Stephen Sommers aka Mummy, Mummy Returns, Van Helsing...

however, the article is mostly noteworthy for its awesome YouTube collection of GI Joe PSA parodies:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33769

geeee iiiiiie joooooooeee....

Awesome.

While I couldn't stand "Van Helsing" (save for a few close-up shots of Kate Beckinsale... ), I totally loved the Mummy movies. As long as the script is all right, this should be kickass!

I am far more worried about this movie than I ever was about Transformers. Studio fears of international xenophobia will destroy the G.I. Joe movie.

The first Mummy was awesome, the perfect summer movie blockbuster, IMO.

The second, not so much.

and Van Helsing is one of the worst blockbuster type movies ever made.

Lemme derail the thread for a sec, but why does everyone hate Van Helsing so much anyway?

Because people hate anything that was solely created for entertainment and not to explore deeper mysteries about the human condition.

Or they thought the plot was f*cked. One of the two.

I hated it because it was just unbelievably retarded. 1

Zaku for the win!

Update:

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_c...0&Itemid=99

Sommers is excited the new screenwriter was attached to the property back when it was under the company that produced the Mortal Kombat films? o_O

With a ground up rewrite, Beattie could draw from the best elements of both prior scripts or the worst. The only work of his with which I'm somewhat familiar is Collateral. Though I never got around to seeing it, I've heard it was very good which is promising.

Anyone know what "G.I. Joe" stands for?

I bet you don't.

"Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity"

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33955

See.
I had just figured his surname was Bloggs and he was in the Military.

Learn something new everyday.

Baby vampires/gremlins


Doesn't G.I. stand for General Issue?

Great. You just blew away 24 years of nostalgia.

Read this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296054,00.html

I like how it's Fox News that's going, "Waah, they're not American, this is a travesty, waah."

Government Issue
Serving in the Air Force

Is Mark Wahlberg still attatched?

Hey we had our own film to Starscream about (thanks bay) and they have theirs. However, I do side with them (the people against the globalization of GIJoe). Its too bad that people just can't make a movie without worring if its going to offend anyone. Who knows they may yet play it even safer by saying things like "...in allahs name we trust...' or some other crap like that.

On a side note, I've found it interesting that the Outdoor Store chain "GI Joes" has just recently changed their name to "Joes".

History is fun and educational.

So it stands for whatever the hell people wanted it to stand for. Heh.

um FYI I was just pointing out how they're changing "GI Joe" to a dumb acronym for a dumb UN task force kthxbai

Um, "GI Joe" was the name of the original 12-inch action doll that debuted way back in the late 1950's to act as a boy-oriented counterpart to the Barbie toyline.

You could always read the article that was linked in this thread.

Or, barring that:

Because, we all know that if Wiki says it, it must be true.

this has gone way too far off-topic, but:

But was the original GI Joe action doll, based on that character?

Of course it was. Not that I see the point of any of this.

I think I should back up and clarify my earlier comment a bit. I was only asking "do you know what GI Joe stands for" rhetorically. Because "GIJOE" didn't ever stand for anything before. It was just me being like "hey this isn't an American soldier thing anymore." That's all I was saying. jeebus

QFX-BobT

i can see why they would change the name to make it seem more international. for one it always seemed odd to me that their were so many international members for a secrete US force plus the image these days of a US force going round the world blowing stuff up might not go down well out side the states given the nature of the world were in so if its a international force it would go down a whole lot better

If they're gonna go up against Cobra: The Enemy, I hope they don't turn them into the cartoon mwahahaha villian type. Make them insidious and infiltrating society like the comics etc.


Hell, take a page from the Cobra Reborn, Devils Due intro to the Short lived G.I.Joe:Reloaded (Ultimate G.I.Joe if you will)

So, we've got a pretty full cast at this point:

Channing Tatum (Duke)
Ray Park (Snake Eyes)
Marlon Wayans (Ripcord
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Rex)
Rachel Nichols (Scarlett)
Sienna Miller (The Baroness)
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Heavy Duty)
Said Taghmaoui (Breaker)
Byung-hun Lee (Storm Shadow)
Dennis Quaid (Hawk)
Arnold Vosloo (Zartan)

How does everyone think this project is shaping up? I'm terrified, personally. As far as adaptations go, I think this is going to make Transformers look like Lord of the Rings.

