Re: G.I. BLOW!

[Guest]

I'm having trouble following the discussion here.

Originally, you were basing your argument off a TV show, rather than the comics, right? The TV show, however, wasn't any truer to the comics than the movies. Contrary to your argument that things should be truer to the comics, though, you didn't have any argument against the TV show skewering the original comic's plot?

So you're saying that it's okay for every type of media except movies to completely restructure characters and storylines?

A director isn't going to make a movie 100% accurate to the original storyline of the comic. Why? Because then there would be no point in making the movie. If people wanted the exact storyline, they'd go read the comic books and get the whole story instead of the 1/1,000,000th of the story a movie could deliver.

For instance, in the original Spider-man, I'm 99% certain that Peter Parker didn't get the ability to shoot webs from his wrist from the spider bite. I believe that, like in the TV show, he had to rely on a device that he created for that. I could be wrong, and if I am, so be it, but that's just one example of a change that was made between the comics and the movies. Did it kill the story? No, it just means that they needed one less movie prop, the story was that much more believable; face it, a teenager creating some device that fires a high-tensile web-like string great distances is kind of out there.

Directors try to remain true enough to the original characters and story that people will still enjoy the character as much as they did the one from the comics, but they want to create something that's their own. If you're an artist, as you claim to be, then you should know that simply reproducing something that someone else created, with absolutely no changes that reflect your own creativity, isn't something an artist seeks to do.

Edit: More on the original topic, I liked the new G.I. Joe movie. Granted, the old cartoons and comics were better, and they tried to wrap up way too much in an hour and a half time frame, but the action sequences were good, there was enough humor to keep me entertained, and the characters were true enough to their originals (or at least the concept behind the originals) to be fulfilling on that level. If you go into a movie expecting it to give you the exact same story as the cartoon/novel/comic that it's based off of, you're going to be disappointed.

*sigh* -_-

This is getting kind of redundant, but I guess no one really cares about that.

To summarize everything into one sentence instead of typing up paragraphs, I'll just say it.

The movie industry needs to do a better job instead of the shitty job they are now.

[Guest]

The quality and enjoyability(?) of a movie is completely relative. I enjoyed Cloverfield, which got horrible ratings. I don't know a single person beyond my wife who liked it. But it is one of my favorite movies. I loved Quarantine. Same story: no one I know liked it. Gave them a headache. Boo hoo. It was new. It was artistic. I loved religulous. Coming from Bakersfield, the bible-belt of California, well...I'm surprised they even showed it here. I know none of these are franchise movies, so I'll move on.

Spiderman was well done because it appealed to a wide audience. It had to appeal to a wide audience. Why? Because the comic books don't. The cartoons don't. Yes, the comics are absolutely awesome. But a business that makes a movie to the quality of Spiderman (1,2,3) expecting the same fan base as the comics will quickly go out of business. That is what you have to expect with movies. They put out entertainment, but they need money to do it. Therefore, they will appeal to the widest audiences. Sucks for the hardcore fans, who are more often than not disappointed. Sometimes they deviate from the story. Sometimes they change the characters themselves (the worst mistake, in my opinion). But you have to look at it in a new perspective, as a new take on the story.

Who really cares in what order Spiderman faced the villains? Most of the people who watch the movie don't know, and they don't care. Like I said, that is unfortunate for the hardcore fans. But the hardcore fans are offering very little revenue for the movie-making industry because they simply aren't that widespread.

So when you watch G.I. Joe, you can't compare it to any previous stories. You have to think of it as a new story, or a new take on the old story. Otherwise you will be disappointed. You will hate it. You may still hate it, if the quality of the movie is bad enough. But there are blessedly few of those. I've yet to see G.I. Joe, and I don't really care to as I think it will be horrible quality. But, come on, you can't expect superior quality movies that are intended to grab audiences that the cartoons and comics couldn't.

[Weiss]

1.

You have to think of it as a new story, or a new take on the old story. Otherwise you will be disappointed. You will hate it. You may still hate it, if the quality of the movie is bad enough. But there are blessedly few of those.

2.

I've yet to see G.I. Joe, and I don't really care to as I think it will be horrible quality.

