"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" Pre-Release Discussion (Spoilers)

[Young Justice]

Wasn't Big Ben a brit?

Yes, you're right. I didn't mention him because I've never heard of him before:

[SIZE=+1]BIG BEN. [/SIZE]The code name used by David J. Bennett, a Staff Sergeant with the British Special Air Service (SAS) -- one of Britain's most elite fighting forces. He was born in Burford, England, and in addition to his SAS training he served with NATO Long-Range Recon Patrol in West Germany. In 1991, Big Ben was assigned temporarily to America's G.I. Joe team. He first joined the Joes in Scotland, where a small team kept watch over Castle Destro. Cobra Commander soon attacked his old rival and the Joes fought on Destro's side during the battle. Knowing that the Commander continued to hold a grudge against Destro, Big Ben and a team of Joes helped defend the weapons designer's castle in Trans-Carpathia. They fought Cobra throughout the remote nation's mountains. A short time later, Hawk was injured and trapped in Borovia along with Lady Jaye. Against orders, Stalker took the Battle Wagon into the Borovian capital to rescue their commander. Big Ben was one of the Joes who joined him. Ben later assisted the Joes in guarding and testing a new secret weapon, the rail-gun prototype. Cobra eventually attacked, and the Joes fought them off. He continued to serve on occasional missions with the team up until it's shut down in 1994. He was later called back to join the reinstated Joe team in its battle against the forces of a revived Serpentor on Cobra Island. The forces loyal to Serpentor, known as the Coil, had invaded a number of countries leading up to the battle and Big Ben later joined the Joes in dealing with Coil troops in other parts of the world.

from: http://www.myuselessknowledge.com/joe/joeenc.html

I think it's because this character is so obscure they chose to change the nationality of other character. In this circumstances I think they did the right thing.

 

[Toddman]

The problem is not change the ethnicity of the character per se, but change it for nothing. If the story they were telling needs an African American character, why not use an original character that is already African American, instead of changing the ethnicity of other character?

About the examples you provided:

Snake-Eyes: A Scottish guy could pass as an American guy, since a lot of white Americans are descendant of UK people.

Breaker: There isn't really an Arabic character in the original GI Joe, since the necessity of change the ethnicity for this character. I think in this circumstances, this change is OK. But in my opinion I think Dusty would be a better character to be turned into Moroccan.

Heavy-Duty: The similar case than the previous one. There isn't a British character in the original GI Joe, so turning one of them into British is an OK move. It is needed to make the team more "international".

Storm-Shadow: A Korean guy could easily pass as Japanese or American Japanese.

There are probably 75 million or so Koreans in the world who may not agree with that^.

I personally don't understand why there should be an exception to changing the ethnicity of a Caucasian character to an African American character over the other examples I mentioned. The only reason it seems to bother you is because of the issue of physical appearance, which I think is a double standard.

Altering the race of a character for an adaptation is nothing new in movies. It's been done in acclaimed movies (such as The Shawshank Redemption) and not-so-acclaimed movies (such as Daredevil) alike. If the script calls for Rip Cord to have certain personality traits that the director feels Marlon Wayons can best portray, isn't that the most important thing? Unlike characters such as Spirit or Storm Shadow whose traditional portrayal is specifically tied in to their respective races, what difference does it make? Is there anything about Rip Cord that makes his race essential to his character?


Toddman

 

[Young Justice]

There are probably 75 million or so Koreans in the world who may not agree with that^.

If you are implying that I'm somewhat racist because I think all Asian people look alike, I'm here assuring you that is not the case.

Saying a Korean could portray a Japanese in a movie is the same to say that an Anglo-Saxony Caucasian guy like me (I have German origins) could be a Caucasian American, British, Australian, Brazilian (which I am), or even Russian, or Scandinavian. Or to a greater extent even Latin Caucasian races like Spanish, French, Italian or Greek.

I don't think all this ethnicities are the same, but in a context of a movie, they could be interchangeable, depending on the case.

Also, I don't think Koreans would be complaining because they chose a Korean guy to portray a Japanese in a movie.

I personally don't understand why there should be an exception to changing the ethnicity of a Caucasian character to an African American character over the other examples I mentioned. The only reason it seems to bother you is because of the issue of physical appearance, which I think is a double standard.

