‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’: The Real Reason for the Delay

Published 2 years ago by

GI Joe Retaliation delayed 570x310  ‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation: The Real Reason for the Delay

Last week Paramount Pictures announced that it was delaying the release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation. The action sequel was shifted from its June 29, 2012 launch to March 29, 2013 because the studio wanted to ‘spend extra time converting the film into 3D’. The reason given for the 3D conversion was that the lucrative ticket price could maximise foreign box office revenue and make the film more profitable.

It seemed odd that a studio would pull such a big film just five weeks before it was set to open, and then wait another nine months before it hit screens. Well, not surprisingly the 3D conversion isn’t the real reason for G.I. Joe: Retaliation‘s delay. Not by a long shot. Scroll down for the real story.

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR (THE OLD VERSION OF) G.I. JOE 2!

Deadline is reporting that G.I. Joe: Retaliation received scores in test screenings that ranged from “mediocre to bad”, and that the one shining light for the film was the relationship between Channing Tatum and Dwayne Johnson. There was just one tiny problem: Tatum’s character was killed off in the opening minutes of the film. The decision was made to delay the release, arrange a week of reshoots expanding Tatum’s role, and then convert the film into 3D.

Apparently, Paramount didn’t see Channing Tatum as a viable star for the sequel to their 2009 film – hence the reason that Retaliation is toplined by Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis. However, Tatum is now a box office draw following the one-two hit combo of The Vow and 21 Jump Street. That Tatum’s role in Retaliation will be expanded must be good news for his fans and his agent, who must have been able to negotiate a steep fee for the actor’s return.

This line of reasoning still equates the release delay to the cash-grab attempt so many fans saw it as. Hasbro (the toy company that owns G.I. Joe) already suffered the U.S. box office failure of Battleship, and G.I. Joe 2 would’ve been quickly overshadowed by The Amazing Spider-Man (which comes out a week after G.I. Joe 2‘s original release date). With this delay, the studio and toy company are clearly doing everything they can to secure some kind of profits from this venture.

Channing Tatum as Duke  ‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation: The Real Reason for the Delay

Deadline writes that G.I. Joe: Retaliation’s director Jon M. Chu was ‘shellshocked’ by the news of the release date move (and presumably the reshoots), so it looks like he wasn’t part of the decision making process to change the film at this late stage. Paramount states the added cost of the new work to Joe will be $5 million, and that the budget of the film ‘should stay under $130 million’. This is something of a naive figure, when you take into account how much it must have cost to regroup the production for a week’s filming – and that a decent 3D conversion costs around $10-15 million. On top of this you have the added expense of creating a new marketing campaign for the film, and figuring out what needs to be done with the merchandise for a film that was scheduled to hit screens in the coming weeks.

This trouble for G.I. Joe: Retaliation has a similar parallel to the rumors in 2009 that stated G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra director Stephen Sommers was fired from post-production by Paramount after test screenings for that film resulted in the lowest scores in the studio’s history. Those rumors were shot down (but weren’t completely eradicated, given the film’s lukewarm reception); however, things look a lot worse for G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation will be released on March 29th, 2013. Hopefully.

Source: Deadline

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: gi joe, gi joe 2

184 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. To respond to the other comments on this thing that i have seen….I agree with the fact that in some way, the first movie wasn’t really all that great, because it didn’t really show the same as the 80′s cartoon (I didn’t read the comics), it was just another made up action movie with popular actors/actresses, it did not fit the original cartoon series, i mean…that is what the movie is based off, right? Most movies that are made of something, or just made, are not very good, or at least, some of them, but sometimes, just sometimes…the sequels are better, take expendables 2 (released in august), the first one was ok, alot of big and well known actors, but from what i have seen with the previews of the upcoming sequel, it looks to be a good movie, they are already making plans and preparations for the 3rd one, i couldn’t believe it!

