And I Looked Upon the Face of Greed, and It Stayed My Hand, But Only Because I Was Too Pissed Off to Move
I don’t usually use the fold, but I’ve gone off on rather a rant, here, so the rest of this will be below the fold. Maybe I’ll move it back above it later when it’s moved down the page a bit. Who knows.
Okay, G.I. Joe. Not just a toy, but a real abbreviation at work, “G.I.” (sure it means galvanized iron rather than “government issued” but who cares), and a name which has sort of become understood as something beyond a comic book, action figure, and cartoon.
My brother loved his G.I. Joes, as most boys did. He would create battlefields, blow stuff up, and shoot bad guys. I played along occasionally, but usually was kicked out when I tried to make my Barbies a part of the G.I. Joe team as well (that never went over very well — soldiers can’t fight terrorists in high heels and make-up, after all). The uniforms, vehicles, and playsets were all designed to be similar to what was up and coming in military technology (the Sky Stryker fighter plane, for example, was based on the F-14 Tomcat). The fact that it was realistic was what made it so appealing to so many kids.
That was pretty much my experience too. To the letter, really. Well, except the G.I. Joes would as often as not be playing football, but still. They didn’t mix with Barbies.
G.I. Joe was unabashedly patriotic. Many fans were, of course, excited to hear about the new movie to be released by Paramount.
I don’t think they were, really. They just existed. They were American, we lived in America, stuff like that just was. The “and now you know, and knowing is half the battle!” messages (federal law: kid cartoons have to have an educational message stuck onto the end of them, which is why American cartoons suck) weren’t about joining the army when you’re 18 or how to fly a flag in your yard big enough to annoy passing liberals. The whole “American” thing was just obvious. Was.
But of course, in the liberal land of Hollyweird, a Real American Hero is just unacceptable. Nope, it’s gotta be a global hero. G.I. Joe will be a global operation, not an American one, and G.I. Joe now stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity:
The studio’s live-action feature film version of G.I. Joe will no longer revolve around a top-secret U.S. special forces team but rather an international operation.
In a follow-up to their confirmation that Stephen Sommers will direct G.I. Joe, Variety offers this new description of the team: “G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. The property is closer in tone to X-Men and James Bond than a war film.”…
So why the changes? Hasbro and Paramount execs recently spoke about the challenges of marketing a film about the U.S. military at a time when the current U.S. administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are at a low-point in global polls. When a studio makes a film as expensive as G.I. Joe will likely be, they want to know that as many people as possible around the world will want to see it. In other words, G.I. Joe — “A Real American Hero” — is a tough sell.
Ahem, excuse me. SO DON’T MAKE THE F**KING MOVIE. Assh*les.
Nothing is sacred to liberals. Nothing patriotic or American is worth preserving.
This isn’t about preserving. G.I. Joe was being preserved just fine without them. This is about them taking something that exists, is what it is, and has been what it is, and making it something completely different, and the only reason they’re doing that, taking something that people love because of what it is and then making it into something people don’t love, is because Transformers make a sh*tload of money this summer and they just want to slap themselves up against this brand which is nothing but a heaping pile of dollar signs to them, with the small unfortunate hurdle of it already being something they don’t want to make a movie about.
And I’m sure it never crossed their little liberal minds that perhaps if Hollywood made movies in the vein of those released during WWII, in which America, the military, and our soldiers were portrayed as strong, patriotic heroes, rather than today’s military movies in which the United States is always the bad guy, war is always “wrong”, and our soldiers are morally corrupt, people wouldn’t have such a negative outlook on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the mainstream media should get that memo, as well).
They probably would, but that isn’t even the point. They don’t want to make a movie about an American soldier. So why the hell are they making a movie about an American soldier?
Of all things to turn into a liberal fantasy, why did they have to choose G.I. Joe? From what it sounds like, they are taking everything that was great about it, and the Real American Hero line, and ruining it. I mean, this is worse than making G.I. Joe an “eco-warrior” in the early 90s. It is a sad indication of where our country could be headed when making a patriotic movie featuring a Real American Hero is considered a tough sell, and shelved so easily.
Hah. I wish they’d shelved it.
Re: Cassy’s concerns about them making war movies (I can’t believe Bruce Willis signed onto this):
Actor Bruce Willis has signed up to star in director Oliver Stone’s next film, which will be based on the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
Oh, that’s topical.