GI Joe Retaliation..

Discussion in 'Movies' started by mattCR, May 23, 2012.

  1. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,512
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    Real Name:
    Matt
    Just moved from it's June 29 date this summer to.. NEXT MARCH

    http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/g-i-joe-retaliation-moving-to-march-2012-to-add-3d-for-bigger-foreign-box-office/




    They can say whatever they want, but they just spent a ton of marketing, and to move it back 9 months now.. something tells me the test screenings must be HORRIBLE to vacate one of the biggest box office weekends (before 4th of July) to move to.. early spring 9 months later.. it's like flushing all that advertising money down the toilet.. wow.
     
  2. Jason_V

    Jason_V Producer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    626
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Real Name:
    Jason
    That was my first thought as well: Retaliation must stink to high heaven and Paramount knows it. I don't buy the 3D reason, to be honest. There could be a ton of reasons for the movie:

    1) Movie is terrible
    2) 3D IS the real reason
    3) Too much Channing Tatum this year (21 Jump Street, The Vow, Magic Mike, Retaliation)
    4) Battleship is doing terribly domestically vs. Avengers

    Because, here's the thing: Paramount is going to have a TON of high profile product next year. This movie, Star Trek 2, Anchorman 2, World War Z, the new TMNT movie...and they prolly (maybe...kinda...I forget how this works) have their hands on Thor 2 in some way.

    Retaliation is now going to have to deal with the bad publicity from the long delay, the remake of Carrie, Oz, Percy Jackson 2 and Jack the Giant Killer (Bryan Singer) all in March.

    Yes, the delay for Star Trek "worked" (I still contend it would have made more money at Christmas than in the summer). I just have a bad feeling about this.
     
  3. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    12,637
    Likes Received:
    547
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    Yes, the 3D story must just be a smokescreen. There must be a different reason, as the decision on 3D would have been made long before now, before all the marketing was underway and millions of dollars had been spent that will now be wasted and have to be spent again to re-promote the film next year.
    I saw a trailer for this before Battleship. I thought it looked better than the first film (though that may not be saying much).
     
  4. dmiller68

    dmiller68 Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    3
    Real Name:
    David Miller
    Crazy I thought this may have had a better chance then the first one.
     
  5. Zack Gibbs

    Zack Gibbs Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think the movie just didn't have a chance in hell this summer. It's a C level action 'franchise.' It has far more potential in an early spring slot than wedged between Pixar and Spider-Man. It was a mistake to ever put it in that spot in the first place. (moved there when Star Trek got pushed to next year, I think it was originally scheduled for August?)
     
  6. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,242
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    It's pretty obvious that there's a problem if they're pulling a movie this close to the release but I think I'm more interested in why they chose late March as its new date. I can only hope that Paramount hasn't deluded themselves into thinking that the success of The Hunger Games had anything to do with its release date and that late March is some heretofore undiscovered magic time for movie releases.
     
  7. Jason_V

    Jason_V Producer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    626
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Real Name:
    Jason
    If Paramount is scared of The Avengers, they shouldn't be. The Avengers should be gone by the end of June (DVD release is just three months after that). Aside from The Dark Knight Rises, there isn't another summer juggernaut out there. Spider-Man is going to do well, but I don't think it's going to set records.

    Paramount is scared they have a huge bomb on their hands and Retaliation is going to be the butt of so many jokes, especially with other, hopefully high quality films around it-Avengers, Dark Knight Rises, Brave, Prometheus.



    They'd do well to remember what happened to Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance or John Carter this year. They had largely non-competitive weekends to themselves and couldn't make a dent in the BO. Why? Quality, not 3D.
     
  8. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,512
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    Real Name:
    Matt
    I have to tell you though moving "Ted" up to that weekend - a move by Universal is brilliant counter programming; a Hard-R Seth McFarland comedy might find some traction there on a weekend it didn't have a shot at before
     
  9. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,242
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    In all fairness, Paramount might be making the right call with this delay. If the movie was that bad, I think they'd either just let it come out as scheduled or move it to August and just hope that The Rock's fanbase is enough to move some tickets. Since they're moving the date so far, maybe they think the movie can be salvaged with some reshoots or editing, etc. I've seen plenty of big budget movies where the release date dictated everything and more time might have been asset for the filmmakers. I can't say that I'm that optimistic or even care about G.I. Joe 2 but I'd rather see them delay it months than churn out anything just to hit June 29.
     
