Latest Movie News Headlines

C'mon Hollywood: What's the deal with G.I. Joe: Retaliation?

May. 29, 2012by: Paul Shirey

This past week, Paramount Pictures dropped a mega bomb on us with the announcement that G.I. JOE: RETALIATION was being moved from its June 29th release date to March 29, 2013, leaving everyone reeling with a "what the f*ck" look frozen on their collective faces. For a film that seemed poised to be a pretty entertaining flick, not to mention a return to form after the less-than-stellar G.I. JOE: RISE OF COBRA, the decision to shift its release date almost a full year is one of the most baffling in recent memory.

Paramount’s stance seems to be that the decision is simply a matter of converting the film to 3D. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson confirmed as much via Twitter, saying that they would be re-shooting scenes in order to capitalize on the conversion. If that’s the whole truth and nothing but, then the question remains; Why wait until now to make that decision? I find it impossible to grasp that a conversation about 3D had never come up until 5 weeks before its scheduled release.

I’m not privy to secret meetings on the Paramount lot, so I can only speculate on much of what “really” went down that led to this zinger of a decision, but it doesn’t take a wiretap to know that something’s rotten in the state of Denmark if the decision to convert has come this late in the game. Using THE AVENGERS box office as justification for the conversion is a weak one, simply because GI JOE doesn't have the same built in audience that THE AVENGERS does, nor does it have a massively successful array of films that built up to its release. In short, it doesn’t add up. Paramount citing TITANIC 3D's success as an example of why it’s the right decision to convert is weak sauce as well. The two movies have NOTHING in common. 3D does not make them similar, just similarly unnecessary.

The most likely explanation is that bad test screenings have caused studio execs to get nervous, which in turn causes studio execs to make rash decisions. Test screenings, ever the bane of a filmmakers existence, exist primarily to test the marketability of a particular film, but the results aren’t even close to being scientifically proven. The process is nothing more than getting a very small consensus from a very limited group of people. It’s simply not possible or economically feasible to test a film in every market, so thereby it cannot be completely reliable. Films like THE GREEN HORNET and SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD tested brilliantly and underperformed at the box office, while the likes of ACE VENTURA: PET DETECTIVE did the opposite. There are thousands of examples like these and G.I. JOE: RETALIATION is no different.  It's all a gamble.

So, why is it that the gamble wasn’t worth a June 29th release for Paramount? For one, BATTLESHIP, another toy-to-screen film from Hasbro, sunk at the box office. Certainly that didn’t go unnoticed as G.I. JOE: RETALIATION sat waiting around the corner. However, what Paramount didn’t take into consideration was that people were actually looking forward to the sequel. I can’t think of anyone that was “psyched” for BATTLESHIP. Shit, I can’t even think of anyone that thought it was a good idea to make the damn thing in the first place.

The initial trailers for G.I. JOE: RETALIATION led all of us to believe that the sequel might actually be good, possibly great, in that cheesy action flick sort of way. All doubts about director John Chu (of STEP UP fame) being at the helm started to vanish as the filmmaker seemed passionate about the project due to his own nostalgia for the property.

So, the question with Chu is; Was that enough for Paramount? And further than that, are Paramount’s doubts over the film because of Chu’s vision or because of their lack of insight into the material? I seriously doubt that the wheel-greasers are kicking back and watching ‘80’s Joe cartoons and reading the comics. They’re looking at charts and graphs and shit that lead to big dollar signs. Could it be possible that Chu’s film is actually good as is and that Paramount simply doesn’t see it that way? Or, is it just a train wreck they're trying to piece together with 3D band aids?

I get that Paramount wants to make the most money out of G.I. JOE: RETALIATION. It’s their investment and their right to do so. However, the fact that millions have already been poured into the marketing, the hype built to an enormous level, toys already on the shelves, and fans counting it amongst their must see on the summer docket, the sudden and drastic change has left everyone with a bad taste in their mouths.

In many ways I’ve felt that people have reacted a little too angrily at Paramount for this decision, but then I put it in the context of a concert. It’s as if a band you were really looking forward to seeing was about to play in your hometown and had been shamelessly promoting a concert, selling merchandise in advance, and pumping you up to come out and see them rock your world, only to cancel abruptly, leaving you with a shitty t-shirt and tattered posters. I think it’s safe to say that most people would feel slighted by the band and turn their nose to them, in a sense, punishing them.

