Anyway, parts of the story are obviously true. Who releases a major tentpole blockbuster in August?

Oh, and LOL at anyone who paid money to see L.O.L. Give Ferrell a nice SUPPORTING role. Stat.

Yet people still continue to apologize for the clusterfuck shitfest that is Bayformers 1: Even Stevens with Robots

I imagine this is what Hitler's Bunker must have been like when the Soviet tanks were approaching Berlin.

I hope it's at least okay, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

"What did you expect its based on a silly cartoon to sell toys!"

"Fun mindless escapism action flick my son enjoyed it...what more do you want"

I demand to hear these apologies for GI Joe after it comes out.

As long as GI Joe has fucked up action scenes, dumb pandering plot, horrible vomit inducing comedy, shit music, and retarded acting.

It should make at least 700 million and have 2 more sequels and praised as an leave your brain at the door action popcorn blockbuster

Larry Hama came up with the characters, the personalities, and the plots. He was a Viet Nam vet so he understands the military mind, and his Army jargon was right on (ex-Army so I know).

So, the "it is based on a toy" argument doesn't hold water with us Joe fans.

1. Sommers has never made a good film but he made an astoundingly AWFUL film: 'Van Helsing'

2. Sienna Miller turned in a TV-movie level performance in 'Factory Girl'

3. The '80s GI Joe is a TERRIBLE concept any way you slice it. But the one thing it had going for it was the look of the all the goofball foreign-accented COBRA people which they seem to have not translated into this version.

I do not understand why the studios keep buying highly visual cartoon & comic book concepts and then turn everything into shaven-headed dudes in black suits.

Stephen Sommers - here's a director who's taken some of the greatest classic franchises - the Mummy, Frankenstein, Dracula, and Jeckyll & Hyde - and turned them into comical Saturday morning cartoons on a large canvass. This is not a guy who's good for quality film. Rarely have I said this: I hope this film flops big time.

and for those saying now they'll make it right--no its done. with something this overblown and costly that fails, there are no second shots--not anymore.

Hasbro used to have a doll called GI JOE which, as slkboxrman says, was a Barbie for boys (my older brother had one - it was awesome). Hasbro decided to relaunch the line, but as Star Wars sized action figures, and decided to cross promote them with a comic book by Marvel Comics.

Larry Hama at this time had pitched an idea to Marvel for a comic book called FURY FORCE, about Nick Fury's illegitimate son leading a Special Forces team against Hydra. Marvel decided not to green-light it, but when Hasbro came to them about their GI Joe idea, Marvel let Hama alter his FURY FORCE idea into GI JOE and pitch it to them.

Hasbro came up with basically rough outlines of the characters, which were essentially Infantryman, Communications, Commando, Laser Rifleman, etc. Larry Hama came up with their names, code names, MOS, ranks, personalities and character bios (do you think it was Hasbro who made Snake-Eyes a ninja, or Japanese-American Larry Hama who studied Judo, Kyūdō, Kendo and Iaido?).

Al Milgrim at Marvel said they needed a villain to be fighting, and he is the one came up with the organization Cobra.

So yes Habro had a GI Joe doll out first, but the Real American characters didn't come to life until Marvel Created them.

As far as I know, the two are the same toy, under a different name, which subsequently joined under one brand name in the late 80's, I believe. Much like you guys had Snickers bars, we Had Marathon bars, same thing, different brand name, which eventually joined under the Snickers brand.

As I mentioned, my Dad had an Action Man when he was a kid & that would appear to be before these comic books you're talking about.

One good thing happened though..... McG's movie career is in doubt. You know how I went on about him directing with Mulcahy? I think they should give Mulcahy Terminator. At least he would turn in something watchable.

FF, hulk, and daredevil--i think they are owned by different studios so marvel started over.

the less said about the punisher the better. i cant believe i actually crave the days that dolph's punisher was the lone marvel film.

DO you honestly want studios to just keep cranking out the same shitty films over and over again? the results are the same..if its a hit--they make a sequel and make it "bigger" if it bombs miserably--the make a reboot and try agin---THEY STILL GET YOUR FUCKING MONEY!!! its pathetic.

What was I talking about? Aw, I forgot.

And Dennis Quaid looks fucking stupid with his little beret.

people enjoyed the prequels and they made a lot of money....so they made a "prequel" to batman. they did the origin story. it made money.

