site has some of the best real discussions on it because of the lack of silly rules. On the GI Joe debate: Everything I have seen about this has been disappointing. Yes Cottage, fanboys are hyper critical (and hyper active and ADD and often baked as well) it is OK, we have been burned by the studios more times than any other fan base. Now we are able to be vocal about it. Also, we are able to critique more adroitly due to the visual nature of comics (see storyboards for movies). We have something to compare, fiction readers do not have that advantage. I do hope this movie is at all bearable...however it looks like 'Wanted' a script that has had the names changed to the ones from the book and a design overhaul. |
tim
said:
|
... I’ve been tracking this website for about 3 months now. 2, 3, or even 1,000 people leaving or ‘not coming back’ will not effect anything. This site get’s about 500,000 a day! Plus I like it! Sorry... |
David
said:
|
LMAO The only reason our world is going to shit is because of people like you shipwreck. There are better ways to express your opinion then with four letter words that what, make you feel tougher, maybe a little older. That would be a high school mentality. You write very elequantly, but would take your point a little more seriously if there were fewer four letter words. Seeing those words screams out imaturity. And as for the god arguement that is your right to feel the way that you do. You have the right to believe what you will. But then like most athiests you press your belief on me but dont want it back. In essance you force your opinion on me and expect me to shut my mouth about mine. As for capitolism why the hell was that brought up? This is about freedom of speech and the G.I. Joe movie and other people attacking people for their opinions. Much like you are doing right now. We can agree to disagee. But dont expect me to change my view point based on your infantile remarks. And as for the impersonating remarks no one was impersonating me. That was about Rick, some douche bag typed under his entry that he was a catholic priest and an alterboy. Its one thing to attack a man about his opinion, but that statement was unwarrented it insinuated that he was a child molester. I am a father as well and my son has an intrest in comic books same as I do. But this is a website he cant go to now because I dont want him growing up thinking he has to cuss to be a man. |
GOD
said:
|
... Rick...I never said this website was G-rated. It is at least PG-13. Therefore, like Shipwreck says I would hope you would monitor your 9 year old coming on here. David...I call myself God. But I have never said I was A god, or even THE god, only god of this domain [name]. Afterall it is my site. If you have your website, you can call yourself God of that too. Tim...we get a lot of hits. 500,000? Not quite there yet...getting close...but not quite. Shipwreck...I am glad you like the lack of posting rules here. All the rules you see on other sites always pissed me off because when you are in an intelligent debate and you make your point to someone, there is alway someone who gets their panties in a wad and cries to the mods. Then suddenly you are warned for "flame baiting." Flame baiting?? WTF? I vowed never to have do that if I had a website. And you are right, without the restrictions on debate, I think it lends itself to some pretty interesting and intelligent discussions. |
David
said:
|
... I am not requesting it to be G-rated, just dont like the disparaging remarks toward people that are just trying to air out their opinion, guess I should have stated it a little more clearly. Even though I dont like cuss words and I try not to use them. I was just a little heated when I sent that last remark. My apologies go out to you shipwreck. |
IonParallax
said:
|
My Take on the Situation Greetings folks, I have to say, debate is all well and good, but bashing someone for having an opinion is unnecessary. I understand not agreeing with someone's opinion but, telling that someone they are ignorant or an a**hole for forming their own opinion, or speaking from their own experience is counter-productive to a good, compelling argument. On the lighter note, I just came from comicbookmovie.com where I am a frequenter and actually started a fansite there called "The Book of Oa" (shameless plug, I know), and we (the site) actually have this posted in one of the news articles and I think it's hysterical. I'm glad someone has spoken up and said this looks like a total piece of garbage. Because from what i've seen, it is. I will reserve final judgement until the movie is actually released and I see it myself but, the fact still remains, all the news about this movie has been less than inspiring. I have been a fan of GI Joe since oh, about 1987, and have been wanting a movie based on the material ever since. Of course, I know and understand NOTHING ever matches the source material complete i.e. Zack Snyder's Watchmen, but I don't feel this is going to do GI Joe toys, comics or even the cartoon ANY justice what-so-ever. I will agree with Cottage on one point; comic book fans are the MOST critical of the source becoming film adaptations. There are WAY TOO HIGH expectations coming from fans as a whole that just shouldn't be there. I argue with these people everyday (pretty much) about the validity of their statements, and it absolutely kills me to see a whiny fanboy make a snap judgement on 2 minutes or less of the finished (or unfinished) product and a dozen or so pictures. I admit, I have been guilty of this myself from time to time, but for these fans to come out of the woodwork everytime a comic book movie goes into production and start the slander mill is ridiculous. Look at all the bashing that went to Chris Nolan the MOMENT Heath Ledger was announced to play the Riddler, I myself wasn't thrilled at the notion, but being a Ledger fan, was more than excited. Then the movie came and people got their mouths shut awfully quickly didn't they? Just because something doesn't necessarily look good in the couple frames of a film you see well before the finished product comes out, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a total wash. To reitterate, I still thoroughly enjoyed your review "GOD" it was both entertaining and relatively enlightening to what the movie could hold in store. So, thanks for that. |
GOD
said:
|
... David - I agree with you about disparaging remarks. I don't like them, and I do not think they add to a debate. If you look around this site you will notice I never use them, not in my comments or my stories. One of the things that turned me off to AICN was Harry's use of four letter words in his stories or reviews. Don't believe me, look up his review of "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D" and you will know what I mean. Unfortunately there are people on the net to choose to use harsh language and throw around insults. Usually I find those people to be the ones that don't have an intelligent comeback in a debate and end up resorting to put downs because they know they are out of their league in the argument. But if I tried to police all those comments I would never leave the house. I have a day job. I need to put food on the table, so I choose to just ignore people on the net who throw insults and four letter words around, much like I do in real life. In the end, I hope as people see that intelligent debates can be had through cordial conversation that patterns will change. Leading by example if you will. Anyway, thats my take. |
Jeff G.
