aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
- Status
:clap:
It's odd, but I've seen hardly any commercials for this, at all. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely zero hype for this movie here. Have they just given up on trying to market this all-american thingie to continental Europe or something? Doesn't make sense. Oh well, I won't see it anyway, I never even liked GI Joe (I preferred Barbie)
A
Alucard
and didnt they change the all american g.i. joe team to an international force now right?
A
Alucard
i've maybe seen perhaps one or two tv spots total. doesnt paramount care about milking kids for cash from this film?
and whose the chick who plays the baroness?
and whose the chick who plays the baroness?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/BlackCat said:
P
Philosopher B.
I decided I didn't need to see it after I heard the line 'when all else fails, we don't'. :blue:
Kissinger, can you rename the thread. It's not that serious.
S
Steven Soderburgin
nah, I know. It's just frustrating to hear a major studio VP talk about critics being irrelevant, when critics do NOTHING BUT HELP STUDIOS, FILMMAKERS, AND FILMGOERS BY PROMOTING FILMS THEY THINK ARE WORTH YOUR TIME. That's all they do! They put the name of the movie in the paper and the studio doesn't have to pay a dime for that!drawn_inward said:
Harumph!
Exactly, but if the studio knows that everything the critic says about the movie is going to be negative, why even give them the chance? They have obviously spent enough money so that every one knows it's coming out. What would they have to gain? Critics only really help smaller movies gain more attention. They may help some bigger budget movies get some positive reinforcement, but they already have the advertising budget to get their name out there.Kissinger said:
G
Gadzooks
i plan to see it.
After i pay for District 9/Hangover/Something worth it.
After i pay for District 9/Hangover/Something worth it.
This another whiny Kissinger thread?
It's not like this is the first time a studio hasn't screened a movie for critics. Every time Kissinger and friends have a rant about how good movies will cease to exist because of poorly written summer blockbusters I always picture...
And from the few nerds and geeks that have seen it it's not a waste of film. In all honesty that's who we want this movie to impress in the first place isn't it? Why pay for critics across the states to view the film when you already know people are going to see it regardless of what the critics say? If the movie is worth watching, word of mouth will get out and others will see it. Yes that includes the critics too.
It's not like this is the first time a studio hasn't screened a movie for critics. Every time Kissinger and friends have a rant about how good movies will cease to exist because of poorly written summer blockbusters I always picture...
And from the few nerds and geeks that have seen it it's not a waste of film. In all honesty that's who we want this movie to impress in the first place isn't it? Why pay for critics across the states to view the film when you already know people are going to see it regardless of what the critics say? If the movie is worth watching, word of mouth will get out and others will see it. Yes that includes the critics too.
This is the first time they haven't screened a huge summer tentpole type blockbuster movie. At least the first I can remember. And find the part where he says good movies will cease to exist because of this. Go on, I'll wait for you.Shawnacy said:This another whiny Kissinger thread?
It's not like this is the first time a studio hasn't screened a movie for critics. Every time Kissinger and friends have a rant about how good movies will cease to exist because of poorly written summer blockbusters I always picture...
Going back through that 20 page TF2 flame war (I have way too much free time at work) I can verify that you are correct and I owe Kissinger an apology. The above sign should instead be carried by Dark Audit, Eljuski, @Li3n, and Shannow who all did directly claim that well-made films will putter out of existence due to dumber audiences impressed by loud explosions and fart jokes.Charlie Dont Surf said:
fade
Staff member
Bleh. Kung Fu Daphne and Stupid Fred (Lawdsamercy, can't have a SMART white male leader--that's racist and sexist) capped off by some terrible computer animation killed it for me.AshburnerX said:
I have one reason to want to see this. Well, two. The Baroness. I get a warm [strike:1ck1t7pm]chubby[/strike:1ck1t7pm] fuzzy feeling every time I see her pull off her jacket in the trailer. Otherwise, it looks very boring. "What did you say your [blank] was called?" "I didn't." Gee. Never heard that line before.
(I was kidding by the way. I takes more that nice breasts to make me want to see a movie.)
And I stand by that statement. The lowest common denominator bar gets lowered with each passing summer.Shawnacy said:
In that thread I blamed the "turn off your brain" fainbois who will swallow any shit shoveled their way if there were enough shinies and explosions to flavor it. And just as I predicted, it fell off the radar with astonishing speed as July drew to a close.
This movie is not one of those. I was looking forward to this one. If it is as bad as most "not screened for critics" films are (The Avengers, anyone?), than I will be angry, but at the producers of this particular film. With so much to work with, fucking it up is all their fault.
How was Fred EVER smart in the TV show? He basically existed to drive the van, tell everyone to split up once an episode, and be Mr. Exposition whenever Velma wasn't (which was rare). As for Kung Fu Daphne... do I really need to point out how played the distressed damsel stereotype is? They even make a point of her getting sick of it herself. I'll admit, however, that it had probably had more to do with Sarah Michelle Geller's previous role as Buffy than an attempt at humor.fade said:
The CG wasn't that great though... I'll admit that. It was like they couldn't decide if they wanted it to be cartoony or realistic.