First of all, I should probably point out that I was never a GI JOE or Action Man fan, so I don't really care that much. BUT,you just said that GI JOE dolls existed in the 40s (which would also explain how my Dad had an Action Man).

Then you said that the characters as they are now, come from the Hama comic, right? So, basically people are right. It's based on a toy.

It doesn't matter if these particular characters & their stories were created by this Hama guy, if the toy existed first, then it's based on a toy, surely?

I mean, you can argue that "this character isn't strictly that character", but to me, if the GI JOE toy existed & was changed later, both the film & the comic book are based on the toy in a matter of fact way.

Kind of like how the Brit film "Who Dares Wins" title was changed to "Final Solution" in the US, because we don't know that Who Dares Wins is the moto of the SAS.

However, if you are using Larry Hama's material, I think you should be respectfully enough to stay true to it. The man created the characters and story line that made your toy line so popular. To just haphazardly use some of his stuff and just discard the rest is both lazy and disrespectful.

& Continentalop, I know Action Man had a different name because we wouldn't have a doll named after the American slang term. I was just wondering how Action Man existed lobg before this Hama guy's stuff if it's the same toy. It makes sense now.

My dad is a Korean Vet, and I couldn't talk to him about Star Wars or horror movies or comic books (except for Dick Tracy and Terry and the Pirates - he was a fountain of information on those ones), but I could talk to him about GI JOE. Why? Because despite the comic book setup, it was actually a pretty accurate comic book about the Army and the military.

When Scarlett used an M3 submachine gun, my dad could tell me it was a real weapon and it was nicknamed a "grease gun." When the bios listed their MOS and secondary MOS, my dad could tell me what that stood for. When I read about LRRP and how they stood for Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, I could talk to my dad about them (although they a product of the Viet Nam war, my dad stayed up to date on the news). And when the characters mentioned going through OSUT or how someone was 97B, he could explain what that meant.

Besides that Larry Hama meant his comic book to be a salute to the men and women he served with, and show the diversity of backgrounds amongst people in the army. The clips I see for GI JOE: The rise of Cobra don't seem to be a salute to soldiers as much as a salute to bad CGI.

But if someone was going to make a movie which he said was based on the Marvel Thor, and used none of Lee, Kirby, Walt Simonson and a bunch of other writers and artist stuff (or even worse) butchered it, I think the Thor comic fans would have a right to complain.

I can understand the annoyance at something as quintessentially American as something like "Real American Hero" being changed to a more international feel, (I hate it when British things are changed, or like when in certain areas with a large Muslim population back home, they change Christmas to "Winterval", so as to not offend them. For fuck's sake!

But, while I'm sure there are "Real American Heroes" out there, fighting for their country (& I say that as someone whose Brother & best friend are in Afghanistan & Iraq), the truth is, a lot of countries doubt what your country stands for.

You see, it isn't just the wars you got involved in under Bush. People have seen Americans as Imperial overlords for a long time, in the same way you probably saw us Brits a couple of hundred years ago. There might have been a time when American soldiers were seen as the good guys, but for the past 40 odd years or so, people have doubted not your military, who are doing their best in a tough job, but your country's reasons for invading other countries. In many ways, a lot of those countries would see something like GI JOE as imperialistic.

It's like Black Hawk Down for example. In the movie, you're liberators, in reality, you invaded a country withy a democratically elected leader, because he nationalised the oil companies, that you used to control their country. In many cases it's like "We believe in Democracy, but we'll squash the democracies of others to maintain our own." Until you lose that image, those who hate Americans will see it as Imperialism & those like me who judge governments (including my own) on their actions, will see it as Team America.

Thanks, guys. I generally only post because I like making people laugh, and it's kinda difficult to gauge response because, again, the internet.

And truthfully, America has not always used its military power wisely. Afghanistan - necessary; Iraq - bone headed as hell.

But I think there is nothing wrong with celebrating soldiers - people who volunteer to be put in harms way for their countryman. And all of the problems of our military is really not the militaries fault, it is the politicians fault. I know a lot of people have a hard time separating the two, but the government, which is elected officials, decide when and where the military will be deployed. Whether it was Johnson and Viet Nam or Bush and our current quagmires, the Army carries out the orders of the Commander in Chief (so in a way, it is democracy that is to blame for our military blunders - go figure).