said:
|
*** Summer 2009 predictions ~ Top Grossing in this order: Transformers 2 (will F***in clean up at the BO) XMen Origins: Wolverine Terminator Salvation Watchmen Ice Age 3 Star Trek I think Dragonball:Evolution and G.I.Joke will gross the same and do roughly more than Speed Racer did (which of course flopped) JMHO |
Shipwreck
said:
|
Umbrage IonParallax: I think that we, as fanboys, have every reason to have high expectations of the films that are being made of our childhood stories. Just because Hollywood is the definition of epic fail does not mean that it is OK. If we do not open our mouths they will not get it that they need to treat these movies seriously. Comics are often a very serious medium, especially when they are at their best. I have laughed, cried and fallen in love with these characters my entire life. When someone makes a movie like the awful Batman movies of the 90s or Wanted they insult me personally. Movie producers are not trying to make a movie that reflects the story that was originally told, they are trying to make the movie financially successful. Again, we are taking a visual medium and translating it into another visual medium. Movie storyboards are incredibly like a comic book. It should not be this hard. Granted, we complain, a lot! We absolutely love the debate though. It is anathema to not critique the raping of our childhood. It has happened too often, and we would like it to happen no more. I sincerely hope that any of the powers that be involved in the Joe movie take a look at our comments and get it that the Joe soldiers are not all Snake Eyes, making the most popular character every character cheapens the whole thing. It does happen. Favreau paid attention and look at Iron Man, the movie is awesome. We just want the makers of the film to get over the need to make "The Next Summer Blockbuster Record Setting Movie." Get over yourselves Hollywood, you haven't produced real quality consistently in many years. This is markedly more true in the comic movie genre. We are hyper critical because the movies have really sucked. |
Shipwreck
said:
|
Side Note I am not an atheist. I am a practicing Catholic. That does not make any of the myriad versions of the bible nonfiction. They are all re-mis-translated and distorted stories written 300 years (or so) after the events. There are many wonderful books about this. I would happily post some of the authors and titles up if need be. Curse words are simply how people talk in life. They have no effect on masculinity or maturity. I have never wanted to have a great deal of either of those things. |
IonParallax
said:
|
... I do agree, Shipwreck, that comic book movies as a whole have been somewhat of a "pissing boy" if you will, in the movie making industry. I understand "Hollywood" generally thinks they can make a story of whatever they want and slap names like Batman and Robin on them and they will sell like hotcakes. TRUST ME, I am extremely critical of comic book adaptations, but I do also understand the need for some things to change. MINOR things, not the fact that aside from the names, I don't see this movie as being even remotely close to anything i've seen, read or played with from the GI Joe-verse. It's just NOT even close, IMO thus far. As I stated, I will hold out complete judgement for when the movie comes out. But until then, I have my doubts, and I am less than hopeful that this movie will do any justice to the franchise. I'd rather watch a full day of GI Joe PSA's on Youtube. |
JoJo
said:
|
... Maria: you're lying. You didn't see GI Joe and any review that you posted will be complete bs. |
Hiro Nakamara
said:
|
Herrow! I'm going to have to see something first to judge it for myself. I wasn't really that thrilled the kid from 3rd Rock was going to be in it and I question the casting of Marlon Wayans--his best work was probably on Don't Be a Menace to Society While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. Okay, he did alright in Above the Rim. Sayanara! Hiro |
You're all fucking nerds
said:
|
Go wack off to your comic books to the guy that posted his review, go wack off to your comic books. |
sack lunch
said:
|
... Those of you who say your not going to see the gi joe movie really have no right to bash it and say it sucks. If you dont want to see it thats fine but theres an old saying. Dont knock it till you try it. If someone gave you a new kind of food you never had would you say it tasted horrible without even trying it? |
sal g
said:
|
... Why the fuck should i listen to a nerd's review? give your mom the computer back she's done blowing the next door neighbor |
STARWARS
said:
|
... "Why the fuck should i listen to a nerd's review? give your mom the computer back she's done blowing the next door neighbor" Well the review did not say " Don't go and see G.I. Joe". |
A Real Canadian Hero
said:
|