Come March 29, 2013, I have to wonder if Paramount will still be in the doghouse with fans over G.I. JOE: RETALIATION or will we all be in "forgive and forget" mode? As strange as this last minute decision is, it’ll be even stranger to see how the film pans out when it finally bows and we see if Paramount screwed the pooch on a good film or made a crappy film crappier.

The only type of GI JOE movie I want to see is like this...

Extra Tidbit: Had Peter Berg directed the Joe sequel instead of doing Battleship, I think this whole crisis could've been averted...
Source: JoBlo.com

Related Articles

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

12:05AM on 05/30/2012
Very good deconstruction on some of the possibilities! I am so pissed at Paramount for this! As much as I want the movie to do well (presuming it is good), I really want this to bite them in their ass, in a very big way.
Very good deconstruction on some of the possibilities! I am so pissed at Paramount for this! As much as I want the movie to do well (presuming it is good), I really want this to bite them in their ass, in a very big way.
Your Reply:



11:47PM on 05/29/2012
I hope they decide to open this in August-September. I would be surprised if a movie that they already marketed and is now getting bad publicity will actually be held off this long. Just as they cancelled the opening on short notice, they can decide there is date in a few months that fits.
I hope they decide to open this in August-September. I would be surprised if a movie that they already marketed and is now getting bad publicity will actually be held off this long. Just as they cancelled the opening on short notice, they can decide there is date in a few months that fits.
Your Reply:



9:50PM on 05/29/2012
Since they were already balls deep in the marketing for this movie they should have just released it as it is now (2D). See what the reaction is. Then based on that go ahead and spend countless more money doing a 3D conversation with new footage for the home video release. I don't know how marketable the home 3D experience is but the lure of new footage could get more people to buy it. Also if the movie was a big enough hit they could have re-released it in theaters for a few weeks with the
Since they were already balls deep in the marketing for this movie they should have just released it as it is now (2D). See what the reaction is. Then based on that go ahead and spend countless more money doing a 3D conversation with new footage for the home video release. I don't know how marketable the home 3D experience is but the lure of new footage could get more people to buy it. Also if the movie was a big enough hit they could have re-released it in theaters for a few weeks with the complete 3D.

Just seems stupid for them to push the date back so far when they are so deep in the marketing. I think the movie looks pretty good in a mindless fun sort of way. The first one was exactly that. Sure it had its terrible parts but it was overall fun to watch which is more than I can say for most movies nowadays. Either way I'm still seeing this movie when it comes out. But I seriously may forget about it when it comes out.
Your Reply:



7:04PM on 05/29/2012
Completely baffled by this. What a waste of marketing costs. They had a Super Bowl spot and are removing toys from shelves too. If the movie is really bad, I think they should've just cut their losses and released it. Why does quality all of a sudden matter with movies like this? The trailer alone was more entertaining than the entire first movie.
Completely baffled by this. What a waste of marketing costs. They had a Super Bowl spot and are removing toys from shelves too. If the movie is really bad, I think they should've just cut their losses and released it. Why does quality all of a sudden matter with movies like this? The trailer alone was more entertaining than the entire first movie.
Your Reply:



-4
6:17PM on 05/29/2012

Who Cares!

Its GI Joe, Who gives a crap. They should mix it with Transformers, like the comics, and call it a day
Its GI Joe, Who gives a crap. They should mix it with Transformers, like the comics, and call it a day
Your Reply:



+6
5:18PM on 05/29/2012
I caught Men in Black 3 today cause I finished work early (it was very meh), and they played the GI Joe trailer infront of it with the next month release date. In the local news papers they're still contests you can win tickets for opening night next month. Someone fucked up big. Like huge.
I caught Men in Black 3 today cause I finished work early (it was very meh), and they played the GI Joe trailer infront of it with the next month release date. In the local news papers they're still contests you can win tickets for opening night next month. Someone fucked up big. Like huge.
Your Reply:



11:49AM on 05/29/2012

Still a shitty movie

Okay, our movie may not make much money, instead of selling 1000 tickets and getting $10,000, lets convert it to 3D, still sell 1000 tickets and make $16,000.
Okay, our movie may not make much money, instead of selling 1000 tickets and getting $10,000, lets convert it to 3D, still sell 1000 tickets and make $16,000.
Your Reply:



+1
11:46AM on 05/29/2012

oh man

I hope thats a fan made poster with Willis, Johnson, etc cause its effin horrible. Srsly King of Fighters and Tekken had better posters!
I hope thats a fan made poster with Willis, Johnson, etc cause its effin horrible. Srsly King of Fighters and Tekken had better posters!
Your Reply:



6:18PM on 05/29/2012
Obviously!
Obviously!
+0
11:45AM on 05/29/2012

oh man

I hope thats a fan made poster with Willis, Johnson, etc cause its effin horrible. Srsly King of Fighters and Tekken had better posters!
I hope thats a fan made poster with Willis, Johnson, etc cause its effin horrible. Srsly King of Fighters and Tekken had better posters!
Your Reply:



11:13AM on 05/29/2012

Don't care

Somebody is either going to or has gotten fired over this. Either way, I don't care- wasn't planning on seeing this, it's not the GI Joe I knew.
Somebody is either going to or has gotten fired over this. Either way, I don't care- wasn't planning on seeing this, it's not the GI Joe I knew.
Your Reply:



10:47AM on 05/29/2012
I've read rumors that the execs are trying to pursuade JGL to return for a few pivotal scenes as Cobra Commander, which leads me to believe that not only are they afraid of falling by the summer wayside this year, but that they aren't really thrilled with the final product either. Either way, to be honest I don't really care that much either way, I sorta stupidly enjoyed the first and I assume I'll sorta stupidly enjoy the second, but I'm not personally anticipating like others are (who really
I've read rumors that the execs are trying to pursuade JGL to return for a few pivotal scenes as Cobra Commander, which leads me to believe that not only are they afraid of falling by the summer wayside this year, but that they aren't really thrilled with the final product either. Either way, to be honest I don't really care that much either way, I sorta stupidly enjoyed the first and I assume I'll sorta stupidly enjoy the second, but I'm not personally anticipating like others are (who really should be outraged).
Your Reply:



10:23AM on 05/29/2012

"the results arent even close to being scientifically proven. The process is nothing more than getting a very small consensus from a very limited group of people."

I love how you just more or less described the completely scientific practice of sample based statistics, as part of claiming they have no basis in scientific reality. I can see disagreeing with it artistically, but studios are not inventing the technique of using a sample population to project insight about the whole pie, and I'd imagine they've invested in knowing how to do it right. And being imperfect isn't the same as being totally preposterous.
I love how you just more or less described the completely scientific practice of sample based statistics, as part of claiming they have no basis in scientific reality. I can see disagreeing with it artistically, but studios are not inventing the technique of using a sample population to project insight about the whole pie, and I'd imagine they've invested in knowing how to do it right. And being imperfect isn't the same as being totally preposterous.
Your Reply:



11:14AM on 05/29/2012
The point is that you can't predict a hit with a test screening and there's no scientific fact that proves what will or won't be one. If there is, please enlighten me.
The point is that you can't predict a hit with a test screening and there's no scientific fact that proves what will or won't be one. If there is, please enlighten me.
11:51AM on 05/29/2012
Test screenings don't exist to precisely predict hits; they exist to give the producers an idea of how wide audiences will respond to the material, and that's the situation you implied with the words: "Test screenings ... exist primarily to test the marketability of a particular film," And you went on to say the process was ridiculous, I'm saying, no it's not; according to the capacity of statistics, test audiences CAN give relevant feedback on a movie's "marketability". I don't think anyone
Test screenings don't exist to precisely predict hits; they exist to give the producers an idea of how wide audiences will respond to the material, and that's the situation you implied with the words: "Test screenings ... exist primarily to test the marketability of a particular film," And you went on to say the process was ridiculous, I'm saying, no it's not; according to the capacity of statistics, test audiences CAN give relevant feedback on a movie's "marketability". I don't think anyone would argue there's a concrete way to litmus test for hits. This short coming is not the same as the absolute bunk you tried to argue test screenings are.

And didn't you argue like this on your Beetlejuice article, too? Trying to undermine an opposition by defining it in the most assailable, flawed way you could? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, it just makes for shoddy persuasive articles.
12:31PM on 05/29/2012
Yeah, I never said it was ridiculous. I said it can't prove a hit. And it can't.