Which bothers me is two things:

1. RipCord is a minor character in the GI Joe roster compared to the ones such as Duke or Stalker. Why use him over the others? I don't understand that. He doesn't have anything so much important that would justify using him instead of others.

2. If they need for the story a guy that is African American, why not use Stalker for instance? Which is so important story wise in a combination of the RipCord character into an African American guy that you couldn't do it using Stalker for instance?

Altering the race of a character for an adaptation is nothing new in movies. It's been done in acclaimed movies (such as The Shawshank Redemption) and not-so-acclaimed movies (such as Daredevil) alike.

I'm not against changing a race of a character. I just don't understand it when it's made for no reason.

When they change the race for Nick Fury on Ultimate Marvel for instance, it had a reason: In the early days of comics African American guys just didn't get to be portrayed because of the times. There were a few exceptions and most of the times, the African American guys where a bit stereotypical.

If the Marvel Universe were created today, I bet a bunch more characters would be African American, and so they did it with Nick Fury when recreating Marvel again.

But for GI Joe is different. There were a plenty of African American guys in important roles and there were not stereotypical. So why not use one of them instead of changing the race of a Caucasian character?

And I'm complaining not just for the appearance. It's one of the aspects of a character but not the only one. I'm complaining why not make the characters as classic as possible.

If the script calls for Rip Cord to have certain personality traits that the director feels Marlon Wayons can best portray, isn't that the most important thing?

If the script is really that sophisticated that the only way this character would work he has to have the personality of the character RipCord translated into an African American guy, I'm all for it. But I really doubt it is the case. But I could be wrong. Let's wait and see.

Unlike characters such as Spirit or Storm Shadow whose traditional portrayal is specifically tied in to their respective races, what difference does it make? Is there anything about Rip Cord that makes his race essential to his character?

I think RipCord is a rather bland character that shouldn't be used at all, specially in detriment of others like Duke or Stalker.

 

[Frozen]

This whole debate as to why Ripcord is even in the movie may be defused if people consider the nature of the Joe team. All the team are the best at what they do, and I'm guessing the script for the movie calls for a HALO specialist--which means it calls for Ripcord, the Joes' very first HALO jumper.

But I still think people are wide of the mark calling Ripcord "minor"...

 

[Toddman]

If you are implying that I'm somewhat racist because I think all Asian people look alike, I'm here assuring you that is not the case.

Saying a Korean could portray a Japanese in a movie is the same to say that an Anglo-Saxony Caucasian guy like me (I have German origins) could be a Caucasian American, British, Australian, Brazilian (which I am), or even Russian, or Scandinavian. Or to a greater extent even Latin Caucasian races like Spanish, French, Italian or Greek.

I don't think all this ethnicities are the same, but in a context of a movie, they could be interchangeable, depending on the case.

Also, I don't think Koreans would be complaining because they chose a Korean guy to portray a Japanese in a movie.

Well we're not really talking about a black actor trying to pass himself off as an actor of a different race, though.

Which bothers me is two things:

1. RipCord is a minor character in the GI Joe roster compared to the ones such as Duke or Stalker. Why use him over the others? I don't understand that. He doesn't have anything so much important that would justify using him instead of others.

2. If they need for the story a guy that is African American, why not use Stalker for instance? Which is so important story wise in a combination of the RipCord character into an African American guy that you couldn't do it using Stalker for instance?

That's just it. We don't know how the character is going to be used in the story.

Let me put forth a hypothetical example: What if the movie's story calls for a HALO jumper (as was mentioned in the previous post)? Putting Stalker in that position wouldn't hold true to the traditional role of his character. Furthermore, what if the HALO jumper's personality in the script was a smart alec wise guy? Stalker was usually portrayed as a straight-laced professional soldier in both the comic book and cartoon series. Making him a source for comic relief doesn't really suit his classic image.

Rip Cord's personality on the other hand, has always been a bit of a blank slate. So, if I were a casting director or producer and the best actor available for the part of wise-cracking Rip Cord was African-American, why should I let an actor's ethnicity make my decision for me?

