Latest Movie News Headlines

G.I. Joe: Retaliation delay blamed on Channing Tatum?

May. 30, 2012by: Paul Shirey

SPOILERS below. 

Yesterday, I tackled the speculation of why G.I. JOE: RETALIATION may have been delayed and today we have some insider info that aligns with most of our thoughts, but with one big surprise; apparantly Channing Tatum's success with THE VOW and 21 JUMP STREET caused execs to feel that by killing his character off in the first 10 minutes of the film wasn't the smartest move. 

Here's the inside track from Deadline:

This was a case of letting a schedule to fill a summer slot dictate the film not being in 3D even though we knew that would be the most commercial version of the film. Then in the spring there were 2 big events. First John Carter lost $200M despite the best efforts of the Pixar brain trust. But the 3D film managed to gross over $200M overseas, nearly tripling its U.S. take.

“Also Channing Tatum had a breakout spring, starring in The Vow and 21 Jump Street. In our first screening of the film the reaction from audiences was good but with 2 big concerns: 1) They didn’t like the fact that Channing and The Rock really didn’t have any time to develop a friendship before Channing died, and 2) Why wasn’t it going to be in 3D? We went back and shot another week with Channing to develop more of his story with The Rock, which made the film play much better. But we didn’t have the time to be in 3D.

“Then a week ago Battleship basically had the same performance as John Carter – $60M-$70M U.S. and just over $200M international. That was just a wake-up call that said to us we need to offer the best version of the film irrespective of summer market share to ensure the best possible performance. And not being in 3D will cost us a ton of business internationally.

This still seems like a case of too little, too late and not having faith in the initial product.  I still don't understand why they didn't plan for 3D from the get go and I don't buy that they just "didn't have time."

It sounds like the test screenings didn't go as well as planned and they got nervous, fearing a bomb, so they looked to two recent bombs (JOHN CARTER and BATTLESHIP), which did great overseas, especially with 3D, and made a snap decision.  Coupled with shooting more of MAGIC MIKE himself, the studio could possibly squeeze another $100-200 million from overseas and domestic combined with these changes.  So, I get it, but at the same time, I'm still left wondering what the film would've been without the major upcoming changes.

More than anything, as I stated in C'mon Hollywood this week, I think the fans are soured by the massive marketing push and sudden shift, which leaves them feeling slighted, painting a picture of "greedy" Hollywood.  I don't see it as greed, per se, as it's just a business trying to make the most of its product, but I get the disdain. 

What do you guys think?  Will more Channing Tatum in 3D make you a happy camper come March 29, 2013?

Any chance we can get more Adrianne Palicki with less clothing for the reshoots?  C'mon, Paramount, sweeten the deal!

Extra Tidbit: I say again: Peter Berg on G.I. Joe: Retaliation instead of Battleship would've averted this disaster altogether and left us with one less crappy movie.
Source: Deadline

Related Articles

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

4:55PM on 06/01/2012
wow they clearly had the wrong target audience for those screenings. I was so happy to hear Channing Tatum was going to be killed off early. I don't need extra emotions attached to that scene
wow they clearly had the wrong target audience for those screenings. I was so happy to hear Channing Tatum was going to be killed off early. I don't need extra emotions attached to that scene
Your Reply:



9:08AM on 06/01/2012
good i hope they don't kill him off now, he's my fav character from the first movie.
good i hope they don't kill him off now, he's my fav character from the first movie.
Your Reply:



1:02PM on 05/31/2012
Tatum isn't the reason I'd buy a ticket to this. by a looooong shot.
Tatum isn't the reason I'd buy a ticket to this. by a looooong shot.
Your Reply:



7:27AM on 05/31/2012

Damn execs

From everything we saw during the marketing build-up, it looked as if they were completely faithful to Larry Hama's work. Now, the execs are going to get their hands on this and completely eff it up. Not even interested in seeing it now.
From everything we saw during the marketing build-up, it looked as if they were completely faithful to Larry Hama's work. Now, the execs are going to get their hands on this and completely eff it up. Not even interested in seeing it now.
Your Reply:



6:50AM on 05/31/2012
If they keep Tatum in the movie I will have no desire to watch this flick. Ironically, out of all the cast members from the first, he is the main one they shouldn't have brought back. Now, if they make his role bigger but still kill him off, I'm okay with that.
If they keep Tatum in the movie I will have no desire to watch this flick. Ironically, out of all the cast members from the first, he is the main one they shouldn't have brought back. Now, if they make his role bigger but still kill him off, I'm okay with that.
Your Reply:



1:10AM on 05/31/2012

Stupid move

There is nothing stated that gives me any reason for them to justify what I see as mere blatant knee-jerk idiocracy.
Plus, Tatum is a terrible "actor" and I feel the less of him there is the better.
There is nothing stated that gives me any reason for them to justify what I see as mere blatant knee-jerk idiocracy.
Plus, Tatum is a terrible "actor" and I feel the less of him there is the better.
Your Reply:



12:33AM on 05/31/2012
They are killing off Duke? Look, I've got no love for the first movie but I love GI Joe, and that's weird. I just wanted Duke to be who he was in the cartoon, the leader, not the noob. And now they're killing him. Wow! What an illustrious career that Joe had. Oh and it would've been swell if Snake Eyes didn't have lips, and no Marlon Wayans.
They are killing off Duke? Look, I've got no love for the first movie but I love GI Joe, and that's weird. I just wanted Duke to be who he was in the cartoon, the leader, not the noob. And now they're killing him. Wow! What an illustrious career that Joe had. Oh and it would've been swell if Snake Eyes didn't have lips, and no Marlon Wayans.
Your Reply:



11:15PM on 05/30/2012

The question is...

Will Duke really die?
Will Duke really die?
Your Reply:



+9
10:07PM on 05/30/2012
I'm glad the studio is doing re-shoots, especially if the movie needs them. If the people who saw the test screenings said G.I. Joe Retaliation was mediocre, then I'm glad that Paramount is doing something about it. If the movie needs some re-shoots to make it better, then I'm all for it. I still think converting it to 3D is kind of dumb though.
I'm glad the studio is doing re-shoots, especially if the movie needs them. If the people who saw the test screenings said G.I. Joe Retaliation was mediocre, then I'm glad that Paramount is doing something about it. If the movie needs some re-shoots to make it better, then I'm all for it. I still think converting it to 3D is kind of dumb though.
Your Reply:



-2
9:36PM on 05/30/2012

Meh

It was delayed because the higher-up's realised they have a complete turd on their hands just like the first one, and anything to distance the film from this summer's other turds can only do them good at this point. Hopefully this delay and the abject failures of John Carter and Battleship will teach these executives that it requirers genuine film makers and storytellers to really make a dynamic and engaging movie, not some corporate stiff who purely wants to capitalise on the success of other
It was delayed because the higher-up's realised they have a complete turd on their hands just like the first one, and anything to distance the film from this summer's other turds can only do them good at this point. Hopefully this delay and the abject failures of John Carter and Battleship will teach these executives that it requirers genuine film makers and storytellers to really make a dynamic and engaging movie, not some corporate stiff who purely wants to capitalise on the success of other blockbusters, ala, John Carter (Avatar), Battleship (Transformers), every kids sci-fi/fantasy series ever written (Harry Potter), Red Riding Hood/Beastly (Twilight).. geez, these peeps making the decisions obviously are smart, yet can't see a sh!t film or script a mile away :S
Your Reply:



8:49PM on 05/30/2012
Shut it. Jump Street.
Shut it. Jump Street.
Your Reply:



7:34PM on 05/30/2012

ARRRRGGH!!!!!!!

Hmmm, ok we have ninjas, bruce willis, the rock totally pumped up, a badass looking cobra commander, snake eyes in chains, zartans still probably president, and oh yeah tons of NINJA'S! I HAD SUCH A HARDON FOR THIS FILM IT ISNT EVEN FUNNY. WHO THE HELL DID THE SCREEN TEST FOR THIS, TEENAGE GIRLS?! Like I've said before, you dont need Channing f'ng Tatum, just grab the cast of the expendables and you'll be fine. Hey since you're going to reshoot, why not bring Mr.Wayans back too. WHY NOT JUST
Hmmm, ok we have ninjas, bruce willis, the rock totally pumped up, a badass looking cobra commander, snake eyes in chains, zartans still probably president, and oh yeah tons of NINJA'S! I HAD SUCH A HARDON FOR THIS FILM IT ISNT EVEN FUNNY. WHO THE HELL DID THE SCREEN TEST FOR THIS, TEENAGE GIRLS?! Like I've said before, you dont need Channing f'ng Tatum, just grab the cast of the expendables and you'll be fine. Hey since you're going to reshoot, why not bring Mr.Wayans back too. WHY NOT JUST BRING IN ALL THE WAYANS JUST TO MAKE SURE YOUR NOT ALIENATING PEOPLE WHO ARENT EVEN GOING TO THIS MOVIE!!!!
AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your Reply:



6:29PM on 05/30/2012
Why use BATTLEFIELD as an example? That film wasn't 3D anywhere. Not in the US nor internationally,
Why use BATTLEFIELD as an example? That film wasn't 3D anywhere. Not in the US nor internationally,
Your Reply:



+3
6:26PM on 05/30/2012
What a bunch of boloney! Execs at Paramount really think a massive crow will show up just to see Tatum?? I mean come on.. Willis, the Rock.. who cares about the stripper guy? Plus.. 3D? REALLY? Man I hope someone gets a copy and gets shared and downloaded everywhere. This exec douches don't deserve a cent!

"Channing Tatum had a breakout spring".. give me a break
What a bunch of boloney! Execs at Paramount really think a massive crow will show up just to see Tatum?? I mean come on.. Willis, the Rock.. who cares about the stripper guy? Plus.. 3D? REALLY? Man I hope someone gets a copy and gets shared and downloaded everywhere. This exec douches don't deserve a cent!

"Channing Tatum had a breakout spring".. give me a break
Your Reply:



5:55PM on 05/30/2012

Gotta admit...I really liked the 1st G.I. Joe.

But the fact that Paramount decided to ditch, fire or just plain ignore any idea of bringing back any of the cast from the 2009 Stephen Sommers original (Dennis Quaid, Rachel Nicols, Christopher Eccleston, Sienna Miller, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Sad Taghmaoui) is pretty much the main reason why I've hated the existence of this sequel from day 1 & am not in ANY way disappointed that it got pushed back to 2013.

And yes, I do know that Ray Park, Lee Byung-hun & Jonathan Pryce are still
But the fact that Paramount decided to ditch, fire or just plain ignore any idea of bringing back any of the cast from the 2009 Stephen Sommers original (Dennis Quaid, Rachel Nicols, Christopher Eccleston, Sienna Miller, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Sad Taghmaoui) is pretty much the main reason why I've hated the existence of this sequel from day 1 & am not in ANY way disappointed that it got pushed back to 2013.

And yes, I do know that Ray Park, Lee Byung-hun & Jonathan Pryce are still there...& the movie-gods that I pray to know we always need more "Darth Maul".
Your Reply:



5:48PM on 05/30/2012

Still A Turd

You can shine a turd up all you want it is still a turd. Who honest to god thinks this movie is going to be any good. The first one was HO-RRRRRREEEEENDOUS. Most of it due to Tatum's shitty hacky acting. He was great in Jump Street, I'll admit. But everything else that hack is in is garbage. How many d$cks has he sucked in Hollywood to get to where he is, and to be made into some kind of a star. I would say at least 115 d$cks.
You can shine a turd up all you want it is still a turd. Who honest to god thinks this movie is going to be any good. The first one was HO-RRRRRREEEEENDOUS. Most of it due to Tatum's shitty hacky acting. He was great in Jump Street, I'll admit. But everything else that hack is in is garbage. How many d$cks has he sucked in Hollywood to get to where he is, and to be made into some kind of a star. I would say at least 115 d$cks.
Your Reply:



6:15PM on 05/30/2012
115 dicks...in a row?
115 dicks...in a row?
4:58PM on 05/30/2012
Yet another misleading title of the day.
The blame is NOT on Channing. The studio made the decision based on their feedback and acted accordingly. Yes, it sucks that the flick was delayed, but the article title makes it sound like Channing ran off with the film reels or something. These "news-tease" headlines are getting fucking old. "It's in your house, and it could kill your kids! Tune in at ten for the answer!"- That's what we are getting more and more of around here.
Yet another misleading title of the day.
The blame is NOT on Channing. The studio made the decision based on their feedback and acted accordingly. Yes, it sucks that the flick was delayed, but the article title makes it sound like Channing ran off with the film reels or something. These "news-tease" headlines are getting fucking old. "It's in your house, and it could kill your kids! Tune in at ten for the answer!"- That's what we are getting more and more of around here.
Your Reply:



5:19PM on 05/30/2012
The headline asks a question, it does not make a statement.

Headlines are meant to draw readers in, to "tease" them the story.

