G.I. Joe 2 (Sequel)

JP Liz V1

http://www.blogomatic3000.com/2010/08/04/stephen-sommers-returning-for-g-i-joe-sequel/

Sommers and Tatum coming back for the sequel :rolleyes:

Sanjuro

Wow. A sequel I cant see anyone asking for. GI Joe was utter rubbish.

nix

To be honest i thought GI Joe was a decent action flick, hit all the right notes and i didnt find any character annoying.

It had a nice pace and kept me entertained the whole way through, i think going in expecting to be greatly disappointed may have helped.

Id rather see another GI joe movie over another piece of crap Transformers movie tbh, GI Joe was ALOT better than that piece of crap :rolleyes:

Zulu

Shit. Utter, utter shit.

Anakin.S

Sanjuro wrote: »

Wow. A sequel I cant see anyone asking for. GI Joe was utter rubbish.

It was an absolute watch once movie, I'd give the second a go because they have set up all the base characters and could really hit the ground running, probably wont though

BostonB

They should have made the first one a kids movie. Ditto the second.

They keep trying to make kids movies, for adults, and thus the main target audience can't see it, due to age restrictions.

humanji

I liked the first one. It was silly nonsense, but it was fun pointing out all the toys me and my mates used to play with. I can't imagine I'd go to the cinema to see the second one, but I might pick it up in the video library, or watch it if it was on tv.

Hank_Jones

Don't think I'll be rushing out to see this one.

The first one was awful, from what I remember.

paddyismaddy

oh no say it aint so

niallon

Great news! I was only looking at the first the other day. Yes, pure and utter muck inn nearly every possible way but all those elements combined to make a great dumb as f**k action film. A perfect example of how if you are going to make a movie based on a toy, taking yourself seriously is the greatest downfall.

grimm2005

niallon wrote: »

Great news! I was only looking at the first the other day. Yes, pure and utter muck inn nearly every possible way but all those elements combined to make a great dumb as f**k action film. A perfect example of how if you are going to make a movie based on a toy, taking yourself seriously is the greatest downfall.

Exactly. I went in thinking this would be a horrible film in every way, but it didn't take itself seriously and so in the end i enjoyed it for what it was (granted going in with a very low expectation definitly helped)

Galvasean

niallon wrote: »

Great news! I was only looking at the first the other day. Yes, pure and utter muck inn nearly every possible way but all those elements combined to make a great dumb as f**k action film. A perfect example of how if you are going to make a movie based on a toy, taking yourself seriously is the greatest downfall.

I'm surprised more people don't share your opinion. Granted I have not seen the film myself, but most of the people I know who didn't like it said it was 'dumb', 'silly' or 'childish'. When was G.I. Joe anything but these things?

BostonB

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm surprised more people don't share your opinion. Granted I have not seen the film myself, but most of the people I know who didn't like it said it was 'dumb', 'silly' or 'childish'. When was G.I. Joe anything but these things?

When they made it a PG-13 movie. Its for kids, and kids can't watch it, but they expect them to buy the toys of a movie they can't watch. So its for teens and adults then?

Galvasean

Well clearly kids can watch it. They just need to be accompanied by someone older. No doubt to prevent outcry from overzealous parents because, unsurprisingly, it contains fantasy violence and they don't want to get sued.

BostonB

Well clearly you see the label and don't bring a kid to see it, or rent the DVD. Who buys these toys? a 6yr old, a 13 yr old.

People can choose just to ignore the ratings, and let their kids watch anything. In my experience these ratings are usually justified, if only be one ot two scenes. For example Revenge of the sith, or the Spiderman movies, or some of the Harry Potter movies. Which are ok bar one or two scenes.

Galvasean

BostonB wrote: »

Well clearly you see the label and don't being a kid to see it, or rent the DVD.

PG13 means it's okay for kids but they need to be accompanied by an adult 'just in case'. The adult is mandatory just in case their kids get frightened.