    (side note on that…with the previews of the movies being made, they always seem to put the good parts in the thing as to attract the movie goer to wanna see it, i have recently learned that about them, but it ends up being terrible)

    • This news really bites, I was a huge fan of the cartoon from the 80s and was hoping for retribution for the first one that as a fan I forced myself to watch a horrible take of that cartoon my first disappoint was duke second marlon common a wayans duke should have been somebody like the new 007 or lien neson

  2. At This Rate i am assuming G I Joe 2 is going to flop or Paramount might just make it a direct to DVD…. Its pretty stupid to know that early test screenings were bad, paramount should have picked up a few things from the first movies mistakes & most probably gone with the Fans likings. See How well Avengers has done by putting a guy who knows about the comics as director as well as staying true to the comics itself…..

  3. I actually enjoyed the first film. Though it definitely had some serious flaws, namely Cobra Commander and Destro (laughable), it was a fun movie to watch, especially the well choreographed fights between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, and the “super suit” scene in Paris with Duke and and Ripcord. I could tell that Channing’s character must’ve died off early due to him not being in any of the scenes that obviously take place later in the flick. I’m glad they are expanding his role, I just hate that Scarlett, Ripcord, Heavy Duty, Breaker, Baroness, and Hawk are just OUT of the new film, with seemingly NO explanation. Second, and not that I’m complaining about it, but how is Storm Shadow back, considering that he was impaled through the chest and took a long fall into oceanic ice water? How does he survive that? Maybe they find his body and inject him with nanomites???

    • How in Gods name can you have a GI Joe movie with Duke dieing in the early scenes and no Hawk, Ripcord, or Scarlet? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose and no wonder it got bad reviews.

  4. first lets address the first film….it bummed. The story line barely followed the cartoon and never glanced at the comic story line…though the comic actually supported the toon. Now for the second…if dwayne johnson nd bruce willis werent starring i wouldnt even bother. The director and writer both have confirmed that most of the back story for this film will be diffrent than in the first.really?second…when 90 percent of the cast refused a sequal…thats gotta tell you something. Asfor storm shadows survival…thats prob because of his ninja training…a meditative state called the phoenix.

  5. I agree Matt. If the other actors who played those characters didnt want to come back for the sequel, theu could have just gotten different actors to play them and maybe even reduced those characters screen time to make room for the new characters. I hate when the main characters are not in the follow up film in a series and no explanation is offered as to the whereabouts of these characters. It is as if they expect the audience who saw the first film to just conveniently forget these characters ever existed. Very annoying of Hollywood…

  6. Really? We have to wait next year to see this movie just because they want to work on the 3D conversion? Are you serious? I don’t care about 3D! Why hype this up all year when we have to wait next year? Come on!

  7. Hope with the redo of the movie maybe they can keep rip cord in the new movie to

  8. Hope with the redo of the movie maybe they can keep rip cord in the new movie to.

  9. I think they would have been over shadowed by thw amazing spider-man no matter what so itd probably good they post poned it, and I also know that girls would have been supper pissed if they kept thw original plot with channing getting killed, although I could do without yhe 3D conversion I dont see the point but I probably would have seen it either way but chaning is a bonus to the film

  10. What Matt said is true. I mean Duke has promise to keep the baroness safe. I’d really love to see him do so. And how come did Storm Shadow survived the Stab to the chest and falling into the ocean of ice.. It make no sense. I hope they keep Duke alive with the 3D make-up.

  11. The first was just okay, imo. Sienna Miller is so hot, I loved that they poured her into those skin tight clothes. My favorite bit :)

    That being said, this second film has stink written all over it. Btw, who wrote this article? Since when are The Vow & 21 Jump Street considered “hits”?? CT can’t really act, but was mediocre here.

    If he died? No big deal. The movie isn’t going to be very good regardless. 3D is so tired & lame & overpriced on top of everything else.

    • “21 Jump Street” and “The Vow” were both MASSIVE hits.

      21 Jump Street cost $40M and made $200M worldwide ($138M Domestically).

      The Vow cost a measly $30M and made $200M worldwide ($125M Domestically).

      You may not like the films Channing Tatum has been in (I don’t either), but do some research first.