1. The Dragonball movie was undoubtedly one of those "few". New story or not, that movie was awful. Probably could've been better if they'd made it longer and made Piccolo a more active and interesting villain, but they really didn't try hard enough to tie him into the movie elements.

2. G.I. Joe was great, in my opinion. As I said before, there was a lot of action, the effects were done really well, the characters were kept true enough to their originals to avoid pissing off too many people who know at least a bit about the originals, etc. I actually recommend the movie quite highly, as long as you aren't one of those people who will go in expecting to see a play-by-play of the G.I. Joe comic storyline.

Tkwiget: What's getting redundant? I'm pretty sure nothing I said has been said more than (being generous) once before I said it...

Besides, you're saying the movie industry needs to do a better job, but you're not really pointing out how or why. You're flagrantly bashing on things just because you, a single person in a world of over six billion, aren't completely happy with the way movies have been adapted from their comic book counterparts, which, in most cases, it seems that you haven't even read.

Honestly, what's getting redundant is people always whining about how the movie isn't an exact retelling of the story as they remember it from the good ole comic books! No movie is ever going to do that. So stop going to watch them, and let everyone else - the people who don't go to the movies to see the same exact thing they could've seen in the comic books - enjoy their time.

Don't want your childhood raped? Don't parade it around in a mini-skirt thinking the world should simply accept your view of everything and revolve accordingly.

Oy vey...

[Squall Reyes]

First of all Cloverfield was not bad. I won't say it was my favorite movie but it was good. Artistic though is something I never thought would be used to describe Quarantine though. lol

But I will agree with you guys in saying going to a comic movie and hoping for a page by page adaptation is wrong, though some movies have proved it's possible and even fun. (See Sin City) Well except one movie who seemed to somewhat faithfully fallow the comics till half way through and them seemed to just crumble up the script then tossed it into the garbage. (I'm looking at you Wolverine Origins.)

But in all seriousness my disliking of G I JOE wasn't that it was unfaithful to the comics. It's that it was a horrible movie in its own right. The characters were as shallow as a rain puddle. The cheesy one liners meant to make me laugh didn't but the most serious lines in the movie did. (That's always trouble.) Now I'm not saying I went in to see the Godfather, that would be stupid. But even the action was unspectacular and offered nothing new than what I already have in my blue ray collection. And the effects were good, but lets face it the effects are good in EVERY fucking movie this day and age. Oh and as a sound designer myself let me say that I should have gotten the damn job, the sound effects were so unspectacular so run of the mill I could have done a better job at home

I'm not saying G I Joe failed as a comic adaptation, I'm saying it failed as an action movie as well.

[Sunni Ookami]

First of all Cloverfield was not bad. I won't say it was my favorite movie but it was good. Artistic though is something I never thought would be used to describe Quarantine though. lol

But I will agree with you guys in saying going to a comic movie and hoping for a page by page adaptation is wrong, though some movies have proved it's possible and even fun. (See Sin City) Well except one movie who seemed to somewhat faithfully fallow the comics till half way through and them seemed to just crumble up the script then tossed it into the garbage. (I'm looking at you Wolverine Origins.)

But in all seriousness my disliking of G I JOE wasn't that it was unfaithful to the comics. It's that it was a horrible movie in its own right. The characters were as shallow as a rain puddle. The cheesy one liners meant to make me laugh didn't but the most serious lines in the movie did. (That's always trouble.) Now I'm not saying I went in to see the Godfather, that would be stupid. But even the action was unspectacular and offered nothing new than what I already have in my blue ray collection. And the effects were good, but lets face it the effects are good in EVERY fucking movie this day and age. Oh and as a sound designer myself let me say that I should have gotten the damn job, the sound effects were so unspectacular so run of the mill I could have done a better job at home

I'm not saying G I Joe failed as a comic adaptation, I'm saying it failed as an action movie as well.

I agree completely.

