Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

UPDATE!! What The Hell Happened With G.I. JOE: RETALIATION?!

 

Merrick here...

Per The Kidd's comments below about adding more Tatum to the new movie...

Someone who'd recently seen the new G.I. JOE picture at a test screening told me last night about some interesting and suspicious  questions on their post-screening questionnaire thingie.  Edited and paraphrased...

"I cant help but kinda call bullshit on this 3D shenanigan..." 

[EDIT]

Questions included...

"How did you feel about him (Tatum) in the film?" and  "Do you feel there should have been more of him...?" 

This individual found it highly suspicious that these questions were being posed at a test screening which occurred before the announcement of the film's delayed release.  All things being equal, it certainly seems quite feasible that some level of retooling of the picture might be taking place during this nine month (!?!?) postponement.  If so...said adjustments would seem(?) to be adding more Tatum into the equation.   This is only conjecture though...for now, at least...

Here's The Kidd with more perspective...

 

=========================

 

The Kidd here...

There's a lot of close attention being paid to what's going on over at the offices of Paramount Pictures today after word came down yesterday that the studio was pulling G.I. JOE: RETALIATION from the summer 2012 calendar a little more than a month shy of its June 29 release date and repositioning it nine months later for March 2013, all in the name of 3-D. After all, an action flick starring The Rock and Bruce Willis would normally seem like a sure bet to bring in some good cash during the blockbuster season, and with a franchise that carries name recognition which already performed well enough in the theatres three years ago to warrant a sequel, you'd think G.I. JOE 2's bed was pretty well made already. That's where you'd be wrong. The first film is pretty divisive among fans - with some considering it nothing more than fun entertainment while others chalk it up to an incredible piece of stupidity - and yet there seemed to be a lot of positive buzz surrounding the sequel, which is quite an accomplishment. You couldn't say the same thing for say WRATH OF THE TITANS, which moved from a disappointing first film to an even more disappointing follow-up. But here we were, maybe not anticipating RETALIATION like PROMETHEUS or THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, but at least willing to go in open-minded after what was less than an ideal first offering... only for Paramount to yank the rug out from beneath us for the simple fact that converting the film will add 3-4 bucks to the ticket price you'll have to pay when they finally decide to show it to you. More money for them. But is there more than meets than eye (to borrow from another toy franchise)?

Business-wise, this makes perfect sense for Paramount. Apparently the international box office has been eating these 3-D action flicks up, so it's a sound business decision for Paramount to set G.I. JOE up in a slot where they can best take advantage of the market... but, if that's the case, why wait until now? Perhaps because panic has begun to set in not about what this film might not be able to do... which is compete with THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and make serious money. 

There's a lot of apprehension about these big budget blockbusters these days after the financial failings of JOHN CARTER and BATTLESHIP. First off, if you're going to invest that much money in a picture, the studios damn sure want to be sure that they're going to make it back and then some. In the case of JOHN CARTER, Disney really has no one to blame but themselves, as their marketing was weak in gaining awareness for the film. However, BATTLESHIP was set up in the shadow of THE AVENGERS and wound up getting killed for it. Was BATTLESHIP awful? Absolutely. However, terrible movies have still managed to draw an audience, with Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS sequels serving as perfect examples. 

But with the record-setting numbers THE AVENGERS has been pulling since it assembled, there's plenty of reason to be worried about going head-to-head with our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man over Fourth of July Weekend. G.I. JOE: RETALIATION is only getting a few days head start on Spidey, and that doesn't necessarily mean people are going to rush out to see it knowing what's waiting for them a few days later over the holiday. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is still a Spider-Man movie, and that'll always trump G.I. JOE. The real question then becomes why did Paramount wait so long to realize they were leading their lamb to slaughter. Did they just think people would come out and see their movie, because during the summer, people have typically gone out and seen anything and everything, only to be proven wrong by BATTLESHIP? That could be part of it... or there could be big problems with RETALIATION.

The 3-D-ification is what it is. It's Paramount looking to squeeze every last dime that they can out of this movie, but couldn't they have decided to do that months and months ago? Why the sudden decision to post-convert? John Chu admitted to The Hollywood Reporter at SXSW that shooting RETALIATION was once an option, but they decided against it because it would have meant more money and more time. However, even those few short months ago, post-conversion 3-D didn't seem to be on the table. That wasn't something being considered then to make the June release date. It seemingly wasn't considered until now, which leads me to believe that this isn't about the 3-D at all. There's something else going on with G.I. JOE: RETALIATION.

Since yesterday, I've been getting all types of early screening reports about the quality of G.I. JOE: RETALIATION, which have ranged from "nonsensical" to "worse than RISE OF COBRA," so it's quite possible that Paramount didn't realize they had a bad movie on their hands until they got it in front of audiences, which was rather late in the game. Therefore, this was their chance to pull the plug to rework and retool the movie.

There've also been reports of plenty of reshoots leading into the cut of RETALIATION they have now with many more to come. The rumor mill seems to be working overtime with talk of Paramount now seeing Channing Tatum as more of an asset, after 21 JUMP STREET and MAGIC MIKE, than a bad link to the first movie. There's been some rumbling of reshoots that would call for more Tatum in the movie. The G.I. JOE RETALIATION we see nine months from now may only vaguely resemble the one we would have gotten one month from now. 

Of course Paramount is going to say as much, because the smoke of the 3-D enables the fire of these problems to burn largely unnoticed under that cover... but there's plenty of reason to believe that G.I. JOE: RETALIATION was a movie in trouble and Paramount did the only thing they could think of at this point. The cost of their marketing isn't a big deal to them at this point. It just means a longer period of advertisement for their movie. But the thing I don't think they counted on was that they've taken what was a positive for them and quickly turned it into a negative. People were excited to see a G.I. JOE sequel, and, now that it's not happening when they were told, they have no choice but to fear and assume the worst (much of which may very well be justified). 

I hope that Paramount can save G.I. JOE if this is the case. I hope they are pulling out all the stops to try to right the franchise and set it up to have a long future. I'm not saying that the fans deserve it, but the legacy of G.I. JOE does. These properties need to be handled with care, because, for the studios, they mean lots of money, but, for the fans, they mean something special. And poor films associated with such important names means everyone comes out a loser. They have nine months to make it work. They have nine months to pull it together. They have no other choice, because, right now, they've stacked the deck against themselves. Had G.I. JOE: RETALIATION rolled through next month and been bad, the film would have bombed, fans would have complained, and we all would have moved on. But, if you push it back, slap some 3-D on it, and turn out a movie that still winds up not meeting a certain standard, they come across as greedy and untrustworthy... and that's not a perception they should want to carry. 

 

-Billy Donnelly

"The Infamous Billy The Kidd"

BillyTheKidd@aintitcool.com

Follow me on Twitter.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 24, 2012, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Guh

    by terrence horan

    Guh

  • May 24, 2012, 10:07 a.m. CST

    No difference to me

    by jersey_d

    I was going to see it in 2-d this year, and instead, I'll be seeing it in 2-d next year.

  • Summer used to be the best time to release a big movie because kids are out of school or whatever. But that was back when there were maybe 2 or 3 bi movies a year. If they throw up a dozen or more movies in the roughly three month summer movie period, of course a lot of movies that would have done well otherwise are going to get buried. Ret-conning them into 3D isn't going to help that. The Hunger Games was #1 for like 5 weeks because there wasn't any competition. All these lesser summer movies should have been released then.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:10 a.m. CST

    THIS IS NOT COOL NEWS...

    by Johnny Wrong

    ...nobody fucking cares. Don't waste our time, little man...go find something INTERESTING to report on. You know? Like A GOOD FILM.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Fuck 'em

    by NightArrows

    They simply won't learn. Make a piece of shit now or release a piece of shit later, it'll still be a piece of shit and will never make Avengers money...oh damn, Transformers proved that wrong. Umm, Fuck 'em?

  • May 24, 2012, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Make no mistake.

    by Zarles

    Had this movie gotten its original release date, it would've bombed horrifically and you all would've hated it. Delaying its release with the excuse of adding 3D is probably a smart thing for Paramount, but only because the assembled film I saw a month ago was a giant nut-filled turd. Whether or not they can fix it remains to be seen, but don't buy into this 'we're only pulling it to add 3D' nonsense. That's almost as insulting as the movie itself.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    They already have the greedy and untrustworthy perception.

    by kinsahd

    Had that way before this move.