Mummy-Solid, funny adventure(I always thought of it as a Blue & Gold movie, so I'm biased)

Mummy Returns-Absolute Crap with 90% recycled from the first movie(oh, a giant wave of water instead of a wave of sand, oh, an airship instead of a biplane, etc)

Van Helsing-Piss poor storytelling meets cliche and really, really bad CG.

He really has been in decline since his second movie. That career arc is so terrible it's almost impressive.

It's like when they changed Superman's "Truth, Justice and the American way" to "Truth, Justice..all that stuff." I grew up reading & watching Superman. That phrase didn't bother me at all, but it will bother some people. It sucks, but they do it for the money.

Paraphrasing of course, but what kind of answer is that? Its a NON-answer. And of COURSE the producer isn't going to admit that their film received the lowest score ever.

I'm not saying the film DID, of course, and I'm not suggesting the story is completely true.

But to believe Lorenzo after Latino Review's lame questions? Please. He just told them EXACTLY what they, as GI JOE fanboys, wanted to hear.

Be sure to tip your waitstaff. Good Night!

Before then, Hama had pretty much free reign (with obvious exceptions) to do what he wanted.

Shakespeare, no. Damn good storytelling, yes.

lets face it, the movie is going to be trashy and obviously there are some sore heads - most likely financiers who had a bit of heart in the original concept of making GI Joe into a big feature action film.

Seriously, how would you feel if you're concept was laughed at by test screenings and totally misunderstood by the director?

If it didn't happen, then they should have said things like "We ahven't even tested it yet." or "Sommers is hard at work and doens't have time for these silly internet rumous"

but we didn't get any denial at all. we got political double talk where you think they've said something but haven't actually said anything!

I remember Action Man in the very early 80's (who funnily enough looked like the lead from Who Dares Wins, Lewis something or other. It had a little button on the back of its head, which you could toggle to make him look around, like a weird ventriloquist's dummy.

They should still be Americans of course. I would love it if they did a good GI Joe movie where they met and worked with their British counterpart. Special Forces Counter Terrorism Group - Delta, teaming up with 22X Special Counter Terrorism Regiment (code named: Action Men).

*Banging head against wall*

CO and SDB, please go set him straight. I haven't the will any longer.

Oh, and "El Guapo"? He thinks of himself as "handsome"? I sure hope he is being sarcastic.

Who are the biggest fans of GI JOE? Guys in there 20s, 30s & even 40s. GI JOE: RAH isn't like Batman or Superman or SPider-Man with a new generation to replace the old, it has a definitive shelf life and the guys who grew up on it are now older.

So what did we want to see when you were kids when we read the comics or watched the cartoon? We wanted to see the shit they couldn't show. And now that we are adults we want it even more. We want to see people get shot and killed, see how tough the Joes really are, and have Cobra do realistic terrorist plots, not rust bombs. We want what they did to Batman in TDK - make it something we can enjoy as adults and believe in. What they did to the Joker - take him from albino psychotic clown with Joker venom to psycho anarchist with makeup and a Glasgow smile - we want to see them do to Cobra Commander - go from the tool that yelled "Cobra" to a modern day Hitler figure/Osama contemporary.

At least I know I do.

It was usually a couple of pages of crap, just any excuse to appeal to both sets of fans & sell toys.

Comic books go in a lot of whacky directions, but it doesn't mean the essential element is goofy or ridiculous.

But I don't want it to be ridiculous or obviously childish. I want it to be somewhere between GUNS OF NAVARONNE, DIRTY DOZEN, WHO DARES WINS, BOURNE trilogy and JAMES BOND (Daniel Craig) on one side, and Nolan's BATMAN, THE OCTAGON, INDIANA JONES and JAMES BOND (Connery, Moore and Brosnan) on the other.

I want it to be an action/adventure movie that adults can enjoy, but kids can show up too, like TDK and Iron Man.

My pitch: full on lesbo scene between Scarlett & Baroness while Cover Girl masturbates in the corner.

I guarantee that it would be number one over the weekend.

if you cut the trailer so that Snake Eyes wasn't present, and the title "G.I. Joe" was never displayed, you would never be able to guess what property it was. hardly a sign things were ever going in the right direction...

