G.I Joe 2 moved to March 2013 - film conversion to 3D

[Blackman]

The initial release date wasnt that bad

[Kane52630]

Originally Posted by Blackman

The initial release date wasnt that bad

It wasn't bad at all, it had more word of mouth going than some of the competition.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by Downhere

Well, if they want to do a good job it could take that long. I think Titanic took more than a year to do the post-conversion.

This ain't a Cameron film though.

Also, remember what I said about the rumors of the reshoots with Channing.

[Punisher Rising]

Definitely let down to hear this, I was looking forward to seeing this. Plus side though is with so many movies coming out this Summer to look forward to it's a little cash saved at least.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Blackman

The initial release date wasnt that bad

Then it is probably terrible.

And I say it was pretty bad. Had no room for legs with ASM coming out less then a week later.

[Donut]

I hope this leaks like Wolverine did now. Just for this to bite Paramount in the ass

[Wolfwood]

I have a strong feeling that they just got scared and pulled up stakes at the last minute. 3D conversion? Such a lame reasoning. I was actually looking forward to this too, I think it would've done good business.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Then it is probably terrible.

And I say it was pretty bad. Had no room for legs with ASM coming out less then a week later.

Even if the competition is tough, that does not justify Paramount's decision to postpone the movie by 9 months. How about Fall? Is Spring really that important?

[LostSon88]

A month. A MONTH before release and they pull his b.s.?!

If this decision was made a few months ago, maybe I could handle it but c'mon. The trailers are out, the stars are promoting, there are tv spots all over the place and 4 weeks before release they decide to delay it for almost a year?

3 month delay, no problem.
6 months? Pushing it, but fine.
9?! GTFO.

This is one of the stupidest things i've ever seen. Has a studio ever done something so drastic that close to release before?

Now I gotta wait a whole other year so they can tweak an already completed film.

Absolutely stupid.

I mean IF the true reasoning was out of fear of ASM and other upcoming blockbusters, that still doesn't excuse it. Those release dates have been there forever and they had plenty of time to make a decision beforehand.

[Lencho01]

I wonder how much more expensive this will be for Paramount.

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by Blackman

The initial release date wasnt that bad

Yeah. It was originally scheduled for August 2012, then Paramount bumped it up to June 29, 2012 when it was clear Star Trek 2 wasn't going to be ready by that point. And then, a month before release, they pushed it back 9 months.

Unbelievable. If they were going to push it back to August or even September, I'd understand it getting room to breathe. But March 2013, amidst the competition already scheduled... something's fishy here.

[FreeRadical]

Originally Posted by Lencho01

I wonder how much more expensive this will be for Paramount.

With the money already spent on posters, trailers, TV spots, the Superbowl trailer etc, quite a bit of money. Also some the the stars must have already been booked to appear on talk shows and the booking for US and worldwide premiers...

I read that some of the toys have just been released.

[Blackman]

They filled the spot with Ted the seth mcfarlene movie
http://collider.com/ted-release-date/168250/

[terry78]

And there we go.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Raiden

Even if the competition is tough, that does not justify Paramount's decision to postpone the movie by 9 months. How about Fall? Is Spring really that important?

Well with the decision for the delay they decided to tack on 3D as well and that takes a while.

[Bruce Malone]

The studio obviously had no confidence whatsoever in this films to pull it a month ahead of time.

I don't know it must have been testing pretty terribly. This is never a good sign for a film to be abruptly pulled like this.

[zeptron]

Either this is a reaction to how bad Battleship bombed or Avengers must have scared them off.

[LostSon88]

Can't help but wonder what Jon Chu must be feeling...

He seemed so enthusiastic about it getting released and now this. Now he's gotta bottle it up for another 9 months.

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by FreeRadical

With the money already spent on posters, trailers, TV spots, the Superbowl trailer etc, quite a bit of money. Also some the the stars must have already been booked to appear on talk shows and the booking for US and worldwide premiers...

I read that some of the toys have just been released.

