GI JOE: Rise of Cobra (Spoilers Ahoy!)

[neoolong]

That's quite possible, though Hasbro is,from what i've seen, pumping out a new toyline for this movie so I'm not sure. As an aside, that's going to be at least half of the major income of this movie, the toy sales. People like me are going to grab that shit up.

Which also uses reuse when it can. The pilot in the Night Raven is repainted for the Defense of Cobra Island set.

The Target exclusive RHINO is pretty damn awesome though. And on sale this week to boot.

[Vympel]

War of the Worlds: Martians invade, we can't stop them cause they have lasers and mecha, but a virus kills them at the end.

The Time Machine: in a dramatic twist ending, a dude builds a time machine! He goes to the future and sees furries and bishonen, the end.

Transformers 2: Michael Bay makes a billion dollars in a week, Roger Ebert eats a gun, cue celebration form the end of ROTJ.

Interestingly, the War of the Worlds movie sucked precisely because it was weighed down by Tom Cruise's super fucking annoying kids and the plot surrounding them. Not to mention the shitty ending where his annoying ass son lived.

[Stark]

Yeah, it didn't suck because it was horrid poorly-written crap; it sucked because it was too highbrow, followed rules of drama and was so deep and meaningful! I'm so glad 18 showed us his laughably stupid black-white fallacy, so we can see what's really important.

Oh PS? TF is waaaaay worse than GI Joe, and GI Joe is so fucked by studio problems the start looks like a different goddamn movie. This is fucking hilarious.

[Vympel]

Yeah, it didn't suck because it was horrid poorly-written crap; it sucked because it was too highbrow, followed rules of drama and was so deep and meaningful! I'm so glad 18 showed us his laughably stupid black-white fallacy, so we can see what's really important.

It was poorly written, because it was trying to be something other than what it should have been. The whole Tom Cruise + kids + estranged wife or whatever shit it had utterly failed from the start- a better script for his idiot kids would've gone a ways to fixing things, I suspect. If GI Joe is actually entertaining (watching it tonight, yay for tight-ass Tuesday) then it'll be because it isn't pretentious and weighed down by annoying subplot ideas.

Oh PS? TF is waaaaay worse than GI Joe

How can any movie with Optimus Prime and 90% of ILM's resources be way worse than something with shit effects and with Marlon Wayans as a main actor?

Get out of here, you lousy bum.

[Stark]

It was poorly written, because it was trying to be something other than what it should have been. The whole Tom Cruise + kids + estranged wife or whatever shit it had utterly failed from the start. If GI Joe is actually entertaining (watching it tonight, yay for tight-ass Tuesday) then it'll be because it isn't pretentious and weighed down by annoying subplot ideas.

Hey I ain't arguing about THAT! If there's something GI Joe isn't, it's pretentious.

How can any movie with Optimus Prime and 90% of ILM's resources be way worse than something with shit effects and with Marlon Wayans as a main actor?

Get out of here, you lousy bum.

Not being a brandslave (ps different Prime = no investment lol) or swayed by meaningless statistics, I'm more concerned with the actual content of the movie.

When you see GI Joe, please think of me when you see the MICHAEL BAY HELICOPTER SHOTS.

With chocolate Apaches.

[Vympel]

Not being a brandslave (ps different Prime = no investment lol)

Wait wait wait - isn't that the exact opposite of not being a brandslave? Only being invested in the Optimus Prime from G1, or whatever? I mean, big red and blue robot with voice of Peter Cullen that turns into a truck, kicks ass, and says cool shit all the time - that's the brand to which I am a helpless slave.

or swayed by meaningless statistics, I'm more concerned with the actual content of the movie.

Ah, but this meaningless statistic has direct relevance to the content of the movie - i.e. the effects in TF2 rock, and the ones in GI Joe seem to ... look like they're from a video game cutscene circa 1996. Given GI Joe is pretty much going to be getting a huge part of its appeal by how convincing the action is, I'm pretty scared.

When you see GI Joe, please think of me when you see the MICHAEL BAY HELICOPTER SHOTS.