Richard Dower

^ the cinema's never enforce PG-13 or 12A, the studios get the 12A to garner as many viewers as posible.

BostonB

Galvasean wrote: »

Well clearly kids can watch it. They just need to be accompanied by someone older. No doubt to prevent outcry from overzealous parents because, unsurprisingly, it contains fantasy violence and they don't want to get sued.

Galvasean wrote: »

.... Granted I have not seen the film myself, but most of the people I know who didn't like it said it was 'dumb', 'silly' or 'childish'. When was G.I. Joe anything but these things?

With respect, you're very sure about a film that you haven't seen. I have seen it and thought some of the action scenes were ok, I liked the power suits, and the chase scene, (bad CGI excepted) but overall a very weak movie. In the back of my head I was also checking it out, for my kid and I thought it unsuitable. I can't remember any specific scene, but that was my overall impression. I'd have to rewatch it to be specific and I couldn't face watching it again.

If the point of a movie it is to sell toys to kids, (and I can't see any other reason for this movie) it makes no sense to end up with a PG-13 rating, which suggests IMO its not suitable for a lot of kids. Sure you can ignore the rating, but my experience is its usually there for a reason.

Galvasean

BostonB wrote: »

In the back of my head I was also checking it out, for my kid and I thought it unsuitable. I can't remember any specific scene, but that was my overall impression. I'd have to rewatch it to be specific and I couldn't face watching it again.

That's fair enough.Can anyone else highlight for us what scenes might be considered unsuitable for kids?

niallon

Galvasean wrote: »

That's fair enough.Can anyone else highlight for us what scenes might be considered unsuitable for kids?

Sienna Miller in a catsuit, I can imagine she created interesting and awkward father son conversations!

Honestly I don't remember any, there's just general action but I guess

Joseph Gordon Levitt towards the end is a little creepy lookin.

Honestly the only moments I can think of would only affect the youngest of children

Wolflikeme

nix wrote: »

To be honest i thought GI Joe was a decent action flick, hit all the right notes and i didnt find any character annoying.

It had a nice pace and kept me entertained the whole way through, i think going in expecting to be greatly disappointed may have helped.

Id rather see another GI joe movie over another piece of crap Transformers movie tbh, GI Joe was ALOT better than that piece of crap :rolleyes:

Are you mental!?! It was terrible I thought. Now I like a brainless action flick but, this was just bad. We were in hysterics laughing in the cinema most of the way through, so from that perspective, I'd a great time watching it (albeit for the wrong reasons).

I thoroughly enjoyed the A-Team though.

Disclaimer: Massive fan of both as a kid.

Wolflikeme

Galvasean wrote: »

That's fair enough.Can anyone else highlight for us what scenes might be considered unsuitable for kids?

I'm not a father but, I honestly can't think of one unsuitable instance in the film that would cause me concern if I was one.

Sure we all watched Wonder Woman as kids no!?!

Mitch Connor

I really enjoyed the first. It is not a master piece, but it is what it should be - GI Joe.

It is the movie version of the games I used to play with the GI Joe toes - all action, big explosions and fun. I expected nothing more from it than to be a fun popcorn flick and that is exactly what I got. The action scenes were well done and actually visable (unlike the transformers film of the same summer) and it hit the right spots.

BostonB

I remember the original A-Team and they shoot millions bullets and tbh I don't remember anyone getting shot, never mind die. I thought it was a standing joke about it. I didn't like wonder woman, but as I kid I thought it was weak, with little action.

I found this about GI Joe, but again its not a movie I remember much about...

Constant extreme -- though generally bloodless -- action violence. A man has a white-hot metal mask affixed to his face. Characters are shot, decapitated, and stabbed and slashed with swords and throwing stars

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/gi-joe-rise-cobra

Parents need to know that this relentless action adventure inspired by the '80s cartoon/toy line is filled with extreme (albeit minimally bloody/gory) violence. Kids will want to see it because they're the ones who play with the toys, but there's no end to the parade of characters who are slashed, stabbed, shot, or dispatched invarious other ways (it's important to note that, unlike in the similarly inspired Transformers movies, most of the victims here are people, not machines). There's also a lot of potentially scary medical imagery -- needles, scalpels, painful-looking procedures, and more -- and some intermittent strong language (including "s--t"). And Hasbro, the company that makes G.I. Joe toys, co-produced the movie -- meaning that the story doesn't contain product placement so much as the product placement contains a story.

