I appreciate your enthusiasm, but let's be clear about something. That big stupid paragraph? STOP PUTTING IT BACK IN. It's poorly written, factually incorrect and has no place here. If you want to share your opinions about the cartoon, then by all means get a blog somewhere and do it. This claptrap was cut off the Wikipedia page, and was done so with good reason; that doesn't mean you bring it over here and expect that we'll accept it blindly. Your other contributions are minor, but they still added value to the article. This block of text doesn't. If you keep adding it after it's been removed, you're going to be blocked. --buttbutt 02:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Srsly. To say nothing of being poorly written and proofread. Anyway, made the spelling correction on the last post I did (forgot to log in, but the note about the 'hangar' misspell was mine). Cinemastique 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The big paragraph

As promised, here's the big chunk of text and why I don't like it:

Well, to begin with, it's one giant block of text. It has no formatting, no paragraph breaks, and is thus very hard to read. Additionally, the tone of the writing is very informal - "chatty." I'm not saying that every word we type here needs to be written to encyclopedia standards (leave the fun-draining to Wikipedia), but it shouldn't sound like something you'd write to one of your friends, either.

G.I. Joe: Resolute is an animated series bringing back the classic G.I. Joe franchise premiering on Cartoon Network. Being one of the most successful shows in the past that led to a climatic high-production animated movie, it is now reinvigorated once again with a fresh spin of brutal style and animation. This new production brings a high-octane feature for more newer audiences while exciting regular fans of G.I. Joe for it's next come-back.

The first sentence is a run-on, and the second not only has a very "promotional" tone - i.e., it sounds more like it's selling the show than talking about it rationally - it's a poorly structured sentence. "Being one of the most?" It reminds me of a paper I would have written in high school, trying to capture the sound of professional writers, but not really skilled enough to do it yet. Descriptors like "high-octane" make it sound like we're straining to write a blurb for the back of the DVD box. Remember, we're putting together a book report, not a book review.

Joe fans will immediately recognize many faces even with the new stylized format. One distinctive difference that this show has which strays away from the legend is the focus on the character known as "Snake Eyes". Bringing the change of Snake Eyes to being a martial artist is in contradiction to the successfully aired G.I. Joe franchise however fits perfectly with the animating teams very lethal style and takes this cue from the magazine.

The first sentence here is unnecessary. If fans will recognize it, they don't need to be told that. Once we get some screencaps in the article, they'll recognize that they recognize it. Secondly, having a focus on Snake-Eyes isn't a change - G.I. Joe has always focused on Snake-Eyes. He's the Wolverine or Batman of the franchise. And for at least 25 years now, he's been a martial artist.

Many Joe fans may be disappointed by the major alteration of the Cobra ninja's arch nemesis, who is the character "Spirit", a tribal Indian master fighter, changed instead to being Snake Eyes, now branded a martial artist. Despite this and despite the edge of it's rougher attitude, Joe fans will not miss appreciating this new cartoon for basing it's foundation heavily on the G.I. Joe lore, while newer audiences will want to see more.

Going along with the above, Snake-Eyes and Storm Shadow being rivals isn't a change, either. It's been a reliable benchmark of any Joe story - yes, the comics started it, but it was present in Spy Troops, VvV and Sigma 6, and we've already seen it's going to be in the live-action film. If you wanted to say that "fans who only know the Sunbow cartoons may be surprised that Storm Shadow's nemesis is Snake-Eyes, not Spirit," then yes, that would be factually accurate, but as it stands now, neither of those sections is correct. "Many fans" would be disappointed if the nemesis WASN'T Snake-Eyes.

Popularly being compared to what the "Mike Young Productions" had done for "He-man and the Masters Of The Universe" it is also receiving the buzz of being the "real" G.I. Joe movie as oppose to the upcoming Hollywood live-action feature by Steven Sommers.

By who? Got any sources for those? Because right now, it just seems like the opinion of a fan, rather than useful information.

The show is directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, a director who has worked with the animating crew before on the hit cartoon "Avatar: the last air bender", which gives the audience an idea of what type of material to expect.

Re-written, this could well be a good addition to the article. I loved Avatar. Hell, the fact that Dos Santos directed this was one of the points I used to sell this series to my friends, because they were huge Avatar fans, too. But right now, that's buried at the end of a long, poorly written paragraph with (unintentional) inaccuracies, so readers would either overlook or ignore it.

Does that help? --buttbutt 06:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Buttbutt,
(thanx alot for the link)
Okay, now I can see your major concern quite clearly, and with it being pointed out I quite agree to it, it being the grammar and various sentence structures. So by the FORMAT it was delivered in I can easily agree (unless I was in denial to facts) that it needed that editing. So all of the grammatical edits I could not deny and would appreciate any tweaking done upon them to improve and polish. Keep in mind though, I doubt many really observe where a run-on sentence is, etc, as long as they can follow the point and as long as it doesn't sound like a F.O.B. using broken English.
But the main issue which you stated before is that of "inaccuracies" and "opinion". First- For any decorative embellishment, it is not actually overtly in the spirit of sales at all. There is not a "promotional" quality to it, that would be an exaggeration. Rather there is a positive attachment to it, which is VERY natural as this is the JOe pedia page. To think we are strictly reporters would be letting this site get to your head. Any slight positive spin to it is not just understandable but almost necessary since joe fans are reading these, not strange scholars grading your paper. So the whole concern of "you're too pro-joe" is unnecessary and it's cause should be obvious.
Trying to say it's too pro-joe is far more unnecessary than your claim of "joe fans will recognize" being unnecessary. If fans will recognize it does NOT mean they don't need to be told that. The whole point of such articles/summaries/reviews is to know what you're getting into and getting the jist of the show's nature. So if you are told that you would immediately recognize various joes you are now being informed of what kind of show it is, you now KNOW "oh, then this must be pretty straight". If you have seen the Michael Bay movie of "Transformers" tell me; did you recognize anyone in it? How about that one "Elektra" movie with Jennifer Garner; did you recognize Elektra anywhere there? To be told and alerted that you're goinng to receive the experience of immediate recognition of Superman in the Christopher Reeve movie, you now know then that it's going to be one of those awesome things that bring the source material straight up, that you're going to recognize Superman quite easily. If someone told me that in the new upcoming Avatar movie that I will immediately recognize the character "Saka" then I now have valuable information regarding what kind of movie it's going to be. Being told about the show having the quality of recognition is MASSIVELY important; it's a great heads-up to what you're going to invest your time in. Am I going to watch something that's just cashing in on the name (Transformers MichaelBay)or am I going to watch something that is actually adapting the material (Superman the movie)? If you're going to tell me that when I watch that "Spirit" movie I won't recognize the Spirit at all and that I may think he's "The Shadow" because of his colors or that I might think he's "theGreen HOrnet" because of his face then I probably won't go watch the movie. So awareness of "recognizability" is quite mandatory not obsolete and FAR from unnecessary.
Now as for Snake-Eyes having a focus as NOT being a change is incorrect. There was never even one show that tried to focus on him, so focusing on him his entirely new, in fact in the movie he didn't even have a part at all, let alone a focus (his biggest role is chopping a few vines)!! He is not the Wolverine or the Batman of the Franchise, as you said. Wolverine and Batman have LARGE roles, if you wanted to compare who would be a Wolverine or Batman of the group then a clear candidate would be the character Spock of Star Trek. For Spock, Batman, and Wolverine they not only have large roles while only being in the background they are the cool character of the team. (Batman-JLA, Wolvie-Xmen, Spock-Enterprise crew). All those characters are the cool character although, sure, we could certainly say that Snake-eyes is a cool character of course, but he's not at that level of Spock/Batman/Wolvie. For that matter, the almost mystical, masterful, and highly stoic Spirit was the cool character if not more than Snake-Eyes. Low Light was the cool character and even HAD an entire episode to focus on him. Spock-Low Light-Spirit-Batman-Wolvie all had numerous focuses on them, but Snake-Eyes never really had. So then focusing on Snake-eyes is truly brand new.
"Snake-Eyes and Storm Shadow being rivals isn't a change, either. It's been a reliable benchmark of any Joe story"
ANY joe story? ANY means ANY, now's the time to act like reporters and be objective here and ANY joe story does not have Storm Shadow being rivals with Snake-Eyes as a reliable benchmark. In every single episode of G.I.JOe not ONE was Snake-Eyes ever a rival to any martial artist, and that's a buttload of stories to try to include into the category of "ANY". So NO, it's not a benchmark in ANY Gijoe story. This is incorrect.
"yes, the comics started it, but it was present in Spy Troops, VvV and Sigma 6, and we've already seen it's going to be in the live-action film"
These listed above are obscure one-shots that combined together are simply outweighed by G.I.joe the show. And those that you even listed are conforming to that magazine not the actual Gijoe.
"If you wanted to say that -fans who only know the Sunbow cartoons may be surprised that Storm Shadow's nemesis is Snake-Eyes, not Spirit,- then yes, that would be factually accurate, but as it stands now, neither of those sections is correct"
Then by the same manner your claim of "Many fans would be disappointed if the nemesis WASN'T Snake-Eyes" is also incorrect because: if you wanted to say that "Many fans of the Hama Magazine would be disappointed if the nemesis WASN'T Snake-Eyes" then yes, that would be factually accurate, but as it stands now, your statement is incorrect.
As for your inquiry for any source on the Mike Young productions-comment I can understand that, but to go back on the internet to copy where I've heard it said numerously or to give you the list of my friends and their addresses constantly saying it is a little overboard for me. Plus it's simply the "buzz", you don't get references on the "buzz", when ET states the "buzz" or hot-talk of a movie they don't give you a quoted source for it and THEY broadcast daily and nation wide.
So far, I've countered any real claim of "opinion" or "inaccuracies" accused on the paragraph. The key core here is; you're going to have recognize which one is Gijoe here; that magazine with the bad art or the show that was literally a living comic book. To help give direction on that-
The first GIJOE were giant army dolls that weren't suppose to have any substance, "gijoe" was nothing but some brand name. Then they came out with those little suckers that although had made-up character profiles on the back they still were just a toy brand name without any real publicly recognized substance.....if the toymakers didn't hire a cartoon to GIVE it substance. All those minor spin-offs (Spy Troops, VvV, Sigma 6) and the magazine itself were riding the wave of the thing that actually made GIJOE a name. Very sneaky and parasite-like.
I forgot to sign my name; VulcanZoar.
(plus my posting seems to have an odd horizontal bar on certain paragraphs, what's that about?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VulcanZoar (talkcontribs).
The horizontal bar thing happens when you put a space at the beginning of the line. To indent, use colons at the beginning of each sentence: the more colons, the larger the indent. This bit, for instance, uses two colons; if you want to post a reply after it, you should do three. (you can see what I mean when you go to the "edit" page).
Now, as to your points. You obviously view the RAH cartoon as THE source for G.I. Joe mythos, but that's just not the case. It was a major facet of the line, yes - and definitely the one I was most familiar with for a long time - but it wasn't the only thing out there. You also have a few facts mixed up. As laid out on this page, ARAH had three major pieces: the toys, the comic, and the cartoon.
While the cartoon was popular, the comics were the backbone of the story. Since the details for the toys were written by the same guy who wrote the comics, those two things synced up. Ever wonder why Storm Shadow became a Joe in 1988? It happened in the comicbook, not the cartoon. The first Joe animation was nothing but an ad FOR the comic: that's where G.I. Joe started, more than a year before the first miniseries, not the other way around. On the other side of the coin, the comic kept the story alive until 1994, while the cartoon stopped after 1987. So no, the toymakers didn't start a cartoon to sell their toys, they started a comic to sell their toys, then started a cartoon to sell the comics. Even if all you want to go by is the toys, Snake-Eyes and Storm Shadow have been paired since 1997 (or 1985 and 1988 if you go by the filecards). Anyway, the point is, in the now 27-year history of A Real American Hero, two years of "Spirit and Stormshadow" is an aberration, an unrepeated pairing, heavily overshadowed by the two and a half decades of "Snake-Eyes and Storm Shadow" in continuity after continuity. Which is why, if you want to include a note to that effect in the article, it definitely needs to a qualifier so everyone knows why you're saying it. Click around on here, or any fansite really, and you'll definitely see that saying Snake-Eyes somehow isn't the flagship character for modern Joes reveals a decidedly skewed perspective, one that calls for clarification.
Anyway, the tone: yeah, we're all fans of G.I. Joe here, which is why the article doesn't need to have a heavily "hyped" style to it. The point of the article isn't to convince anyone, just to let them decide for themselves. There's a difference between being positive and gushing. We can just lay out the facts without needing to tell readers that Resolute is the greatest thing ever, because they'll figure that out for themselves. But we do still need to write professionally, to fulfill the "pedia" part of "Joepedia," just like Wookiepedia has to write its Star Wars articles professionally, and TFwiki needs to write their Transformers articles professionally. The block of text really sounds like something you'd see on someone's personal site, and the tone we're aiming for here is a bit higher than that (even though, yes, we're all absolutely fans of the property). --buttbutt 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Cotinuity "error"

Cobra Commander killed Major Bludd in Washington, but he brought his heart back to Springfield and cut that in half in front of his troops. He didn't kill Bludd himself in Springfield, just sliced the recovered heart to scare his men. This is a point out to anyone confused as to where he actually killed Bludd. Slicing his heart in half and killing the man were two different events in two seperate places. Hopefully, any arrogant users won't bitch about me changing this, though I will note it on Bludd's page. To get confirmation on my observation, look up Resolute episode 4 on YouTube. (And for the record, I wasn't being "wildly defensive" for no reason. I have dealt with plenty of users on other sites who have reverted countless edits to improve pages all because they didn't like one tiny sliver of the page, so alot of my hard work has been lost that way. Trust me, there are people who think they know what they're doing, then they go and erase all of my good facts just because of one minor error. It's pretty annoying, but hey, my apologies for momentarily appearing overzealous.) --Mateo22 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, get wildly defensive about your edits before anyone even responds. That's normal. Anyway, you're correct: what you've posted is one possible explanation for Cobra Commander's words; he does literally say that he cut Bludd's heart in half in Springfield. However, since this is neither shown in the series, nor is it mentioned that the body is missing its heart, no matter how many times we watch Webisode 4, there's never going to be confirmation of that proposed series of events. It seems like a very large stretch to suit the literal meaning of his words, rather than taking them at face value. Similarly, had CC said he "snuffed out" Major Bludd, we wouldn't necessarily assume that meant he'd been strangled, you follow? So operating within the context and continuity of the movie, the continuity error remains a continuity error. --buttbutt 06:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.