Back From The Dead? 'G.I. Joe: Retaliation' Reshoots Add More Channing Tatum

News

by Kevin Jagernauth
May 30, 2012 9:22 AM
14 Comments

Man, you gotta kind of be feeling for Paramount and their seemingly cursed "G.I. Joe" franchise. The first film by Stephen Sommers was a disappointment, to say the least, taking in a modest $300 million worldwide (not a great figure when the budget not including P&A was $175 million) but worst of all, it failed to capture the imagination of the fanboys in the first place. Nevertheless, a brand is a brand is a brand, and the studio forged ahead with a sequel, upping the ante with stars like Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis, but in what will be regarded as one of the worst decisions to be made in recent memory, they decided to kill off Channing Tatum early on in the movie. But with the late-stage decision to push the flick to 2013 under the cover of converting it to 3D, the studio is hoping to put some Tatum sauce back on their blockbuster steak.

Deadline reports that according to their insiders, test screenings for the movie found that audiences wanted more bro-time between The Rock and The Tatum and they were asking for 3D (though the latter request sounds like something the studio made up). So what's the plan? More Tatum. And it's hardly a surprise. The actor has two big hits under his belt in 2012 with "The Vow" and "21 Jump Street" and will likely score another big opening with "Magic Mike" in the next few weeks. Apparently, a week of reshoots has already happened adding more Captain Duke Hauser, but you have to imagine the studio is kicking themselves for tossing a young rising box office star out of their tentpole. Oops. Deadline suggests that "the movie is being reworked" with implication that Tatum won't necessarily be killed off. Maybe he'll get an ambiguous death to keep the door open for a return later on?

The studio's nerves are apparently also frayed after watching "Battleship" and "John Carter" run aground domestically, but they are hoping that 3D job can help boost international ticket sales, which is where they think the movie will make some big coin. However, we're not sure how that thinking makes sense considering "G.I. Joe: Rise Of The Cobra" made pretty much the same both at home and abroad. But with a smaller budget -- said to be around $130 million after 3D conversion, though lord knows they're going to have market this thing all over again -- the task of making a profit might be slightly easier. But at least this whole thing has been a boon for eBay hounds. Savvy buyers who have snapped up movie tie-in toys that were out early on shelves at Walmart, Toys R Us and Target are expected to make a mint selling them online to collectors who just can't wait. Hooray for the economy.

Either way, it all seems a bit sad/desperate but abandoning a prime summer release date is not a decision taken lightly. We'll see if Paramount can right the ship when the movie lands next spring on March 29, 2013.

News

More: G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Channing Tatum

14 Comments

| Reply
LWilliams | February 25, 2013 1:06 AMReply

The first movie sucked for so many reasons but the thing that made me mad the most was Scarlett and RipCord together, two people that never even looked at each other in the comic books, all us fanboys lived with the Duke/Scarlett twist even tho from the start she was with Snake Eyes in the comics. But RipCord that was just a slap in the face.
tcs0 | August 20, 2012 8:23 PMReply

Killing Duke off early was the biggest sign that the whole movie suck. I mean the guy joins G.I.Joe and quickly rises to be the best of the best at the ending just so he could die as soon as the sequel starts rolling. Even if he survives after this rewriting it still doesn't shake the fact that the movie has some serious problems.
Robyn | May 31, 2012 8:53 AMReply

Maybe they could "Wild Bunch" the whole cast.
Then the next sequel could be two solid hours of explosions, with no distracting dialog or plot.
Oh, but it's gotta be in 4D, that's a dealbreaker.
George | May 31, 2012 12:33 AMReply

I remember back when the Transformers movie of the 80s came out, and they Killed Optimus Prime, all the kids were ballin' because their favorate character died. The GI Joe movie from the same time had intended to kill off Duke, but due to the reactions of people, they only had him put in a coma. I wonder if that's what will happen, maybe instead of Duke dying, they'll stick him in a coma, keeping his character alive, yet idle for the movie.
gasxero | May 31, 2012 3:45 AM

I actually remember watching Duke die...he got speared by one of Serpentor's snakes!

It was a major wtf moment to say the least hahaha. Cartoons may be of higher quality production today but they don't take those kinds of risks anymore to be sure.
Bill | May 31, 2012 12:12 AMReply

"but in what will be regarded as one of the worst decisions to be made in recent memory, they decided to kill off Channing Tatum early on in the movie"

Mental note to skip Kevin Jagernauth articles in the future, clearly an idiot with his finger far from the pulse of the people
SpankSinatra | May 31, 2012 10:06 AM

I think he was referring to the fact that killing Channing Tatum early was not one of the worst decisions to be made in recent memory. In fact he probably should have never been cast in the first place.
obloodyhell | May 31, 2012 9:26 AM

Yeah, that bastard has just ruined the plot for us all!!!
:-9

Owwww.... It hurts when my eyes roll that far back in my head!!!
Rhyno | May 31, 2012 1:22 AM

I know right. Thanks for putting *spoilers* ahead for those who didn't know. For someone who thinks they are a writer, this is a very stupid thing to do.
Joseph | May 30, 2012 9:18 PMReply

CHIP, you really think Blu-ray/DVD sales are going to account for around $700 million? That is absurd. A film is technically successful when it triples its budget at the box office. And even with Blu-ray/DVD sales, it didn't make the $525 million. Not to mention the marketing push.

So when you couple all of that with the stars they had and the popularity of the franchise, its a disappointment.
Missy Busty | May 30, 2012 6:58 PMReply

Will the extra scenes include Mr. Tatum with his shirt off? After his striptease movie - it's kind of expected. I liked the 1st movie because it moved very very fast. It really didn't slow down for any plot or character development or back story or other inconveniences.
Chip | May 30, 2012 12:55 PMReply

KEVIN JAGERNAUTH - clearly you are an idiot and I quote....

" The first film by Stephen Sommers was a disappointment, to say the least, taking in a modest $300 million worldwide (not a great figure when the budget not including P&A was $175 million)...."

First of all that is 300 million box office - now add home entertainment and TV and your have a figure much closer to a billion dollars.

Please for the love of God - Let me have the disappointments -
Leon | May 30, 2012 10:00 AMReply

What I don't get is that everyone who watched GI joe originally is at least in the mid to late 20's. Which means they should have gone Hard R. This movie will not tank due to Willis and the rock, plus with additional Tatum teens all around the world will go see the abortion of a film. Personally I will not be seeing this because I find the whole idea dumb in PG-13 stupid people territory. I am sorry that Hollywood has no balls anymore.
Huffy | May 30, 2012 10:57 AM

But those 20/30-somethings who did watch GI Joe don't remember it as a hard-R film, they remember it as a goofy 80's cartoon with ridiculous characters. People are drawn to their childhood favorites out of nostalgia, not because they're particularly good films/shows. 20-somethings like to talk about how awesome GI Joe and Power Rangers used to be but how many of them actually sit down and re-watch those shows? Not many. People have nostalgic memories of GI Joe as a silly cartoon; making it a hardcore action flick isn't going to make them want to got watch it, it's just going to make it seem corny. Corny works well through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, not so well when it's a new film. They're better off trying to grab the 12-year-old demographic (the one that accounts for a massive percentage of box-office returns) and hope that the name might bring a few of the older crowd.