• From: Indiana, USA
  • Registered: 2009-11-23
  • Posts: 2,747
  • User Karma: 516

Re: G.I. Joe

maul2 wrote:

Ah thank you, and can someone please for the love of the gods put a comma in that image, it drives me nuts everytime I see it.

Those are two complete sentences. Using a mere comma would make it a single run-on sentence.

Grammatical

  • DORKMAN KNOWS THAT [negative space] NOW YOU KNOW THAT

  • DORKMAN KNOWS THAT. NOW YOU KNOW THAT.

  • DORKMAN KNOWS THAT; NOW YOU KNOW THAT.

  • DORKMAN KNOWS THAT—NOW YOU KNOW THAT.

  • DORKMAN KNOWS THAT, AND NOW YOU KNOW THAT.

Also, "every time" is two words.

See me after class.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Zarban's Website

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2012-01-07
  • Posts: 3

Re: G.I. Joe

I actually think this movie is what a G.I. Joe movie should be: army guys going up against the bad guys as told by 7 year olds.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2014-02-15
  • Posts: 94
  • User Karma: 3

Re: G.I. Joe

OK, 2 things

First, this movie was made for guys like me who watched this 80's cartoon as a kid.
The movie follows the 80's cartoon almost perfectly except for a few things.
As far as the big ass toys from the 60's, that has nothing to do with this movie
and they never expected men of that age to come and watch this movie.
If you were not a boy or tomboy born between 1970-1975, then you would have
no idea what this movie should be about as far as the story and characters.
I have even watched the cartoons recently, they are actually well written sci-fi.
I never played with the toys. but they basically were identical in size to the Star Wars figures.
Also, every type of flying craft and magic bean tech they have in this movie is all in the
original 80's cartoon. In the Cartoons universe, it was in the future and also was def.
had an alternate history going on. All of this I clearly remember thinking about when
I was 11 yrs old watching this show. I am actually surprised that they went to killing
people in the movie, since they(obviously so parents wouldn't flip out) had super high tech
ejection seats and bodyarmour and nobody died. Also they did not use bullets, they were
using some type of stun phasers, because use could get shot by the enemy and still survive.
But one things is for sure that this WAS NOT made to sell toys. There is a whole generation of
guys like me with families who they expected to go and see this movie for nostalgia.
Don't get me wrong, this was not a good movie.
BTW, the backstory on the 2 Ninjas might have been about what seems like minor
characters, but the 2 ninjas were a major deal in the cartoon, and there was entire
stories that spanned multiple episodes based on them.

Second, The fact that the invisibility suit wasn't used is not bad story telling.
They have been doing that in spy movies for years, look how many gadgets
they showed Bond over the years that looked cool in the map/training room,
but wasn't given to use in the movie. So every Bond movie should automatically
be crap because they all have MIA Chekhov's Gun...

OMGOMG, LMAO!! OK, Trey hates that Blond chick, well her name was Cover Girl, who in the cartoon
was bad ass.  But, um, OMG, OK so they. maybe with keeping true to the cartoon, they actually
got a REAL covergirl to play that part, she had absolutely no acting experience whatsoever, LMAO.
Clearly someone wasn't thinking straight on that one. It most have been someones girlfriend..

Last edited by mkeithddc (2014-03-16 16:27:28)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: G.I. Joe

I'm sorry, I get that this was a movie based upon a cartoon and toy line from my era, but I grew up with the 60s, Trey toys, so I am with Trey on this one. His rant is probably one of my favorite ones from WAYDM simply because I identified with it, understood it and wanted to applaud by the end.

In all honesty, the movie should have just been called "Snake Eyes" and called it good. That was the only part of the movie that caught my interest. It also wasted Dennis Quaid: major strike right there (much like Battleship, which wasted Liam Neeson).

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • Registered: 2014-02-15
  • Posts: 94
  • User Karma: 3

Re: G.I. Joe

fireproof78 wrote:

I'm sorry, I get that this was a movie based upon a cartoon and toy line from my era, but I grew up with the 60's, Trey toys, so I am with Trey on this one. His rant is probably one of my favorite ones from WAYDM simply because I identified with it, understood it and wanted to applaud by the end.

In all honesty, the movie should have just been called "Snake Eyes" and called it good. That was the only part of the movie that caught my interest. It also wasted Dennis Quaid: major strike right there (much like Battleship, which wasted Liam Neeson).

Well, just sayin. If someone, hypothetically had sat down and watched a season of the
cartoon on Netflix, which takes maybe a few hours, then they would totally understand
this movie. The movie would still be bad, but they would know all of the characters and
none of the tech or the crazy plot would bother them, because this movie is just like a
storyline from the cartoon from 85'.
And the story lines for those cartoons were written just as well as your favorite Star Trek
or Dr Who episode. They would even have one story last over 3-4 episodes to give it time
to flesh out.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: State of Idaho
  • Registered: 2010-12-08
  • Posts: 2,367
  • User Karma: 289

Re: G.I. Joe

mkeithddc wrote:
fireproof78 wrote:

I'm sorry, I get that this was a movie based upon a cartoon and toy line from my era, but I grew up with the 60's, Trey toys, so I am with Trey on this one. His rant is probably one of my favorite ones from WAYDM simply because I identified with it, understood it and wanted to applaud by the end.

In all honesty, the movie should have just been called "Snake Eyes" and called it good. That was the only part of the movie that caught my interest. It also wasted Dennis Quaid: major strike right there (much like Battleship, which wasted Liam Neeson).

Well, just sayin. If someone, hypothetically had sat down and watched a season of the
cartoon on Netflix, which takes maybe a few hours, then they would totally understand
this movie. The movie would still be bad, but they would know all of the characters and
none of the tech or the crazy plot would bother them, because this movie is just like a
storyline from the cartoon from 85'.
And the story lines for those cartoons were written just as well as your favorite Star Trek
or Dr Who episode. They would even have one story last over 3-4 episodes to give it time
to flesh out.

While I have no problem with reading (or watching outside material) a movie should be able to stand alone without that material. In other words, as I have often heard argued here, I should not have to do research in order to understand the movie.

Also, if this movie is just like the cartoon, then it should not be billed as a tent pole action piece aimed at the summer movie crowd. It should be animated or toned down (ala The Pacifier) to accommodate a family audience.

I won't try to speak for anyone else here, but I imagine that many would say that Star Trek or Dr. Who were written better. If I am wondering who the characters are in a movie then something is wrong with the movie. Even when I was 10, I didn't walk away from a Star Trek episode wondering about what I just watched.

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down