If you've got a "concrete way" to predict hits you may want to give the producers of Battleship and John Carter a call. They need your scientific genius. Until then, the process will continue to remain unproven in predicting what will be a hit and what won't.
Yeah, I never said it was ridiculous. I said it can't prove a hit. And it can't.

If you've got a "concrete way" to predict hits you may want to give the producers of Battleship and John Carter a call. They need your scientific genius. Until then, the process will continue to remain unproven in predicting what will be a hit and what won't.
4:35PM on 05/29/2012
Are ... are you serious?
"I don't think anyone would argue there's a concrete way to litmus test for hits."
- This quote is me, in my previous comment, the one you're responding to by arguing there's no way to guaruntee a hit. Your ability to block out the point of a criticism for what you want to argue with people about, is bordering on profound. I'm not just trying to be a smart ass; I think you could really benefit from reading this: [link]
Are ... are you serious?
"I don't think anyone would argue there's a concrete way to litmus test for hits."
- This quote is me, in my previous comment, the one you're responding to by arguing there's no way to guaruntee a hit. Your ability to block out the point of a criticism for what you want to argue with people about, is bordering on profound. I'm not just trying to be a smart ass; I think you could really benefit from reading this: [link]
5:48PM on 05/29/2012
CK Dexter you may not be trying to be a smart ass, but you are definitely being one. You say test screenings are only testing the marketability and Paul is saying that you can't predict a hit with these screenings. Paul is basically saying test screenings are pointless, whether for predicting box office success or marketability. There are countless cases where the test screenings gave the exact opposite results that the population as a whole did. So when Paul said film companies shouldn't rely
CK Dexter you may not be trying to be a smart ass, but you are definitely being one. You say test screenings are only testing the marketability and Paul is saying that you can't predict a hit with these screenings. Paul is basically saying test screenings are pointless, whether for predicting box office success or marketability. There are countless cases where the test screenings gave the exact opposite results that the population as a whole did. So when Paul said film companies shouldn't rely on these screenings and really shouldn't change anything based on their results he was right. Do you make a living setting up test screenings or something? You got way too defensive about this one point in the article.
6:05PM on 05/29/2012
My initial point is simple and has not wavered; A test screening does not prove, without a shadow of a doubt, what movie will be a box office success or box office failure. At what point have I deviated from that?

You disagree and believe you can predict box office success, although you've shown no evidence of it. Unless you are Marty McFly and have some movie statistics book from the year 2075, in which case, kudos to you, sir. If you have some kind of evidence that supports your claim
My initial point is simple and has not wavered; A test screening does not prove, without a shadow of a doubt, what movie will be a box office success or box office failure. At what point have I deviated from that?

You disagree and believe you can predict box office success, although you've shown no evidence of it. Unless you are Marty McFly and have some movie statistics book from the year 2075, in which case, kudos to you, sir. If you have some kind of evidence that supports your claim that a test screening can, in fact, predict a hit, I

You can find the results of any number of films that were test screened with varying results; some good, some bad...many of them coming up with a "score" that rates their marketability.

And yet, even with high scores and great audience reaction (see: Scott Pilgrim) the movie still underperforms or flat out bombs. So, what gives?

I have the utmost confidence that Hollywood production companies have invested millions of dollars in the test screening process, hiring all manner of statistics experts and scientific blowhards to formulate “ze per-fect movie” and how to sell it to every man, woman, and child aged 0 to 99, from Zimbabwe to Toronto.

It must really burn their ass when all that money goes to waste and the movie belly flops anyway.

You've misquoted me already in saying that I said the process was "ridiculous." I never stated that. I also didn't say they were “bunk” or “preposterous.” I didn't even say they couldn't provide results that may be useful. But, I DID say that they cannot predict what will and won’t be a hit. End of story.

6:14PM on 05/29/2012
No, we're 'both' saying you can't predict a hit; like him, you're intuiting my argument instead of reading it. I responded to his criticism of test screenings because it was strikingly off base the way he wrote it, and he can only perceive it as an attack on the message he "meant" - a message I blatantly don't fully disagree with. What's compelling here isn't his attack on test screenings, it's how he's arguing it. And no, he wasn't "right" when he argued test screening were basically
No, we're 'both' saying you can't predict a hit; like him, you're intuiting my argument instead of reading it. I responded to his criticism of test screenings because it was strikingly off base the way he wrote it, and he can only perceive it as an attack on the message he "meant" - a message I blatantly don't fully disagree with. What's compelling here isn't his attack on test screenings, it's how he's arguing it. And no, he wasn't "right" when he argued test screening were basically pointless; just because they're not 100% dead on in determining hits, again, does not mean they're scientifically hollow and irrelevant, which is the point he can't seem to grasp I'm making. Do you get paid by joblo to support its writers when they communicate poorly? You seem way too upset about my comments.
6:56PM on 05/29/2012
"My initial point is simple and has not wavered; A test screening does not prove, without a shadow of a doubt, what movie will be a box office success or box office failure. At what point have I deviated from that?"