I'm not against changing a race of a character. I just don't understand it when it's made for no reason.

When they change the race for Nick Fury on Ultimate Marvel for instance, it had a reason: In the early days of comics African American guys just didn't get to be portrayed because of the times. There were a few exceptions and most of the times, the African American guys where a bit stereotypical.

If the Marvel Universe were created today, I bet a bunch more characters would be African American, and so they did it with Nick Fury when recreating Marvel again.

But for GI Joe is different. There were a plenty of African American guys in important roles and there were not stereotypical. So why not use one of them instead of changing the race of a Caucasian character?

You almost sound like you're saying you'd rather potentially change the personality of the character in favor of keeping the color of his skin consistant. I'm just saying for a character like Rip Cord, it makes no difference.

And I'm complaining not just for the appearance. It's one of the aspects of a character but not the only one. I'm complaining why not make the characters as classic as possible.

Okay, but would you rather have black Rip Cord or paracute jumpin', joke crackin' Stalker?

If the script is really that sophisticated that the only way this character would work he has to have the personality of the character RipCord translated into an African American guy, I'm all for it. But I really doubt it is the case. But I could be wrong. Let's wait and see.

I agree, let's wait and see. The movie will probably end up being so bad, African-American Rip Cord and shorty Scottish Snake-Eyes will be the least of our complaints...

Toddman

 

[Robin2099]

Rip Cord's personality on the other hand, has always been a bit of a blank slate. So, if I were a casting director or producer and the best actor available for the part of wise-cracking Rip Cord was African-American, why should I let an actor's ethnicity make my decision for me?

For some reason I highly doubt that out of the thousands of actors out their, the only person who could nail ripcord is Marlon Wayans. That's what annoys me is that the change is just unnecessary. When Michael Clark Duncan played the Kingpin I could understand the change since he was perfect for the part, and I couldn't think of a Caucasian actor that would be better. This just seems more like "Hey lets change the characters ethnicity for no reason what so ever since he's a minor character".

Also factoring in the fact that Snake Eyes will most likely be masked and mute, I don't see what the big deal is behind Ray Park's casting.

 

[Young Justice]

This whole debate as to why Ripcord is even in the movie may be defused if people consider the nature of the Joe team. All the team are the best at what they do, and I'm guessing the script for the movie calls for a HALO specialist--which means it calls for Ripcord, the Joes' very first HALO jumper.

I agree with you. If the scripts really needs a HALO jumper, RipCord is the man for the job.

But I still think people are wide of the mark calling Ripcord "minor"...

Just because he has a specialty doesn't mean he isn't minor in the GI Joe mythos. Every Joe has a specialty and some of them are important for the mythos and public and some of them are not.

If I was behind the story or production I would choose to create a script where I could use all the classic and important characters (Duke, Snake Eyes, Scarlett, Storm Shadow, Destro, Cobra Commander, Baroness and maybe Flint) and not the other way around: create a story and pick the Joes that fit better in because of their military expertise.

 

[Young Justice]

Well we're not really talking about a black actor trying to pass himself off as an actor of a different race, though.

I'm sorry, but I really didn't fully understand your last remark. If you care to explain it further, maybe I could give it a reply. Thanks.

Let me put forth a hypothetical example: What if the movie's story calls for a HALO jumper (as was mentioned in the previous post)? Putting Stalker in that position wouldn't hold true to the traditional role of his character. Furthermore, what if the HALO jumper's personality in the script was a smart alec wise guy? Stalker was usually portrayed as a straight-laced professional soldier in both the comic book and cartoon series. Making him a source for comic relief doesn't really suit his classic image.

Rip Cord's personality on the other hand, has always been a bit of a blank slate. So, if I were a casting director or producer and the best actor available for the part of wise-cracking Rip Cord was African-American, why should I let an actor's ethnicity make my decision for me?

If that's specifically the case, I agree with you. But I don't agree with the creative choice from the writer.

As I mentioned before, in a GI Joe movie adaptation I would create the script around the characters I already have and not the other way around. So I would never be caught in that situation.