  12. No matter who is or where cast in the 1st film, it was a terrible interpretation of the cartoon from the 80′s. I loved G.I. Joe. The new film looks like it is following the updated cartoon and not the G.I. Joe we grew up on and love. They do need a director and writer who followed and loved the G.I. Joe series as a child. Duke is the head leader of all the Joe’s. Without him the movie will not translate very well. Plus, you cast the wrong guy to play Duke. Channing is not mean enough to play the Great Leader of the Joe’s. Storm Shadow should of never been stabbed in the 1st get go. He was elite of the elite, easily you had to bring him back, he was kicking as in the 1st movie. Your mistake was showing his face he never showed his face. In addition, where is Sergent Slaughter? Hollywood stop and I mean stop over thinking these projects. Have a focus group of people who watched the carton in the 80′s read the script. I would of told you to trash the 1st script and start again. You, see how Transformers and Avengers do it, they followed the script with little deviations. Get it together idiots.

  13. Battleship was a great movie, your problem was the release date. Should have released the movie in late August, October or November. You, are not going to win when you release the movies behind a star studded cast like Avengers.

  14. Does Channing Tatum’s character(Duke) still die? I loved the 1st film,really looking forward to this 1,seen a clip on Channing Tatum’s web sight,looks amazing!! X

  15. FIRST OF ALL HOW CAN YOU MAKE A MOVIE AND NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THE COMICS OR THE CARTOON VERSIONS. AND TO TOP THAT OFF YOU KILL ALL THE MAIN CHARACTERS IN G.I. JOE. WHO THE HELL IS WRITING THIS s***. GET SOMEONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT G.I.JOE OR AT LEAST READ THE COMICS OR WATCH A COUPLE OF EPISODES OF OLD G.I. JOER BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOVIE OF IT. YOU CAN’T JUST KILL OFF RIPCORD ,GENERAL HAWK , SCARLET. THAT’S JUST FREAKING STUPID.

    • Woah. Here at Screenrant, we do not condone profanity (or unnecessary caps lock).

      And just because a movie is based off of comics, doesn’t mean it has to completely follow the source material.

      • I beg to differ, but if Joss Whedon’s The Avengers and Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight movies have shown us anything it’s that the closer a comic book-based movie stays to the source material the better it is. G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra strayed way too far from its comic book origins as created by Larry Hama, and every time Hasbro or Hollywood has someone do that the results are usually horrible.

  16. FIRST OF ALL HOW CAN YOU MAKE A MOVIE AND NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THE COMICS OR THE CARTOON VERSIONS. AND TO TOP THAT OFF YOU KILL ALL THE MAIN CHARACTERS IN G.I. JOE. WHO THE HELL IS WRITING THIS s***. GET SOMEONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT G.I.JOE OR AT LEAST READ THE COMICS OR WATCH A COUPLE OF EPISODES OF OLD G.I. JOER BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOVIE OF IT. YOU CAN’T JUST KILL OFF RIPCORD ,GENERAL HAWK , SCARLET. THAT’S JUST FREAKING STUPID..

  17. first of all, even thoug the first movie didn’t follow the cartoons it was still a great movie.

    now for the second movie, just taking out some of the main charachters from the first movie is stupid, so is bringing dead people(Storm Shadow) back.

  18. No, the 1st one was not great…it was bad. watchable, but bad.

  19. they had better not kill off any of the original G.I Joe fighters {that they had in the first one} of this movie will go downhill. especially Duke.

  20. I never saw the first one, i just saw the trailer and i just said to myself, “this looks god terrible” and another reason i wouldn’t see it is because of Dennis Quaid, now you can all have your opinion i’m fine with that but i seriously cannot stand him in any movie i think he is seriously one of the worst actors i have ever seen i don’t understand why they casted him in an action movie, i think they honestly just picked him because he sounded like Harrison Ford but the difference between them to me at least is that Harrison Ford is…well… good at acting. So the storyline just seemed lame as hell and used every 20 seconds and also there was Quaid as an action star which just made me mad as hell. I’m actually looking forward to this one i’m bummed that it got delayed. Personally even though i like Channing Tatum and i think hes a pretty good actor i would not have given him a bigger role in the sequel, i think it would just be interesting and even realistic for a old comic book character but hey who knows maybe it’ll be good. I love Bruce Willis i think if your ever making a G.I. Joe movie you gotta have Bruce i even like the Rock especially in action movies so all in all i’m looking forward to this.

  21. I attended the screening and I hated how the movie developed… There was no explanation for what happened to the previous Joe’s and the opening of the movie was bad Channing Tatum was killed off in 5 mins from the start. The movie is strong with action but the developing story was poorly put together.. The whole time the only thing i could think of was What the heck is this crap…

  22. The really truth is Hasbro and paramount have no faith in this film even at this late stage in game. Because if they had any faith they would have started there add campaign for both the movie and toys by now. The only reason I even know the nxt wave of figures is out there is because I stop by my local toy r us, and they had 3 boxes of the figures sitting in isle.

  23. We the hell does DUKE die like really……he shouldn’t die at all and if he does die the movie is gunna suck and nobody is gunna watch it

  24. We does DUKE die like really……he shouldn’t die at all and if he does die the movie is gunna suck and nobody is gunna watch it

  25. From my memory of Gi Joe, Duke was a First Sergeant not a Captain. His personality was that of an officer but, he wasn’t. Him dying in this movie would be a waste. He is a lead character and to kill him off in the first 5-10 minutes of the movie wouldn’t even make sense.

  26. They only brought back storm shadow gor sword fighting scenes. Since that was one of the few good fights in the first movie

  27. All I have to say is REBOOT! I am a hardcore fan since the mid 80s-the films are poor and they should have spent more money on writers and obtaining fan’s input than terrible eye candy actors

  28. I don’t care what anyone says, Channing Tatum is a waste of stardom. I will never see a movie with him until his acting skills improve. Although he tries, his acting is terrible. He characters are sophomoric and crass. In the looks department, I guess people might think he’s a good looking guy for Massachusetts gay strip club. Otherwise, he looks like he has fetal alcohol syndrome…ouch…that was mean.

    • Not everyone is going to agree on the acting capabilities of Channing Tatum.

      Why the need to malign the state of Massachusetts, its establishments, or the orientation of part of their population.

      It has been wisely stated that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
      What is good looking to one doesn’t hold true for another.

      “Otherwise, he looks like he has fetal alcohol syndrome…ouch….that was mean.”

      I work with Special Needs students several of whom have fetal alcohol syndrome or effect. No, your comment wasn’t mean it was mean spirited, insensitive and low brow at best. Both an insult to Mr. Tatum and the millions of people who through no fault of their own are afflicted with this condition.

  29. Admittedly I am a C. Tates fan. However, that has little to do with why I believe “Duke” should not be killed off.

    Anytime you edit/change the storyline of a well known book, comic book etc. you run the risk of alienating the fans.

    So I find it puzzling that Jon Chu and the movie’s producer’s “Wanted to “shock” the audience by killing off the actor’s on-screen alter-ego early in the movie.” Or as Jon stated, “We wanted the audience, for the sake of storytelling, to know that the Joes were all vulnerable…”

    Really? For the sake of storytelling?

    In any case the powers that be behind G.I. Joe: Retaliation need to get their stories straight. (Or so it would appear) Jon Chu “Insisted the release was pushed back solely to convert the movie to 3D.”

    As for reshooting he stated: “We didn’t reshoot anything, Zero. We didn’t reshoot anything with Channing. After the delay, we literally turned it to 3 D.”

    Yet…Unless I misread an earlier article, Producer Lorenzo Bonaventura said that Channing Tatum did about 4-5 hours of additional footage.
    That and they wanted to convert it to 3D. So whom do you believe?

    Whether you are a fan of Channing Tatum or not he is extremely popular right now. I wouldn’t doubt that they would want some extra footage. Redid the posters at one time didn’t they? It’s all about the bottom line and that translates to big box office. There are certainly enough big stars to draw an audience in. Just wish they were true to the history/storyline and let “Duke” live to fight another day.

Be Social, Follow Us!!