I remembered I kinda liked the good/bad ninja thing going on. Wasn't that in this movie?

JP Liz V1

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Adrianne-Palicki-GI-Joe-1034923.aspx

Adrianne Palicki is trading in her Wonder Woman costume for military fatigues.
The actress, who starred in NBC's failed Wonder Woman pilot earlier this year, has joined the upcoming G.I. Joe sequel, Deadline reports.
Palicki, 29, will play Lady Jaye, the female lead in the film. Lady Jaye is the team's covert operations specialist and a love interest for warrant officer Flint, who will be played by Detroit 1-8-7's D.J. Cotrona in the sequel.
G.I. Joe: Cobra Strikes, starring Channing Tatum and Dwayne Johnson, is expected to hit theaters sometime next summer.
Palicki, who is best known for her role on Friday Night Lights, will next appear in Red Dawn.

Venom

A GI Joe sequel is good news in my book

The first while not the best example of summer blockbuster fare was more than good enough and much better than some other movies that have been based on kids toys.

I loved the first one, it was a film made and aimed at 10 year old boys and all the better for it. The last 45 minutes of the film are pure spectacle and work magnificently, it's as if Sommer's watched a 10 year old kid playing with G.I. Joe and just copied it exactly.

ChopShop

Also RZA as the Hard Master (comic character...was never a toy during the original ARAH run)

Jinx has been cast too. I just plain can't remember the name of the actress.

Gordon-Levitt has said he's not coming back...which is hardly surprising. He was less than complementary before the film even finished shooting, and his profile has gone through the roof after last summer.

i'm kind of sorry to see Wayans isn't coming back....i wanted to dislike him, but it was hard not to warm to him.

Mickeroo

In fairness, despite the first ones flaws Snake Eyes was pretty fookin cool. Joseph Gordon Levitt was great in it too. I thought it was a lot of fun overall.

JP Liz V1

Source

Bruce Willis is in negotiations with Paramount to join the cast of G.I. Joe 2: Retaliation. If the deal goes through, Heat Vision reports that Willis will take on the role of General Joe Colton, the man responsible for forming the original strike team in the comics (hence the name). Although I have little knowledge of the comics or Joe’s portrayal in them (a statement that probably negates my next line), I can’t help but feel as if Willis would be a piece of perfect casting for the part. He has the action/adventure chops needed to make the character believable without sacrificing the element of fun I remember gathering from the original cartoon.
If Willis joins, he will take part in a cast that already includes Channing Tatum, Dwayne Johnson, Ray Stevenson (who is playing the villain Firefly), Adrianne Palicki, Lee Byung-hun, D.J. Cotrona, and Ray Park. Jon Chu (Never Say Never) is directing the pic for Paramount. G.I. Joe 2: Retaliation will begin shooting in New Orleans later this month with its June 29, 2012 release date in mind.

Goldstein

I must admit I thought the first one was fantastic. I wished I was 12 again watching it. It transplanted me back to the Saturday mornings when I used to get up at 7am just to watch M.A.S.K. and Transformers. The fun kid in me guiltily can't wait for this one to come out

Castle in the Sky

Goldstein wrote: »

I must admit I thought the first one was fantastic. I wished I was 12 again watching it. It transplanted me back to the Saturday mornings when I used to get up at 7am just to watch M.A.S.K. and Transformers. The fun kid in me guiltily can't wait for this one to come out

Makes sense. After all MASK is basically just a rip-off combo of GI Joe + Transformers. So much so that they've even made an official "Matt Tracker" GI Joe figure now.