At the point you failed to make it: innitially. Your words in the article did not attack test screening's ability to "prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt what movie will be a box office success". You mention box office in your examples, but the closest you come to an explicit
"My initial point is simple and has not wavered; A test screening does not prove, without a shadow of a doubt, what movie will be a box office success or box office failure. At what point have I deviated from that?"

At the point you failed to make it: innitially. Your words in the article did not attack test screening's ability to "prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt what movie will be a box office success". You mention box office in your examples, but the closest you come to an explicit argument is "Test screenings, ever the bane of a filmmakers existence, exist primarily to test the marketability of a particular film, but the results aren't even close to being scientifically proven."

You didn't chisel your argument as precisely as you now argue it - why are you still fighting that?

"You disagree and believe you can predict box office success, although you've shown no evidence of it"

"I don't think anyone would argue there's a concrete way to litmus test for hits."
- This is that same quote from me again, which means I've stated, explicitly, Three Fucking Times now, that I Do Not Think a You Can Predict A "Hit". Do I have to write it in fucking Greek for you? For the unteeth time, here is my ACTUAL ARGUMENT: That test screenings are scientifically sound (please see: the words you actually wrote in the article, as listed above, and how this actually responds to them) and they can read relevant info, even if ::deep breat:: They Cannot Predict a Hit.

"You can find the results of any number of films that were test screened with varying results; some good, some bad...many of them coming up with a "score" that rates their marketability.
And yet, even with high scores and great audience reaction (see: Scott Pilgrim) the movie still underperforms or flat out bombs. So, what gives?"

What gives is that, like I've never once claimed they are, test screenings are not perfect predictors of wide public response (and, btw, just for a 50th time, cannot predict what will be a hit.)

"I have the utmost confidence that Hollywood production companies have invested millions of dollars in the test screening process, hiring all manner of statistics experts and scientific blowhards to formulate “ze per-fect movie” and how to sell it to every man, woman, and child aged 0 to 99, from Zimbabwe to Toronto.
It must really burn their ass when all that money goes to waste and the movie belly flops anyway."

Yeah. I bet it's a bummer. Again, how this challenges my point, a point which relates to what you actually argued to begin with, I don't see.

"You've misquoted me already in saying that I said the process was "ridiculous." I never stated that. I also didn't say they were “bunk” or “preposterous.” I didn't even say they couldn't provide results that may be useful. But, I DID say that they cannot predict what will and won’t be a hit. End of story"

You're right, I did approximate your dismisal of test screenings by those terms, implying you used at least the word "ridiculous" which was incorrect. But to take one more drive at my point, your implication of test screenings being "scientifically unproven" was the message I gathered, because that's what you actually said. Please quote me from the article where you said the line, and made the argument that "test screenings can't predict a hit" (seriously - maybe I missed it). If not, you need to realize that you did not lay this precise argument out, even if you meant it, but you did actually say that screenings are "not even close to being scientifically proven", and that's what I actually criticised.

If you want to ammend your meaning, that's fine, but own up to not having written it propperly to begin with; don't lambast me for attacking what you only meant, when I take issue with the clearest thing you said. I wouldn't have a problem dropping this if you could have clarified civily instead of stone walling mis-applied point.
6:58PM on 05/29/2012

LeslieVernon, your check is in the mail.

C.K. you may not realize it, but you're the "straw man" here. You continue to take this down a rabbit hole that is way off the beaten path of my initial point: Which is, again, that test screenings don't prove box office.

"just because they're not 100% dead on in determining hits, again, does not mean they're scientifically hollow and irrelevant, which is the point he can't seem to grasp I'm making."

Uh, yeah, that's completely inaccurate.

LeslieVernon, your check is in the mail.