With chocolate Apaches.

Did they use 7 helicopters?

[Stark]

Not being a brandslave (ps different Prime = no investment lol)

Wait wait wait - isn't that the exact opposite of not being a brandslave? Only being invested in the Optimus Prime from G1, or whatever? I mean, big red and blue robot with voice of Peter Cullen that turns into a truck, kicks ass, and says cool shit all the time - that's the brand to which I am a helpless slave.

Yes, that's my point; if they called a potplant 'Optimus Prime' I wouldn't give a shit, just like I don't give a shit about the stupid TV show etc.

PS, in TF Prime doesn't say 'cool shit' at all, let alone 'all the time'. But hey, at least he says more than 'rarararar' and 'lol human' like Megatron?

Ah, but this meaningless statistic has direct relevance to the content of the movie - i.e. the effects in TF2 rock, and the ones in GI Joe seem to ... look like they're from a video game cutscene circa 1996. Given GI Joe is pretty much going to be getting a huge part of its appeal by how convincing the action is, I'm pretty scared.

Oh yeah, some of them are REALLY BAD. It's also pretty bad you found the action in TF 'convincing'.

Did they use 7 helicopters?

All helicopters are made of 1998 videogame cutscene. You can spot the scenes they worked on early and are polished and the ones that someone though WHOA USE THIS HELICOPTER SHOT LIKE MICHEAL BAY WOOOOOO. You'll be sad when you see JET OSPREYS!

[Vympel]

PS, in TF Prime doesn't say 'cool shit' at all, let alone 'all the time'. But hey, at least he says more than 'rarararar' and 'lol human' like Megatron?

Bah. "I WANT YOUR FACE". Nuff said.

But hey, at least he says more than 'rarararar' and 'lol human' like Megatron?

Megatron only needs to say "Decepticons attack!" as per his contract.

Oh yeah, some of them are REALLY BAD. It's also pretty bad you found the action in TF 'convincing'.

Well, fuck yeah.

All helicopters are made of 1998 videogame cutscene. You can spot the scenes they worked on early and are polished and the ones that someone though WHOA USE THIS HELICOPTER SHOT LIKE MICHEAL BAY WOOOOOO. You'll be sad when you see JET OSPREYS!

Sheesh. Ok we'll see. At this point 50% I'm putting money down for is Sienna Miller in leather.

[Stark]

The other one is better. It's ludicrous (and hilariuos, and possibly Danger Mouse) that people could consider her elegant or classy. As camp villanesses go she's 100% standard.

I look forward to your feedback.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Yeah whatever, you're getting old Stark.

You were funnier when all your insults began with "I love how" and ended with "What's that!?"

It was like having an argument with that guy from Memento who keeps forgetting what the discussion is about.


Now you just make up words and use ALLCAPS.

5/10, still humorous but I was expecting more.

[Stark]

Turns out you're a trolling anti-intellectual idiot? Who THE FUCK knew?

Micheal Bay crap or Sea Biscuit, right? Rules of drama? You're a fucking riot. Throw some more out, toy-boy.

[18-Till-I-Die]

See that's what I mean, now in the old days that would have been:

"I love how you just troll and shit instead of making an argument! Compelling plot, what's that!?"

And see, it's both ironic and funny on it's own, because it's funny that someone would talk like that unionically and ironic that someone would do that trying to be funny. It's complex and multilayered, like a David Lynch movie.

But this...this is just some popcorn 4chan stuff. I mean, yeah it's entertaining but it's very mediocre. Also some plot holes are apparent: like what is "toy boy"? Is that like a come on or something? You mean like "someone who buys toys?" Because it's never made clear...kind of a gaff there. Also, the use of ALLCAPS is kind of overdone. And a bit long, that whole second line could have been shorter overall if some parts had been cut out.

[Stark]

Wow, how meta. You've taken 'being a completely retarded laughingstock' into the postmodern world. Too bad you're still dumb as fuck and totally incapable of defending your statements - which I guess is ideal since everyone ignores you. Please tell us some more about how low your standards of comprehension are - alternatively, just troll.