You will find this on any site that reports news stories.

The headline asks a question, it does not make a statement.

Headlines are meant to draw readers in, to "tease" them the story.

You will find this on any site that reports news stories.

5:37PM on 05/30/2012
The feedback the studio got was the audience wanted more Channing Tatum, and they delayed the movie to put more Channing Tatum in the movie.

Thus movie delayed because of Channing Tatum, thus appropriate title. Perhaps a different word than "blamed" could have been used but then you're just splitting hairs.
The feedback the studio got was the audience wanted more Channing Tatum, and they delayed the movie to put more Channing Tatum in the movie.

Thus movie delayed because of Channing Tatum, thus appropriate title. Perhaps a different word than "blamed" could have been used but then you're just splitting hairs.
+1
4:55PM on 05/30/2012
Following a realisation that I enjoy movies more when I know little about it (e.g. X-Men First Class or District 9) I stayed away from GI Joe. I saw one trailer...with Bruce Willis in it...and Snake Eyes fighting on the side of the mounting...liked what I saw...then decided Id watch or read no more on it...until the that is...the decision to push the movie back. I had no idea Duke was to be killed off. So thank you Paramount for trying to justify your stupid decision about pushing back the
Following a realisation that I enjoy movies more when I know little about it (e.g. X-Men First Class or District 9) I stayed away from GI Joe. I saw one trailer...with Bruce Willis in it...and Snake Eyes fighting on the side of the mounting...liked what I saw...then decided Id watch or read no more on it...until the that is...the decision to push the movie back. I had no idea Duke was to be killed off. So thank you Paramount for trying to justify your stupid decision about pushing back the movie by revealing that piece of information. Heck...if you're so hell bent on pretending the first movie does not exist...why even include the character of Duke in this one?
Your Reply:



7:18PM on 05/30/2012
A bloody and dying Duke is seen at the beginning of that same trailer. Part of the reason I was looking forward to this flick, actually.
Oh, and I dig your Schmoe handle.
A bloody and dying Duke is seen at the beginning of that same trailer. Part of the reason I was looking forward to this flick, actually.
Oh, and I dig your Schmoe handle.
4:18PM on 05/30/2012
Just admit, Paramount, your movie sucked plain and simple, not because it needed 3D or there wasn't enough Channing Tatum.
Just admit, Paramount, your movie sucked plain and simple, not because it needed 3D or there wasn't enough Channing Tatum.
Your Reply:



+6
4:00PM on 05/30/2012

are you kidding me?

that is STILL total bullshit.

First they blame it on wanting to convert it to 3D, now they blame it on wanting to give Channing Tatum more screen time. Do they think we're stupid?

The movie obviously just plain SUCKED and that's why they're doing reshoots. I mean does anyone REALLY believe that the studio would delay the release of a big summer movie a mere month before it's release, in the middle of the marketing campaign, with toys already on store shelves... just so that women
that is STILL total bullshit.

First they blame it on wanting to convert it to 3D, now they blame it on wanting to give Channing Tatum more screen time. Do they think we're stupid?

The movie obviously just plain SUCKED and that's why they're doing reshoots. I mean does anyone REALLY believe that the studio would delay the release of a big summer movie a mere month before it's release, in the middle of the marketing campaign, with toys already on store shelves... just so that women (Channing Tatum's mass fan base) would like the movie more? What a joke.
Your Reply:



3:13PM on 05/30/2012
Well the thing is didn't The Vow & 21 Jump Street come out nearly 3 months ago & they just now realize his star power A-list status. Nice cop out for saying ya didnt think he could carry the sequel . Call me crazy but i really thought his character in the first movie was the one that was developed the most & ya saw much of his background. So why wouldn't he be the focus again in the sequel? I really never had anything against Channing Tatum, even before he hit it big this year. Hell I'd
Well the thing is didn't The Vow & 21 Jump Street come out nearly 3 months ago & they just now realize his star power A-list status. Nice cop out for saying ya didnt think he could carry the sequel . Call me crazy but i really thought his character in the first movie was the one that was developed the most & ya saw much of his background. So why wouldn't he be the focus again in the sequel? I really never had anything against Channing Tatum, even before he hit it big this year. Hell I'd even say give him his own superhero film.
Your Reply:



+2
2:58PM on 05/30/2012

I knew it

I wrote it under the news that they decided to postpone it. What Hollywood doesn't understand however is that it will have no impact whatsoever. There is no such thing as "big names". They have free gossip columns for that. People go to movies, because they are interested in what they are going to watch. Whether it is something like The Vow, where the audience is comprised of fans of the Notebook, or 21 Jump Street, which had a good trailer and fits perfectly in the hugely popular right now
I wrote it under the news that they decided to postpone it. What Hollywood doesn't understand however is that it will have no impact whatsoever. There is no such thing as "big names". They have free gossip columns for that. People go to movies, because they are interested in what they are going to watch. Whether it is something like The Vow, where the audience is comprised of fans of the Notebook, or 21 Jump Street, which had a good trailer and fits perfectly in the hugely popular right now R-rated comedy angle. It is a good run for Tatum but it's not a trend, he's not a sure thing. Just wait and see how Magic Mike ends up. If the stars were the reason why people go to movies, Tom Cruise and Will Smith's movies would never bomb. And they had good runs only because they chose their movies wisely and with a little bit of luck.

And those test screenings are such bullshit, who would want more Tatum after his performance in the first? The only people that should back are back, minus Rachel Nichols. Also why would anyone say "you know what, this would look better in 3D". No one says things like that, or at least no one in their right mind.
Your Reply:



2:36PM on 05/30/2012

Actually i'm for this

They did test screenings and it didnt work, so they are reworking it. It's not gonna make the movie any worse. I dont really care for 3D or Tatum but maybe this is the studio realizing people want more than mediocre. Look at Avengers, great reviews and box office gold. Battleship had bad reviews and sank (no pun intended)
They did test screenings and it didnt work, so they are reworking it. It's not gonna make the movie any worse. I dont really care for 3D or Tatum but maybe this is the studio realizing people want more than mediocre. Look at Avengers, great reviews and box office gold. Battleship had bad reviews and sank (no pun intended)
Your Reply:



+8
2:12PM on 05/30/2012
Channing Tatum was great in 21 Jump Street cuz he played a dumbass. He has a knack for comedy I guess... he was absolutely terrible in the first G.I Joe movie and killing his character off in the first 10 minutes of this new movie was absolutely the right call. That is actually one of the things I was looking forward to in this new movie, cuz it felt like this might have been the G.I Joe movie we should have got the first time around, with 2 bad ass action stars (Rock and Willis) and not Tatum
Channing Tatum was great in 21 Jump Street cuz he played a dumbass. He has a knack for comedy I guess... he was absolutely terrible in the first G.I Joe movie and killing his character off in the first 10 minutes of this new movie was absolutely the right call. That is actually one of the things I was looking forward to in this new movie, cuz it felt like this might have been the G.I Joe movie we should have got the first time around, with 2 bad ass action stars (Rock and Willis) and not Tatum who simply can not play tough convincingly.

As for 3D, ya ok, whatever... I still have no plans on seeing it in 3D, I didnt see Avengers in 3D either, these movies dont need to be in 3D they just need to be bad ass with kick ass action scenes.

More Channing Tatum= Less Anticipation!
Your Reply:



2:08PM on 05/30/2012
They might as well put this on dvd now. It's the only way I plan on seeing it, a cheap ass 1 dollar red box rental.
They might as well put this on dvd now. It's the only way I plan on seeing it, a cheap ass 1 dollar red box rental.
Your Reply:



+3
2:06PM on 05/30/2012
This test audience does not sound at all representative of people who are actually going to be paying to see this. They wanted MORE Tatum? Is this the Twilight Zone?
This test audience does not sound at all representative of people who are actually going to be paying to see this. They wanted MORE Tatum? Is this the Twilight Zone?
Your Reply:



+5
2:02PM on 05/30/2012

Uh...

They kill off Duke? In a G.I. Joe movie, they kill off Duke? Really?

And they wonder why movies tank these days
They kill off Duke? In a G.I. Joe movie, they kill off Duke? Really?