  • nobody cares about bruce willis anymore

  • May 24, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST

    The trailer only promised a marginally better film.

    by J.B.M.A.

    It still managed to make many of G.I. Joe's positives look like horrendous old tit-jizz. There is IS a good film to be made out of this franchise, but I'll put money down that this isn't it!

  • May 24, 2012, 10:21 a.m. CST

    I'll find a copy of it for free on the net and watch it..Fuck you, studios

    by alienindisguise

  • If it's any older than 13, please, PLEASE seek counseling.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Nine lengthy paragraphs speculating

    by tomdolan04

    What was clearly apparent to everyone and actually discussed at length in the short news report when this broke yesterday.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:23 a.m. CST

    John Carter made over 315,000,000 worldwide

    by LupinT3

    Most films would "hope" to fail that bad.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST

    The first one was fucking garbage

    by NightArrows

    And those who excuse it with the terms "fun" and "popcorn movie" are worse than Hitler and are the reason there is AIDS and horse thievery on this planet.

  • Who the hell is gonna waste their money on this crap when there's Avengers (which is probably going to be in theatres well into the fall), Dark Knight Rises (most likely will also make a bazillion and be around for months) and Prometheus this summer? Does anyone really care that much about GI Joes? That is, anyone over the age of 10?

  • May 24, 2012, 10:30 a.m. CST

    jawsfan

    by Zarles

    Yes. It says that you're a dumbfuck with a pathetic attention span who should brush up on their reading comprehension skills. ME NO WANNA REED MOAR! Fuck off.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:31 a.m. CST

    no tatum

    by danny von stietz

    what really got me excited about the new joe was the changes they were making. more tatum? i hope not

  • May 24, 2012, 10:33 a.m. CST

    a nine month wait...

    by Michael Edwards

    to see someone on this site call it GI Joe: Retardation.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:33 a.m. CST

    I knew this movie sucked balls! Please read....

    by Joe

    Why on earth would ANY STUDIO cancel a movie so close to it's release date!?!? The trailer's were confusing enough, one minute i see The Rock, and the next Bruce Willis?? BRUCE MOTHER FUCKING WILLIS?!?!!? Who the hell did the casting for this? Seriously, when the trailer shows scenes that don't flow with one another it just sends this vibe that the movie would blow. I 'liked' the first movie, it was fun, but nowhere near what I had hoped. The second movie was really on the fence for me. Do i think the studio will fix it in 9 months, knowing that only NOW Channing Tatum is WORTH keeping alive!?!?! HELLS NO! I've seen this done before, a studio tries to salvage an already filmed movie after spending MILLIONS of dollars on it. ONLY to have it suck ass when they finally release it. The ONLY reason us fans SUFFER through the transformers films is becuase they are THE ONLY Trasnformers films out now. I WISH TO GOD that Bay hadn't gotten his hands on them. This movie is gonna suck and suck bad. For a studio to LIE and say "Oh we want to add 3D to it to make it uber-cool!" IS A LOAD OF SHIT and probably the LAMEST excuse a studio can give. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it doesn't take 9 months to add 3D to a film! I was on the fence but now i'm totally passing on this crap! -Rex

  • May 24, 2012, 10:35 a.m. CST

    @jawsfan

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    nope - it just re-re-re-re-iterated what was said in the first paragraph, and then discussed it in unrelenting detail the way a literature professor would dissect a five word phrase in a Shakespearean sonnet.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:35 a.m. CST

    jawsfan

    by tomdolan04

    Nope. 'Shit movie, lots of competition, being retooled, 3D reasoning given as a cover story'. <p> Nine paragraphs! Merricks update gives more insight and context to the news in 100 odd words than the main one does in a couple of thousand

  • May 24, 2012, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Needs more cowbell.

    by Bigdada

    Obviously.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Channing "Duhhh" Tatum

    by EntityZero

    Is garbage. The only reason I'd see this crap is to see him get killed. Altho I do like the Rock

  • Hollywood isn't killing movies, bad marketing is. The multi-plexes were supposed to give us more movies in the theater for a longer time; instead, we get fewer movies for a shorter amount of time. This actually has created a smaller market. Broader Hollywood success requires a larger market. The whole box-office weekend measurement has funneled the market.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST

    There there, shut up Zarles...

    by Patch

    You're the spunk your mother should have swallowed...

  • May 24, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST

    I was excited for this. Bummer, guess I'll go see Avengers again.

    by adeceasedfan

  • May 24, 2012, 10:46 a.m. CST

    The Sound You Hear is a Toilet Flushing

    by eck_iii

    The first GI Joe was jaw droppingly bad. Stupid and inept doesn't begin to describe the awfulness. Most of the blame, of course, rests on Stephen Sommers, the hack of all hacks. Even with the addition of a couple of superstars, how can the sequel be anything but loud, brash and dumb?

  • May 24, 2012, 10:46 a.m. CST

    NO FUCKING WAY THIS IS WORTH A SHIT (EVEN WITH 9 MONTHS OF TURD POLISHING)

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

    There's no fucking way that this film is going to be anywhere close to good. Fuck, it probably wont even be okay. I'm betting that it will be pure torture to watch the terrible acting compounded by the terrible scripting compounded again by the fake as fuck looking CGI effects. It's like a big budget SciFi channel movie, except all the extra funding went to making the acting, story and effects even more ridiculous. I loved the GI Joe toys as a kid, but I almost walked out of the movie a couple of years ago. When are the studios going to realize that we can't be wowed by special effects if the story and acting are DOGSHIT?

  • Judging from the trailers, it looks more akin to Larry Hama's vision than Rise of Cobra. That said, major tweaks are in dire need just to up the ante and by tweaks, no fucking 3D. let's have better set pieces, intense action sequences and additional funding for wardrobes and such. Gimmie the "village people" GIJoe anyday than the all black leather X-men and batman wannabees. Oh, and last but not least....DESTRO, bitches!

  • May 24, 2012, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Was looking forward to this.

    by Richard

    mainly because I was under the impression that Channing Tatum's Douche Hauser was dying fairly early on. now I'm getting screwed twice with this movie. 9 more months to wait, and probably have to see MORE of Channing Tatum. Tatum is the flattest actor currently getting consistent work in hollywood. this generation's Keanu Reeves.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    I was looking forward to GI Joe 2, not the stupid looking Spider-Man rehash.

    by yeah i'm a jerk!

    Honestly, given a choice to spend money on either, GI Joe was going to win. The trailers looked fun and much improved from the first film. Channing Tatum sucks balls. I never want to see him in another film ever!

  • May 24, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Stop with the conversions.

    by gotilk

    They're horrible. Stop it. Bad excuse, if it is real at all.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    Figured Tatum's character died

    by harry

    Based on the trailers, I had assumed Tatum's character died during that attack which seems like the beginning of the movie. Personally i could care less if he did die or not, as I didnt really like any of the characters in the first movie. Really, the Rock is going to carry this movie and having Willis in a small part will only help. But maybe the girlies and girlie-boys want more Tatum, or that test audience screening were all girls who complained Tatum got shafted. If that is the reason...then Geez....was looking forward to this movie without Tatum. Now it just seems like its got bad written all over it. Paramount made a big mistake, should have released this in August.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    soooo...

    by the new transported man

    Suits are worried that they've leaving money on the table with killing off C-Tates in the beginning of the movie, & that the movie's not gonna make any money because Batman, & the movie's probably kinda crappy anyway, so it gets bumped & re-shot. It'll be fun, seeing how they clumsily reintegrate Magic Mike. DUKE'S GONNA BE OKAY!!

  • May 24, 2012, 10:55 a.m. CST

    also

    by the new transported man

    Really wanna know what BIG LOB has to say about all this.

  • May 24, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    octoburn

    by tomdolan04

    Keanu may be flat but his style wholly suited his surroundings and he has a charm. Point Break, Bill and Teds, Speed, Matrix 1, Scanner Darkly, Constantine - all better than anything Tatum will ever achieve. Sure he's made stinkers but who hasnt?