Expectations I Like Many Grew Up With G.I. Joe, Not The Big Lame Barbie Doll, But The Cool Action Figures And T.V. Show. So When Hearing That It Was Going To Have It's Turn On The Big Screen, I Have To Admit I Kinda Kringed. I Mean How Could They Make This A Big Legitimate Summer Blockbuster, Ala' Transfomers? But After Thinking About It, I Came To Realize, Don't Expect Much, And That's Pretty Much How I'll Go Into It...Dispite How Good Or Bad It Actually Is, It'll Give Me And My Geeked Out Friends Something To Look Forward To This Movie Summer, And Something To Talk About Later On. I Mean Transformers Geeked Me Out The First Time I Seen It. But After While You Watch It And Say "Why The Fuck Is Anthony Anderson In This?" You Just Have To Take The Good With The Bad. And Really, It Is A Movie Based On A Comic/Toy/Cartoon. I Mean C'mon, It's Not Going To Be Platoon, Meets 300. No Matter What Anyone Tells Me About It Or What Ever I Read About It, I'm Still Going To Be Standing In Line When They Release The Damn Thing, I Might Even Be Wearing A G.I. Joe T-Shirt On Underneath My Coat? So Here's To Hollywood...Raping My Childhood Memory's...Watch, Drink And Be Joe-Ful...Peace Out Mutha F'ckers.  |
cottage supporter
said:
|
The site owner has a case of "god complex",which is not cool. First of all, most of the guys here are way too harsh towards "cottage". His or her comments did not necessarily disagree with the "review" given by "god". All that cottage said is for fans to at least give an "unreleased" movie a chance, instead of being negative about the whole thing, even before the movie was released (and in this case, the teaser trailer is not even released yet, as what the reviewer said, it was only a test screening, so it's not even an official teaser trailer yet). Secondly, the site owner ("god") is misrepresenting the "law" (Title 17, Section 107 (U.S.C.) says that as long as you are giving a critique or review of something you are entitled to do so without issue). Yes, you do have freedom of speech, you do have the right to criticize an existing work. However, just like any right granted by the constitution, it must be exercised responsibly and not at the expense of other people's rights. This "law" is not absolute (most laws are not absolute). That is very basic. Regarding whether you have the right to post a critique of the unofficial teaser trailer you saw, yes and no. In the first place, it is not even an official trailer. By your own admission it is a test screening (wherein the Studio will get feedbacks from different test subjects). Being such, you are not at liberty to disseminate any information regarding what you saw, because the creators has not made the "trailer" public. They were only gauging your response to it. You had no right to give any specifics or details (such as narrating how it went). All you could have done at this point is to say whether you liked it or you didn't. That is all. Nothing specific. Thirdly, regarding the right to critique. Yes, anything you write for purposes of a "fair comment" is permissible, however, the operative word here is "fair". If you say anything libelous, even if your purpose is to make a comment, that is no longer protected speech. Note, I am not saying you said anything libelous, all I am saying is, writing a "comment" is not an absolute defense. Fourth, regarding your review, it was highly irresponsible. Yes, you own this site, but your site is accessible by the general public, so you should be more responsible with what you write. It was irresponsible because you leaked information which is not yet available to the public in general. Fifth, regarding whether there is a need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement, legally, yes, morally, no. For the studio to have a legal case against you, they should have made you sign an agreement prohibiting you to diseminate any information regarding the trailer you saw. However, morally, they didn't have to. It was a test screening. Any rational person should have known that the clip you saw should not be made public because it was not an official trailer. It's like, you saw a rehersal of a play, and then you spread it all over school that the play sucked, and then you go into details why it sucked. Sixth, you seem so full of yourself, "Paramount will spend millions on you to stop you from writing this "review"? Wow. God-complex at its height. Paramount will not even spend a cent against you, this forum is not THAT relevant. You probably have less than 50 posters here who post with 5 different names (and some of them may even have conversation with themselves in different usernames). The lawyer who contacted you is most probably an in-house lawyer or a lawyer on retainer, whom they pay, with or without a case. They probably just had him do something, just so he can justify him being kept on the payroll. Seventh, regarding this site and its posters, this site sucks, and poster here call other posters names, which also suck. Do not worry, i will not return to this site (just saw it, because someone from the g.i.joe boards at the alvaro boards posted a link). The posters post indiscriminately because they have full anonyminty (since registration is not necessary) and the board is not censored. |
GOD
said:
|