And I don't know about you, but I've having a blast.

[Vympel]

Don't make me split and HoS this argument, guys. I'm all for tongue-in-cheek discussion, which is what I thought was going on, but personal flamewars are to be undertaken in the HoS, not here.

[Tsyroc]

I myself tend to lump this movie in with the likes of Speed Racer. It is essentially a live action episode of the show complete with bond villain lairs, crazy vehicle designs, nifty gadgets, occasional dodgy animation (to be honest some of the special effects shots just don't look finished), and more than a little cheese.

IMO that's typical of a Stephen Sommers movie. He could really stand to have someone to rein him in a bit because in all of his movies it appears that he's trying to cram as much crap in as possible. It can be an additional 20 action scenes or another sfx shot but if he's got the money he'll shove it in there even if it might actually be too much, or in the case of the sfx, mean the overall quality of the shots drops in favor of the more is better approach. He's also stated that he likes CG. That everything else looks fake to him. Funny, but to me a lot of the mid grade cg that he often settles for looks worse than some of the stuff he could have done in camera. The movement might be more real looking but the actual figures are a different story.

That being said, I do tend to like his movies. They are a little frustrating because it's so easy to spot flaws and that makes me wonder what Sommers could do if he had to answer to a strong producer. Maybe the Mummy 2 would have been better, or maybe Van Helsing wouldn't have quite so many ridiculous bits.

[Vympel]

I thought Mummy 2 was fine.

His fucked movies were The Scorpion King, and Ven Helsing.

Mummy 3 was also pants, but he only produced that one.

[Tsyroc]

I thought Mummy 2 was fine.

His fucked movies were The Scorpion King, and Ven Helsing.

Mummy 3 was also pants, but he only produced that one.

For the most part I agree with you on Mummy 2. I thought the cg on the Anubis army could have been better and I know some people who weren't crazy about the Scorpion King at the end but in general that movie was okay.

I thought the Scorpion King movie would have been better if they had played it serious from the beginning. There was a bit too much cheese humor, and the film didn't really jive with the prelude to the Mummy 2 like it should have.

Van Helsing is the best example of Sommers just going hog wild and doing everything that popped into his head and then some more. Scale back some of the shit and that movie would have been much better. Even if they kept the over-the-top Dracula cheese.

I liked the Mummy 3, although something seemed a bit off about it. Visually I think the sfx had a better look throughout the movie than most of Sommer's previous movies managed to maintain.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Mummy 2 and 3 were ok by me, but not his best work. Mummy 1 was better than both of them, for all practical purposes. Part three was more fun than part two though, because I think they kind of stopped trying to be "serious" and realized it was about a magic Chinese mummy fighting zombies from the Great Wall and just ran with it.

Van Helsing was ass...it wasn't enough action to make me not notice it was retarded, and wasn't retarded enough to be funny like Manos, the Hands of Fate. You know a movie is bad when even I complain about the plot holes, gaffs and ass-pulls. Just to give you an idea, I enjoyed both Max Payne and XXX 2.

The Scorpion King gave me AIDS. It was that bad. I didn't even know Sommers made that one...

[neoolong]

Sommers didn't direct the third Mummy movie, though he did write it, at least partly. Rob Cohen directed, which isn't surprising.

[Vympel]

The thing that sucked hard about Van Helsing - the only thing I really even remember about that piece of shit, was how it was just unbelievably loud. Every two seconds it was a another big, bombastic scream fest. It just tired me out like no other movie.

And hey, what the hell's wrong with Max Payne? It rocked.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Well, I thought Max Payne was a perfectly fine "dark action" movie, or "action noir" if you're a faux intellectual movie critic like the guy in my local news paper. But, according to what other people tell me, it's supposed to suck for some reason. I was being sarcastic, cause I've long since learned to relish the fact that people around here think I have "bad taste". Honestly I had half a mine to ask for a custom title, "Tasteless", but I figured it was a bit too self-indulgent and people wouldn't get the self-depricating joke and think I got titled for being HoSed or something.