  • May 24, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    ....AND IT NEVER FUCKING GOT RELEASED

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • May 24, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    ...AND PEOPLE LOST THEIR FUCKING JOBS

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • May 24, 2012, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Good commentary

    by DadTimesTwo

  • May 24, 2012, 10:58 a.m. CST

    ...AND STUDIO EXECS GOT THEIR FUCKING BRAINS BLOWN OUT

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • May 24, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST

    ...AND THEN THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD CAUGHT ON FIRE

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • May 24, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST

    ...AND I WAS THE LAST MAN ALIVE

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • May 24, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    ...LAUGHING AND CRYING HYSTERICALLY BOTH AT THE SAME TIME

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • Look I hated the first G.I. Joe thought it was awful. Not as bad as Transformers mind you but borderline ok at best. But I was very interested in seeing this for The Rock alone, he makes quality action flicks. But the lack of Duke even though it being Tatum was bothering me. After 21 Jump Street I'm slowly being pulled into being a Tatum fan I thought he was great in it. So after that kind of success it just seemed weird to have Tatum who was a big part of the first one just be used as a cameo to link to the 2nd one. Look I want a great G.I. Joe movie just like a great Transformers. So even though I thought the ideat of pushing this till March for 3D was stupid, if it means giving me a better Joe movie than I'm cool. I just think they screwed themselves up.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    if they are afraid of losing a ton of money invested in a movie....

    by zom-bot.com

    ...THEN STOP MAKING MEGA MILLION DOLLAR SHIT MOVIES that are so horrendous that the only chance they have to recoup the investment or make money is if enough idiots go in blind because they have nothing better to do on a friday night. jesus- it's simple...make sincere, affordable, engrossing movies that cost so little that they turn easy profit, and are sleeper hits. maybe it's not as simple as that. too many stupid americans enjoy utter crap, and don't have the patience, brainpower or attention span to enjoy a good movie that asks them to think or care instead of 'turning off their brain and enjoying the ride' as Harry puts it. and hollywood suits need instant gratification. nothing matters but opening weekend, toys, slurpee cups, taco bell cross-over deals..etc. one sure sign of a movie's potential suckiness is how many tie-ins are associated with it to saturated the market with so much advertising that braindead people can't help but go see something that has been shoved down their throats. but still, somehow, i stand by the point that someone has to make the first move, and it probably won't be the general public. QUIT WASTING SO MUCH MONEY MAKING SHITTY MOVIES AND THEN YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BREAKING EVEN, MAKING PROFIT or HAVING TO REWORK YOUR SHIT WITH 3-D

  • May 24, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    ...A DIMENSION WHERE RICHARD GERE RAPES ME 4 TIMES A DAY

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • May 24, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    ...AND I SOMEHOW ENJOY IT

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • May 24, 2012, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Hey Merrick

    by the new transported man

    Ask that source of yours whether, early in the film, Storm Shadow breaks out Cobra Commander & CC leaves Destro behind & uses some corny line of dialogue. If that didn't happen, then this Zarles guy is full of baloney. Do it for the fans, Merrick. Do it for every AICN talkbacker who's ever had to deal with these leprous misfits who apparently get off on roleplaying Movie Insider on sites like these, desperately hoarding attention if only to give their lives purpose for a fleeting moment before mom comes downstairs with lunch.

  • Disney might have better used $100 bills as toilet paper in their offices.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:08 a.m. CST

    G.I. JOE 2: NOW WITH MORE TATUM

    by Chris

  • May 24, 2012, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Did the person at test screening relay their thoughts on the film?

    by Bass Ackwards

    And too bad, we finally are seeing film makers find the secret to Tatum (which is to use as little of him as possible) and now the studios are insisting on fucking that up. The idea of reshooting to add more of him seems silly though. It delays the film, adds cost, and ultimately adds nothing. If he's marketable, they ALREADY get to market the film with his name on it. Are they going to reshoot it and start running ads that say "a 33% larger Channing Tatum presence then any other film this weekend!"

  • The only people who will give a damn in six months about the marketing of John Carter are the already-overwhelmingly-appeased-by-Avengers-returns Disney stockholders and armchair box office know-it-alls. Stop throwing the mainstream media's easy "not since John Carter" gagline in every other article, it's damn tired, already. Judge the movie for what it is. And yes, I think it's a great film, it gave me thrills that I had to reach back 30 years to Raiders of the Lost Ark in order to find a fair comparison. Your mileage may vary.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    I'm gonna take my grandparents to see a fucking PORNO on Memorial Day

    by Dr. Francis B. Gross

  • May 24, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    How about more JGL while your at it.

    by Tikidonkeypunch

    And we can always throw in Tom Hardy for good measure.

  • There's certain Joes that are just staples to me. Duke, Snake-Eyes, Roadblock, Scarlet, Flint, & Lady Jaye. Throw in Shipwreck and to me they should always be apart of any G.I. Joe iteration period. Yes I hated Tatum but after Jumpstreet I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:16 a.m. CST

    3D will...

    by Dead_Geek

    ... make it suck even more.

  • it's the only 'reveal' these shit movies ever use. he's thought to be killed in an explosion or a fall or by drowning or some shit, but they don't find the body. they have a memorial. it motivates everyone to go finish the mission 'for DUKE!'...and in the last 15 minutes of the movie, when it looks bad for our heros, Duke shows up and saves the day, having been able to infiltrate cobra or something because 'for Cobra to believe I had died, you guys had to believe I had died.'.... i will bet $5 on this.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:18 a.m. CST

    I hope they get the star alignment correct in post.

    by Chris

  • May 24, 2012, 11:20 a.m. CST

    They're going to Magic Mike it up

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Probably more scenes of Tatum without his shirt in 3-D.

  • The movie is still making money. Boxofficemojo stopped keeping track for some bizarre reason. They said they don't count China's box office but the count it when reporting on Titanic 3D for some stange reason. Final box office total for John Carter could be close to the magic $350 million they wanted it to make, but will never be reported. (And ironically, I never saw the movie myself.)

  • May 24, 2012, 11:25 a.m. CST

    So does AICN Actually Publish Advance Reviews Anymore

    by UCB Agent1

    Didn't this site publish advance screening reviews all the time? You say you have gotten some, so why not publish them? Don't tell us you have them, show them to us!

  • Whoever hired him should get canned.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Why are we even talking about this movie?

    by Yelsaeb

    That is all.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    i'm not sure what's worse

    by TheBaxter

    adding 3D or adding more Channing Tatum. so i'll call it a tie and add that both would be incredibly fucking stupid decisions.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:38 a.m. CST

    More movies should be upgraded with more Channing Tatum.

    by INWOsuxRED

    George Lucas is going to add more Channing Tatum to the original trilogy to finally make them perfect.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Ripped from Joblo

    by tomdolan04

    Pretty fun fan made trailer for Expendables 2 <p> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W1RUH7DHFMk#!

  • May 24, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Sneak peak reviews...

    by Mr_Fancy_Pants

    or it didn't happen.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Battleship was a great popcorn summer movie

    by Raptor Jesus

    Saw it Monday, was lots of fun. Looked great on the big screen. Hey, it's not 'Macbeth', ok? But battleships vs aliens...it's a good time. Better than 'Battle for LA', Spielbergs 'War of the Worlds' and the last 3 'Transformers' movies combined.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Battleship did not fail - get your facts right

    by Bentley_Bear

    It's already made it's production money back. This is an international market - you said so yourself. If 3D does better overseas the GI Joe will do better than Battleship performance everywhere.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Why fear Spider-Man?

    by Jon Serianni

    I can see panicking over The Avengers. They have been building to it since Iron Man and it is the first time they combined superheroes who were individual successes into one movie. Plus they made a good movie. If the studio did panic over Spider-Man then it is typical Hollywood overreaction.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Going up against Spidey is the reason this got yanked

    by krabklaw

    I never understood the release date in the first place. It always looked suicidal to me. Does anyone here really believe that Paramount pulled this movie because it wasn't good enough? Come on now! Delaying this movie does offer the studio the bonus of extra time so they can do a 3D conversion, but it's not the reason.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Anyone who thinks Battleshit is better than WotW

    by NightArrows

    Is a fucking idiot. But what can you expect when the old "It's not Shakespeare" line gets pulled out of the mothballs when describing a piece of shit masquerading as a popcorn movie.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Battleship- unfortunately....

    by Tom Fremgen

    is not the flop it should be, according to box office mojo, the foreign box office has pulled in $215 million! So get ready for more 3D Toy movies!