In the hypothetical example you proposed I would choose to:

1. Use white RipCord as a Halo Jumper and make it a minor character in the movie, character-development wise.

2. Choose a Joe character that is classically a wise-cracking one, like Gung-Ho for instance.

3. If I really need an African American in the mix, I would toss Stalker in and make his serious character to be a contrast for the wise-cracking from Gung-Ho.

I would enlarge the roster, but I would be true to the classics Gi Joe, and I think it would be more appealing to the fans, and would work just as nice to the general public.

You almost sound like you're saying you'd rather potentially change the personality of the character in favor of keeping the color of his skin consistant.

In the case of Nick Fury, it's the complete opposite. I have an open mind about changing radically a classic character, when it has a meaning.

In this particular case of RipCord, I don't see this meaning.

Okay, but would you rather have black Rip Cord or paracute jumpin', joke crackin' Stalker?

Not either one. I would choose to create a story where I could use properly the classic characters that I have and chose for the movie. In this particular problem (which I wouldn't even have to begin with), I would choose to divide the aspects in two or three characters.

I agree, let's wait and see. The movie will probably end up being so bad, African-American Rip Cord and shorty Scottish Snake-Eyes will be the least of our complaints...

I completely agree. I was just replying to explain my line of thought. Not that it would matter anyway, but just since it's a discussion form, let's discuss alright. I'm having fun.

 

[Toddman]

I'm sorry, but I really didn't fully understand your last remark. If you care to explain it further, maybe I could give it a reply. Thanks.

I was replying to this statement:

Saying a Korean could portray a Japanese in a movie is the same to say that an Anglo-Saxony Caucasian guy like me (I have German origins) could be a Caucasian American, British, Australian, Brazilian (which I am), or even Russian, or Scandinavian. Or to a greater extent even Latin Caucasian races like Spanish, French, Italian or Greek.

My point was that you're saying it's okay for actors to portray characters of a different ethnicity as long as you (or the audience or whomever you're implying) can't tell the difference, even though earlier you claimed that your argument wasn't based simply on appearance:

And I'm complaining not just for the appearance. It's one of the aspects of a character but not the only one. I'm complaining why not make the characters as classic as possible.

Which leads me to ask, would you object to an African-American with a lighter skin tone playing Rip Cord? Or an actor of mixed race? What if a caucasian actor had landed the part? Would he have to have red hair? Rip Cord has always been depicted as a red head.

Where do you draw the line?

If that's specifically the case, I agree with you. But I don't agree with the creative choice from the writer.

As I mentioned before, in a GI Joe movie adaptation I would create the script around the characters I already have and not the other way around. So I would never be caught in that situation....

....I would choose to create a story where I could use properly the classic characters that I have and chose for the movie. In this particular problem (which I wouldn't even have to begin with), I would choose to divide the aspects in two or three characters.

I'm sure your own personal ideas for a G.I. Joe movie would be great, but you're not taking into account the enormous amount of involved pre-production decisions that go into a movie like this, both from the business end and the creative side. Potential franchise movies have to unsnarl issues of budget, licensing, proper demographic appeal, and toy merchandise tie-ins, while at the same time resolve in-put from the director, producers, studios and other interested third parties (in this case Hasbro).

Whatever the road that led to the decision to cast a black actor as Rip Cord, one has to seriously consider the possibility that the decision was not based on a creative whim, but was a solution to very complicated production entanglements.


Toddman

 

[Young Justice]

My point was that you're saying it's okay for actors to portray characters of a different ethnicity as long as you (or the audience or whomever you're implying) can't tell the difference, even though earlier you claimed that your argument wasn't based simply on appearance

My opinion is that in this examples of ethnicity you provided (Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow etc) the main key is the appearance. If the guy or gal looks the part is the starting point. But it has to be more. The actor have to act properly and incorporate the character.

Of course you can be flexible about some aspects. Christian Bale has not the square jaw of the comics Batman but he nailed the part because other human characteristics.

Acting is a very subjective matter so there's no rule about what works and what doesn't. I think the examples you provided the case are ok. It has chances to work.

Which leads me to ask, would you object to an African-American with a lighter skin tone playing Rip Cord?

Yes.

Or an actor of mixed race? What if a caucasian actor had landed the part? Would he have to have red hair? Rip Cord has always been depicted as a red head.