... Cottage Supporter: Here is my response, point by point: First - Well my name is "GOD". But that said, I never had any problem with what Cottage said. Second - You are wrong. I didn't misrepresent the law. Third - Again you are wrong, what I wrote was fair. Fourth - Again, wrong. My review was very responsible. I have a responsibility to inform the public so they won't spend their money on inferior products. Fifth - Again wrong. If something sucks I am morally right to tell all that it sucks. Sixth - I never said Paramount would spend millions. What I said was they would waste "time and money" to stop a review than spend that same "time and money" to fix what was wrong with their film. If you are going to quote me at least get it right. Seventh - You hate this site so much that you just spent all this time crafting perhaps the longest response of all on this thread. I love it. You'll be back. |
Joe 'Relay'
said:
|
Patriotic annoyance... I lost all hope for this movie when I heard the Joe Tag line 'A real American Hero' had been dumped in favor of 'a more politically correct' *cough* 'Globalized world defense force...' or some crap like that. I tried (hard) to ignore the fact SS looks like he is dressed in PJ's and a coat-thing resembling something a ten year old would come up with. I cussed under my breath and kept hoping when the pictures of Joes dressed in 'sci-fi B-movie-esque black armor', and their 'regular' all black suits stolen from SE's closet came to light... Hell, I even looked the other way with the actor’s ages/appearances not adding up to ANY of the comic/cartoon representatives and the news that The Pit was going to be located possibly in ENGLAND. But to take something as basic as the whole THEME and iconic tag line and toss them out because the movie 'might not be as popular in other countries besides the US' if they stuck to the true Gi Joe spirit? That’s just insulting. I see it as a slap to the memory of the actual Vietnam veterans the story used as a basis for its starting point. Gi JOE - 'General Infantry Man Joe' That was what it was all about. Honorable, brave men and woman coming together to fight terrorism here at the home front, and protect the innocent. Now why is that such a 'delicate' topic today, one so 'politically hostile' that it has to be changed? I for one see no problem with it. I am proud of what and who the original story revolved around, and believe that the majority of fans would have loved the movie to stick as true to the real thing as possible! The vast majority of fans I've talked to loath what they are doing to our beloved hero's and the world they lived in. Why isn't the production company, director and others in charge speaking out to calm concerns and return faith to the very fan base this movie is supposed to target? Why are they instead of trying to please the people they want custom from, blatantly ignoring the issue and dissatisfaction all together, or worse...as this proves...bulling anyone who presents real proof of how badly they are doing..instead of trying to communicate and fix things?! I believe this movie HAD great potential, but failure to stick to the original ideal of the story and characters, refusal to take criticism, lack of communication (and the fact that I am willing to bet that the big-wigs are betting on kids too young to remember the real thing being the main source of movie income.) are all going to come together to create something that deserves a ‘strait to DVD’ sort of arrival instead of the theater. And they plan on a trilogy, or so it is said. What do they think will happen when the first movie flops? Very thin turn out if a second and third movie even gets finished. It breaks my heart… (The new Transformer movie had THIS beat…) |
Taarna
said:
|
GI JOE Super Bowl movies can be very dangerous. Anyone remember the Hulk trailer in the super bowl. All people were talking about is how bad it looked. GI Joe might be wise to pull their trailer commercial….if it’s as bad as people are talking about. I fear GI Joe is doomed. |
jeff dobbins
said:
|
... Wow, I am extremely sad right now. I have been pumped up about this movie and now I read it is the worst anyone has ever seen? That sucks. |
Go Joe
said:
|
:( Figures why I couldn't find an official trailer out there yet, they apparently suck... I mean, the studios are usually on top of it to get a teaser for a fan based movie out months ahead. I mean, how long have the teasers been out for the new Star Trek? It's just sad that Hollywood in general hasn't made anything worth watching in a while, with the exception of Batman and Iron Man. I kind of had my hopes up for Joe, you know with the tie into terrorism and a modern realistic movie. I'll still give it a chance, but my expectations are now to the level of DBZ... Maybe I'll wait till after opening night at the box office |
Go Joe
said:
|
btw Site rocks, and I agree on the official site policy, but frown on bashing... who are we "Movie Poop Shoot . Com" |
Man-Child
said:
|
Trailer was decent I'm one of the 30 something man-child, i saw the ad on the superbowl and can't wait for the movie to come out. |
mikeeinseattle
said:
|