C.K. you may not realize it, but you're the "straw man" here. You continue to take this down a rabbit hole that is way off the beaten path of my initial point: Which is, again, that test screenings don't prove box office.

"just because they're not 100% dead on in determining hits, again, does not mean they're scientifically hollow and irrelevant, which is the point he can't seem to grasp I'm making."

Uh, yeah, that's completely inaccurate. You're basically assuming that I feel test screenings are "scientifically hollow and irrelevant" because I said that they can't be scientifically PROVEN.

You are wrong, sir.

I never stated once that they were anything but unreliable and unproven. You’re insinuation of me “attacking” them is completely off. I’m not on the “attack” anywhere in this article. I’m leaving that up to you.

In fact, the end state of my paragraph about test screenings was that it’s all a gamble. Which it is. You’re trying to paint some weird portrait of me, the writer, attacking the almighty awesomeness that is science and statistics. That’s just not the case. You’ve missed the point entirely by trying to make a point about something else.

Also, I’m still waiting on that evidence that test screenings prove box office success.

6:59PM on 05/29/2012
And HOLY SHIT do I need a gatorade. You guys want a Gatorade?
And HOLY SHIT do I need a gatorade. You guys want a Gatorade?
7:07PM on 05/29/2012
I think Gatorade's and possibly some prozac for all involved would be in order.
I think Gatorade's and possibly some prozac for all involved would be in order.
7:16PM on 05/29/2012
lol, so you STILL don't get what a straw man is? It's ... it's not the person arguing, it's - ah forget it. And again, your innitial point was poorly written. You find that quote I asked for yet? Just let me know if you do :D

Believe it or not, claiming that test screenings are not "scientifically proven" CAN imply that the technique is not proven. What you should have said was, "they cannot prove what will be a hit" which is a more distant implication of your wording. I'm not saying
lol, so you STILL don't get what a straw man is? It's ... it's not the person arguing, it's - ah forget it. And again, your innitial point was poorly written. You find that quote I asked for yet? Just let me know if you do :D

Believe it or not, claiming that test screenings are not "scientifically proven" CAN imply that the technique is not proven. What you should have said was, "they cannot prove what will be a hit" which is a more distant implication of your wording. I'm not saying my interpretation is impeccable, but it's not unreasonable or strained, and you should probably admit that tour writing was shoddy enough to allow people to misunderstand your meaning. I'm amazed at your inability to see your original message as flawed.

And it takes two to get down the rabbit hole this far, bub. TWO, I SAY! ::grizzled fist shake::

Also, I'm still waiting to see how many times it will take you to understand the sentence: "I don't think anyone would argue there's a concrete way to litmus test for hits." Like ... do you need it in Greek, or...
7:20PM on 05/29/2012
Yeah, no, lets roll with your last response, and everybody go grab an ice cream cone (that means you too Leslie Vernon!) I hold to what I've said, but I feel like Roddy Piper in "They Live" at this point.
Yeah, no, lets roll with your last response, and everybody go grab an ice cream cone (that means you too Leslie Vernon!) I hold to what I've said, but I feel like Roddy Piper in "They Live" at this point.
7:28PM on 05/29/2012
I've actually enjoyed the debate, truly. We will part ways agreeing to disagree on the thing we agree with, even though we don't agree on the way it was said.

"WHEN WILL THEN BE NOW?"

"SOON."

Ice cream and prozac for everyone!"

Are you fresh out of bubblegum yet?
I've actually enjoyed the debate, truly. We will part ways agreeing to disagree on the thing we agree with, even though we don't agree on the way it was said.

"WHEN WILL THEN BE NOW?"

"SOON."

Ice cream and prozac for everyone!"

Are you fresh out of bubblegum yet?
7:50PM on 05/29/2012
Sir, I am, indeed, all out of gum. I likewise enjoyed the endless semantic conflict, and agree that we disagree on the thing we agree to disagree on, at long last agreeably. CARRY ON Shirey. Carry On.
Sir, I am, indeed, all out of gum. I likewise enjoyed the endless semantic conflict, and agree that we disagree on the thing we agree to disagree on, at long last agreeably. CARRY ON Shirey. Carry On.
7:54PM on 05/29/2012
One day, when you call for it...a bro hug will be waiting...
One day, when you call for it...a bro hug will be waiting...
10:11AM on 05/29/2012

Yes and yes!

