GI Joe 2

[trekkiebaggio]

Frankly I was assuming that it would have a 3D version anyway. It's a shame because I was looking forward to it.

 

[captcalhoun]

rumour seems to be that it's being majorly retooled and that the test-screening questionaires were asking a lot of questions about Channing Tatum/Duke.

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^
I can believe that. Is there a link?

 

[C.E. Evans]

All that's going around is a lot of rumors, but nothing official other than the movie's being upgraded to 3D and new scenes will be filmed (or existing scenes refilmed) for that.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/05/24/rock-confirms-reshoot-for-g-i-joe-retaliation/

 

[pork3]

Moving it from a prime summer release date to a march release date indicates that the studio has no faith in it. And studio execs who claim that it will make more money at that time are clearly lying to us. They know full well it won't do as well.

Why would they do it then? I can't believe studio execs want to knowingly make less money.

Could just be a case that they wanted to move the film to a less crowded time and decided to do a proper 3D conversion in the meantime.

Proper 3D conversion? Somewhat of an oxymoron as I have yet to see a 3D conversion that was even adequate.
This whole 3D fad is getting noxious, similar to the whole bullet time craze of the late 90s following the Matrix.

-Jamman

 

[C.E. Evans]

Why would they do it then? I can't believe studio execs want to knowingly make less money.

Could just be a case that they wanted to move the film to a less crowded time and decided to do a proper 3D conversion in the meantime.

Proper 3D conversion? Somewhat of an oxymoron as I have yet to see a 3D conversion that was even adequate.
This whole 3D fad is getting noxious, similar to the whole bullet time craze of the late 90s following the Matrix.

Regardless of one's personal feelings about 3D, it's possible to do a really bad conversion. But I think their concept of a proper conversion also involves the filming or refilming of scenes for 3D.

 

[Saul]

Almost a month before the film was supposed to be released? Sounds like an insane move to me. Bruce Willis and The Rock, where can you go wrong with that?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Almost a month before the film was supposed to be released? Sounds like an insane move to me. Bruce Willis and The Rock, where can you go wrong with that?

The Tooth Fairy

 

[Timby]

Moving it from a prime summer release date to a march release date indicates that the studio has no faith in it. And studio execs who claim that it will make more money at that time are clearly lying to us. They know full well it won't do as well.

Why would they do it then? I can't believe studio execs want to knowingly make less money.

Could just be a case that they wanted to move the film to a less crowded time and decided to do a proper 3D conversion in the meantime.

If they really didn't have any faith in the movie, they wouldn't fork over more money into it for a conversion. They would've just released it as is.

They punted the movie nine months back, a month away from its release, despite already spending an absolute fuck-ton of money in marketing it. The Rock has already confirmed re-shoots ("shooting scenes designed to enhance the 3D" is pretty transparent code for "we're re-shooting a bunch of the movie"). This isn't anything about doing a "proper" 3D conversion -- this is Paramount seeing that it had a complete turd on its hands as its summer tentpole release, so they're tossing another few million bucks at it and kicking the can down the road in the hopes that maybe, somehow, the revised product is better.

There isn't a chance in hell that this delay isn't for extensive rewrites and re-shoots. With a month before release, all of the effects work would be wrapped or nearly wrapped. If they were really looking to get in on some 3D, they would have done it six months ago. I'll bet you real money that the reason for the delay being so long is because they have to wait that long for their principal actors to become available for the re-shooting.

Will this be the first movie to have back-to-back Super Bowl commercials? I can't remember one that has.

 

[Dream]

Who thinks the MAIN reason for this delay is because they want to add much more of Channing Tatum with new reshoots since his last two movies The Vow and 21JS have been such big hits?

It is so OBVIOUS they are going to change Duke's fate in the movie and give him more to do now.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Why would they do it then? I can't believe studio execs want to knowingly make less money.

Could just be a case that they wanted to move the film to a less crowded time and decided to do a proper 3D conversion in the meantime.

If they really didn't have any faith in the movie, they wouldn't fork over more money into it for a conversion. They would've just released it as is.

They punted the movie nine months back, a month away from its release, despite already spending an absolute fuck-ton of money in marketing it. The Rock has already confirmed re-shoots ("shooting scenes designed to enhance the 3D" is pretty transparent code for "we're re-shooting a bunch of the movie"). This isn't anything about doing a "proper" 3D conversion -- this is Paramount seeing that it had a complete turd on its hands as its summer tentpole release, so they're tossing another few million bucks at it and kicking the can down the road in the hopes that maybe, somehow, the revised product is better.

There isn't a chance in hell that this delay isn't for extensive rewrites and re-shoots. With a month before release, all of the effects work would be wrapped or nearly wrapped. If they were really looking to get in on some 3D, they would have done it six months ago. I'll bet you real money that the reason for the delay being so long is because they have to wait that long for their principal actors to become available for the re-shooting.