  • May 24, 2012, 11:56 a.m. CST

    John Carter failed of bad marketing?!?!?

    by ColloquiallyBorn

    "In the case of JOHN CARTER, Disney really has no one to blame but themselves, as their marketing was weak in gaining awareness for the film." Sorry, but trailers for this movie ran like they were Santa Claus in the middle of Christmas! The film failed because it was one of the worst pieces of crap ever to have been put on screen.. It takes 30 min just to get into the story then another 30 to make a point where he can leap really really high continuously, then another 30 to try to set-up something at which point your nose bleeds because of your brain trying to figure out what the hell you were thinking going to see this crap, then for the rest of the movie you just sit there and think that maybe you should've paid the big bucks to see "Dora The Explorer: The Movie, Diego's famous adventure!" ... John Carter didn't fail because of marketing, it failed because it was a bad movie.. word got out ... people went to see other movies.. that's it..

  • May 24, 2012, 11:58 a.m. CST

    "Needs more Tatum"

    by TresEquis

    This needs to be a meme

  • May 24, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Not that I expected this to be a masterpiece or anything, but...

    by Kremzeek

    If you add more Tatum, I won't see it. The guy CANNOT act. He is awful. And if you have the Rock and fucking BRUCE WILLIS in there, you've gotta up your game a bit. Adding more Tatum is not advisable in the least. He may be hot stuff right now or whatever, but not to the people who will actually go SEE your fucking film! Do you really think any of us GI Joe nerds actually WANT to see more Tatum? Hell no we don't. LESS of him would be great. In fact, you should've recast him if you were essentially rebooting. Great decision, Suits: Let's cater to the people who weren't going to see this movie anyway. Brilliant. I hope this isn't true.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Re: "Battleship was a great popcorn summer movie "

    by Stalkeye

    Raptor, sounds like you musta been smokin some grade-A Hydro. lemme get a hit.

  • Talk about stupid conspiracy theories.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Didn't the original live action Joe movie also suffer from

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Some kind of post production problems after test screenings.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    There is not now, nor will there ever be a reason...

    by AidanJames

    to add more Tatum to anything at all that concerns mankind.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:10 p.m. CST

    "the legacy of G.I. JOE"..... say what?

    by zom-bot.com

    the legacy being, a large soldier doll for boys in the 50's 60's and 70's that was based in reality and required imagination on the part of the child playing with it, then it was retooled into a poorly animated cartoon and shrunken figures in the 80's to capitalize on the popular size started by the star wars figures, when an entire generation of man-children were raised on sugar, cartoons and toys have never let go of the past ever since. awesome legacy...

  • May 24, 2012, 12:16 p.m. CST

    More Channing Tatum in 3D?

    by buggerbugger

    Does Hollywood combined have enough 3D-conversion technology to achieve this within a realistic multi-billion dollar budget?

  • May 24, 2012, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Paramount is a shithole studio

    by Jaster Mareel

    They make mostly crappy films and their late decision to go HD DVD only when Blu-ray was clearly the HD format of choice has just soured me to them. I remember that same year is when Dreamworks signed a deal with them....adn the ONLY financially succesful films were at Paramount were Transformers and Shrek 2, bot Dreamworks titles. Gone is the Paramount that did Raiders of the Lost Ark. It has been replaced with the studio that brought us every horrible SNL film. I'll bet they're pretty deflated now that Disney has bought Marvel and can do their own distribution now since that was about the only feather in Paramount's cap.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Didn't someone stand up in the test screening and say:

    by daggor

    "MORE COBRA COMMANDER?!?" For me, G.I. Joe was always about Cobra Commander. Not JG-L, but a guy with a mask on and a crazy raspy voice that was a weird mix of narcissism and cowardice. That's what I want to see.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Oh sorry, that's UNIVERSAL that does SNL movies

    by Jaster Mareel

    They're both pretty shitty studios, truth be told.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:23 p.m. CST

    BAH! I was right the first time, Paramount does SNL films

    by Jaster Mareel

    It's been a long day.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:25 p.m. CST

    @wrath_of_fett

    by mrm1138

    Yeah, but Universal did put out the best SNL movie of all time, The Blues Brothers.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:29 p.m. CST

    If they clunkily add Tatum back into the movie…

    by 11dayempire

    …after killing him off, they HAVE to have someone burst in and go, "Duke's gonna be alright!" THIS MUST HAPPEN.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Tatum was fucking TERRIBLE in GI:JOE

    by D.Vader

    But also fucking HILARIOUS in 21 Jump Street.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:35 p.m. CST

    FUCK THIS SHIT!!!

    by JaredP

    bring on PROMETHEUS, already

  • May 24, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Not surprised.

    by TheMachinist

    They had a bad release date, so they changed it. I hate the first one, and I hate 3D conversions(Sans Avengers), though.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST

    if they really think adding more tatum is a good idea...

    by JaredP

    than smoeone needs to slap the shit out of these fucking producers

  • May 24, 2012, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Is it as good as the first edit of "Radioactive Man"?

    by DoctorZoidberg

    "My eyes! Da goggle do nothing!"

  • May 24, 2012, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Lauging my ass off

    by eman1111

    Okay guys some of these posts have me laughing hysterically, thank you for giving me a morning full of humor. It started with the Kidd's essay length explanation, really Kidd you are putting this much thought into a GI Joe movie, really? There are many movies I can tell just from the trailers that they are going to be awful and the first GI joe was one of them. I like action movies but I won't go to any movie if I know it is going to be shit and I knew that GI Joe was going to be shit just like in watching the trailers to the second one even with the Rock and Willis, who is way past his expiration date as a relevant star, that this would be awful. The GI Joe toys were lame and the cartoon was terrible so why do they think there is going to be this big audience out there to watch it. Don't even get me started on Battleship I mean again the trailers to this film just looked horrible and I happened to see a bit of the making of Battleship on HBO when I was changing channels and it was so stupid it was funny, I mean watching these actors explain their roles in a movie that is so obviously bad and watching the director get all serious about what he is doing was hysterical. It amazes me that some studio head saw this script and thought they should spend 100 million on this pile of steaming crap. But overall guys the comments just slayed me as they were so funny. Hopefully they just completely pull the plug on this film and it goes straight to DVD, still wont watch it but that would be a fitting end for this pile of shit franchise. Finally Kidd save your writing skills for movies that deserve it. Your explanation of this should have been at most a couple of sentences, here let me show you. "GI Joe has been postponed for 9 months because Paramount want to convert it to 3D and add more Channing Tatum. But the real truth is that GI Joe sucks giant donkey balls and no matter how they dress this thing up it is still going to suck!"

  • I live in Italy, and I know that here, as well as in other European countries, we actually don't get the choice of watching in 2D or 3D in a lot of places... if it's a 3D film, you HAVE to watch (and pay!) for 3D! It would be interesting to see how big a difference that makes on the international market - I for one would choose 2D over 3D if I could!

  • May 24, 2012, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Maybe it'll be a GI Joe the movie homage

    by Samuel Fulmer

    You know the animated one with Cobra La? Duke was going to die with a snake to the heart, but because kids got upset watching the transformers movie with dead Optimus, they changed it so at the very last minute some line is added where they say "Duke's going to be okay, Yo Joe!"

  • May 24, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    less Tatum if anything

    by Talkbacker with no name

  • May 24, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    blame obama

    by comx

    I think Obama shut GI Joe down. The bad guy in this was the "president" and they have big red banners hanging on the whitehouse, visually looking like a nazi takeover. I think Obama "suggested" they hold off the movie release till after the election. Sounds petty? Hey this is the most petty, media conscious administration ever.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Battleship should have used Pirates as bad guys.

    by whatevillurks

    Pirates get modern warships on the black market. Coalition fleet vs. Rogue Fleet. There ya go.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:51 p.m. CST

    GI Joe (2009) was one of the worst films last decade

    by Samuel Fulmer

    It was much like Batman and Robin, too juvenile/childish to be enjoyed by anyone over the age of 10, but too violent for anyone under the age of 10.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Nice Reflection Billy

    by mattythelionheart

    Very well written. I really don't think more scenes of Channiguah will change anything. This state of panic doesn't sound good at all. I doubt I'll see it in 3 or 2D, anyway. We all know the bad ass flick featuring Willis will be Expendables 2.