I stand by my assessement that The Scorpion King gave me AIDS though.

I'll tell you what though, it's not even what I'd call a "bad" movie. I've seen worse. If this were a different venue I'd probably issue a rant about it but I'll keep my pants on for the sake of not getting the thread split. But basically, when someone like, say, Roger Ebert says a movie is "bad" and it's like because there was some minor plot hole...that's so incredibly wrong I could go on for days explaining why that's a minor problem, if at all.

I've seen bad movies. These people saw good movies with bad scenes and mistook that for a bad movie.

[Ford Prefect]

Yeah whatever, you're getting old Stark.

Are you being deliberately ironic? This is a serious question: you come into threads like these and say what is essentially the exact same thing every time.

The other one is better. It's ludicrous (and hilariuos, and possibly Danger Mouse) that people could consider her elegant or classy. As camp villanesses go she's 100% standard.

It's amazing how much The Baroness plays to type. There is literally no attempt made to make her less of a vampish sociopath in high heels and rayguns, and you know what? This is somehow perfect. She even had something like sexual tension with Storm Shadow! Genius!

[18-Till-I-Die]

Yeah whatever, you're getting old Stark.

Are you being deliberately ironic? This is a serious question: you come into threads like these and say what is essentially the exact same thing every time.

Well, since I'm not sure what you mean, I would ask you to clarify. I have a feeling I'm walking into some major snark here (because I have a feeling that's a 'serious question' like I'm President Obama) but actually I don't know what you mean.

[Ford Prefect]

In the full post of what I just quoted, you chewed out Stark for repeating himself multiple times. However, the fact of the matter is you have said essentially the same thing regarding critics on multiple occassions. The actual wording is different but the intent is identical: that film ciritcs are essentially retards who think too hard about movies, and that pretensions at any sort of meaningful plot or thematic writing just makes the film maker a dickhead. I mean, just look at how utterly dismissive you are of the very idea of a 'deep plot'. You act as though your position is completely unassailable, and the implication of a lot of what you're saying is that you believe that people who do not similarily hold your position are, in this case, 'media snobs'.

[18-Till-I-Die]

In the full post of what I just quoted, you chewed out Stark for repeating himself multiple times. However, the fact of the matter is you have said essentially the same thing regarding critics on multiple occassions. The actual wording is different but the intent is identical: that film ciritcs are essentially retards who think too hard about movies, and that pretensions at any sort of meaningful plot or thematic writing just makes the film maker a dickhead. I mean, just look at how utterly dismissive you are of the very idea of a 'deep plot'. You act as though your position is completely unassailable, and the implication of a lot of what you're saying is that you believe that people who do not similarily hold your position are, in this case, 'media snobs'.

Ok so you really do want to know, good that was very civil of you. I'm actually really shocked someone actually asked, since I took it as kind of a given everyone just dismissed me as being "that guy who likes action movies".

I said that ("that" being that I hold movie critics in contempt) because that's how I feel. Film critcs are, near as I can tell, just a bunch of grasping, self-important douches who have no actual authority other than the power that people (for some reason I can never understand) give them. Why should the subjective opinion of someone I don't know have any wieght on my personal likes and dislikes. Now I'm sorry if that bothers some people, but basically if you REALLY need someone to tell you how to feel about a movie, you can ask the bum on the street for free. The notion that someone is paid to think for other people (and as far as I am concerned that's what critics do) is hilariously ironic from people who supposedly pride themselves on their alleged intellectual prowess, i.e. "media snobs".

As for "deep plot", I have always used that term sarcastically...because it's almost never deep. Name a supposedly deep movie, 9 times out of 10 it's just a really dark movie, or a movie where two people talk about their marriage for an hour or something. That's not deep, that's not even character development, that's just self-indulgent, I've seen episodes of Aqua Teen Hunger Force that were deeper than some "deep" movies. I hold them in contempt because they're so pretenteous and so utterly stupid, and frankly their attempts at drama make me laugh. I actually went to see My Sister's Keeper because I found the trailer funny, and so did my friends. We went as a group, riffing the movie, I almost coulding breathe I was laughing so hard when they were dancing around on a beach...if that's supposed to be "meaningful plot" or something then, sorry, that's just stupid.