It has the potential to be the most horrifically funny movie in years.

*anticipates*

Boo!

That's hardly the most offensive choice they've made for the film. Ripcord had, like, one figure ever...who cares what they do with him? Channing Tatum is Duke. Arrrgh.

Stepping up is half the battle.

Paraphrased from my comments in the shout box:

any GI Joe movie is going to come off like a Village People convention anyway, so what are you worried about? Just enjoy the dumb thing.

Di Bonaventura was pretty much calling the shots on this. My opinion of him and this movie has been no different than the handling of the Transformers live-action movie. Another write-off for me. After a couple posts, I've pretty much begun ignoring all posts on the subject on the Joe site I visit.

Well...if you dress them up like in the cartoon, yeah. I was expecting a more realistic military depiction, just like Bay updated the robot designs.

I think football jerseys and Hawaiian shirts as combat wear could be the only thing that saves it at this point.

There's that ugly word, realism........ I hate to be the one to potentially sink the thread into the spiral of doom, but let's face it -- "realism" and GI Joe have nothing in common. So you have the familiar options of either a) making it more realistic and stripping it of its identity, or b) making it true to the cartoon/comics and turning it into a camp-fest. My guess is that they'll try to split the difference and fail at both.

I think we both know I meant a plausible suspension of disbelief in an action movie sort of realism and not actual reality realism.

Well it just became a must see for me:
JGL and Channing Tatum...

(of course they are teaming up with Ryan Phillipe this year in ______ er what ever that post tramatic stress movie is....)

But seriously - I'll see Levitt in anything.

And anyway its not just a boycrush type of thing - these seem to all be real actors/performers that they're aiming for. Moreso even than TF was.

I understand what you mean, but the issue is still there. I'm sure people would be fine with some fictional super-secret military organization that nobody knows about, but my point is -- how much do you alter before it stops being what it is? I hate to mention the "_____ In Name Only" thing because I think that's just a glib fanboy reaction, but it does start to become an issue when you have a property that is by nature so very, very far from something an audience would put up with in movie theaters.

A lot of times it seems to come down to capturing the "spirit" of the property, since the look of the property just ain't gonna happen. And not that I know dick about GI Joe, but I'm just wondering what about GI Joe makes it what it is? Is it the HISS tanks and evil dudes with masks and costume-party outfits? And if you took that away, would it still feel like (or "be") GI Joe? Would a fan be any more interested in that than in any other military-adventure-type movie?

I'm really asking; these aren't rhetorical questions. Like I said, I don't really know crap about GI Joe.

P.S. in comparison to Transformers, I think they had it easier because "giant transforming robots" isn't really a sub-genre of film the way "military adventure" movies are. So even if they changed it all to hell, it'd still come off as a unique movie.

I think the core of what makes G.I. Joe "G.I. Joe" is actually Cobra, the enemy they fight...and that's the part I'm not sure I'd know how to translate properly, but the "Village People" aspect of the Joe team is something that, to me, is easily abandoned. The film, to me, needs to find a middle ground between "Mission Impossible" and "James Bond" - a small team of military specialists against a crazy guy with a mask, colorful henchmen, and his own island fortress.

I agree 2000%. I never gave a rat's ass about the Joes growing up, I was all about COBRA. They can turn the Joes into whatever kind of marketable paramilitary rag-tag unit they want, but the villains HAVE to be interesting for this to work. That includes - if nothing else - Cobra and Destro, with masks.

Would you guys say that that's a common view in the GI Joe fandom?

I'm a G.I. Joe fan, but I don't really follow up with a G.I. Joe fandom, like I do with Transformers...I'd hope it's the prevailing view with the G.I. Joe fanboys.

I'd go find out for myself, but I fear.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080129e.php <- This says the film is set in the future. Why? Battleforce 2000'D? Star Brigade'D?

*really wants to like this movie*

Ditto'd. I don't really have my pulse on the GI Joe community, I just know what I like and what my friends liked about the show growing up. It also seems like the Cobra toys sell better, leaving the generic blonde hero dudes behind on the peg (with the exception of Snake Eyes - ninjas rule!).

In regard to this movie, the Joe fandom is similar to how the Transformer fandom was before the Transformers movie, except now there is a lot more to be legitimately worried about.