  • May 24, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST

    tomdolan

    by Richard

    I agree... I wasn't dissing Keanu as an actor, he's not a horrible actor like Tatum. should have specified that they both have a fairly flat voice and with little emotional range in their line delivery. admittedly, Keanu delivers alot more emotion though his "flat" line delivery than Tatum. but that's because Tatum has the charisma of a tree stump.

  • May 24, 2012, 1 p.m. CST

    Oh let's not start the John Carter bashing again

    by D.Vader

    That movie was great.

  • May 24, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Screw that!

    by fscottnational

    What this movie needs is more Carol Channing!

  • May 24, 2012, 1:05 p.m. CST

    d.vader I agree

    by Talkbacker with no name

    saw it for the second time yesterday. even better than the first.

  • Are you fucking kidding me? For one, the president in this film is an OLD WHITE GUY! If anything, it makes it look like an evil white guy is running the White House after an inept white president is taken hostage. Old White Guy = Republican in most Americans minds these days. Obama would probably love that!! Hahaha... In truth, Obama could give two shits about GI Joe. I doubt that movie is even on his radar. Anyone tring to blame Obama for this is a nutjob.

  • I haven't seen this much negative bullshit in a talkback for a while. Not directed at one fucking person who didn't deserve it, anyway. Channing Tatum isn't the worlds best actor by any means, but he is improving by leaps and bounds. I don't think he'll ever be the box office draw they want him to be, but as an actor he will be alright, I think. He just doesn't have the charisma or the range of a great actor yet. His face certainly doesn't seem to be very expressive. I don't know that he can overcome that, especially at his age. But I can see him turning that to his advantage as he gets older. He could be the next Tommy Lee Jones i about fifteen years. He just needs a little weathering and life experience. He has to grow out of that teen heartthrob shit they try to force on him. Seriously, if you think the biggest problem with G.I. Joe: Rise was Channing Tatum, you need to work on your critical thinking. There were way too many things going wrong with that movie from its inception to say Channing fucking Tatum brought it down anymore than anyone else in it. Gimme a fucking break. I have to wonder what your real problems with him are for it to generate that much effort to put him down. I don't usually buy such things as a reason for asshole behaviour, but I can't help but feel more than a little jealousy might be involved. And that's kinda sad. To the movie at hand: Had (moderately) high hopes, now dashed. (1) If there were problems with the story, six months of post ain't gonna fix it, Tatum or no Tatum. (2) Avengers was the very last goddamed movie to get my money for 3D that does not use 3D for some incredible and important effects. If it's not filmed in 3D originally, fuck you, Jack. I liked Avengers just fine, but there was no fucking reason for the added 3D. Pointless waste of my money. Lastly, Kidd, while I agree with all that stuff you said, try to edit yourself a bit in future. This is not a blog. There's a time and place for every point you made to be brought up, in detail, but this wasn't it. Ease up, man, your thoughts will get out there eventually.

  • May 24, 2012, 1:18 p.m. CST

    by j.r.

    Someone I met close to the film said that after what happened with Battleship, Paramount wasn't about to "eat THAT burger", and they changed the release date so they could do some rewriting and shoot some new scenes.

  • May 24, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    obama

    by comx

    Obama's trying to get a movie out about the bin laden raid ASAP. He's given unprecidented access to the movie makers. And Your trying to say he doesn't pay attention to movies? Seems like someone who doesn't get that is a nutjob

  • May 24, 2012, 1:27 p.m. CST

    CGI Joe

    by mr. smith

    meh

  • They had their chance. They began wrong, and no no matter of backpedaling or chewing gum, 3D or not, is can save a movie that is built on a non-existent foundation. This is a multimillion dollar home resting on a split 2x4 and some milk crates.<br> <br> The G.I. Joe franchise has strong parallels with the X-Men franchise. Both of the comic series were published by Marvel. Both have a proud multimedia history. Both have a constantly evolving roster of characters. The studios have no idea how to approach the film version of something that has been alive and growing for 40-50 years.<br> <br> Do you know what these films remind me up? A dip stick. The studio sees this gargantuan ball of franchise. It's pulsing and alive. Instead of tracing its DNA and having faith (as Marvel did) that they could build with a series of movies to replicate the success in a cinematic way, they simply plunge their dip stick through the surface and into the supposed heart. They pull it out thinking that what they scrape off the stick will be the "Best Of," like a cross-section of goodness.<br> <br> Of course that's not what you get. While they try to piece together bits of guts (Snake Eyes! Fans love Snake Eyes! Wolverine! Gotta put more Wolverine in there! Can we do a movie with Snake Eyes and Wolverine?! The fans will LOVE it!!!), what they've actually done is run the beast through and killed it.<br> <br> No, to do G.I. Joe and X-Men well, they needed to start from THE BEGINNING and tell GOOD STORIES.<br> <br> Now, I love the first two X-Men films. Tragically, with "20/20 Ultimate Marvel Movie Marathon leading to The Avengers" hindsight, they could have done so much more. G.I. Joe and X-Men could have had slow burns, bubbling up, until we reached film geek nirvana.<br> <br> A lot of people loved First Class, and I enjoyed it, too, but STILL. STILL, muthafucka, they through in a bunch of characters who have no chemistry or purpose together, "because it'd be cool." Studios want the quick buck, the return on investment. I hope The Avengers makes them see that had they played their cards right, the X-Men franchise could have by now been built to truly epic proportions.<br> <br> G.I. Joe started, and the films should have started, with a core group of Joes with great personalities and solid missions. The studio doesn't have the balls to give us a movie with Rock and Roll, Short Fuse, Flash, and Grunt.<br> <br> Fucking Grunt. Now that's a G.I. Joe for you.

  • May 24, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST

    I wish this forum had a post preview...

    by HyphenatedWords

    My typos mean that I was typing with passion. lol

  • May 24, 2012, 1:46 p.m. CST

    RE: comx: Seriously? Come on...

    by Jake Pantlin

    OK... It wouldn't surprise me if he was trying to get a movie rushed about the killing of Osama. That was a real life, historical event. But bumping GI Joe 2 for political reasons??? Come on... that is reaching. GI Joe 2 is a fucking comic book (toy) movie, with bad guys who don't exist in the real world. It isn't going to affect politicians on either side of the fense. Cobra might as will be fucking aliens. If the movie was pulled from release, it was because they knew they would loose money on it as it hasn't been testing well. Battleship tanked at the American box office, and Paramount and Hasbro have cold feet now about releasing a lackluster film. This isn't rocket science. Obama didn't get this movie canned; common sense did.

  • May 24, 2012, 1:46 p.m. CST

    hyphenatedwords: don't forget Stalker!

    by seagrass

    Damn guy can't get any love. He was more important in the comics than any of the other originals (with the exception of Grunt).

  • May 24, 2012, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Any of the other originals you mentioned

    by seagrass

    that should have said. Issue #2 of the original series is still one of my favorite comics of all time. Snake Eyes, Stalker, Dr. Venom vs. Kwinn (their final scene was stolen/homaged by Luc Besson in The Professional, by the way - and you'll never convince me otherwise).

  • May 24, 2012, 1:51 p.m. CST

    You know why I like this site?

    by harry

    No matter what the topic is, Lucas bashing is always brought up (earlier in this TB). The real question is, if Tatum played Anakin...would it have been better or worse. Or is this TB going to go down the line of whom is worse...Tatum or Jar Jar. I would like to have some Jim Jam cereal though.

  • would have made a good Roadblock. Ving Rhames would have made a perfect Heavy Duty (Roadblock's cousin), and having them both in the same movie would have been simply awesome.

  • May 24, 2012, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Maybe they'll add a dance number

    by MamboMan

    GI Joe 2: The Streets

  • May 24, 2012, 2 p.m. CST

    It's too bad Michael Bay didn't direct this franchise

    by seagrass

    instead of Transformers. I can actually say that and still look myself in the mirror. Substitute Cobra for the robots in Transformers 3 and it comes very close to being a G.I. Joe movie... right down to the wingsuited commandos. Josh Duhamel = Grunt, Tyrese Gibson = Stalker, etc.