S
Steven Soderburgin
Yeah, for all the money being spent on this movie, it's a very odd decision to not screen it for critics. This is a move that is usually reserved for movies with no budget to schedule screenings, or no faith from the studio. As I was implying earlier, reviews (even bad ones!) are basically free advertising. People scrolling through movie reviews or scanning the paper see it and say, "Oh, yeah! G.I. Joe is coming out this weekend!" Also, with screenings, they can pull a bunch of lines and quips for ads on opening weekend. It's just very strange. The budget is something like $170 million, so you'd think that Paramount would have faith in the film.
Considering that nearly every movie in history that has ever skipped critic screenings has been close to awful, history suggests the same fate will befall Joe. But for all we know this is just a new trick by their marketing to increase sales, or simply to reduce the costs of setting up those free screenings. Guess we'll just have to see the movie and make our own judgment this time.Kissinger said:
Or not see it and live without judgment.Shawnacy said:
J
JCM
Fuck the movie, I want to see Ray Parks as Snake-Eyes.
[/img]
Charlie Dont Surf said:
In order for G.I. Joe to suck as badly as Transformers it has to do a couple of things.
1) It'll only show the G.I. Joe team in very sparse bits throughout the movie, deciding instead to focus on the younger teenage brother of Duke who is having a really rough time in his first year of high school.
2) In the final battle between G.I. Joe and Cobra, both sides will be shown to be relatively ineffectual and the Joes will have to call in the real heroes of the movie, a magic space key that the ancient Joes thousands of years ago committed suicide to half assedly hide as well as the good old US Army, Navy and Air Force who will thoroughly kick the fucking shit out of Cobra leaving people to wonder how they were a credible threat to begin with. Fuck you UN/NATO, you fucking suck!
1) It'll only show the G.I. Joe team in very sparse bits throughout the movie, deciding instead to focus on the younger teenage brother of Duke who is having a really rough time in his first year of high school.
2) In the final battle between G.I. Joe and Cobra, both sides will be shown to be relatively ineffectual and the Joes will have to call in the real heroes of the movie, a magic space key that the ancient Joes thousands of years ago committed suicide to half assedly hide as well as the good old US Army, Navy and Air Force who will thoroughly kick the fucking shit out of Cobra leaving people to wonder how they were a credible threat to begin with. Fuck you UN/NATO, you fucking suck!
I know your joking, but didn't this EXACT THING HAPPEN in GI Joe: Sigma Six? I know they had younger kids running around... and a robotic dog, I think.Frankie said:
fade
Staff member
You're kidding right? Fred was the leader. He made all the plans, and when the case was over he, along with Velma was always the one to express that he knew what was going on, saying something like "and that just about wraps it up", or "I think we've pretty much figured it out. Now all we need to do is this elaborate scheme (presumably invented by him) to catch the guy". Velma was the knowledge-brains, but Fred was always the planning/sleuthing brains--though Fred was sometimes the guy who pointed out the glass was from X or what have you. I could probably go to youtube and find all the specific examples in my head (in fact, I know this to be true because I just watched the Scooby Doo marathon on Cartoon Network this weekend) but I won't because that's a lot of work.AshburnerX said:
Even if he wasn't smart (which I argue that he was within the kid's context of the show), he certainly wasn't the borderline retarded doofus they made him in the movie. He never once says anything outright stupid or obviously wrong, either.
Also, I get the damsel in distress thing. I knew I should've put that in my first post. But there's a huge difference between "not the damsel in distress" and "kung fu ass-kicker". I mean, it's just too much to the opposite extreme for me. But it's more forgivable than Fred's fate.
EDIT: You know what, just to make my point. From "Jeepers, It's the Creeper!", one of the more popular episodes, here's some things Fred does. And not once does he act like the dork he was in the movie. In fact, he's quite serious compared to even Velma.
1. Initiates the case by noticing the car crash.
2. Plans the next step (taking guard to house)
3. Calls the sheriff while everyone else stands around.
4. Calms everyone when lights go out, AND plans the next stage (moving the party, organizing clean-up, etc.)
5. Comes up with the idea to make a paper airplane out of the paper while V and D sit around
6. Decides to investigate the car.
7. Notices Creeper's track in soil.
8. Comes up with plan to unroll bridge.
9. With Velma explains the solution.
10. Seems to understand perfectly well what "The flame..." bit means as he helps Velma demonstrate.
I mean I'm being ridiculously pedantic on purpose, but the point is, I don't remember Fred ever once being an idiot. He was the adultish leader. That role went to Daphne in the movie, who was a weak character in the show, sure. But they removed Fred's core personality (and group role) and replaced it with stupidity to do it. Literally.
I would like to point out that Fred has NEVER made a successful plan. Ever. Yes, this is more to Scooby and Shaggy's bumbling than his skills, but you'd think he'd have figured out after the 3rd or 4th time that it happened that step one should always be "Send Shaggy and Scooby somewhere else" instead of letting them constantly fuck things up.
- Status