Fan Rant: Where Did the Bad Buzz on 'G.I. Joe' Actually Come From?
Filed under: New Releases, RumorMonger, Newsstand, Movie Marketing
One of the most mystifying things about the summer of 2009 has been how, months ago and without any actual information to go on, it became gospel that G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was going to be a ridiculous train wreck. This is especially bewildering in light of the moderate-to-positive buzz that preceded the release of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, also for no apparent reason. Who decided that G.I. Joe would be terrible? When? Why?
I have, as they say, no robotically enhanced dog in this hunt. I certainly do not expect G.I. Joe to be any sort of season's highlight. I don't have any specific expectations for it, to be honest. But here's the information I have: this is a summer action movie directed by Stephen Sommers, whose last three blockbusters have ranged from tolerable mediocrity to delirious fun. Its cast includes character actors like Christopher Eccleston and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as the arch-villain, no less). Its trailer is no more or less ridiculous than you would expect from a movie based on action figures, and actually struck me as lighter on its feet than other recent tentpoles. Why it's fated to be the summer's biggest disaster escapes me entirely.
I mean, look at this USA Today piece about the film's "bad buzz". What facts does it actually contain? Anonymous, generalized "complaints" about elements of the trailer. (Was it really that bad? I just don't see it.) The notion that "the script was hurried into production" to beat the writer's strike -- legitimate, but shamefully vague. And a positive review from Harry Knowles, which I guess some people would consider a bad sign, but I'm not sure that's the point the article was making. The piece doesn't even mention the absurd rumors -- not helpful, though proven false -- that Stephen Sommers was kicked off the project in post-production.
The latest word, as you've probably heard, is that Paramount is thinking about considering maybe not screening the film for critics. (That's about as much as we know.) It's fair to assume that this is bad news, but at this point it seems just as likely that Paramount is doing damage control. Somehow, this movie was set up to fail, and -- given that it's admittedly unlikely to be any sort of masterpiece -- Paramount has nothing to gain from showing it to the knife-sharpening press.
I think G.I. Joe has at least a 60% chance of sucking, but that's my default for summer blockbusters, if that makes any sense. Transformers is so far ahead of the competition on my year's-worst list that G.I. Joe would have to make a truly heroic effort to give it a run for its money -- and since Sommers, unlike Michael Bay, at least has a plausible claim to being a filmmaker, that seems unlikely. Will G.I. Joe be unwatchable? How do you know?
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-30-2009 @ 3:18PM
BloodwerK said...
Some didn't like the "international" route that was taken, instead of being American like Joe is suppossed to be. Some didn't like those horrid Halo suits, as I call them, and didn't like the footage of those that was shown. Some didn't like either one. It might be a fine action movie, but is it really G.I. Joe? Transforners gets away with quite a bit because it's actually pretty good (and the second one has the Matrix, Energon, and the Space Bridge.. which helps). I'm not sure how much sense it makes, but that's how things are now: get a group of people on the internet against something and legions will follow...
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 3:24PM
Eric said...
It's not GI JOE. There is nothing in this film that looks anything like the Cartoon we all grew up loving. It looks like a lame cash in, granted GI JOE is not Shakespeare, but at least respect the source material.
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 3:33PM
Law said...
Personally, i believe this movie will suck. There are alot of things in it that just rub me the wrong way. Accelerator suits being one. The pictures I have seen of Destro - no mask. Why did they have RipChord be a black man? If you want to cast a african american, what the hell is wrong with Stalker? Hes a major bad ass. The toys I have seen refer to Cobra Commander as the Doctor. I hear he does not even wear his hood. Duke is a child. And it is no longer an US fighting force. if you want to make it international, add in the October Guard. There are a million things that could have been done to make this a better movie. And Scarlet/Ripchord romance? Everyone knows she is in love with Snake Eyes. But I do realize it is meant to sell toys to children. Its big commercial. And I am just a fanboy from long ago. That being said, I will still see it because a part of me hopes it will not suck.
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 3:40PM
metajerk said...
There's a Wayans brother in it, so you know it's terrible
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 3:43PM
Erik Davis said...
For what it's worth, the critics who have seen it are raving about it on Twitter ... but raving about it in a "the little kid inside me absolutely loved it" kind of way
7-30-2009 @ 10:00PM
kingsley ume said...
a wayan brother (same one actually) was in requiem for a dream and that movie is amazing.
7-31-2009 @ 12:37PM
MosquitoControl said...
Although a Wayans brother was in Requiem, I doubt he'll be reigned in as much here.
If he's allowed to do even a tiny bit of mugging it's over.
Like any Jamie Foxx movie.
Horribly unfunny and downright annoying, but when restrained they can be pretty decent.
I just can't fathom why you'd cast one when so many more talented actors are out there. Unless you actually wanted that awful mugging...
7-30-2009 @ 3:48PM
John Ramistella said...
Good article, but unfortunately there is never going to be a right answer. Bad buzz based on a few sneak previews of a rough cut in Clearwater, Florida, will cause a movie to be dramatically altered, which will more often than not result in a far worse movie, which will inevitably lead disappointed audiences to mutter, "I hope they release the director's cut on DVD. It has to be better than this garbage."
This same sort of thing has me worried about "Where the Wild Things Are." Can I just watch the movie already? Would that be all right?
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 3:50PM
Batzarro said...
I think GI Joe will do allright with me. Though I never was a fan.