There hasn't been that much of bad comic adaptions to say that the directors who do this need to fix themselves/their work. In my opinion, the ratio of bad to good comic movies is the same as regular movies. There are going to be good movies, and then there are going to be bad ones. I've never read G.I. Joe comics, nor did I watch any cartoons. Heck, I didn't even care for their toys. I went into that theater to watch a movie, not an adaptions, and I didn't like this movie. On the other hand, movies that I did follow the originals, like Resident Evil (still not a comic) and Dragonball, I did pay a little attention to how it adapted. The first RE movie was good. It was not only a pretty good adaption, but also a pretty decent movie. The second one was okay, still a good adaption, not so much a good movie (not very zombie-action-y to me). Then the third one not only sucked as an adaption seeing as it had nothing to do with the actual game, but also as a movie seeing as how it was just horribly written (and I can give you my reasons on why I think that).

@Tkwiget: I would have to say that it's pretty stupid that you'd get mad about them not following the Spiderman cartoon instead of the comic. Sorry, for being blunt, but there's nothing more to say other than that it's just plain stupid.

@Weiss: I think that's true about the web things. Even in the newer Spiderman comics I had way back when, Parker "invented" it in his basement.

[Hello Danger]

2. G.I. Joe was great, in my opinion. As I said before, there was a lot of action, the effects were done really well, the characters were kept true enough to their originals to avoid pissing off too many people who know at least a bit about the originals, etc. I actually recommend the movie quite highly, as long as you aren't one of those people who will go in expecting to see a play-by-play of the G.I. Joe comic storyline.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one bud. A lot of action and cool effects don't make for a great movie. I'm open minded to a storyline changing from whatever it may have been in the comics or cartoons, but the GI Joe movie's storyline was just lame. The acting was lame. The jokes were okay. The best acting in that movie was done by a guy who didn't say a word the whole movie (Snake Eyes ). A lot of action and cool effects are great if you're 12 - 14 years old, but I need some substance. In my opinion the movie was overall poop, yes, there were some cool parts, but it didn't make it a "great" movie.

[Weiss]

Well, I wasn't saying those elements made it a good movie. Those are just the things that usually ruin a movie, in my opinion. Especially a comic adaptation like this one, where the story is so wholly dramatic and seriously unserious that trying to play the roles seriously would create another Street Fighter (the one with Mr. Jean-Claude as Guile).

The only line in the entire movie that struck me as sorely lacking in emotion was Ripcord's, "I gotta get me one of those," or whatever the exact quote was. That's probably the third time I've seen someone try to make that line as epic as it was when Will Smith used it in Independence Day, and neither time has it been successful.

Anyway, point is: I liked it, my 16-year old brother liked it, and I really can't recall any particularly bad acting considering the type of movie it was. [Shrugs.]

[Spectre]

i liked it.

I didn't know much about the original GI Joe RAH series or comics, even though i seemed to love the cartoon as a kid [still couldn't tell you anything it was about other than the good vs evil complex].

So, taking what little knowledge i had of the characters [only remembering they existed, and a brief rundown on what they did as a commando, soldier, ninja, etc.], i still liked it.

I just didn't like that Storm Shadow was seemingly killed...

Not a movie that will be classic, but i liked it and certainly didn't hate it.

[Eternity]

Hm, I haven't seen it yet, but I'm glad I came here. Sadly, I don't know much about the comics and I didn't watch GI Joe as a child growing up. But, hey, I guess that means I'll be more open to liking the movie. It seems to me that usually the ones who have read the comics/books/whatever that the movie originated from, are the ones who disfavor the movie versions.

Anyways... Hm.
That's my opinion.

[Squall Reyes]

Ok people. Which sucked less then G I Joe or Transformers 2? Dun dun duuuunnnnn!

[Inerio]

Did we seriously get into a mini spat about G.I. Joe people? Come on now, that's unproductive and sad. We should put that energy into bullying orphans or curing cancer. Or even better, making original porn.

Brownie, I'm not sure I can decide on that one. I mean, G.I. Joe was bad. . . But Transformers 2 was bad. . . But, Transformers 2 had giant robots. So, hell, it one upped G.I. JOE there.

[Adrius Frostglare]

Did we seriously get into a mini spat about G.I. Joe people? Come on now, that's unproductive and sad. We should put that energy into bullying orphans or curing cancer. Or even better, making original porn.

Brownie, I'm not sure I can decide on that one. I mean, G.I. Joe was bad. . . But Transformers 2 was bad. . . But, Transformers 2 had giant robots. So, hell, it one upped G.I. JOE there.

One word:

Agreed.

[Sponsored content]