I'm not expecting something like the early works of Bob Kane and Bill Finger about an insomniac detective vigilante who has anger management issues and a pension for accidentally killing people

I can't say what to make of the GI Joe flick until some reviews pour in and how soon.

Actually I have a renewed appreciation for GI joe because I just read a bunch of them. It's similar to another book that came out in the 80s called 'Nam except more colorful and less depressing.

Also, Hasbro has a product to sell. Domestic boxoffice isn't enough to carry a film this size. They need international boxoffice as well. Hence changes. No big deal.

I think 2 things are bothering people about this film. Super-suits and a lack of recognizable costumes. They should start cutting ads without the cyber suits, and focus on the characters. Tell us their names and show off what they can do.

GI Joe comics in the 80s were amazing. The cartoon always sucked. Even Resolute wasn't very good, and was written by a guy with no connection to the source material. Sound familiar?

GI Joe has the potential to be a defining action film. Something with one foot in reality and willing to have a litte fun with the more outrageous Cobra elements.

This film could still be okay. But Sommers and Boneventura are not 2 people to have faith in.

Hasbro is fucked because all the toys look alike except the bad guys and Snakeeyes.

this is a nostalgia pic, that for some reason is targetted to children with no idea who GI Joe is. granted, kids are idiots who will like anything, but still. Kids like Tranformers becasue its giant robots, GI Joe is just army dudes.

a lot of nongeeks grew up with GI Joes too, and nothing I've seen even remotely resembles the toys or cartoons. Who is this for? even common moviegoing men will be insulted by completely ignoring the source.

However, I cannot see GI JOE having any foreign members outside of the Anglo countries (Canada, Britain and Australia) because of communication problems and radical difference in military organizations.

Devin from Knight Rider.

And a post-Star Trek TMP Persis Kambata without the glowing crystal stuck in her thorax.

That movie was all kinds of epic.

BTW, what is a (_o_)?

Captain America started out as US WW2 propaganda. My hopes are waaayyyy higher for a Cap film since the first one could be a period piece then the Avengers movie could be when they find him in an ice cap.

Makes me think of movies I've seen based on video games.... the only one I've ever enjoyed was Hitman. Probably because it had frontal female nudity in a scene.

And what was with the headband that Barry Boswick was wearing. Kinda killed the tough guy image for me.

The 80's and the preoccupation with skinnies

God, I have never been so wrong. It replaced Infra Man as the worst thing we ever forced our dad to take us to.

After all, anonymous can sometimes be brutally honest.

e.g. Here : http://tinyurl.com/6xqpud

Test audiences are a curse, my friends. Always were.

Plus - this is Stephen Summers making a film based on a toy line. Of course it's going to be shit. For evidence: view the trailer.

Look, if you're a fan of Gi Joe just see the damn thing so it's makes money and we hopefully get a superior sequel.

Sommers has already said the accelerator suits will not be in a sequel.

I really just want a good gi joe movie and if i have to tolerate a bad one first so be it.

If this movie tanks we will never see another live action joe movie again.

If we did that and if this thing somehow made money, what makes you think they won't look at it as validating the direction they took and continue making the next one just as crappy? Just look at the FF.

whats up LaserPants? havent seen you in a while.

As I said in a previous post: what do these people expect? If you hire mediocre talent to direct, you get a mediocre movie (if you're lucky). And yet, these studio exec idiots & producers choose directors who range from "barely competent" to "hack". They hire Tim Story to do Fantastic Four (twice!). Result: both movies suck and the franchise is dead. And so on: Brett Ratner, McG, Stephen Sommers, Len Wiseman, etc. The list is long and absurd. Haven't these people made the connection yet?

They're business men first and foremost, and true talent rakes in the big bucks. You hire Chris Nolan, Peter Jackson, Cuaron, Greengrass, Raimi, etc. These are the guys with actual vision and storytelling skills. Then you'll get your golden franchise, your money, and everyone will be happy. Just stop hiring these lame directors that everyone knows are no good at all. Stop. If you don't have the money to pay for them, then nurture promising young talent instead of going back to the well of bad results. What's wrong with you??

I'm used to turning my brain off or into low gear for summer "blockbusters".

I wish I could have made the final connection in my head and said "It looks like Megaforce."

If only so that we finally get Rick Jones up on the big screen. Best comic book sidekick ever, hands down.

And my heart will grow just a little bigger.

Can't make you like a movie, not even gonna try.