G.I. JOE RETALIATES WITH A TRAILER - Page 3

I don't think you understood my meaning.  In terms of the source material, Van Helsing is richer than the Joe brand.  Is that even questionable?  It sticks out to me as a greater transgression because the Van Helsing story, properly adapted, has more inherent potential than just monsters vs. monsters.  My point was that there's only one way to really adapt a brand of cartoon soldiers, whereas the Sommers approach to VH is actually a real example of downgrading the material and thus infuriates me on another level.

True. I didn't understand. Still don't.

Edit: So VH is better than GIJ because it has the potential to be greater art? We're still talking about action movies, right?

GI Joe is less of a disappointment because it's tailor-made for a Sommers movie as a brand, and has little potential elsewhere.  I'm only interested in his actions as a director when they cross into properties that actually have potential outside of his influence.  Not a direct comparison between two action films, just an observation about these types of movies.

Not a slight against Chu, really.  Just a remark about the brand itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning Slim 

We're still talking about action movies, right?

You know the character Van Helsing is from DRACULA, right? That is, a classic 19th century gothic horror novel. Whereas G.I. JOE is based on action figures and 30 minute long animated commercials for action figures. While hypothetically speaking I don't think it's necessarily impossible to elevate that material, I don't really understand why anyone would want to, nor why anyone would be surprised/disappointed when a film adaptation doesn't. That's all he's getting at.

Yeah, that's the more understandable version of what I was trying to say.  Thanks.

I really don't mind -- well, I have a greater ability to ignore, rather -- action vehicles that don't try to get more high-minded material to base themselves around.  That's why, for instance, the Sommers and Anderson that direct straightforward action flicks from straightforward material are harmless, whereas when they try to make classic material conform to their formula...that's when I go from indifferent to infuriated.  G.I. Joe is airheaded to begin with, so there are no expectations...but, in the cartoon's defense, I'm sure it never went as low as invoking JZ for inspiration.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's gained by a mature approach to the material. You could theoretically make an effective movie about Strawberry Shortcake's sexual awakening, or a Wire-esque Fat Albert movie about the decline of educational programs in America, but why? It's why I actually thought the Sommers GI Joe movie was pretty much the perfect marriage of director and material. It wasn't something I particularly wanted or cared about at all, but it might have been the best possible version of the GI joe movie. I kind of wish he was doing this new one.

I don't believe anything would be gained by a serious approach to GI Joe, since the source material is only identifiable if taken as is - pretty stupid, really.  Directors like Sommers are not actively annoying if they know the place for their antics - that is, simplistic source material and not actually things that have the potential to be good in the hands of a more proficient director.

Chu seems more or less like Sommers with a more keen pop culture sensibility, hence the stupid-even-for-the-material speech about JZ.  This will be interesting to see in full sometime.

I agree that the first G.I. Joe movie took the right approach to the material and had the right tone, but the execution was frustrating. The character back stories were horribly lazy and corny and the cutting of the action sequences was maddeningly incoherent.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a bottom line of competence in writing and action editing even in a movie with such shallow source material. I really liked the acting in the first one (aside from Duke, Ripcord, and Scarlett) and the simplicity of the plot, but the fights and the character relationships/flashbacks of Duke, Baroness, "Rex" (ugh), Storm Shadow, and Snake Eyes were atrociously lame. All I hope for from this is less hackneyed storytelling and more coherent action. And less shitty acting from Channing Tatum.

Naisu Baddi, What is getting...Tiresome, is all the discussion of G.I. Joe as shallow.  G.I. Joe is about a top secret, high tech military unit that fights...EEEEEvil Terrorists.  It was a...Toy, a...Comic, and a...Cartoon!  I thought the first film was...Awesome.  I enjoyed the flashbacks, especially Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow as kids in the Ninja Dojo they learned...Kung Fu!  I do not usually see Stephen Sommers Films.  To me the source material...G.I. Joe A Real American Hero is what was worthy.  I anticipate, that this could even be better than the...Classic original!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

 

 

You know the character Van Helsing is from DRACULA, right? That is, a classic 19th century gothic horror novel. Whereas G.I. JOE is based on action figures and 30 minute long animated commercials for action figures. While hypothetically speaking I don't think it's necessarily impossible to elevate that material, I don't really understand why anyone would want to, nor why anyone would be surprised/disappointed when a film adaptation doesn't. That's all he's getting at.

So VH is a shame, because of the lost potential, and GIJ is a shrug, because that's as good as it will likely get.

That's snobby, but I think I get where you're coming from. I guess where I differ would be that I think Van Helsing is crap and would always be crap because it's a bad idea. It's not like the writers reached all the way back to Stoker's vision to get some ideologically pure version of the character. Someone watching the film who was not familiar with the source material might be forgiven if they didn't really see any connection whatsoever to classic gothic literature. They might even think it was based on "Monster Mash", and then shrug, because that was as good as such material was expected to be.