I would prefer that the guy would have red hair, but if he was blond or had a brown hair, but he nailed the part in other aspects I would find it ok.

Where do you draw the line?

I think there's no line. You have to evaluate every case because it's a very subjective matter. There's no way we can have a rule to make this work.

I'm sure your own personal ideas for a G.I. Joe movie would be great, but you're not taking into account the enormous amount of involved pre-production decisions that go into a movie like this, both from the business end and the creative side. Potential franchise movies have to unsnarl issues of budget, licensing, proper demographic appeal, and toy merchandise tie-ins, while at the same time resolve in-put from the director, producers, studios and other interested third parties (in this case Hasbro).

Ok, I understand that. I'm just saying that I'm not satisfied with their decision. I don't know the circumstances of this decision, but rarely fans, viewers and critic do, and it's not stopping them to complain, or critic a movie. That's what I was doing.

Whatever the road that led to the decision to cast a black actor as Rip Cord, one has to seriously consider the possibility that the decision was not based on a creative whim, but was a solution to very complicated production entanglements.

I agree. I was just hoping that the creative whim was put first and the other aspects in second. When it's the other way around, the potential we have a bad movie is enormous, hence my complaining, because I really liked GI Joe and I want this movie to be nice. I'm not raising my expectations too high though, because I think this movie could be a bomb.

 

[Zorak Masaki]

I wonder if they'll keep tomax and xamot british (well, they had brit accents in the cartoon at least). I just hope that the extensive enterprises element is retained though, as i loved the idea of cobra having a legitimate business front.

 

[Toddman]

My opinion is that in this examples of ethnicity you provided (Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow etc) the main key is the appearance. If the guy or gal looks the part is the starting point. But it has to be more. The actor have to act properly and incorporate the character.

I'll just say a final time that I don't believe Rip Cord has any other overwhelming character traits that determine he must be a white character other than the actual color of his skin. There's nothing about his personality (such as it's been explored in other mediums), background or point-of-view that are exclusively caucasian.

And historically, anytime G.I. Joe has been adapted to another format or packaged for a different audience, there have always been changes. For example, the version of Clutch from the G.I. Joe comic book series was born and raised in New Jersey, but the cartoon character had a Southern accent. Heck, the Action Force version of Scarlett was from Belgium. Rip Cord himself was British. So in this case, it looks like the live-action movie version of Rip Cord will be African-American. So what?

I would prefer that the guy would have red hair, but if he was blond or had a brown hair, but he nailed the part in other aspects I would find it ok.

I don't understand how you can be open to a change in one physical characteristic (such as hair color) but not another (such as skin color).


Toddman

 

[The Clown Prince]

Apparently Channing Tatum is Duke....

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41325

 

[Frozen]

Apparently Channing Tatum is Duke....

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41325

Oddly enough, he was also called Duke in... some film or other.

 

[The Penguin]

Apparently Channing Tatum is Duke....

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41325

I can see that. The guy was almost Gambit and I'm pleased to see him get a crack at another hero.

 

[dtemplar]

Oddly enough, he was also called Duke in... some film or other.

She's the Man

Apparently Channing Tatum is Duke....

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41325

I can see that. The guy was almost Gambit and I'm pleased to see him get a crack at another hero.

No offense guys, but I thought John Cena would be a better Duke.

 

[Toddman]

Apparently Channing Tatum is Duke....

He's definitely got the right haircut for the part:

^This must be from the eventual G.I. Joe/Transformers crossover...


Toddman

 

[The Clown Prince]

It's true and not a rumor, Channing Tatum is Duke. There's a good picture of him at the link here... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i29ce7ca58f3334d0a0dd85ca9ad5c837

Meanwhile, the role of Zartan will reportedly be played by Arnold Vosloo (The Mummy)...

http://movies.ign.com/articles/848/848169p1.html

 

[BROKEN BOY BLUE]

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4205&Itemid=99


Dennis Quaid is General Hawk?

 

[The Penguin]

Dennis Quaid is General Hawk?

That sounds like a pretty good move too. Hawk was my favorite action figure (once I finally got my hands on him, he was tough to find) and Quaid seems about perfect to me for an older leader (but not too old).