Yes, to the video as Resolute was kick ass! And I agree about Peter Berg too, especially after he directed The Kingdom and the more edgy tone Retaliation was headed toward. Although, after I heard Chu was a Joe fanatic and seeing the trailers I was excited it'd finally be as close to the Joe movie I wanted (another rant for another time, but as much as I've been a Joe fan over the years, I've also been very frustrated comic aside). To be continued in March, maybe...
Yes, to the video as Resolute was kick ass! And I agree about Peter Berg too, especially after he directed The Kingdom and the more edgy tone Retaliation was headed toward. Although, after I heard Chu was a Joe fanatic and seeing the trailers I was excited it'd finally be as close to the Joe movie I wanted (another rant for another time, but as much as I've been a Joe fan over the years, I've also been very frustrated comic aside). To be continued in March, maybe...
Your Reply:



7:54AM on 05/29/2012
I'd say they're going to do more reshoot. But the main reason they pulled G.I. Joe 2 out of the summer is, I think, they don't want to compete with The Avengers, MIB 3, and The Dark Knight Rises. I bet G.I. Joe 2 is going to get creamed this summer had they actually released it. Trust me: even with more 3D, it's not going to save the movie or get it better reviews.
I'd say they're going to do more reshoot. But the main reason they pulled G.I. Joe 2 out of the summer is, I think, they don't want to compete with The Avengers, MIB 3, and The Dark Knight Rises. I bet G.I. Joe 2 is going to get creamed this summer had they actually released it. Trust me: even with more 3D, it's not going to save the movie or get it better reviews.
Your Reply:



3:45AM on 05/29/2012
After 21 Jump Street, Channing Tatum has suddenly becomes a big star. Maybe they're wanting to reshoot part of the movie to have him back in it instead of the rumored tiny part he has in it now? I'm joking but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised since nothing else truly makes sense. After all they did a separate character poster for him and suddenly he is front and center in the advertising even though his part in the movie is very small.
After 21 Jump Street, Channing Tatum has suddenly becomes a big star. Maybe they're wanting to reshoot part of the movie to have him back in it instead of the rumored tiny part he has in it now? I'm joking but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised since nothing else truly makes sense. After all they did a separate character poster for him and suddenly he is front and center in the advertising even though his part in the movie is very small.
Your Reply:



+3
3:30AM on 05/29/2012
Paul, you said one phrase that summed this one year pushback up for me.
"weak sauce"
As for Paramount, i haven't been happy with them since Transformers. I don't just blame Bay (well i blame him a lot), but Paramount ruined that franchise as well, and it seems as if they are on the Nostalgia band wagon. Only This film had potential to do right, and they've gone and F that up now.
Paul, you said one phrase that summed this one year pushback up for me.
"weak sauce"
As for Paramount, i haven't been happy with them since Transformers. I don't just blame Bay (well i blame him a lot), but Paramount ruined that franchise as well, and it seems as if they are on the Nostalgia band wagon. Only This film had potential to do right, and they've gone and F that up now.
Your Reply:



10:43AM on 05/29/2012
I don't think that Transformers is ruined per-say, it just needs a new creative team to fix what Bay and Bonaventura did to it. That being said, they are guilty pleasures of mine. Sue me.

Anyway, I know most people thought Batman and X-men were ruined, but then they found Nolan and Vaughn, and we got some awesome movies out of the charred remains of those franchises.

Here's hoping.
I don't think that Transformers is ruined per-say, it just needs a new creative team to fix what Bay and Bonaventura did to it. That being said, they are guilty pleasures of mine. Sue me.

Anyway, I know most people thought Batman and X-men were ruined, but then they found Nolan and Vaughn, and we got some awesome movies out of the charred remains of those franchises.

Here's hoping.
3:58PM on 05/29/2012
I understand what your saying, and i agree.

However Batman was ruined, it wasn't until Nolan rebooted it years after that we were ready to embrace a new Batman Franchise, and he didn't disappoint. I don't see Paramount rebooting Transformers, because based on sales it makes more and more each film.

but yes, here's hoping!
I understand what your saying, and i agree.