I looked up what possible films/franchises they have coming up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Upcoming_films

Anyone know what kind of deal was made with Disney/Marvel over Avengers and whatever other films Marvel had planned to distribute with Paramount? Maybe that makes up for all the hassle that'll come with pushing this film back.

[KenK]

Even if the film is bad, how bad could it be for such an abrupt move. It would make more sense to just leave it where it was, and let the chips fall were they may. Especially considering the good buzz it had going for it. Pushing back the film 9 months is bad enough in terms of losing that good buzz from fans, doing it a month before its original release, when promotion is already in full-swing just seeds more doubt.

[OP84CC82]

How could Hasbro agree to this? Do they realize how much this will affect them financially? A line of toys made to promote a movie that had a release date about a month after the toys were out on shelves to tie-in, but now will come out about 9 or 10 months after the toys. Retailers aren't going to want to carry the toys if the film's release date was pushed back because they won't get any money from it. So all of those toys being made by the pound are just going to have to wait in the factories or worse, be incinerated from no one wanting them. But who knows, maybe Hasbro will finally come to their senses, convince Paramount to get a new release date during the summer season (Ted, Seth McFarlane's directorial debut, has taken Retaliation's spot) and release it in plain 2D. I mean, come on, TDKR isn't in 3D and I'm sure it's going to get wads of cash.

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by Lencho01

Anyone know what kind of deal was made with Disney/Marvel over Avengers and whatever other films Marvel had planned to distribute with Paramount?

When Paramount relinquished the final two films in its distribution deal with Marvel over to Disney, Disney agreed to pay them a minimum of $55M per film or the better part of 8% of the box-office grosses. Paramount looks to collect $110M for The Avengers, and $60M-80M for Iron Man 3.

I don't think Paramount will sink over $100M into reshoots and 3D conversion for G.I. Joe 2, but they might with having to pay for a new marketing campaign early next year.

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by mclay18

When Paramount relinquished the final two films in its distribution deal with Marvel over to Disney, Disney agreed to pay them a minimum of $55M per film or the better part of 8% of the box-office grosses. Paramount looks to collect $110M for The Avengers, and $60M-80M for Iron Man 3.

I don't think Paramount will sink over $100M into reshoots and 3D conversion for G.I. Joe 2, but they might with having to pay for a new marketing campaign early next year.

So, the Marvel-related money could cover what they feel needs to be done with this film. But, it's likely to be spread around to various things the studio is doing. Maybe this won't hurt the film directly. But, it certainly will hurt stuff like toy deals and what not.

[Balthus Dire]

Does Hasbro have a big stake in the film? I would imagine so. Could it be possible that the delay was an attempt to avoid losses on their quarterly profit margins and crap due to the epic fail of Battleship?

[Hypestyle]

http://tinyurl.com/8x5y8hf

Ostensibly this is to prepare the movie for 3-D conversion as well as doing more of a unified global push for marketing purposes.

I can't help but to think that the modest U.S. box office so far for Battleship had something to do with this. I have seen a recent article about studio execs hitting the panic button in the aftermath of this and John Carter.

I haven't seen Battleship yet but I plan to. I was also planning to go see Retaliation when it came out in June. Does 3-D conversion really take that long?

This will be nearly a year-long delay from its original release. Presumably, the film is/was already at the tail-end of final editing. I know that plenty of movies do reshoots before a final cut, but storywise, I'm not sure what all could be done at this point except to shoot an entirely new film's worth of footage. Also, timing-wise, late March puts the film into the same, uh, lane as John Carter was this year. Not quite the dead of winter, but definitely not summer, kids are still in school.

The producers should take a cue from The Avengers: I hope that they will add some new characters: [Joes] Alpine, Quick Kick, Stalker, Zap, Doc, Cover Girl.. [Cobra] Crimson Twins, Firefly, Dreadnoks.

If the film can be extended to 2.5 hours—have more character development moments, more international locations for the plot—and the climax leads directly into a part 3, that could be a way to take advantage of the extended wait time.