  • May 24, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Southtexasmoviefan summed up my feelings on this. Thank you

    by SirGaryColeman

  • May 24, 2012, 2:02 p.m. CST

    "It may even be better than Transformers 2."

    by jarhead_h

    That was the quote from a Paramont exec about Rise of Cobra. It MAY be better than the worst POS of the year, but they weren't sure. That was all the reason I needed not to put myself through the agony. Cast changes can help a franchise, but no where near enough if you don't fix the fundamental problem: this is Hollywood trying to do their version of a geek property. Think Kevin Smith talking about his experience being hired to write Superman Lives(or whatever the fuck they were gonna call it) where the producer wants Brainiac to fight fight polar bears and there has to be a giant spider in there somewhere. Oh, and Brainic needs a gay black robot. And the hairdresser turned producer asked"Who the fuck is Kal-El? I'm sure that's what happened with Rise of Cobra, and because the suits either don't know or don't want to admit that they are the whole fucking problem, this movie was bound to be dogshit. Happened with Green Lantern. Happened with ALL the FOX Marvel movies. Contrast with GIJoe: Resolute, which was basically a continuation of the 80's cartoon with some nods to the Hama comics: It was fucking AWESOME.

  • May 24, 2012, 2:11 p.m. CST

    The DVD for RESOLUTE cost me the same $10 as a movie ticket

    by jarhead_h

    .... and I got WAY more from that than I would have from RoC.

  • May 24, 2012, 2:12 p.m. CST

    comx - You are a fucking retard. Please do not reproduce.

    by AreYouNotEntertained

  • May 24, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST

    'Put simply they don't have the balls...'

    by tomdolan04

    AND I LIKE BALLS. <p> Have you ever sucked a mans cock Gary?

  • May 24, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    According to the AICN trollbitches....

    by Bob

    Amazing Spider Man is supposed to tank, and we all know their word is law. So that can't be why they moved it. Or could it be that ASM is a superb movie, and will be box office gold, like I expect and Paramount blinked, despite the fact that GI JOE:R looked really cool. If they're working to put a few more bucks into the movie to make it better, I'm all for it. No i don't really believe the 3-D excuse. That's just a part of it to be sure.

  • May 24, 2012, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Heard toy store are pissed at this news..

    by Axl Z

    As many had placed big orders and already have stock for a film that doesn't come out for almost a year now..

  • May 24, 2012, 2:39 p.m. CST

    toy stores: i believe it

    by zom-bot.com

    but what's even funnier is they still can't get rid of the old G.I. Joe crap- all of it is going to a Big Lots near you.

  • May 24, 2012, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Fuck 3D

    by Anthony

    that shit gives me a headache. Probably wasn't going to see this in the theater anyways though

  • May 24, 2012, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Wow, the science that is behind this market research is astounding.

    by Gore_monkey

    Really adding Tatum factor may change the outcome of everything in the equation!

  • May 24, 2012, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Atheron I wish I was joking

    by HornOrSilk

    But look to the comments on Breitbart's announcement about this. Breitbart didn't say it, but the comments point out what the morons are thinking.

  • May 24, 2012, 2:47 p.m. CST

    The title hurt Battleship

    by Cobb05

    I haven't seen the movie, so i don't know if they have to guess where the aliens are by saying G9, but my guess is there's probably nothing about the game in the movie. So the title scared people away. If it was called something else, it might've made a few bucks more. But as soon as they heard Battleship by hasbro, people said fuck that.

  • May 24, 2012, 2:50 p.m. CST

    'Tatum' just sounds like a male antipersperant, or foot powder.

    by zom-bot.com

  • May 24, 2012, 2:52 p.m. CST

    or a powder that the jocks in high school gym put on their balls.

    by zom-bot.com

    - dude- can you spare some of your Tatum? I need to Tatum my sack after runnin' those laps. Got a big date tonight with Cindy Slutsmith...

  • I'm not saying go give any director 300 million to make anyhing he wants, but some of these movies are rediculous. Yes, they count on the blockbusters and franchises to carry the studio and they take hits on other movies, but to think making movies out of board games or giving franchises to unproven directors is stupid. Remaking every 80's movie is stupid. The reason all those 80's movies they are remaking did well in the 80's was because they were original. It's funny that originality seems to be a dirty word now. All these comic books, novels and video games they are turning into movies were original ideas at one time. People heard about them and chose to spend their money on them. Movies can be that way too. The problem is studio execs have a short lifespan. So it seems like the logical choice would be to take chances. It's a crap shoot either way, but I would think better directors would want to work for a studio that wants to make something original, rathe than doing another sequel or remake.

  • May 24, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    cobb05- you bring up a good point w/o realizing it

    by zom-bot.com

    GAMES are the new movies, and games are some of the more original projects out there (comics too- both of which get snapped up for movies). games have replay factor. you BECOME the character. even the most trite storylines and characters in modern gaming are miles ahead of most blockbuster movies. if i'm right, they cost a lot less to make than modern movies. the direction for many cutscenes SURPASS what is being done in hollywood right now...and you get to OWN that experience for the cost of bringing your family to the movies. games have tens of hours of walkthrough time. movies are trapped in a very small storytelling window of 1 1/2 to 2 hours. that really isn't an excuse though, a competent writer or director could milk a lot of good story and fit it in 2 hours. BIG actors are already lending their voices and likenesses to them. i think in 20 years movies as we know it will be dead. they are all going to be interactive experiences in some way or other. hollywood senses this a little, which is why they are pushing 3D so HARD, but i think it's just a band aid on the real problem.

  • May 24, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    also maybe the reason they give unproven directors these projects

    by zom-bot.com

    ...is because good directors won't take them.

  • May 24, 2012, 3:14 p.m. CST

    I deserve to be drawn and quartered for saying this....

    by WeylandYutani

    As much as i hate the man and much of what he does, Michael Bay actually has the chops to put together a solid GIJ film. Some of the better parts of the transformers stuff was the special forces action sequences which would fit in well with GIJ. My impression is that Paramount does not really understand GIJ and decided to make a generic action film instead of looking to the Hama source material. Anyway, I feel dirty now and need to take a shower.

  • May 24, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Or...

    by WeylandYutani

    Perhaps their marketing research suggested that the Hama material would not work for the broadest possible audience.

  • May 24, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    'broadest possible audience'- that's the problem right there

    by zom-bot.com

    there are a TON if idiots in the world, most of them here in america... THEY are the 'broadest possible audience'. it's fucking sad that we cater to them, change our words and our culture to suit them in ways their minds will understand. you can't please all the people all of the time. we need to admit that. we need to make films and let them find fans, instead of dumbing down material into stuff that makes no fans, and insults any fans of the original work.

  • May 24, 2012, 3:34 p.m. CST

    GAMES are the new movies-Which is why

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Most games suck now, I want to play, not watch a 5 hour cut scene, and there's got to be more out there than shitty first person shooters.

  • May 24, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    why they get no name directors

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because my guess is that they are easily pushed around and will take any and all imput from the producer, studio, and in this case toy makers.

  • May 24, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    more things that are beating movies:

    by zom-bot.com

    TV series.... especially ones on edgier channels like HBO, FX, A&E, etc..... you get full fucking seasons of well crafted entertainment with actors that for the most part- USED to do movies or still do. (i say used to because they've figured out a strong series is more fun and satisfying than one shit movie, many film actors are heading back to TV)...season premiers and finales that are MOVIE LENGTH. shows that themselves are an hour long. there is so much more room for story and character development....and i'd say there isn't really any more or less product placement than there is in modern movies anyway.

  • Also, what struck me with the first G.I. Joe movie, was that they took what was basically a sci-fi/action/comic book style universe, and cast it with generic army dudes and lost all sense of their identity. G.I. Joe, being based upon a toy line, just like Transformers, means that each character has to not only stand out in the show, but on the shelf at Toys 'R Us as well. That is why you have such a variety of characters (a sailor with Shipwreck, a ninja with Snake Eyes, a green beret type dude with, etc.). G.I. Joe is not about the real army, it is about a paramilitary force of specialists that operate out of a secret HQ, and fight a group of villains that also operate this way, with a theatricality to them with their whole Cobra image and style. It is almost like how superheroes and supervillains are set up, in that they have a special ability or power and a specific costume that gives them a big part of their identity. The movies, for the most part don't have this type of feel to them. They use movie stars instead of characters to try and differentiate the various Joes and Cobras. The problem is, a G.I. Joe fan is not going to get excited for The Rock or Bruce Willis with a machine gun. They want to see the characters from the comic and old cartoon, and the toys they might have had back in the 80's. Besides having a big name or two on the movie poster, they don't need big movie stars for these G.I. Joe films. Just as some of the Marvel movies don't necessarily need big movie stars for a lot of their characters when being translated to film (or you get the case where playing a character like Iron Man reinvigorates RDJ's career).