And they wonder why movies tank these days
Your Reply:



2:10PM on 05/30/2012
will you say the same thing if Nolan kills off Batman?
will you say the same thing if Nolan kills off Batman?
6:33PM on 05/30/2012
Yup
Yup
1:50PM on 05/30/2012
So are they saying it's not Taylor Kitsch's fault for John Carter and Battleship? :)
So are they saying it's not Taylor Kitsch's fault for John Carter and Battleship? :)
Your Reply:



1:39PM on 05/30/2012
I don't care if he dies the first ten minutes, but the fact that it it converting to 3D. Everyone I know will be getting tickets for the 2D screen anyways. They are only punishing us for it when we're going to see it 2D regardless.
I don't care if he dies the first ten minutes, but the fact that it it converting to 3D. Everyone I know will be getting tickets for the 2D screen anyways. They are only punishing us for it when we're going to see it 2D regardless.
Your Reply:



+10
1:36PM on 05/30/2012

Terrible

Don't kill off Duke because he's effing Duke! Not because the Wooden Actor is on some kind of hot streak. WTFx10.
Don't kill off Duke because he's effing Duke! Not because the Wooden Actor is on some kind of hot streak. WTFx10.
Your Reply:



1:33PM on 05/30/2012

hmmm

I refuse to believe that one of the top 2 biggest concerns from audience members was 'why wasn't this in 3D.' I call bullshit on that one. I'm fucking glad its not. But now seriously just put it on DVD. It's done. This is a mess and it's too bad.
I refuse to believe that one of the top 2 biggest concerns from audience members was 'why wasn't this in 3D.' I call bullshit on that one. I'm fucking glad its not. But now seriously just put it on DVD. It's done. This is a mess and it's too bad.
Your Reply:



1:23PM on 05/30/2012
What a colossal mess. Just seems like a lot of wasted money. Lost tons of money for their whole ad campaign, and now they're going to do massive re-shoots which I can't imagine being cheap.

Whoever is making these decisions better hope to hell they work out or they may be out of a job.
What a colossal mess. Just seems like a lot of wasted money. Lost tons of money for their whole ad campaign, and now they're going to do massive re-shoots which I can't imagine being cheap.

Whoever is making these decisions better hope to hell they work out or they may be out of a job.
Your Reply:



1:18PM on 05/30/2012
I WAS actually looking forward to this movie.
I almost enjoyed the first one for what it was but Tatum kept me from doing so. I hate him. He is one of the worst working actors today.
So when I found out (from the trailer, no less) that he gets killed off in the beginning of this movie I was thrilled!
Now I see he's going to be in it even more?
No thanks.
I WAS actually looking forward to this movie.
I almost enjoyed the first one for what it was but Tatum kept me from doing so. I hate him. He is one of the worst working actors today.
So when I found out (from the trailer, no less) that he gets killed off in the beginning of this movie I was thrilled!
Now I see he's going to be in it even more?
No thanks.
Your Reply:



1:12PM on 05/30/2012

I hate that whole "business" excuse

To what you said, you don't think its greedy hollywood, but a business. That's a crock of shit.

Businesses get away with royally fucking us consumers, and PEOPLE in 5 different ways from Sunday, and they get the free pass by saying, "Oh well, its just business, you understand." I do realize that businesses are for making money, but go fuck yourself, it's not like this is life or death for the studio and if GI Joe doesn't do well the entire industry will collapse.

Fuck Hollywood execs.
To what you said, you don't think its greedy hollywood, but a business. That's a crock of shit.

Businesses get away with royally fucking us consumers, and PEOPLE in 5 different ways from Sunday, and they get the free pass by saying, "Oh well, its just business, you understand." I do realize that businesses are for making money, but go fuck yourself, it's not like this is life or death for the studio and if GI Joe doesn't do well the entire industry will collapse.

Fuck Hollywood execs.
Your Reply:



3:19PM on 05/30/2012
I think you have to define greed. No studio wants to take a bath on a film if they can avoid it (or at least if they think they can). I've never said I agreed with Paramount's decision, only that I get it in terms of business.

If they can all but guarantee more money on something that they believe they'll lose money on, then why wouldn't they try to protect their investment?

I don't see how their decision royally fucks any consumer...Nobody has any investment in the film other than
I think you have to define greed. No studio wants to take a bath on a film if they can avoid it (or at least if they think they can). I've never said I agreed with Paramount's decision, only that I get it in terms of business.

If they can all but guarantee more money on something that they believe they'll lose money on, then why wouldn't they try to protect their investment?

I don't see how their decision royally fucks any consumer...Nobody has any investment in the film other than hype.

I think the real issue is that they waited this long to make this decision. Movies are reshot, re-edited, converted to 3D, and everything in-between on a regular basis. Paramount just waited until the zero hour to do it with this one, which puts the spotlight on the decision.

