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

[S. Grundy]

Octoberist, Adam Quigley and his buddy can now basically get prosecuted now. He shouldn't have done that. Or I hope Adam is not his friend's real name.

Well if he wasn't that specific, like did he give a full on review of the movie? If not then they should be fine.

 

[Liam_H]

It was only a few mentions comparing the first and second movie, nothing too specific.

 

[S. Grundy]

Then they're fine.

 

[TheVileOne]

Well if he wasn't that specific, like did he give a full on review of the movie? If not then they should be fine.

Nope. Not supposed to talk at all. Even if it's 1 or 2 lines.

 

[S. Grundy]

Somehow I doubt anyone will get sued over something as innocuous as that.

 

[Liam_H]

Also they've been doing they're show for over 4 years now. I'm sure they know when they can or can't say something.

 

[TheVileOne]

You aren't even allowed to go to those shows if you have a show or do things like that. If they exposed those things they can get prosecuted if Paramount wanted to take action.

 

[Liam_H]

Adam Quigley is on the show his friend went to the screening so he passed on his opinions. It was so non-descript that almost anyone could've just made it up.

/Film and /Filmcast won't do/say something to ruin their credibility.

 

[Lencho01]

Some news about the toys...

http://www.showblitz.com/2012/05/paramount-toys-with-retailers-by-booting-gi-joe-into-next-year.html

May 25, 2012

Paramount toys with retailers by booting 'G.I. Joe' into next year

At major retailers nationwide, G.I. JOE: RETALIATION action figures are being pulled from shelves after Paramount moved the actioner from June 29 to March 29, 2013, Variety's Marc Graser reports. Some Walmart, Toys R Us and Target locations had started to stock the toys this week, although they weren't supposed to make them available until next week. Those that did wanted to get a jump on demand, and some of the 47 items that would've been sold are expected to show up on eBay at inflated prices by the end of the weekend. Stores had started to clear shelf space of existing G.I. JOE toys to make way for the new. Store managers contacted by Variety said the space allotted for G.I. JOE: RETALIATION will now go to THE AMAZING SPIDER MAN toys and THE AVENGERS, which is still doing brisk business -- for Hasbro. Yet as it tries to keep retailers happy, the toymaker now has another problem to deal with: angry hardcore fans, with a G.I. JOE convention set to take place in New Orleans June 28-July 1 -- the same weekend the movie was set to open.

Posted by Variety at 04:50:22 PM

 

[Octoberist]

You aren't even allowed to go to those shows if you have a show or do things like that. If they exposed those things they can get prosecuted if Paramount wanted to take action.

Well Adam didn't spoil anything really. Well he did hint at things. All well..Paramont doesn't care about GI Joe so why would they care about a podcast?

 

[Octoberist]

Adam Quigley is on the show his friend went to the screening so he passed on his opinions. It was so non-descript that almost anyone could've just made it up.

/Film and /Filmcast won't do/say something to ruin their credibility.

Exactly.

 

[Octoberist]

Might I add....I know it's 'GI JOE' and all, but I think the 'Alien 3/X-Men 3 method' of killing off characters approach is kinda stupid. Nothing is earned, and there is zero emotional payoff. If Duke sucked in the first film, with a great writer and director, he can be improved in the sequel (Look at Hulk and Black Widow in Avengers). Even if it's Channing. Just play to his (limited) strengths and you'll have some sort of payoff.

But I think the biggest crime committed though, is losing one of the elements that made the first film somewhat watchable: Rachel Nichols' Scarlett. Stupid. But at this point, I think she's praising God that she's not in 'Retaliation'. Ha!

 

[jacobed]

She won't be praising God next year, when it comes out and its a great movie

 

[Donut]

She won't be praising God next year, when it comes out and its a great movie

The extra marketing budget will not help this movie make its budget back though. It is going to be tougher

 

[Call Me Darkman]

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/big-problems-behind-g-i-joe-2s-big-delay/

Reshoots were needed. Plus, the moguls realized what a complete miscalculation it was to kill off Channing Tatum in the sequel. And even more so at the start of the film. You will remember that Tatum wasn’t a star when the first G.I. Joe was released. But since then his back-to-back successes in The Vow and 21 Jump Street have made him into a draw. And it turned out that the only bright spot for audiences as a result of the G.I. Joe 2 testing was the aborted relationship between Tatum and Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson.