  • THAT would make a 9 month delay worthwhile in my books. Still dissappointed though, was actually quite looking forward to this one.

  • May 24, 2012, 4:06 p.m. CST

    leaking boob

    by batmccoy

    They noticed one of Adrianne Palicki's fake tits was oozing.

  • May 24, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST

    "Duke's out of his coma!"

    by LeeMajors

    Coincidentally, in the original animated G.I. Joe Movie, they had planned to kill Duke. The animation actually shows it. But then after fan reaction to killing Optimus Prime in the animated Transformers Movie, they decided to add a voice over of someone immediately saying "Duke's gone into a coma!" Then, at the very end of the movie you hear Doc say, offscreen, "Duke's out of his coma!"

  • Not that I give a shit about this PG-13 CGI garbage anyway. Fucking G.I. Joe was NEVER getting my money.

  • May 24, 2012, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Again with the "it's dumb and for kids" stuff...

    by BizarroJerry

    This site is frequented by people 30+ years old who continue to obsess over decades old comic books. The G.I. Joe franchise is really no different than any other comic book franchise. The ONLY difference is it started out as a toy. The cartoons and the comic book were some of the most popular of the 1980s, and the comic in particular had some amazing years. I don't see why it's any different from X-Men or Green Lantern, etc. Some people bitching about it being too young or silly also demand an Oscar-caliber greek tragedy be made based on a guy in a bat suit beating up a clown. Movies based on G.I. Joe are not inevitably bad. They've just been cobbled together by committee by movie executives who have no understanding of the franchise they've been put in charge of. Shitty writers and directors make shitty movies.

  • May 24, 2012, 4:25 p.m. CST

    from what i hear...

    by JaredP

    tatum likes the idea of SUCKING!!! so it's no surprise he's in this

  • garbage

  • it certainly would be bolder territory to cover than just another pointless remake of film that not even that old

  • May 24, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Who actually thought it would hold up anyway?

    by jellypop

    The trailer features 'Ninjas' or something swinging on a mountain...yeah, okay. Bloody well sort that out for starters.

  • May 24, 2012, 4:39 p.m. CST

    The Amazing Spiderman is nothing to fear.

    by kdoc13

    I was in a focus group for it. Of course my review never got posted. But that's ok. Andrew Garfield, does not come across well as Peter Parker, he's too cocky and really at times comes across as more of a jerk (see the knife disarming scene in the trailer for example) and the whole mystery of his parents and the Oscorp briefcase is just stupid. Way to take something that isn't there and make it part of the story. Plus they never learned the "Keep the damn mask on" lesson. That action is good and beautifully shot, the lizard is also good, but the CGI at times seems flat, as does a lot of the acting. I'm sorry but Emma Stone may be a fanboy's fantasy, but she brings nothing to the role of Gwen Stacey. It will make some bucks, and no doubt a large segment of people will like it, but it's not up to Avengers, Dark Knight, or SpiderMan 2 quality.

  • To wilfully increase his screentime is an act of aggression toward all sentient film-loving beings.

  • May 24, 2012, 5:24 p.m. CST

    I demand Rachel Nichols!

    by Mankind

    If they're doing reshoots, bring her back. Now.

  • May 24, 2012, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Sometimes my faith in movie audiences gets renewed

    by GLENN_THE_TOOL

    Avengers kicks all holy ass, Battleship gets rightfully ignored, and execs shit their pants and push back GI Joe 2's release to next spring. Could it be that audiences are getting smarter and avoiding the movies that are obviously terrible and now Hollywood is running scared because the curtain has been pulled back a la The Wizard of Oz? Are the execs realizing that summer moviegoers are starting to expect more than movies filled with mindless nonsensical action and explosions? That audiences want movies that can still be fun and action-packed but at the same time aren't completely braindead? With Avengers, Prometheus, and TDKR (and to a lesser extent, Amazing Spider-Man) all coming out this summer and The Hunger Games' huge success this spring, maybe audiences and execs have began to think twice about "check your brain at the door" films aimed at the easy-to-please. Or at least until the next shite Transformers or Twilight movie comes out anyway. And for the record, I'd rather have my future yet-to-be-conceived daughter idolize Katniss over Bella Swann any fucking day of the week.

  • May 24, 2012, 6:40 p.m. CST

    I notice that nobody is asking for more Sienna Miller.

    by Stifler's Mom

    Or for that matter, Marlon Wayans.

  • May 24, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST

    zombot Agree that TV is superior to cinema these days.

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • Rachel Nicols should be in more things in general Especially my bed

  • May 24, 2012, 7:12 p.m. CST

    and yeah Zombot you're right, TV > Movies these days

    by Rebel Scumb

    Not true back in the 1990s or pretty much any time prior to 2000 but definitely the case nowadays I'd say 90% of all my dvd/blu-ray purchases in the past 2 years were TV seasons instead of feature films.

  • May 24, 2012, 7:19 p.m. CST

    how does GI Joe mean something special

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    It's stupid crap

  • May 24, 2012, 7:31 p.m. CST

    To quote Johnny Sac

    by Shakes

    "More is lost through indecision than bad decision." How'd pushing back and reshooting that Exorcist prequel work out?

  • May 24, 2012, 8:10 p.m. CST

    there will still be movies in 20 years

    by Cobb05

    Video games are not the death of cinema. There probably won't be movie theaters. But movies and tv shows will be online. A game anda movie are two totally different experiences. That's like saying movies killed books. No one needs to be emersed in a movie. People watch movies on their phones. People just want good entertainment.

  • May 24, 2012, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Channing Tatum is the best gay porn actor currently working in Hollywood.

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Word.

  • May 24, 2012, 8:38 p.m. CST

    movie theaters aren't going anywhere.

    by Mugato5150

    I don't want to make a hacky "geeks and dating" joke so I won't but there will always be a demand for movie theaters.

  • May 24, 2012, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Give GI Joe back to Marvel....GIVE THEM ALL BACK TO MARVEL!

    by M_Hellbent

    Anyone else notice that no one seems to be able to make a Marvel Comic book movie well, except for MARVEL?! Marvel seems to get it that its source material, that material that made (enter name of comic here) so popular with the fans. Fantastic 4 - not Marvel Studios Early X-Men - not Marvel Studios Early Hulk - NOT Marvel Studios Punisher - DEFINITELY NOT Marvel Studios (OK can anyone really save the Punisher? How many comics and graphic novels have to be DUMBED DOWN by the idiot studios that have no idea how to market/make movies except by pissing on the original stories and the writers that wrote the canon?(League of Extraordinary Gentlemen...I bow my head in silence) Let Marvel do what they do best: Make comic book movies BASED ON THE ORIGINAL COMIC BOOKS.

  • May 24, 2012, 8:42 p.m. CST

    THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN will steal this summer.

    by Jack

    And when that happen, TDKR fans - and the Kidd who just deleted a long and thoughtful post because for him there's just one superhero film this summer - will keep telling themselves how much of "not a menace" The Amazing Spider-Man is and how much they'll break The Avengers box office record. I just want three brilliant movies. But Nolan's fans have been acting like assholes for far too long, inventing rumors to try destroy a movie reputation even before it is released. I've seen happening with The Avengers. I'm seeing it happen with The Amazing Spider-Man this time. Once again their plans will backfire, I just hope that it doesn't backfire that hard because I want to actually like TDKR. But as everyone know, karma is a bitch. They are so certain that TDKR will be brilliant that I'm rooting for TASM to kick the shit out of TDKR as the better movie and at the box office.