In the case of Retaliation, as others have said here, I'm praying for competence, not elevation.

Edit: Shit, of course I agree that Stoker's work has a lot more to offer than a toy commercial. I just think that GIJ's characters might bear the weight of an actual plot. And Van Helsing simply isn't good enough to play "what might have been". It's shite. Best to just forget about it.

VAN HELSING is a GREAT idea for a franchise. Give that shit to someone even halfway competent - Gore Verbinski springs to mind - and make VH the twitchy, sciency Nic Cage-style hero he should've been and that thing could've been PIRATES Mk. II. That's the difference - in the right hands VAN HELSING was a licence to print money. GI JOE doesn't have that same appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning Slim 

Right, and Van Helsing offered far richer opportunities. Monsters vs. monster hunters > super soldiers vs. terrorists. Because that's a reasoned argument.

It is, simply based on all the literature/source material/legacies involved of all the characters in VH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning Slim 

So VH is a shame, because of the lost potential, and GIJ is a shrug, because that's as good as it will likely get.

Now you got it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

VAN HELSING is a GREAT idea for a franchise. Give that shit to someone even halfway competent - Gore Verbinski springs to mind - and make VH the twitchy, sciency Nic Cage-style hero he should've been and that thing could've been PIRATES Mk. II.

Exactly. In a parallel universe, Depp was VH instead of Ichabod Crane/Jack Sparrow.
 

Lightening Slim, Van Helsing...bombed, so I do not regard it as a loss.  G.I. Joe is a far more interesting concept than anything in Van Helsing.  I hope that there are several sequels to the battles of the Joes vs Cobra!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Quote:

It is, simply based on all the literature/source material/legacies involved of all the characters in VH.

 

Ah. I suspect this has more to do with Universal than Bram Stoker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Quote:

It is, simply based on all the literature/source material/legacies involved of all the characters in VH.

 

Ah. I suspect this has more to do with Universal than Bram Stoker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Quote:

It is, simply based on all the literature/source material/legacies involved of all the characters in VH.

 

Ah. I suspect this has more to do with Universal than Bram Stoker.

Agh - multipost. My server shit the bed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning Slim 

Ah. I suspect this has more to do with Universal than Bram Stoker.

 

And (not or) RL Stevenson and Mary Shelley. Why I said "all the literature/source material/legacies". There's a rich history there that spans from lit to pop culture. More than merely toys or an animated commercial for toys.

So are we getting Cobra-La or not?

I was surprised by how much I liked the first movie, and the recent trailer got me invested in the sequel.

Watching The Rock quote Jay Z in that television advert kind of killed a little piece of my interest though. I really hope that the scene is an exception rather than a rule when it comes to the tone of the movie.

Still, I like a lot of this cast (especially The Rock, Ray Stevenson and Byung-hun Lee) so I'll keep an eye on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

And (not or) RL Stevenson and Mary Shelley. Why I said "all the literature/source material/legacies". There's a rich history there that spans from lit to pop culture. More than merely toys or an animated commercial for toys.

 

Since VH is a little light on the literature and a bit heavier on the pop-culture aspect (let's face it it's not really exploring Stoker/Shelley territory), why piss on GIJ for being based in a toy line? The way I saw it, the GI Joe film was drawing quite a bit more from the 150-issue run in Marvel Comics than from the telvision show, which was admittedly quite silly at times.

I'm just balking at the idea that anything arising from a commercial property is a poisoned well and that a project paying lip-service to a piece of classic literature gets to rub off a bit of the parent material's legitimacy regardless of how many toys it puts on shelves.

I ain't fighting no more. You like Van Helsing; I like GI Joe. We all like popcorn flicks.

I don't think anyone here likes the VAN HELSING film. We're not really comparing films, we're comparing source material. The point is that a movie based on the Van Helsing character didn't have to be the type of movie we got. How is this so hard to understand?

Okay, I hear ya. If the VH writers had chosen some of the better concepts from the myriad available, the movie would have been better. Because there was better material available.

I'm saying the same thing happened to GI Joe. They didn't use the source material they had. Half the things that happened onscreen in The Rise of Cobra never happened anywhere in GI Joe history. Not on a toy package, not on a cartoon, not in a comic, not anywhere. Not coincidentally, these ideas are some of the lamer shit in that film. There was better stuff available.

They could have done something a little more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gi_joe_resolute

With a little more of the end of You Only Live Twice and a little less Mortal Kombat, the potential was there to bring the characters to a higher, if not household level of prominence, like Bay did (for better for much worse) with the Transformers.