However Batman was ruined, it wasn't until Nolan rebooted it years after that we were ready to embrace a new Batman Franchise, and he didn't disappoint. I don't see Paramount rebooting Transformers, because based on sales it makes more and more each film.

but yes, here's hoping!
+4
2:58AM on 05/29/2012

the movie sucks

anyone who actually believes what they're saying and that a 3D conversion is really the reason for the delay is ignorant. The 3D conversion is the cover up, the excuse. The real reason is because the movie sucks, they've seen it and they didn't like it. Something somewhere down the line went wrong but you know what... kudos to them for actually having the balls to try and fix it. At the same time fuck them for not having the balls to just straight up admit the truth and instead try to cover it
anyone who actually believes what they're saying and that a 3D conversion is really the reason for the delay is ignorant. The 3D conversion is the cover up, the excuse. The real reason is because the movie sucks, they've seen it and they didn't like it. Something somewhere down the line went wrong but you know what... kudos to them for actually having the balls to try and fix it. At the same time fuck them for not having the balls to just straight up admit the truth and instead try to cover it up, but still good for them for trying to fix it instead of just unleashing a pile of shit on us.
Your Reply:



2:52AM on 05/29/2012
Like I said, the 3D reason is complete bullshit. They would've considered that a long time ago if that was the case, and even a 3D conversion shouldn't take that long. Something must have happened at the test screenings to make the execs shit bricks. I guess hiring the guy who did fucking Step Up: Whatever-The-Fuck 3D and a Justin Bieber to do a GI Joe movie wasn't the best of ideas.
Like I said, the 3D reason is complete bullshit. They would've considered that a long time ago if that was the case, and even a 3D conversion shouldn't take that long. Something must have happened at the test screenings to make the execs shit bricks. I guess hiring the guy who did fucking Step Up: Whatever-The-Fuck 3D and a Justin Bieber to do a GI Joe movie wasn't the best of ideas.
Your Reply:



10:46AM on 05/29/2012
That's like saying the guy that made "American Graffiti" shouldn't have been allowed to do an epic science fiction trilogy...

Talent comes from least expected places.
That's like saying the guy that made "American Graffiti" shouldn't have been allowed to do an epic science fiction trilogy...

Talent comes from least expected places.
1:20PM on 05/29/2012
In all fairness, Lucas stole every great idea from every pulp fiction or sci fi related film from the 20's and 30's..

Look at his real writing talent. Crystal Skull, RedTails and obviously the Star Wars Prequels.
In all fairness, Lucas stole every great idea from every pulp fiction or sci fi related film from the 20's and 30's..

Look at his real writing talent. Crystal Skull, RedTails and obviously the Star Wars Prequels.
2:48AM on 05/29/2012

fucken hollywood

Idiots. IDIOTS. No one will see this movie in 3D BECAUSE it's being converted. 3D conversions don't work. Hahahaha watch it tank.
Good job Hollywood. This was on my 'must see' list this summer, now I don't give a fuck.
Idiots. IDIOTS. No one will see this movie in 3D BECAUSE it's being converted. 3D conversions don't work. Hahahaha watch it tank.
Good job Hollywood. This was on my 'must see' list this summer, now I don't give a fuck.
Your Reply:



2:59AM on 05/29/2012
actually the conversion tech is at the point where it actually works pretty well now.
actually the conversion tech is at the point where it actually works pretty well now.
+4
2:35AM on 05/29/2012
I guess the people at Paramount were simply affraid by the competition this summer. Seemingly they never expected the Avengers doing so well and with movie like Spider Man and Prometheus following there worried about the success of this movie. So theyre pulling it back, doing reshoots and converting it is likely just a way to sell it to the audience.
I guess the people at Paramount were simply affraid by the competition this summer. Seemingly they never expected the Avengers doing so well and with movie like Spider Man and Prometheus following there worried about the success of this movie. So theyre pulling it back, doing reshoots and converting it is likely just a way to sell it to the audience.
Your Reply:



3:19AM on 05/29/2012
Thats true but there is also a lot of competition next summer as well.
Thats true but there is also a lot of competition next summer as well.
3:30AM on 05/29/2012
Paramount is not releasing it next summer. With the move to the end of March, they are avoiding the summer competition all together.
Paramount is not releasing it next summer. With the move to the end of March, they are avoiding the summer competition all together.
2:33AM on 05/29/2012

E.T.: Yup. Couldn't agree more.

He's a good director, but I gotta wonder what the hell he was thinking when he signed on for that.
He's a good director, but I gotta wonder what the hell he was thinking when he signed on for that.
Your Reply: