I just don't know how you can kill off Duke (even though Tatum is playing him). You'd think that an ensemble cast of paramilitary do-gooders fighting a global terrorist organization would be easy to pull off. But in the first film they added a bunch of nonsense plot points (the entire Duke/Baroness storyline) and what you get is even dumber than a truer film adaptation of the cartoon would have been.
The villains are evil and the Joes are there to thwart them; what more is there? It really should be that simple.
And although I haven't seen the sequal (I will though) it just pisses me off that they chose to kill off Duke and somehow Roadblock becomes top Joe. It's just a vehicle for the Rock. Also, we shouldn't see Firefly's face and what a waste of Zartan. I've read tons and tons of Joe comics over the years and it's frustrating when a comic writer has an easier time finding the tone of the GIJoe world than the films do.
Should they be totally serious? No. But it's funny, when I think about a Joe movie, I picture the Sideshow figures. Quasi real world soldiers fighting a insane (both mentally and in scope) terrorist group trying to dominate the world.
I mean picture SS Zartan taking out a squadron on Joes in the jungle somewhere; taking them out with his bow or skinning knife, an evil smile on his face. Sure he looks rediculous, but his wild getup just makes it that much more believable that he's a crazed mercenary that gets off on merciless killing. I've given it a lot of thought. And while I know that because I'm older my sensibilities are different, most fans of the original cartoon are closer to my age and have more love for Joe lore than the kids that the 2 movies seem to be aimed for do. I just don't see why they can't pay homage to the comics and cartoon and not embellish on 3 decades (or more) of material just to make it more "digestible" to audiences, who if they were unfamiliar with the Joes storyline going in, wouldn't know the difference anyway.