And the "better stuff" available in GI JOE's epic history is still shallow but fun super-commercialised action stuff,  compared to the actual literary milestones that make up VH's "better stuff available".

Andrew Merriweather, Oh that's right...Van Helsing is a character in Dracula.   I will take...G.I. Joe over that any day of the week.  Also, I would definitely take another...Blade Film, as that character is cooler than any in that literary classic.  I am looking forward to G.I. Joe Retaliation, and especially since Director Jon Chu has embraced the concept of...Multiple Ninja!  Ninja decked out in...Red, Yellow, Black, White make it seem that Destro's company M.A.R.S. also produced...M & M Candy along with the weapons he was selling.  YO JOE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

And the "better stuff" available in GI JOE's epic history is still shallow but fun super-commercialised action stuff,  compared to the actual literary milestones that make up VH's "better stuff available".

Hey, at least you didn't use the word "merely" or call it sales material. The spirits of the action figures looking down on my keyboard are satisfied.

Let's hope it's not total shite when it comes out.

"Sales material" isn't exactly inaccurate, though.

I'd ask if you wanted your knife returned from where it rests between my shoulder blades, but it won't be much use to you since it seems to have broken off

Oh GI Joe, I know you're worthy of love despite your jingoistic origins. Duke Fleed can have you every second weekend.

Lightning Slim,  I prefer the term...Patriotic, to describe the...Real American Heroes of G.I. Joe!  YO JOE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning Slim 

I ain't fighting no more. You like Van Helsing;

 

Woah woah woah! RIF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

"Sales material" isn't exactly inaccurate, though.

Nope, it's dead on accurate. Due to certain regulations being lifted in that time period. The reason there's a PSA at the end of many of these shows is to appease advocacy groups at the time who were outraged that these Sat am cartoons were commercials for toys. Which they were.

None of these facts stop me from liking trash or popcorn fluff. My POV is simply that VH has richer source material/s, thus more potential. No comment on final execution of film product. Carry on...

Shows like Buffy/Angel/Supernatrual show that Van Helsing could have been awesome, if it paid more attention to story and characters, instead of cheesy CGI.

................and beyond cheesy performances.  Outside of a few (Jackman, Wenham, O'Connor"), that sucker is packed to the brim with terrible acting.  Beckinsale feels like she's about to start talking about hunting down the Moose & Squirrel at any given moment.  Roxburgh is the absolute worst though.

I've just remembered, Van Helsing has a Lion King ending. Fucking GHOSTS IN THE CLOUDS.

Fuck that movie into a terrible inferno.

Don't forget steampunk Frankie and his operatic wailing!

But it's based on book learnin' instead of filthy lucre, so it should be inferno-fucked WITH RESPECT.

Van Helsing was doomed from the start, because the lead character wasn't this:

Look at him. Pure English excellence. Dracula and his CGI brides would never have stood a chance.

I will hear no unkind words about Richard Roxburgh's Dracula. His performance in that reaches a Wiseau-like grandeur of awful hilarity.

Heaven help you if that was your first exposure to Richard Roxburgh (it was mine).

So...Is anyone interested in G.I. Joe Retaliation, or just drone on about...vanHELLThing?  I cannot wait to see G.I. Joe...Retaliate, causing Cobra's...June Swoon!

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Heaven help you if that was your first exposure to Richard Roxburgh (it was mine).

Mission Impossible 2 was mine, but Van Helsing was awful enough to make me actively avoid his other work for YEARS.

I first saw him in MI:2, but my vague memories of that generally include Anthony Hopkins sternly delivering exposition for a couple scenes, Tom Cruise mountain climbing for no reason, and the awesomely dumb action climax. You cannot forget Roxburgh's work in Van Helsing: "I HAFF NO HEART!"

He's also a terrible Sherlock Holmes. 

I love Jackman's expression throughout the film.  It all but screams, "What the FUCK did I get myself into here?".

DID SOMEBODY SAY M:I-DEUCE??????

I'm out of rep. WHY AM I OUT OF REP?!??!

That film is like a goddamn bug-zapper for you nooj, isn't it? You just can't stay away...

Having not seen the film in years, I can't even remember what Roxburgh did in that. Was he the main villain or the henchman? I seem to recall almost-Wolverine Dougray Scott duking it out with Tom Cruise at the end.

He was the main henchman.  And potentially Dougray Scott's lover.

How can they not have Baroness in this, even with the awful backstory they hung around her neck like ten pounds of rancid sausage links?

Don't tell me they couldn't get Sienna Miller. Recast! Argh....

THIS is what Roxburgh does in the greatest MI2 of all time.

(mwuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhUHUHUHUHUHUHUHHUHUGAGAGAGAHAHAHAHAHAH)

EDIT:  Damn you, neo!

Like I said, potentially Dougray Scott's lover.