Remember when studios LEARNED from their mistakes?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
Actually, there's TWO points to make.
The film's reception was so bad, the G.I.Joe film's ending was hastily re-written as they were also planning to "subvert expectations" by killing off the boss character. THAT'S THE CORRECT RESPONSE. They didn't "double down" like what they do today. Slamming the brakes after seeing the person in front of you fall into a sinkhole is the obvious SANE response.
Young boys need brave, towering, archetypal heroes. They DON'T need flawed, "relatable" main characters. I've never seen a young boy point at a gangly, weak, indecisive main character on big screen and excitedly tell his mom n' dad "He's like me!" Young boys need heroes to look UP to, not ones that reflect traits the audience should hope to grow out of.
TL;DR: https://i.imgur.com/JluPBgK.jpeg
It was G. I. Joe's fault in the first place.
They literally did the exact same thing with the second live action movie and killed off Duke [again]. Nothing was learned.
Because their only thought was how to sell more new toys.
I don’t get why that’s the first thought, though. Have a spin-off where Duke goes and trains GI JOE SPECIAL RECRUIT UNIT or whatever. Then you can even make crossover toys where the original characters get special “instructor” or “veteran” or “mentor” figures, or whatever you want to call them.
I saw the special commentaries on the 2006 Transformers movie DVD.
Hasbro didn't see it as a "mostly-serious with characters you can root for and want to be like" show.
It was a toy show.
It was meant to advertise toys.
That's all Hasbro saw it as then.
The reaction to this movie was exactly what made Hasbro change their views on this.
I was angry about the first G.I Movie doing it back in the 80s because -- despite my love for Don Johnson -- the character in that movie to replace Duke was an absolute douche bag; and even if he were supposed to be a secondary character, he was still an unlikable Douche Bag, basically Hotrod ramped up to 11.
I didn't mind them killing off Duke in the live-action sequel of G.I Joe because they gravely miscast him for the bisexual faggot Channing Tatum. They did manage to make him slightly more likable in the sequel with the little screen time he had with The Rock, but he was just so vastly miscast. He came across as more as a secondary character rather than as a leader. I probably would have been far angrier had they cast someone likable as Duke the first time.
This is disproven by your own image, which shows one of the most famous heroes of the last century in Han Solo who was flawed in many relatable ways at the outset.
The problem is Lefties champion flaws, instead of seeing them as something to fight and overcome. They see relatable as "is fucked up just like me and that's great!"
Heck to go with the Transformers examples in the OP. One of the most famous and popular characters in it was Dinobot from Beast Wars, whose flaws were so pronounced that he was constantly changing sides in the middle of a war.
But he was written to be holding strong to his principles instead of wavering in nuance and doubt, so each time he did so you believed he might have a point just like Optimus himself did. His flaws defined him, but also made him stronger and his entire character arc was still learning to hold true to them while also gaining some semblance of loyalty and trust.
That's something young boys need to see. Men dealing with men level issues and solving them like men do.
Han Solo's character arc is that he starts as a disreputable, unsuccessful smuggler and criminal.
Han finds a cause bigger than himself and friends who he cares about. He stops being selfish and, eventually, realizes the cause of the rebellion and the life of his friends is worth more than his own selfish, empty existence.
By the end of the first movie, Han makes a sacrifice and takes action to help Luke.
In the third movie, Han is willing to die for his friends.
Exactly, he starts off very flawed and grows from it. He's not brave or towering, he is slimy and a trickster. And its him fighting those flaws that allows for not only his growth, but towards him becoming a truly heroic person. Its relatable, because many boys are falling into that listless, directionless existence and the idea of escaping through finding love, friends, or a cause is inspirational.
So while guys like Optimus are great examples in their own right, so too are the ones who need to grow into being one. Shit one of the War/Fall of Cybertron games outright calls out that Optimus is unwavering and powerful through conviction on his own, but lesser men under his command need morale and supplies to keep going.
Don't forget that those victories were retroactively only achievable by virtue of feminism and DEI.