But it does bring up the topic of preconcieved notions in movies. At what point before a film is released should people throw the towel and say "it WILL suck"? I still remember Justice League, which as I recall, didn't earn the audience's spite until Marvel announced Avengers and it was announced it wouldn't have Christian Bale/Tom Welling/Brandon ROuth. Then everyone and their mommas blog decided it would suck, despite not knowing the story or design or many other details that could have made it good.
Dragonball is another film I feel may have been treated too harshly. Sure, it's probably no classic, but it doesn't look totally awful. Fans of a show where a character spends 5 episodes preparing an attack and yelling at the top of his lungs suddenly become the good-taste police.
I mean, isn't it weird? The Joe Trailer didn't have anything that indicated it would be terrible. It's just that people are anxious for the next terrible movie they can harp on.
Accelerator suits? Thn how come people have embraced such Suit-changing film as Batman(all of them) and X-Men(again all of them, whether they are loved or hated?). Too much CGI? Oh, that just makes it the worst film of the decade, huh? "This guy is dating that guy?" This isn't an Achie film where characters are defined by who they're trying to love. It's GI Joe! It's about good guy soldiers vs Bad guy Soldiers. All the negative buzz about this little factors if baffiling.
Still, if it comes down to Joe vs District 9, I'm picking District 9. I'm still sore from when I had to choose between Watchmen and The Legend of Chun Li. Gotta make it right this time.
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 3:51PM
Rich said...
Its more like the comic than the TV Show and that I am grateful for.
Who knows where the bad buzz came from. Mostly the fanboys who are pissed. Unlike the Transformers thing, its sticking that the fanboys are crying foul.
I'm going to see it, my 9yo wants to see it. Am I expecting an amazing movie? No, its at best a mindless popcorn flick, at worst its a crapfest..
Either way it has Sienna Miller and Rachel Nichols in tight outfits...
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 3:56PM
Matthew said...
I can split away from nostalgia long enough to judge the product on its own - the trailer looks terrible. Take away the GI Joe name and it still looks terrible. I'm still going to see it, though. Frankly they could stick a "Dinosaucers" label on anything and I'd pay.
Plus the actors saying 'It's not my finest work' over and over again doesn't help build positive hype.
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 4:19PM
Drewbacca said...
I was hooked up with a free ticket to see it the night before it opens, so if it does suck - then at least I will have gotten my money's worth! ;-)
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 8:11PM
Validator said...
Is it just me or does this article reek of Deja Vu? AICN did a write-up of G.I. Joe the day before asserting basically the same claims as this article. In some passages, it's nearly verbatim (the interpretation of the USA today article, feigning surprise at the backlash, etc). I find it REALLY hard to believe that both of these articles were created in a vacuum given how similar their content is and the simple fact that they were both written a day apart. Granted, AICN's article also had a review of the movie but still - something is rotting in Denmark. Read Capone's thoughts on AICN and compare for yourself.
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 4:37PM
Liam said...
It's the writers/critics who have slammed this movie for months now. The same writers/critics who said The Watchmen was going to be the bestest motion picture ever. Which it wasn't. SPLAAAT!
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 4:51PM
Joseph Finn said...
I'd be snarky and say the bad buzz comes from it being a GI Joe movie just to start with, an adaptation of a seriously mediocre cartoon. But then Warren Ellis' miniseries came out and I saw that in the right hands the material can work (really, check out GI Joe: Resolute and you'll see even Cobra Commander gets to finally be not-ridiculous).
Reply
7-30-2009 @ 4:55PM
Joseph Moore said...
Two words: Marlon. Wayans. Do I really have to bring-up "Dungeons & Dragons"?
Reply
7-31-2009 @ 10:43AM
Dorv said...
I'll just reference what others have already: Requiem for a Dream.
7-30-2009 @ 5:13PM
Holly said...
I actually am looking forward to this movie, because it may be based on an action figure/cartoon that was big when I was small, but it's also directed by Stephen Sommers who directed the Mummy movies. The first two Mummys were good because they were self aware about how ridiculous they were, Sommers knew it and the cast knew it, they reacted accordingly while not skimping on the fight scenes or the few moments that required actual acting and it all worked. I'm really hoping the same holds true for GI Joe, but since its Dennis Quaid, I'm feeling pretty good about it.
Reply
8-28-2009 @ 1:55AM
Holly said...
Just saw it and wanted to report back to say I was wrong. Alot of the "We know how bad this is" snark was in there but Channing Tatum was not in on the joke at all and about 20 subplots should have been cut before I could focus on one long enough to care if any of them lived or died. But Marlon Wayans was actually really good, go figure?!
7-30-2009 @ 5:13PM
Ben said...
I think this movie looks like pure G.I. Joe. I've been recently re-watching the original series. In the first episode Cobra makes the Eiffel Tower disappear. The action in the trailers looks right on par with the cartoon, minus the lasers instead of bullets. The power suit thing seems like a naturally progressive concept that would've taken place in the cartoon eventually, if it continued for the last 20 years. The casting isn't my top choice, but for G.I. Joe that's arbitrary. While this surely won't be a cinematic masterpiece it looks fun. The early negative buzz seems to be set by people who are determined to see this thing fail, which I don't understand, unless you just naturally hate G.I. Joe. Whatever this film may be, IT CAN ONLY BE BETTER THAN TRANSFORMERS 2, which I ascertain is the worst film I've probably ever seen, but does make an excellent case for Existentialism as no scene is designed to validate any other scene's existence; each moment is for itself, like a commercial selling whatever is on screen at the moment. It only exists to exist. Practically any filmmaker can do better than that.
Reply