Although as far as I could tell the enemies always ejected before their planes blew up so it wasn't too bad.

I also couldn't watch 'Scooby Doo' because it was about the occult. BUT THE GHOST WAS NEVER REAL DAMN IT!! It was just Old Man Williams who wanted to scare people away from his property. And he would have gotten away with it...it it wasn't for you meddling kids.

Honestly, does this at all indicate that they are scrapping the concept that we all grew up with? No. They changed an acronym that is virtually NEVER used in the cartoons or comics. It's G.I. Joe. I challenge anyone to find more than one reference in the cartoons and comics of what G.I. Joe stands for.

And for the record, they have a great writer (wrote Pirates trilogy and Collateral) coming in to write a new script (thus no Action Man bullshit, so stop complaining about that), and Sommers and co. have confirmed that they are following in the footsteps of the 80s cartoon and comics.

It's WAAAAAY too fucking early to start the whole "their raping my childhood" bullshit.

Lastly, wasn't Brussels always the location of the G.I. Joe base????? Either way, who cares? As long as G.I Joe is the code name for a highly trained special mission force with its mission to defend human freedom against Cobra, a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world. Everything confirmed since Sommers' attachment mirrors that core concept. So chill out people.

It's one thing to bitch about Transformers before it comes about because of concept designs, casting, and an early script you didn't like... but NONE OF THAT HAS EVEN BEEN DONE with G.I. Joe. No casting. No early concept designs. No script since they're starting anew. Relax.

this also coming on the heels of Harry neer having seen Transformers as a kid?

What kinds of childhoods did these AICN charachters have? Aside from sad and lonely ones that is...

Anyway, I once again disagree. GI Joe needs the antithesis of Paul Verhoeven. It NEEDS Roland Emmerich. I mean, Verhoeven may be a far better director, but he'd only hammer down the opinion that the US forces are inherently evil. Some guys in Iraq may be looting museums or raping twelve year old girls, but

1/ Verhoeven wouldn't be allowed to shoot these scenes and

2/ he'd be too happy to kill half of the cast by the end of the film just for kicks.

So I'd rather have that half-wit german Emmerich at the helm. At least it could be faithful, and if it's bad it will be HILARIOUSLY bad. When Verhoeven fails, it's pathetic; when Emmerich does (and we all know he would) it's funnier than a Monty Python movie.

http://tinyurl.com/yu57x3

"We got a call from of our friends over at Paramount studios who told us that Joe will in fact not be based in Brussels. Also, while the team will be made up from an international background, it will be based here in the States. Let’s keep our fingers crossed since we are so early into the script phase."

Hopefully this is right.

Anna Valerious: Baroness or Scarlett, both suit me fine.

Laser Pants: your cruel words back then branded my fragile little mind with a hot iron (pun intended) but that's the tough TB law. As for the Neumeier/Verhoeven team-up, as much as I love RoboCop (and Starship Troopers, to a lesser extent) I'd rather see a "serious" GI Joe adaptation. The same way I'd love to see a full-fledged Heinlein's faithfull adaptation (live action or anime, I don't care), complete with exoskeletons.

Regardless, who didn't see this coming anyway? Americans have become complacent -- even satisfied -- to think of themselves as being the bad guy since the 60's.

I smell a giant international cash cow! But please do a simultaneous release with the Democratic National Convention to ensure somewhat of a decent domestic box office return.

Clueless people should take the politics out of the equation, for sure. The only culprits are those who pay (ie = don't sneak in) to see this. I sneaked into Bayformers (or TINO, or whatever the unhappy few name it) and enjoyed it. I'm already prinying my virtual fake tickets for this new Sommers CGI porn.

I see your point. Yeah, it is stupid for the producers to be so paranoid about the American angle. As a fan of G.I. Joe, I say fuck the international viewpoint. BUT, I'm fine with it being an internationally based special forces unit. Throw in a couple characters with accents, that's fine with me. Who cares. Just as long as the characters keep their significant identities/specialties that stand apart from the others. And they use the latest technology, weapons, and vehicles to fight Cobra. As long as that happens, and they stick to the core concept I'm good.