If this were your film and it was testing for shit and you just witnessed John Carter and Battleship tank domestically, but make back their money and then some because of 3D and international markets, it may give you pause as well. And it should.

Paramount is merely extending their gamble. They're upping their own stakes in the hopes of salvaging this mess and turning a profit, rather than pissing it away. I don't see how that's greedy. I think it's stupid if they don't try to salvage their film, it's just a shame that they waited five weeks before its release to do so. Is it too late? Who knows. We'll find out if their gamble paid off in March.



1:08PM on 05/30/2012

This movie

This movie looks good, but honestly the first one seemed more cartoonish.. which is what GI Joe was a cartoon. I can't get over the fact that all the characters in the last one are gonna get killed off. I enjoyed the first one for what it was.. How can you kill of Duke or the others. This is bullshit... this whole movie is bullshit!
This movie looks good, but honestly the first one seemed more cartoonish.. which is what GI Joe was a cartoon. I can't get over the fact that all the characters in the last one are gonna get killed off. I enjoyed the first one for what it was.. How can you kill of Duke or the others. This is bullshit... this whole movie is bullshit!
Your Reply:



+2
1:07PM on 05/30/2012

wait.....

So hold on a second. You mean to tell me that they decided to make a G.I Joe movie where they kill off Duke in the first 10 minutes? wtf?
So hold on a second. You mean to tell me that they decided to make a G.I Joe movie where they kill off Duke in the first 10 minutes? wtf?
Your Reply:



1:10PM on 05/30/2012
Yes, if you watch the trailers carefully Channing Tatum doesn't appear after the desert ambush scene. The Rock was going to be the star of this flick. With Bruce Willis and Ray Park. Almost a GI Joe movie dream cast.
Yes, if you watch the trailers carefully Channing Tatum doesn't appear after the desert ambush scene. The Rock was going to be the star of this flick. With Bruce Willis and Ray Park. Almost a GI Joe movie dream cast.
1:02PM on 05/30/2012

You know...

Episode I would have been a lot better if it had MORE Jar Jar Binks and more uses of the word 'wizard.'

And you know, I don't feel we got to know enough about Chrissie Watkins before she was killed off in the opening scene of JAWs. Spielberg really should have gone back and extended that hippie beach party scene by about 15 minutes. And how come you don't even really get to see the shark until like an hour and a half into the movie? That didn't test well with our audiences of texting
Episode I would have been a lot better if it had MORE Jar Jar Binks and more uses of the word 'wizard.'

And you know, I don't feel we got to know enough about Chrissie Watkins before she was killed off in the opening scene of JAWs. Spielberg really should have gone back and extended that hippie beach party scene by about 15 minutes. And how come you don't even really get to see the shark until like an hour and a half into the movie? That didn't test well with our audiences of texting teenage mallrats ahead of our 40th anniversary 3D rerelease.
Your Reply:



12:58PM on 05/30/2012
I honestly think I guarantee that if you would take a movie convert to 3D and add MORE Channing Tatum that it would not be it's best possible version
I honestly think I guarantee that if you would take a movie convert to 3D and add MORE Channing Tatum that it would not be it's best possible version
Your Reply:



12:56PM on 05/30/2012
I didn't even see that spoilers tag as it was above the main picture and not in its usual just-before-the-story spot. If I was the slightest bit interested in this movie I would be pissed...
I didn't even see that spoilers tag as it was above the main picture and not in its usual just-before-the-story spot. If I was the slightest bit interested in this movie I would be pissed...
Your Reply:



2:16PM on 05/30/2012
GTFO spoiler police. All you had to do was watch the 1st trailer to figure out Tatum's fate in this movie. Batman is in the new Batman movie, you upset I just spoiled it for you?
GTFO spoiler police. All you had to do was watch the 1st trailer to figure out Tatum's fate in this movie. Batman is in the new Batman movie, you upset I just spoiled it for you?
8:50PM on 05/30/2012
STFU douche. If it wasn't such a big deal then why did they bother putting a spoiler tag on there to begin with? I didn't watch the trailer because I know this movie will be a complete load of crap just like the first one.
STFU douche. If it wasn't such a big deal then why did they bother putting a spoiler tag on there to begin with? I didn't watch the trailer because I know this movie will be a complete load of crap just like the first one.
12:56PM on 05/30/2012
Really? I highly doubt test audiences were wanting for 3D and more Tatum...
Really? I highly doubt test audiences were wanting for 3D and more Tatum...
Your Reply: