Comments on: G.I. JOE 2 to Retaliate in March of 2013 Instead

By: garageman

garageman — Thu, 24 May 2012 07:59:00 +0000

So you’ve seen Dredd?

By: Daniel W. Baldwin

Daniel W. Baldwin — Thu, 24 May 2012 05:16:17 +0000

FUCK!

By: darkraven28

darkraven28 — Thu, 24 May 2012 04:40:57 +0000

Maybe they finally realized they gave this movie to the guy who directed Step-Up movies, and they had a huge fucking panic attack. Damn. This movie and the reboot of Judge Dredd just stink to holy hell now. And honestly, how does one screw up a G.I. Joe movie anyway? It’s based on a damn cartoon/toy/comic. What tone exactly are you looking for?! Is somebody trying to do this Black Hawk Down style. Because that’s just retarded.

By: MPCherkowsky

MPCherkowsky — Thu, 24 May 2012 02:13:24 +0000

I agree. Is anyone really shocked that a sequel would just as shitty, if not worse than the first one? I don’t care how great a trailer they managed to cobble together, the stink of shit from the first one is enough to keep me and a lot of other people away from anything to do with this franchise for a helluva long time.

By: Three Oranges

Three Oranges — Thu, 24 May 2012 00:10:38 +0000

I can’t imagine, based on the trailers alone, that it was really all that terrible.

I mean, if every action scene in the trailer is halfway fleshed out and strung together with a minimum of coherence, the movie would be as good as any number of other actioners.

By: Kijen

Kijen — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:02:25 +0000

Maybe Paramount has decided to pull it and take a loss on the quarter? They could write down the loss (ala Disney and John Carter) based on the domestic gross and plan for better days in the fall. Sure Battleship has made its budget back but overseas profits are left overseas and generally brought back at the end of the year so they take the hit and annouce the “3D Convert” as a good cover for a reason. They still go to Comic Con and promote for next year but when they shift release dates again to either avoid or ride the coattails of the next Fast & Furious movie, of which the Rock stars.

The flick could still suck but now it will suck in additional dimensions, to boot.

By: duke fleed

duke fleed — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:01:47 +0000

Tim Kelly, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! G.I. Joe Will…March…9 Months to retaliate? UGH! I suppose it is positive that now there will be something to see in March, but this is just awful! Now there is…Nothing of interest…To me in June.

By: garageman

garageman — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:27:27 +0000

If they're willing to spend a lot more money on the film it's obviously not too good, otherwise they'd delay it a few months, do a few re-shoots and release it in November. Delaying completed films for nearly a year really is not an indication of quality- see Jack the Giant Killer. They've obviously tested it with an audience and it hasn't gone down too well. The dump months thing I think is a bit of a myth and no garauntee of shiteness or failure.

By: Sebastian OB

Sebastian OB — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:23:50 +0000

The first movie was shit. This will be shit. Why does anyone think it won't be shit? Because the Rock is in it? This is a rhetorical question, Duke.

By: Jmacq1

Jmacq1 — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:22:12 +0000

Is this so absolutely a sign that the movie was shit? It seems to me if it were that bad, they would have just pushed it to a “dump month” like September or October (or even late August) instead of turning around and spending more money on it after they’ve already probably spent 50+ million on marketing.

It did have pretty much the shittiest release date of the summer as far as blockbusters go…4 days before Amazing Spider-Man, which would eat straight into its’ core audience. That and Battleship’ sinking might have panicked Paramount into thinking “Military fantasy doesn’t sell this summer!”