It's FAR BETTER than the atrocity that was the Skip Woods' version of the story with Action Man involved and a villian named Cool Dude.

It's utterly stupid to freak out about this tiny detail.

First we can't go after Hussein, the one tyrant in the world with more baggage than the rest COMBINED, and now GI Joe is a bunch of "American douchebags running around the world shooting other" (and this is my, like, favoritist part, dude)... PEOPLE"...?!?!?

LOL

Cobra = "people"

And we wonder why the rules of engagement don't permit us to win.

But wait! There's more...

"Sorry to break to to you, kids. Maybe next time don't vote for Bush twice."

So now Bush is also responsible for the GI Joe being a UN equivalent? Eeesh.

As you wrote, pal... "Get a clue." JOhn KErry said often (when pressed HARD) that he wouldn't have pulled out of Iraq. At least not before he did. No surprise there. That man hasn't done a fucking thing in Massachusetts for several decades.

GI Joe = glorified UN taskforce is a bad idea. I'd kinda like to see at least one bullet fired in a GI Joe movie. Or laser beam, or grenade toss, or whatever.

Anyhow, most conservatives have distanced themselves from Bush. Similar to how they distanced themselves from Craig and Foley. It'd be nice if the other side would come to grips with these facts too. You can keep your Barney Franks and Gerry Studds all day long if you like. We'd prefer not to.

"Also, you'll get to meet Jeebus in outer space!"

Ahh, yet another nugget of sweetness from the party of tolerance.

2) What the heck was that team?!?! Gay parade 1982?!?!? Look at the clip... "It's Hunter" they rejoice, the guy with the mustache is really happy, and the rest of the crew, who are wearing tights to ride dumbass looking motorcyles with steam coming out of the exhaust scream in shear joy to see their headband wearing leader catching up to them so he can ..ehem.. mount.. the plane from the rear with higly powered engine!... MOUAHAHAHAAHAHAH

Man how cheesy the world was in 1982!!

But before you do that, please do google up the wild and crazy antics of those two multiple re-elected officials from Massachusetts, Barney Frank and Gerry Studds. You know, from the same state that has continuously elected the waste of human flesh windbag known as JOhn KErry.

Asshole.

Conservatives are running away from Craig as they did with Foley. Haven't you noticed? Or do you simply chose not to in order to feel better about yourself? Taking opportunity to rub our faces in it after we've long since departed? Even though it's ultimately about one of your "progressive" issues? So all your righteousness about what Craig did is completely lost on myself and other Conservatives.

You see... in other words, we get all that. That's why we want Craig to step down. And here you are, telling me all about how you were talking specifically about the "NeoCons" while painting me, the conservative, along with them in the broad brush. As if Craig was a neocon to begin with. I don't know whether or not he could be considered as such. And I suspect you don't either.

And don't go there with me about "choice" and homosexuality. The Kurds didn't choose their lot and Hussein still fucking gassed their asses.

I presume you've never heard anything about this stuff...?

"But wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying you turned away from Craig and Foley because they're gay?"

No. And in predictable "progressive" fashion, you're attempting to hang something on me that I've already explained clearly beforehand. Scroll up.

Again, conservatives have backpedaled away from Craig because the conservative tenets he was elected to uphold were tarnished by his own hands. Not NeoCon, not Republican. Read on for what I mean by those "conservative tenets" ...

"Or because they hate homosexuals? Cause, seems to me, their hatred of homosexuals, their support for limiting the human rights of gays was just fine for you, but when you found out it was all a ruse to cover up their own homosexuality, it bothered you. Um. Wow. So that hate was fine, the anti-democratic, theocratic fascism was fine, but the fact that it turned out (you dont say? really?) that they were gay, it became an issue? So that makes you have the high ground... how?"

Because he broke the law.

You see, you, the homosexual, are making this an issue about homosexuality. Because it suits YOU.

