GI Joe Retaliation.. (1 Viewer)

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/

EXCLUSIVE: The sequel G.I. Joe: Retaliation was supposed to come out this summer on June 29th. But I’ve learned that Paramount is moving the movie nine months to March 29, 2013, to add 3D. “We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally,” one of the studio execs just told me. “Jim Cameron did all of Titanic‘s 3D in post — and look how well that movie turned out.” Hollywood is shocked that Paramount vacated the primo date, especially because Paramount blew a wad on a Super Bowl commercial and already was starting TV and outdoor ads for GI Joe 2.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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).

Crazy I thought this may have had a better chance then the first one.

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?)

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TravisR /t/320940/gi-joe-retaliation#post_3928926
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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Jason_V said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

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.

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.

Sign this petition and let Paramount know we won't put up with this garbage!

darkrage said:

Sign this petition and let Paramount know we won't put up with this garbage!

Click to expand...

Which part is the garbage? Delaying or green lighting the script to begin with?

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.

Major script changes and reshoots appear to be ahead:

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

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.

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.

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.