Two (maybe three) things.

1. They don't want to spend a bunch of money to make an action/adventure WWII movie because they don't have confidence that it would be a wise investment based on the box office data. So I can't fault them for wanting to get away from the WWII setting. Of course it doesn't make sense to call it Sgt. Rock, but we all know that.

2. For GI JOE you have to keep in mind that big budget block buster movies need to play well to a global audience. If dropping the tag A REAL AMERICAN HERO helps sell more tickets it seems like a small change. Especially for a line that existed close to 20 years before that tag was used and that had UK and French version of the toy.

3. For the time being it doesn't seem like non-drama/straight action big budget films about the US military are a good investment. I don't think it's any big conspiracy and I don't think it's "political correctness" although that's an incredibly vague term at best. All art is subject to trends. Think of all the war titles that DC published in the 60s and 70s. Why can't they sell even one now on a regular basis? By the way, I don't think it's just the USA. I can't think of a single, recent, non-dramatic, pure action WWII - Present war movie made by any country!

Yes, "Hollywood" is stupid for using Sgt. Rock in such a ridiculous way, but everyone is reading way too much into the reasoning behind avoiding a US military film. Maybe I'm too old but GI JOE: A REAL AMERICAN HERO shot a bunch of lasers and never killed anyone if I remember correctly. They were about as far away from the US Military as Peter Porker is to Peter Parker.

Last Edited By: Five Years Later Feb 6 10 1:32 AM. Edited 1 times.