  10. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    12,637
    Likes Received:
    547
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    Exactly. Release date is irrelevant if you have a film people want to see. If you have a stinker, you can bomb on any date.
     
  11. Zack Gibbs

    Zack Gibbs Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    2
    Release date is irrelevant? Bull. I don't know what's going to open the week after March 29... but it sure as hell won't be a Spider-Man movie. That's going to hurt your Box Office whether you're G.I. Joe or the next Batman flick.
    It looks like a major reworking is going to take place because apparently...
    Channing Tatum, who's found some recent success, had his character killed of in the first 10 minutes of Joe 2. They're making changes not only to add more of him, but most likely he'll no longer be dead either.
     
  12. Jason_V

    Jason_V Producer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    5,377
    Likes Received:
    626
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Real Name:
    Jason
    Here's another, non-spoilery reason. Kinda.

    Which then leads to my question, if the quote from Jon Chu is accurate: why didn't Paramount go for 3D in the first place? Cost? That doesn't seem right since whatever extra money they're going to make is being negated by all the money they already spent in advertising plus what they will need to spend again next year to re-advertise.

    Something else just occurred to me. We know Paramount has a lot of product coming next year. I'm gonna guess one of those other films is going to get bumped shortly.
     
  13. Michael Elliott

    Michael Elliott Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,419
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    KY
    Real Name:
    Michael Elliott
    SHUTTER ISLAND was a pretty good movie. I remember when this was pushed back people went crazy asking if it was because Scorsese had finally screwed up.
    Now, I'm not saying this film is Scorsese quality but if they pushed it back because it's bad then they'll certainly have to do some reshoots, won't they? If there aren't any reshoots and the only difference in the March version is the 3D then perhaps they really did think the summer was too busy.
    However, the biggest thing, to me at least, is the fact that overseas markets are now calling the shots on these movies. I can't remember if it was Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone who had the article but it's clear that America isn't the big dog on the street and that studios are going to start pushing what other places want. If China wants 3D then I understand the delay here.
     
  14. darkrage

    darkrage Auditioning

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sign this petition and let Paramount know we won't put up with this garbage!
     
  15. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,512
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    Real Name:
    Matt
    Which part is the garbage? Delaying or green lighting the script to begin with?
     
  16. David9Hester

    David9Hester Extra

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    The director of GI JOE is not bad. He just shouldn't have tried to make GI JOE so...serious. I am guessing someone at Paramount should be fired for deciding to make another sequel.
     
  17. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,512
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Overland Park, KS
    Real Name:
    Matt
    Major script changes and reshoots appear to be ahead:

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

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,242
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    I've basically said it before but given the circumstances, this is a GREAT thing that everyone should be applauding. They looked at their crappy movie and instead of saying "Oh well, we gotta make the release date", they've chosen to try to fix it. The costs associated with that must be tremendous (millions to be spent on reshoots, millions wasted on an ad campaign that's going to need to restarted in 8 months and a toy line that Hasbro had to be counting on as their biggest earner of the summer no longer has a movie backing it and will probably result in a large negative effect on their financial year) so while the release date change probably shows how bad the movie was, I give Paramount credit for trying to get it right or better.
     
  19. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    12,637
    Likes Received:
    547
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    Well, it seemed obvious that it had to be more than a 3D conversion as they first tried to claim. That's not a decision you would leave undecided until 4 weeks before release date when your marketing efforts are all underway. That's a decision you make in pre-production.
     
  20. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    16,870
    Likes Received:
    1,638
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    Don't underestimate the power of 3D in foreign markets. It's what saved two other big budget stinkers, "John Carter" and "Battleship", from financial oblivion.
     

Share This Page