All of this is just your speculation, of course. But this isn't the first time a movie has been pushed back months just prior to its original release date--in fact, it happens quite a lot and is a fact of life in Hollywood--and the reason usually is to just move it to a less crowded time and/or for additional production. Upgrading a film for 3D and undergoing reshoots in the meantime doesn't seem like something a studio would do for a movie they didn't think was worth the extra expense.

But this being the internet, it really doesn't take much for people to automatically assume the worst about this movie...or anything, in general.

 

[Dream]

PARAMOUNT just put this on their Facebook page. Looks like Tatum is back as the lead actor!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.ne...81208_237940182927642_903910_2135645071_n.jpg

 

[Yoda]

^

 

[nvek86]

All of this is just your speculation, of course. But this isn't the first time a movie has been pushed back months just prior to its original release date--in fact, it happens quite a lot and is a fact of life in Hollywood--and the reason usually is to just move it to a less crowded time and/or for additional production.

Yes, films' release dates get moved around quite a lot, but I can't think of one that got moved this close to its release with trailers and posters out already.
On the other hand, if the film is really that bad that they have to reshoot some of it, they must have known this for quite some time already (same is true if they moved it away from competition), so the move seems weird no matter how I look at it.

 

[C.E. Evans]

All of this is just your speculation, of course. But this isn't the first time a movie has been pushed back months just prior to its original release date--in fact, it happens quite a lot and is a fact of life in Hollywood--and the reason usually is to just move it to a less crowded time and/or for additional production.

Yes, films' release dates get moved around quite a lot, but I can't think of one that got moved this close to its release with trailers and posters out already.

Mostly because their trailers and posters weren't under the scrutiny of geekdom. The Last of the Mohicans and Shutter Island were two films that were moved from their initial release dates at almost the last minute. Both films benefitted from the moves.

On the other hand, if the film is really that bad that they have to reshoot some of it, they must have known this for quite some time already (same is true if they moved it away from competition), so the move seems weird no matter how I look at it.

There's no doubt that a last-minute move is, well, a last-minute move. Moving a film from a date where it could be lost in the shuffle to a new date where it could do better is a fairly common practice. Reshoots are also not uncommon. Spending more money on a film that was by all accounts finished and done isn't uncommon and usually not done for a film the studio has written off and decided to cut its losses from.

 

[Timby]

You do not move your summer tentpole film -- your only summer film, in fact -- nine months back unless there are serious problems with it. That's just common sense. Again, if Paramount wanted it to be in 3D, the conversion would have started months ago.

 

[C.E. Evans]

You do not move your summer tentpole film -- your only summer film, in fact -- nine months back unless there are serious problems with it. That's just common sense.

Is there any actual evidence that there are serious problems with it or is it just message board gossip and rumor? Other films have been moved back even longer because the studio wanted a release date they felt they could do better in or because of production problems (going over schedule and/or budget).

As far as summer tentpole films goes, Paramount apparently feels this movie will do better next spring, where's it's not so crowded with so many other summer tentpole films. You have to admit that summer 2012 has a lot of big movies coming out in fairly short order of one another.

Again, if Paramount wanted it to be in 3D, the conversion would have started months ago.

Actually, it would have been planned before filming started. But if the studio execs decided at the last minute that the movie would really be good in 3D, then that's the way it goes. It otherwise doesn't make sense to throw more money at a finished movie they think is bad.

 

[pork3]

Paramount apparently feels this movie will do better next spring, where's it's not so crowded with so many other summer tentpole films. You have to admit that summer 2012 has a lot of big movies coming out in fairly short order of one another.

If Paramount is concerned that their purported summer tentpole film would not be able to compete with or stand out amongst others this year, what's to change that supposition next year? It's not like there aren't going to be a number of tentpole releases from a number of studios next year.

In any event, this entire fracas is most peculiar.

-Jamman

 

[C.E. Evans]

Paramount apparently feels this movie will do better next spring, where's it's not so crowded with so many other summer tentpole films. You have to admit that summer 2012 has a lot of big movies coming out in fairly short order of one another.

If Paramount is concerned that their purported summer tentpole film would not be able to compete with or stand out amongst others this year, what's to change that supposition next year?

Not that many tentpole movies in March 2013.

In any event, this entire fracas is most peculiar.

There's no denying that. This was something that should have been considered during pre-production or actual production.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Just about every article I've been able to read regarding this move mentions two things: 3D upconversion (to increase the overseas box) and the failure of Battleship.

All this talk about studio lack of faith is speculation. It may be true, to one degree or another, but it's speculation.

The other common complaint is "lack of buzz". That very much could be the result of the crowded summer season this year.