woo hoooooo - loved the trailer!!! First off, just wanted to thank all the above contributors for their highly entertaining comments - had me laughing out loud several times!! - I refuse to use that silly LOL, call me old, I don't care! I agree with most, free speech is indeed just that, no censorship. But, it would be nice if some of the comments didn't insult so much, however still damn funny to see the banter back and forth. I'm currently stationed overseas and you guys provided some much needed stress relief. I have been a huge Joe fan ever since I saw the cartoon back in the 80s (my family couldn't afford those cool action figures). I have fond memories of rushing home from school to see the next episode. I loved how the Joe team worked together and the camaraderie they had. Having now served in the military for the last 18 years I can say that those qualities (although there are alot of bullshit ones too) are the ones that I will greatly miss when I retire after 20 years. Another of the things I really liked about the cartoon series was that they did a serialized story arc for a week or two (can't remember that long ago), but the story was way awesome cause somehow a creature had been created by genetic engineering I believe, and this new villian starting kicking everyone's ass, Cobra and Joe forces. This was amazing to me at the time, because most cartoons I saw did not follow a serial story arc. If I remember right, Cobra and Joe had to join forces to defeat this new ememy. Anyhooooo, I remember it being totally awesome to a 13 year old. Okay, I just saw the trailer from the superbowl, and I couldn't stop grinning!!! Maybe the studio decided to change it from the original trailer in December, but I thought this new release was very cool, I didn't see the old trailer. It was also nice to see several British actors in the cast - I love you Sienna Miller! The CG was convincing and it seemed true to the characters, but mostly it looked like alot of fun!! - which is why I go to the movies these days, don't give me too much realism, I already have enough of that in real life :-) |
GTS
said:
|
... I just watched the trailer for the first time and a review on You Tube. While there are some things that disappointed me, like the characters not looking more like the cartoons, I didn't think it looked all that bad. You guys have to remember this review is just one person's opinion. And if you ever listen to what the critics say about movies they don't seem to be all that on all the time. I'll see it just because I was a HUGE fan of the cartoons growing up as a kid. And I'll keep in mind that Hollywood always has to dress up the movies on the big screen to make them seem more larger than life so that they can get people coming to see it. This usually really pisses off the real die-hard fans because they are so closed minded. I really hope it turns out awesome! I hear it's planned to be a trilogy so if this one isn't as good maybe they'll get feedback and make the 2nd and 3rd ones better. Keep an open mind and remember that the critics that write reviews may be right more often than wrong but they are often wrong. GTS |
Namtar1
said:
 |
A Real American Hero I remember G.I. Joe from the large action figures that I would play with as a kid. I never got into all the different uniforms and specialists from the '80's cartoon. However, I did catch a few episodes and what I saw was interesting. The concern I have is that the American stamp has been removed from this production. Superman Returns did the same thing. It sucked anyway, but I really hated that film for taking away the good old Red, White, and Blue. I won't even waste my time to go see G.I. Blow. Who would want to keep track of fifty different characters running around shouting, "Yo, Joe!"? "G.I. Joe number ten!" I hope Paramount is prepared to lose its ass on this one. |
the hammer
said:
|
go for a laugh not a cry why why why do pissy americans think that transformers and g i joe are such disasters.they are the next gen toy selling dreams for a new gen.not a 80s rehash of some gay(and thats relitivley mild)tenticled freakz building cybertron or some guy in a mask yelling cobra and then running for the hills!when my son is old enough 2 watch them then ill sit and blob out for his sake.movies are for a escape not a life changing event.love transformers and g i joe not whiners!!bring on team america2! |
Snake
said:
|
Going to give this film a chance When I first heard the direction the film was going to take and that the origins and the look of the characters were going to be changed- I was pissed!! However, I am still going to give this film a chance. I would have liked Paramount to fallow the Marvel 80's comic to the nail- but if this film dosen't do well- you'll know why. All I can tell you Paramount, think about a reboot 5 years and take the next script from Larry Hama's writings. I for one am going into the theater with an open mind and judge the movie after I've seen it. If it's sucks, then damn you for changing too many things!! |
3rd channel
said:
|
WHAT??? I just saw the trailer and it looks sweet. I imagine what you saw MUST be different. If it wasn't then you're retarded. |
Write comment
Login