Meanwhile, conservatives back away from Craig for one simple reason. He broke the law. It's no more complex than that. And now he's trying to squirrel out of it. We don't like that stuff.

The definition of "is" need not be explained to us.

I would almost laugh over this if it wasn't so pitifully sad. The idea of making the name an acronym so you can now internationalize it, simply so you won't "offend" people overseas is truly the most fucking idiotic thing I've ever heard -- not to mention it all but spits on the memories and achievements of those who have proudly worn this country's uniform and served, particularly those of the WWII generation from whence the GI Joe name came and gained, yes, its international iconic status. You know, those same international people whose ASSES OUR TROOPS SAVED IN WWII.

Then again, why even rant about this? It's fucking Hollywood and I live and work here and hearing that some suit made a decision pulled this much out of his ass is only par for the course. Trust me, till you've actually lived and worked here, you truly have no idea how amazingly self-centered, back stabbing, money grubbing, creatively bankrupt and, yes, actually unpatriotic towards America the majority of buffoons who populate this town actually are...

As a country you have been here before- Vietnam, anybody?

So heroes yes- Dan Evans, 3:10 to Yuma- just not Flag waving American Soldier heroes. After all, remember John Wayne's The Green Berets? The time is not right and just possibly- when the returning troops real stories come out- it may never be again.Time will tell.

I mean seriously-- LOOK AT YOURSELVES. If you're getting worked up because the derrived movie version of a cartoon designed to sell toys isn't being politically correct or patriotic, you're a sad, sorry human being, and an embarrassment to me as an American.

It's a TOY AD stretched to a half an hour. That's all GI Joe ever was, and no matter how cool Destro, Snake Eyes, or Cobra Commander were, they were still just characterization designed to get your little mind working and spur you into spending your allowance on the cheap plastic crap that was made in Taiwan by kids your age earning pennies an hour. If you're going to spew crap about GI Joe being somehow disgraceful, then why not focus on the consumerism that made you pay attention in the first place.

You bunch of losers!

You're ever-so-slowly slipping below furries in the geek hierarchy, and I, for one, will not be a part of it.

The program director doesn't sit down with the news team and ask "How can we make Obama & Clinton look like the evil arse-licking scum they are?" but "How can we headline the story so people will sit thru the commercials, waiting to see what we say?"

News, like politics, isn't about ideals... nope... it's all about someone, somewhere, making a lot of money.

Maybe a "GO ARMY!" approach to a GI Joe movie would do well internationally, long as they have giant robots, huge tanks, and small 3rd world countries blowing up left and right....

I can see it now... Pakistan going up in flames as Duke stands atop a mountain screaming "YO JOE!" while holding an American Flag... yup... that'd sell!

And at the height of the war with Iran, if all you think that the US provided was intelligence then I question your own intelligence.

Rumsfeld was sent to meet with Hussein for goodness sake- and that man wasn't selling inteligence ( he has little enough of his own to spare): by the way he was also on the board of ABB when that company started to build the nuclear reactors in North Korea that the US is now so worried about.

It really is about time that the ordinary American, the man and woman in the street, started to realise the crooked depths of the US Government ( it's not alone, my own UK Government is no shining defender of freedom and liberty) and recognise that many of the forces now coming to haunt it have been created by it's own interfering policies. Reap and sow.

Not saying that the response against your country because of what you government has done in your name is in any way right just that it is a more honest reason than the one your government tries to sell you... that "they" are all evil.

By the way, the Japanese were already negotiating a surrender- some historians say that they had surrendered- before the first Atomic bomb was dropped. And can you please explain to me the dropping of the second bomb?

