>>11724793That's the stupidest thing I've heard today.
>>11724813>I'm okay with some Ninjas, but they should never bet the focus>Damn right, and they better change color when someone from the other side uses em.>Plainjanes are best Janes>Why in the hell did they use Ripcord to begin with?>Corny stories are what G.I. Joe should be. >Authenticity doesn't sell to the masses despite the masses asking for authenticity. >They better have Joe-Pros>Eh, they're 2 for 2 on hot Scarletts, I ain't worried>>11724817It would certainly be a choice to make a G.I. Joe film that centers around a female character, I can already see rightoids having a fit over that idea. Cover Girl would probably even be their best bet, but only on the condition that she gets to actually drive some sort of tank. If she ain't behind the stick of some heavily armored equipment then she ain't being Covergirl.
>>11724865The fact that to most people "adult" just means gore, boobs and dirty words is exactly why G.I. Joe shouldn't be aiming for the "adult" audiences. The cartoonish characters are the most endearing part of G.I. Joe, if you start getting "real" and "gritty" and "adult" with it you're just walking away from the thing that made the franchise great.
I don't want G.I. Joe to be "adult", I want it to be good.