  • May 24, 2012, 8:49 p.m. CST

    This article needs serious editing.

    by Finn

    "John Chu admitted to The Hollywood Reporter at SXSW that shooting RETALIATION was once an option, but they decided against it because it would have meant more money and more time." Um, I'm pretty sure the movie was shot. Did you mean shot in 3D? "Of course Paramount is going to say as much, because the smoke of the 3-D enables the fire of these problems to burn largely unnoticed under that cover." Don't you mean Paramount is NOT going to say much. I think it would be cool if Ain't It Cool news could hire a writer that reads their articles before posting them. I mean, seriously, edit, edit, edit!!

  • May 24, 2012, 9:02 p.m. CST

    What is the Joe Legacy: Making it o.k. for boys to play with dolls.

    by illegal alien vs sexual predator

    Now where did I leave my Cabbage Patch Preemie?

  • May 24, 2012, 9:14 p.m. CST

    southtexasmoviefreak

    by StrokerX

    got me dyin ova here...loolllllllll

  • May 24, 2012, 9:26 p.m. CST

    GI JOE fans...?

    by Glenn

    Since when did this become a big-ticket franchise? I have yet to run across an adult or child who talks incessantly about the greatness of the first movie. If anything, mere mention of it gets a half-assed nod of "eh, it was fun, it was ok." I'm actually surprised you guys cover this thing as much as you do.

  • May 24, 2012, 9:27 p.m. CST

    What???????

    by TheDesolateOne

    <p>Why would 21 Jump Street change Paramount's mind or anyone's for that matter? <p>Didn't 21 Jump street bomb?<p> <p>The Rock has no acting talent, but Tatum has even less.<p>

  • May 24, 2012, 10:20 p.m. CST

    That was clever...

    by Bob

    kdoc13. Making up a whole "focus group" thingie to bash/review ASM by using the trailer for your source. Very clever....

  • May 24, 2012, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Well rumourd..............

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    it's more about the completely unprecedented move by a major movie studio yanking an even bigger summer movie franchise and releasing it next year. That would be akin to pushing back a Will Smith summer blockbuster movie to winter. It's just something that never happens. This is a first.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:03 p.m. CST

    RE: darthvadersbadside

    by kdoc13

    I referenced that because it's the line everyone has seen in the previews and can see how it's been delivered. I could have detailed Cpt. Stacey dying and his last words being "You did good kid" or Uncle Ben getting shot at home by a burglar, or any other scenes. I didn't. You win. Believe what you want, I have better things to do than impress a guy who probably still lives in his mom's basement.

  • May 24, 2012, 11:47 p.m. CST

    iwishiwasjacksparrow

    by Russell

    you have to be totally fucking delusional if you think for even one fraction of a nanosecond that TASM is going to make more money than The Avengers. That is just an unbelievably stupid thing to say and you know it is. TASM will not make more money than TDKR either. These are just facts. TASM will most likely clear about $300 million between 7/3 to 7/19 and then it will be buried by TDKR from 7/20 onward. That's just what will occur. It's silly to hope for some other outcome besides that.

  • May 25, 2012, 12:27 a.m. CST

    I nevers

    by Jack

  • ...and by seeing it I mean watching a pirate or sneaking in after my 4th viewing of The Avengers.

  • Given that both of the movies get good reviews and WOM - it isn't set in stone that either of them will get that - The Amazing Spider-Man will keep a hold from the 3D screens while TDKR will dominate the 2D screens. Both movies were designed with antagonistics approach methods, and I think a lot of people are forgetting that we're talking about summer and the fact that TASM is a film way more family friendly than TDKR ever could. I'm quite sure that TDKR will get the box office, but TASM has a chance of coming as the surprise, getting some really great legs that could go through the coming months. My point is that the fact people are understimating TASM can make this movie steal the show in the sense that it'll get more praise and money than most of us are getting credit for. We could have a very interesting dispute between 3D and 2D here and everybody seems caught up thinking that TASM is dead coming July, 20th. My theory is that won't go quite like that. Proven to be a success, TASM can benefit of very strong holds, and that's where things start getting interesting.

  • No idea how he got so much power over the film other than blackmail, but he did. No director should have that much power. Input yes, but final decision on things like Marketing? Hell no.

  • Spider-Man will do big box office, it always has. But GI Joe would have done just fine!

  • Like with John Carter. Screw all the reviews on here praising it because of Harry's connection to it. It is NOT a good movie. It is a stupid stupid sci fi movie in a sea of thousands of wonderful sci fi films.

  • it's GI Joe - who cares - i mean really.

  • May 25, 2012, 2:13 a.m. CST

    The memo was actually "MORE CHANNING, TATUM"

    by Chief Joseph

    Carol Channing and Tatum O'Neal are being added to the cast.

  • May 25, 2012, 2:43 a.m. CST

    The Seventh Seal that opens up the gates to hell

    by smackfu

    could very well be the phrase "This movie needs more Channing Tatum". Can anyone figure out what that would be in latin?

  • May 25, 2012, 4:30 a.m. CST

    But what does Channing Tatum think of all this?

    by Mr. Pricklepants

  • May 25, 2012, 5:14 a.m. CST

    Channing Tatum was the WORST part of GI Joe. The WORST.

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    Hmm. Former South Florida stripper, Channing Tatum. The dude played his character in GI Joe like a giant fuckin wigger. Like a John Cena fan at WrestleMania. I thought the point of this sequel was to take it OUT of the Wal-Mart bargain bin??

  • May 25, 2012, 5:15 a.m. CST

    All bitching/trolling aside, this is a good article, Kidd.

    by zillabeast

    I think it was a good call. Pushing the date back not only gives them enough time to fix the movie, but to extensively test the hell out of it and get the final product right. Then have a solid premiere at SXSW next year and get the positive buzz going like 21 Jump Street this year, and you've got a success in the making.

  • May 25, 2012, 8:40 a.m. CST

    you're going to be wearing Gold Plated Diapers!

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    I'm telling ya, you're going to want that Tatum.

  • May 25, 2012, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more Tatum!

    by Forthesakeofhumanity

    :-D

  • May 25, 2012, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Re: "hyphenatedwords: don't forget Stalker! "

    by Stalkeye

    Nope, I sure as hell didn't. After all, the origin of my username consist of both Stalker and Snake Eyes (Commandos from the GIjoe U.) with a play on word from "Hawkeye" Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

  • May 25, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST

    More CHanning Tatum= definite wait till DVD

    by DARKJEDI

  • May 25, 2012, 11:36 a.m. CST

    NEEDS MORE NAKED CHANNING TATUM !

    by Bill Clay

    Will he play a stripping soldier?

  • May 25, 2012, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Spider-man reboot won't make Avengers money...

    by Andrew Coleman

    That movie will put people off. Geeks and regular audience members. Rebooting a franchise like that and then shitting on what people already know is not going to work. It will do okay money... Sony knew this already and that's why they slashed the budget. They wanted 3D and teen angst for the Twilight crowd. That's what we're going to get and it will be shitty.

  • May 25, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Someone get Ted Turner on the phone

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    let him know that his entire library of movies could all suddenly become marketable if he injects Channing Tatum into all of them. 12 angry men? NOW ITS 13! The Dirty Dozen? TRY THE DIRTY BAKERS DOZEN The Thin Man? Now hes THE WIDE FOREHEAD He might have to create a whole new cable channel called Tatum Classic Movies.

  • Bottom line....you'd better bring the goods. Action, humor, competent writer, director,vision etc. Oh yeah, and a great third act is kind of important too.<p> You can see the ripple effect with the new DKR tv spots emphasizing humorous one-liners... and now this apparent withdrawal of a 'turd' of a G.I. Joe film that they probably would have released 'as is' a year ago without a second thought.

  • May 28, 2012, 9:09 p.m. CST

    by michael prymula

    I have started a petition over this, I have over 200 signatures, but I need a lot more, so if any of could please sign, I would greatly appreciate it! http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-paramount-from-delaying-and-converting-g-i-joe-re.html

  • May 28, 2012, 9:09 p.m. CST

    G.I. Joe petition

    by michael prymula

    Visit here for more info:http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-paramount-from-delaying-and-converting-g-i-joe-re.html

  • May 29, 2012, 6:12 a.m. CST

    And save Cinema as a whole

    by chien_sale

    I mean if pretty boys leading men turned John Carter, Battleship and Conan into disasters, maybe Hollywood will get a blue and get real leading men.

Top Talkbacks