I'm from the UK- and I agree with many things that GeneralJackCosmo has to say about my country and his own ( and I spent 15 years in the British Armed Forces, just so you know what you would call something like "wet liberal" does not apply ) and a British pilot was an observer on another airplane when the Enola Gay dropped the bomb: his name was Leonard Cheshire, a Pathfinder pilot during WWII ( dangerous job of flying in and dropping flares for the bomb run) and won the VC (Britain's highest medal of honour) and after witnessing the Atomic Bombing of Japan he did become a pacifist and spent the rest of his days looking after the aged and infirm. He set up a system of care homes here called Cheshire Homes. So if a guy with those credentials- the type that you seem to admire so, Krack,- can be moved to see things differently and understanding the suffering of his "enemy" perhaps then you also can see that the dropping of the bomb on Japan was not the US showing how big its balls were, showing that it had the biggest stick. And if you can understand that history a little better then maybe the present history ( which your government and mine like to re-write daily,sometimes as it happens) won't befuddle you so much.

Well according to Bush old "Browny" at Fema was doing a bang up job at the time...course he did getthe push later.

But if you think that those in Louisiana did nothing to help themselves, hadn't warned about what might happen and hadn't been in a similiar situation before ( some claim that the levees were blown deliberately and that had been done before) then you should watch Spike Lee's film "The day The Levees Broke". Otherwise you'll just carry on disappearing down that hole you're digging for yourself.

You really do need to bone up on your WWII history if you are going to make statements like this: as has been pointed out to you earlier, normally incendary bombs had wreaked havoc amongst the Japanese infrastructure, being mostly wooden, and there was a major difference between the two bombs dropped which should be a good pointer to why the US wanted to drop them. Japan had surrendered before the first bomb was dropped- it was just playing the diplomacy game of a negotiated surrender. Remember the talks between Schwarzkopf and Hussein's Generals in a tent inside Iraq?. This was what was going on with Japan- the emperor was and is still considered to be a God on earth, so backing down from such a formal, ritualised society as Japan's had to be dealt with with some delicacy. Then boom!. Not once but twice.

Different bombs, different ways of working, different ignition systems. So consider this: an enemy has surrendered ( for all intents and purposes: it knows it's over) but the bombs have been built and nobody really knows if they will work under "real" conditions and they are two very different bombs with effects that no one can really predict and Japan is the perfect "real world" testing ground. Got a clue yet?

Okay, I can't even go on with this. What a stupid freaking idea.

Anyway, this whole international entity thing is being blown a bit out of proportion. There are so many angles story-wise that they can take in the script, which HASN'T EVEN BEEN WRITTEN YET. As long as they don't slap us in the face over and over within the movie , explaining that, "Hey, G.I. Joe is not AMERICAN" then fine. It's nothing more than a lame technicality being used in order to keep the international markets open. Stupid? Yes. But not the tragedy that you are making it out to be.

Don't fall into the AICN TB trap. We know virtually nothing about the story that will come to the big screen. Thankfully the Skip Woods' ASININE (sp?) version is gone. Thankfully an excellent writer is attached. Thankfully it has been confirmed that they are sticking to the source material's core concept.

This is a small technicality to appease the money mongers. I'm sure the cast of Joes will be American for the most part, recruited from the U.S. Special Forces. They may throw in one or two foreign characters but overall I HIGHLY doubt that the international entity part is going to be the focal point of the story.

And for me, even as a die hard fan, it's a small price to pay to see a G.I. Joe live action movie.

But this is clearly not a make or break aspect of the success of a G.I. Joe movie. Not at all. It's being blown out of proportion... and not surprisingly, it's really only happening here at AICN.

Again, it's a technicality. If they stick to the core concept of G.I. Joe fighting Cobra... with each organization being manned by particular characters with separate and distinct identities/character traits/combat specialties then I'm all good.

The international angle is PC yes... but it makes sense. Cobra has spread throughout the world and it is ignorant to think that one nation (i.e. American Special Mission Force) could topple such a terrorist organization while being manned and based solely out of one country (hmmm, sounds familiar). Even in the cartoon they had a Russian version of G.I. Joe fighting Cobra.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Let's wait and see AT LEAST some trailers that reveal more of the story.