I enjoyed the first GI Joe movie. I wouldn't be any rush to watch it again but at least it was about 50 times better than the Transformers equivalent. Hopefully a sequel can deliver more of the same.

senordingdong

Was watching this again recently and I swear it gets better every time I watch it.

Compared to most action flicks it was bloody oscar worthy.
It had a great story, good cast, solid plot, good cohesion and enjoyable cliched characters.

Am delighted to hear that they are going ahead with the sequel after those original reports that they were rebooting it again.
Gutted that Levitt won't return and I wonder why...he was the best thing about it.

Allegedly, Rachel Nichols....or Sienna Miller, not sure which one, announced on twitter that loads of the cast aren't returning becasue paramount want to trim the budget.

JP Liz V1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Zc0glHLUg

Thoms Yorkie Bars

First word on the trailer is it looks spectacular. Somehow

irish_stevo815

I don't understand all the love and praise the first movie got. I thought it was absolutely horrendous. Well for one I can't stand that Channing Tatum guy, and that Waynes fella (from Scary Movie) was just terrible. The story was a bit daft and the effects in some parts were a bit dodgy. I did enjoy Sienna Miller in the leather tho

Hopefully, with the addition of The Rock and Bruce Willis, the new one might be a bit better.

Duggy747

1st film bored us senseless and we just turned it off and put something else on instead.

The addition of Willis and The Rock might give this more potential.

PerrinV2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSX2oxLdcWA

krudler

looks stupid but fun. and its got The Rock and ninjas. win!

Galvasean

Looks a lot better than the first. No stupid super suits. That's a plus.

Tallon

C.G.I Joe

krudler

it also appears that the entire cast of the first one is murdered, and replaced with The Rock, this cant be a bad thing. pity Joseph Gordon Levitt isnt back as Cobra Commander, he was the best thing about the first one, looks like he had a blast making it.

paddy kerins

PerrinV2 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSX2oxLdcWA

Galvasean

krudler wrote: »

it also appears that the entire cast of the first one is murdered, and replaced with The Rock, this cant be a bad thing.

It's like they took on board all the criticisms of the first movie and made an actual G.I. Joe movie.
Quite unlike when Spielberg/bay et al. took on board the criticisms of Revenge of the Fallen, admitted they made a mistake, then magnified said flaws and gave us Dark of the Moon.

Professey Chin

/switches off part of brain
Yes please

If I were Dwyane Johnson, I would be pretty annoyed at being referred to as the Rock, especially since he has spent a bit of time trying to move away from that.

But y'know what, I thoroughly enjoy watching movies like this. Sometimes it's great to turn off your brain, sit back and just watch sh1t explode on screen.

Professey Chin

Deleted User wrote: »

If I were Dwyane Johnson, I would be pretty annoyed at being referred to as the Rock, especially since he has spent a bit of time trying to move away from that.

But y'know what, I thoroughly enjoy watching movies like this. Sometimes it's great to turn off your brain, sit back and just watch sh1t explode on screen.

But he's back to being The Rock now. He's got wrestlemania PPVs to sell.
I think he'll use it when it suits. Looney action = The Rock, something he just feels like doing like Be Cool = Dwayne.

Oh really? I didn't realize he's back wrestling again.

pixelburp

Wait, this is actually happening - as a cinematic release? I was figuring it to be a straight-to-DVD job, I wasn't even aware the first movie made enough money or goodwill to warrant a sequel.

As it stands, it looks stupid. Not fun stupid, just actually stupid.

JP Liz V1

Kinda reminds me of Mortal Kombat

Galvasean

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Kinda reminds me of Mortal Kombat

I f#cking love the first Mortal Kombat movie!

re: the Rock's relationship with wrestling and movies. He got movie roles thanks to his popularity as a wrestler, gave up wrestling thinking he didn't need it, started getting increasingly lame movie roles cultivating in that stupid Tooth Fairy movie, went back to wrestling, became popular again and started getting meatier movie roles.