Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 28, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted July 28, 2009 Ah, where to start the amusing task of shredding this particular world-beatingly appalling non-idea? There's so many things to dislike about it, I hardly know where to begin - and I haven't seen a frame of the thing. Gloat, gloat. Shall we begin with the fact that G.I. Joe was never called G.I. Joe in the UK, where the term "G.I." tends to be a medical shorthand for "genitourinary infection" as opposed to referring to the country's finest line in export violence. Shall we then move on to the idea that we now have a movie title which is not only completely nonsensical to most people in this part of the world, but also fails completely to associated itself with the popular toy line and any tattered remains of cachet that might afford to those of us who were children in the 80s. Or shall we move on to the fact that, despite having not seen even the most fleeting excerpt of the it, I'm more than willing to bet real, actual cream eclairs that G.I. Joe will turn out to be quite the most dismal cretin distractant it's possible to commit to celluloid. I mean, how is it possible to be in the meeting where someone pitches a movie called G.I. Joe and not go mad with a flamethrower? In this economic climate? In circumstances where major companies are going to the wall in direct proportion to their apparent enthusiasm for producing near-unwatchable bilge of the exact type that this will most certainly be? Aargh! P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 28, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted July 28, 2009 Oh, god, I take it all back. Even if there is a spelling mistake on the crates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted July 28, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted July 28, 2009 Oh, god, I take it all back. Even if there is a spelling mistake on the crates. Mr RHODES!!! It should be obvious even to a gentleman of even your level of connoisseuric-challengement, that the hoppy, peppery malty efflorence of Wilkinson’s Special Old Stoneground Hop Galway Delight vastly vastly exceeds the palatial “excellence” of that dastardly, musty, exsanguinate used dish water sold at under the conceit of being a real Ale at Darcy’s Inn! Furthermore- What....? Isn’t this the Campaign for Real Ale Forum? Oh, sorry, sorry…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted July 28, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted July 28, 2009 Oh, god, I take it all back. Even if there is a spelling mistake on the crates. So...did you watch the entire film in 7 minutes then? Amazing what they can do these days. Did you notice which bits were shot with the RED One? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted July 28, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted July 28, 2009 Wow, you've got a dotcom now. Have you ever checked out www.keithwalters.org? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 28, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted July 28, 2009 Have you ever checked out www.keithwalters.org? Very you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Fritzshall Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 There was a rumor going around a month or so ago that the director and producer were both fired- don't know if that ended up being confirmed or debunked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karel Bata Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Don't hotlink the images? :huh: Like, don't allow forums to post images and create a buzz for the film..? Maybe they don't like us talking about it either? :lol: O.K I did some Googling, and I'm confused. Which of these images is from the film? They all seem a bit unlikely to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) Say what you will, it still has Sienna Miller and the above pictured hot red head, Rachel Nichols, dressed both in leather, either of which is reason enough to stagger through this dog. :rolleyes: LOVE the squirrel pic BTW :D Edited July 29, 2009 by James Steven Beverly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted July 29, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted July 29, 2009 Say what you will, it still has Sienna Miller and the above pictured hot red head, Rachel Nichols, dressed both in leather, either of which is reason enough to stagger through this dog. :rolleyes: LOVE the squirrel pic BTW :D It's a $170 million feature, so I can't imaging it being that awful. If it's done a bit tongue-in-cheek like the Transformers films it will probably do OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karel Bata Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 $170million...? I've lost track - is that a lot these days? Did they get a government bail-out? You could buy a whole studio in eastern europe for that. Probably several. And Keith, since when did loadsamoney = quality? I've found that most mega-budget movies are very disappointing. Bring back David lean, I say. He knew how to blow buckets of money properly. Well I must say, I'm a red blooded alpha male, like everyone else here, but to me that chick just looks silly. Like she's gone for a big hair-do and bought an expensive wet suit only to put it on inside out. :D So why isn't this coming out for Xmas to market the toys? Or is the DVD due then, 4 months after theatrical..? :o It used to be five years before you could see a film on TV! Peter Medak broke that ruling here with 'The Ruling Class' (sic) and as a result his film couldn't be seen anywhere for over ten years. Oh excuse me - I've drifted off again... BTW I went to see if there were more squirrel pics (that one is genius!) and disturbingly found that it came from this site http://rat-hunter.com/ Well I do think I've found the film's target audience... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted July 29, 2009 Author Premium Member Share Posted July 29, 2009 I'm a red blooded alpha male, like everyone else here, but to me that chick just looks silly You're right. Americans are too obsessed with bouffant hairdos and those rather unconvincing hemispheres glued to her chest. She's supposed to be in the army, for god's sake. The killer for this sort of thing is often how the ladies' outfits compare to the guys'. The Japanese are much better at designing costumes that combine a vaguely believable level of martial prowess with bloke-friendly slinkiness but which don't look ridiculously overdone in comparison to their male companions who just need to look tough. Compare - girl version: Guy version: (and yes, yes, I know she's not actually really real, but I think it'd work if she was.) P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karel Bata Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Was a time when missing an eye was a fashion accessory reserved for tough guys only. :D I blame the Spice Girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Say what you will, it still has Sienna Miller... Except that Sienna Miller is persona non grata in Pittsburgh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted July 30, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted July 30, 2009 $170million...? I've lost track - is that a lot these days? Did they get a government bail-out? You could buy a whole studio in eastern europe for that. Probably several. And Keith, since when did loadsamoney = quality? I've found that most mega-budget movies are very disappointing. Bring back David lean, I say. He knew how to blow buckets of money properly. Yes it's interesting that the last time a fair market value for all of Panavision was published, it was something less than US$300 million, the price tag for a single moderate-sized blockbuster. $170 million is hardly mega-budget. But a film is like any other manufactured product; as long it does the job it was designed to do, for the budgeted price, I can't see what there is to complain about. Lots of people found employment on that production, theatres will get to sell more overpriced popcorn and soda pop, kids will be off the streets for a couple of hours. Things could be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monday sunnlinn Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 if any cartoon should have been done as a complete CGI epic, it would have to be this one...I would rather watch an animated cobra commander than a real life version...is there even a cobra commander in this movie? or is this his backstory? Actually you know what...don't bother answering that, I just realized I don't care... :rolleyes: the only thing this movie has going for it at this point is that it probably won't be as bad as everyone is thinking it will be...I can only hope they put a "knowing is half the battle" PSA in the end credits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now