But this is where the "administration" failed the American people. It used our anger and sorrow in order to fuel an unwarranted and proven to be fabricated (okay, I'll give you "exaggerated" instead of fabricated) reason to attack a country that virtually had nothing to do with those terrible attacks.

On top of that, Iraq became the center of the conflict, taking focus away from Afghanistan. If we would have went in full force into Afghanistan, Bin Laden probably would have been killed. If not, then at least we would have pulled the rug from under him completely.

Instead, we went to Iraq because the administration saw an open window (using the country's anger and sorrow) and went for it.

Sure, Saddam was not a good guy to have around. But if America as a country thinks that is full grounds to wage an international war, then we are going to face some terrible times when people get sick of us telling everyone how to live their lives.

Now instead of the original focal point of the administration's reason for being in Iraq (i.e. They had ties to 9/11 and they had WMDs... all proven to be false), it's now about "spreading democracy". Who the hell are we to force a nation to go against thousands upon thousands of years of tribal and religious tradition??

Communists wanted to spread their way of life around during WWII. They believed in communism. But hell, we weren't about to let them force us to change OUR ways. How ignorant we are to think that Iraqis are any different.

You're wrong about the whole "Democrats need another US attack to see the light and support the war on terror".

It's not about "liberals" and similar such labels. Don't call me a democrat, don't call me a republican. Don't call me a liberal and don't call me a conservative. I'm an American. And if the politicians of this country lived under that mantra rather than sticking to what their "party" instructs them to do then this war would have never happened.

Iraq will never succeed as a democracy because it is a whole different part of the world, with a different history. Different morales. Different religions. Different traditions. Different culture.

If we're so worried about the poor and terrible way of life of such a nation, then why the hell are we not bringing stability to Africa? Why are we not flying our troops in to save those people? Why do we let them kill each other?

Why? It's about money, power, oil, arrogance, and vendettas.

How many future Bin Ladens have we created? How many reasons have we given to different cultures to hate us? All because of this "war of terror".

Sigh. A frickin' story about a cartoon show with a character named Quick Kick somehow made me jump onto a soap box to talk bleeding heart politics:):) Anyway, Yo Joe!! Can't wait to see the flick. Sure, they could fuck it up, but there's not enough to prove that just yet. The internet has created too many cynics. Actually I blame Lucas and his prequel fiasco.

This is the thing... no one can make the adaptation that you call for, unless you yourself make the movie. Same goes for any of us. It's impossible. You, like me, respond very well to Batman Begins and X-Men because our personal interpretations of the material were close to that of the filmmakers that made the movie. GREAT. EXCELLENT. LOVE IT. But it ain't always going to be that way, Krack my friend.

So yeah, I take the good and leave the bad. Transformers had its faults and I've always said that. I hated the Section 9 shit or whatever it was. I hated the FIVE MINUTE slapstick scene where the Autobots hid from Shia's (my) parents. I hated the Jon Voight shit. But there were plenty of things I enjoyed (Shia's, er, my performance... the autobots... the decepticons... the action... the visuals, etc).

I could care less what anyone one else did or didn't take from it. Who cares? It doesn't put them in a place above or below me in some idiot cinema totem pole of quality. That goes against the idea of cinema itself. Entertainment.

X-Men had PLENTY of things to bitch about, as far as the lack of attention to source material. But the core concept was intact. And most of the character archs were evident. That's what G.I. Joe needs to do.

Again, the fact that you're calling this a shit sandwich already exemplifies what is wrong with this era of cinema... i.e. the era of the internet fanboy.

I'm not saying it's wrong for you to hate Transformers or a majority of the other "shit" that comes out. It's fine to be pissed. But clearly it and films like it entertained the masses. I don't understand why some of these blockbusters make shitloads of money. I don't get why certain people love the Evil Dead movies and their "star". But far be it for me to think my viewpoint is the end all be all.