 

[terry78]

Of course.

 

[Octoberist]

She won't be praising God next year, when it comes out and its a great movie

Again I hate to judge a movie so harshly without seeing it but if deadline, Variety, and other sites are right, the movie doesn't work. So there's a lot of work to be done with the reshoots in the coming months.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Might I add....I know it's 'GI JOE' and all, but I think the 'Alien 3/X-Men 3 method' of killing off characters approach is kinda stupid. Nothing is earned, and there is zero emotional payoff. If Duke sucked in the first film, with a great writer and director, he can be improved in the sequel (Look at Hulk and Black Widow in Avengers). Even if it's Channing. Just play to his (limited) strengths and you'll have some sort of payoff.

But I think the biggest crime committed though, is losing one of the elements that made the first film somewhat watchable: Rachel Nichols' Scarlett. Stupid. But at this point, I think she's praising God that she's not in 'Retaliation'. Ha!

Rachel might have looked awesome in the first movie, but her acting was as bad as Tatum's. Then she followed it up with an awful performance in Conan. And let's not forget about her OSCAR-worthy performance in that movie where she runs around soaking wet in a parking garage.

That woman should be an underwear model, because she sure as sh** isn't an actress.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

Rachel Nichols was super hot in the first movie. But that chick they replaced her with is pretty hot too.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Ironic, they had to retool the animated Joe movie because of an early Duke death that didn't sit well (and children had already left in tears over Optimus Prime).

 

[Snikt]

So I'm betting it's safe to assume Tatum will now make it through GI Joe 2

 

[rayc1971]

so they are saying test audiences want more of a bromance with tatum and the rock! i was looking forward to bruce willis and the rock lol.also they seem to think because battleship and john carter made over 200 mill overseas gi joe will to if converted to 3-d.those 2 movies are visual spectacles i dont think that applies to a joe movie.they are saying foriegn fans will see anthing in 3-d even if it sucks i find that as a insult.

 

[Dangerman]

Well I for one am happy Duke lives. I don't care to much about the actor but Duke to me is the best Joe.

 

[cronosred]

I hope they release both versions of the film on dvd.

 

[RakuMon]

It would take a hell of a lot more than reshooting scenes to make Tatum the lead lol. Something like that would require almost a page one rewrite and extensive reshoots.

Not that I'm saying you're necessarily wrong about Tatum, but I highly doubt that's the reason. If it is...

Looks like Picard's got some facepalming to do:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gi-joe-sequel-was-delayed-nine-months-to-address-i,75820/

When Paramount let slip last week that it was moving G.I. Joe: Let's Try This Again from its plum June 29 première all the way to March 29, 2013, the official explanation was that the studio needed that nine-month delay to add the 3-D that makes films visible to the modern eye. But surprisingly, there may be more to it than that suspicious, rash last-minute decision to undergo a costly conversion that has not necessarily been proven to contribute to a movie's success. Deadline did some typically self-congratulatory investigative reporting and discovered that, actually, the real reason is that test screenings for the film were "mediocre to bad," not least because the sequel chooses to [SPOILER FOR ANYONE WHO CANNOT INFER THINGS FROM TRAILERS OR GENERAL PLOT SUMMARIES] kill off Channing Tatum's character, a decision made well before Channing Tatum became among Hollywood's most marketable stars (though this was an outcome that, to be fair, only the most sophisticated crowd-sourced algorithms could have predicted).

Therefore, the film has now reportedly been "reworked" to increase its overall quotient of Tatum—in particular, to go with its added dimensions, some additional depth to Tatum's character's relationship to Dwayne Johnson's, which is the sort of thing that means the difference between a worthwhile G.I. Joe film and a hollow franchise sequel that treats its actors as living action figures to be posed holding various guns before being exploded, apparently. Now that last part may not even happen, as Deadline suggests a more ambiguous fate for Tatum's character, one that could provide the amount of Channing Tatum necessary to ensure this and any future G.I. Joe film's success. "But how will this affect the integrity of the sequel's already-promised, heavily marketed storyline?" asked no one.
​