"G.I. Joe" will be out next week, an event which will likely mark a "sink or swim" moment for the burgeoning subgenre of "action films based on animated TV programs which actually advertisments for action figures" (someone needs to "name" this) in as much as it's the first one to come out post-"Transformers" and trends are gauged by how much the subsequent entries play out. Remember, when the first "Batman" movie hit in 1989 everyone assumed the start of a "superhero boom" and HUNDREDS of comic book movies were optioned... but most of them never got made and most of those that did didn't pan out very well. The genre slid into dormancy for years, only to eventually reawaken after the one-two punch of "Blade" and "X-Men" and the subsequent "Spider-Man" knockout.
Here's my question: What exactly does "G.I. Joe" have to do to be considered an artistic failure, objectively? I mean, once it's out it'll be only the SECOND entry into the entire genre, and let's face it: You KNOW it's going to be better than "Transformers" because EVERYTHING is better than "Transformers." So... is that it? Does Joe automatically get to be the "best ______-movie EVER" and that's that, or does there need to be some other standard applied because this particular test is too easy to pass?