It's a pleasure to be at war with you my friend. But I think it's more about what each of our definitions of cinema are. You obviously think cinema is some totem pole or something with certain films cascading upwards in "quality". I myself believe that different people enjoy different movies for different reasons. There's a reason why I can watch fucking "Side Out" and "Waterworld" over and over. LOL. We all have those guilty pleasures that we enjoy. I myself cannot stand Christopher Guest movies, John Waters movies, etc. Others call them timless classics.

Who knows? I just want to see G.I. Joe on the big screen as long as they stick to the core concept.

There is NO indication that you are NOT going to get what you want. None. The fact that G.I. Joe is going to be considered an international entity doesn't mean that they're not going to use those characters as they were portrayed in the source material. That's my point. Instead of them being a 100% U.S. entity, they are international. Like in the cartoon, there was a Russian version of G.I. Joe. It's a technicality. THAT is where you are blowing things out of proportion with this, man.

Again, nothing that has been released or confirmed states that the characters we grew up with won't be used. If anything, that HAS been confirmed. So what's the problem?

However, I question a president who doesn't do all he can and gather all of the information and intelligence he can before committing to waging war against another country, especially without the understanding and cooperation of the U.N. It's not about bowing to the U.N. at all. It's about diplomacy and the fact that had we taken the time, perhaps we could have garnered more international support, thus creating a REAL coalition to go in there and do what needed to be done. Instead Bush jumped the gun. It's a cop out to say, "Hey, the man was given bunk information so it's not his fault." He's the fucking president of the U.S. I expect him to think long and hard and consider everything possible to consider before sending our young men and women to war.

As far as my point about the culture of Iraq being racist??? I won't even go there. That's ridiculous. My point is that just because something works for us, doesn't mean it's going to work for others. Our idea of a way of life doesn't doesn't mean it's the ONLY way to live. That's just a terrible frickin' interpretation of what I was saying. Irresponsible.

What's racist is me going to my neighbor and saying, "Hey, you know, you need to live your life like me and listen to the music that I listen to and treat people the way I treat them if you want to live a "civilized" life". That's essentially what the current administration is telling Iraq to do.

At one point in time, we're going to have to learn to coexist with others that don't live under the beliefs that we do. But that won't happen. Nature itself won't allow it.

As far as Africa goes? Well, the truth is a bitch. They're not a threat so let those people die. Imagine if we as a nation thought differently. The things we could do. People will call it liberal crap, but the billions we spend on the "war" in Iraq could feed the hungry and heal the sick throughout the world. It's an easy thing to say I know. And a bit naive I'm sure because war = money and power.

Shit, it's late. We'll agree to disagree.

ahahahahahaha-this GI Joe film is gonna suck.

If I didn't know any better I'd think Michael Denis Bay had soemthing to do with this. Except even Bay would likely be a proponent of keeping with the American GI component. DAMN YOU AMERICAN-HERO HATING WORLD!

Forget it friends, Cobra has already won. Cobra-lalalalalalalalalalalala la!

Gotta have Duke and Flint. Beachhead is a must in my opinion. He's a badass. But the filmmakers will probably forget about him. Scarlett and Lady Jay for the "pune" factor. LOL. Could go on and on.

I'd love to see Destro, who has been confirmed already. Cobra Commander will come into play I'm sure, even though they said Destro was the leader of Cobra. Dreadnocks would be kickass to see handling a side mission. Storm Shadow is a must. I'd LOVE to see them pull off Tomax and Xamot. Their characters are so important to Cobra, them being the business front for the organization.

Who else?

Yeah, that script you mentioned was SHIT. But it's gone.

It's true to the source material of the cartoon too because the first mini-series had his story as a focal point. This doesn't mean he needs to be in every scene. Not by any means. But the writers can use the mystery of his character much like X-Men did with Wolverine, but obviously slightly different. They need to play up the mystery of his character. They CAN handle him like Boba Fett in some terms, but it would be a waste to have him appear and disappear.

The comics handled him very well. It's doable and I would even be open to have Snake Eyes eventually be able to talk. They could play it much like Cyclops' eyes in X-Men or Rogue not being able to touch anyone. A good writer could pull it off.