You want to know the most meaninful, emotional movie I ever saw? Terminator 2. I'm not close to kidding. I cried for ten minutes after I saw that movie as a kid, when the Terminator sacrifices himself to protect John Conner, and there was no ridiculous attempt at drama or anything just a naturalistic and fairly realistic (for what it was) scene where they say their goodbyes and he lowers himself into the steel. I was literally in tears. Having never had a father, the thought that, as Sarah put it, this machine could learn to be a father figure for John Conner struck me in the fucking heart. That was so natural, and so organic, and almost like a mistake...and that's why it worked. When someone TRIES to make something dramatic or "deep" it just comes off as overdone and silly to me. When it happens by accident--like real emotions in real life--that's when I like it. I felt more emotional about the sudden, atypical, anticlimatic death of Wash in Serenity than I did about the death of the girl in My Sister's Keeper because I didn't feel like the director was sitting behind me screaming "SEE! SEE! DEEP, IT'S FUCKING MEANINFUL!!!" in my ear like an obnoxious backseat driver.

Now as for the implications...well, yeah. If you actually watched, like, the trailer for Precious for example...and that didn't immediately strike you as utterly ridiculous then I'm sorry you're just not going to agree with me. People who find these forced emotions and pretentous pseudofeelings to be deep or even meaningful are being suckered in by what is in effect just really flashy handwaving. Most of these movies that have "deep plots" are all handwave. You're never asked to explore anything about them meaningful. You're never asked to actually THINK you're just told what to feel and, if you agree with them, you feel it. Why is Watchmen deep...because it's supposed to be. Why is South Park funny...because it is. Why am I supposed to care about X character...well because. The people who like that crap are the people who gave Meg Ryan a career. People who aren't me. And frankly I blame them for having to sit through countless trailers for The Time Traveler's Wife and Paper Heart and The Cider House Rules before seeing something that actually matters. You'd think these movies would at least not be predictable but they so are...I called the ending of that last one when I saw the trailer. My girlfriend saw it, she said I was dead on. I called the ending of My Sister's Keeper when I read a blurb about it in a magazine. I was literally DEAD ON with even the LINES they said. It's not just pretentous, it's stock. People who like that crap are fucking dittoheads that would make Rush Limbaugh recoil in shock. Brandslaves indeed...

I used to actually care that I didn't "get" this crap. Then I finally listened to one of those idiotic teen shows and decided to be myself...I have yet to see one movie that was ON PURPOSE meant to be "deep" or "meaningful" that actually was, like I have yet to see a song written to be purposefully deep or meaningful that was. These movies you guys like are the cinema equivalent of The Christmas Shoes: stupid, archaic, midnless overdramatic filler with as much plot as they need to get to some important scene where someone dies or something. The very fact anyone thinks that is "meaningful" or thematic AT ALL frankly makes me kind of angry, since it shows just how shallow these people are even when, I like to hope, they really aren't. It's like thinking a puddle is really shallow and finding out it's not even a puddle, it's a stain that looks like a puddle from a distance with about a femtometer of depth. And that's the fans, the movies are just mirages that look like stains that look like puddles, but only if you squint and tilt your head.

And I know that everyone and their brother thinks I'm a horrible person with bad taste and whatever, but really I can't even begin to care. If the alternative is basically being a dittohead (and yes, that's what a media snob is) then I'd rather die of cancer. I'm serious. I take pride in the fact that I only see movies I genuinely want to, and that I only give them praise if I genuinely feel I should, and everyone else's opinion can go fuck itself. That's why I make a joke about having bad taste every five seconds...the fact that term even exists, as if something as arbitrary as "taste" can be measured, strikes me as the literal height of arrogance and shallowness. To me, it's a joke, a running gag, I've come to truly feel great pride in that because I know what the alternative is, and it makes me feel good I've outright turned my back on it.