‘G.I. Joe 3′ Recruits ‘Shooter’ Writer

Published 10 months ago by , Updated November 20th, 2014 at 7:25 am,

G.I. Joe 3 Movie Logo G.I. Joe 3 Recruits Shooter Writer

Remember the days when G.I. Joe 3 had a writing and directing team in place, and wasn’t just drifting through production limbo like so much blockbusting flotsam? Not too long ago, Paramount had Jon M. Chu locked in to continue steering the Joe ship (following his efforts on G.I. Joe: Retaliation), and with Snow White and the Huntsman screenwriter Evan Daugherty putting pen to paper on the new film’s script; they made a fine franchising combo in the abstract. If nothing else, they put the movie on rails.

But then Chu got caught up with directing an update on 80s cartoon Jem and the Holograms. At the time, this didn’t strike anyone as problematic, per se – the announcement came packaged with assurance that Chu remained on Go Joe duty – but everybody needs a solid commercial filmmaker for their burgeoning movie series, and so Chu suddenly found himself in the lead to work some magic with Lionsgate’s Now You See Me 2. As Chu went AWOL on G.I. Joe 3, so too did Daugherty, it seems, leaving Paramount two sandwiches short of a full picnic basket.

Good news for fans invested in the continued adventures of the Joes, though, courtesy of Variety: the company has bounced back and hired themselves a new writer, one Jonathan Lemkin, who cobbled together the screenplay on 2007 Mark Wahlberg vehicle Shooter. Lemkin also owns credits on The Devil’s Advocate, Red Planet, and Lethal Weapon 4. More tellingly, he’s also currently typing away on The Longest Night, another Paramount joint, making G.I. Joe 3 his second writing gig with them.

And so the production is halfway to shifting back into gear. What does Lemkin bring to the proceedings, though? Truth to tell, it might not matter all that much in an ongoing saga like G.I. Joe, which has changed hands twice since 2009 (Stephen Sommers directed the first, Chu the second, and a mystery guest will handle the third); if anything, it’s Lemkin who’s benefiting from series producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura’s clear statement of intent with the next picture, namely “simplify, simplify”, and not the other way around.

GI Joe Retaliation The Rock G.I. Joe 3 Recruits Shooter Writer

That’s a fine starting point for any modern day tentpole film, though, and while Lemkin’s previous projects have often erred on the more complex side of plotting, he should be in good standing here. His only overarching goals here are to keep the story tight, and to give its new star, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, an expanded part. That presumes, of course, that Johnson deigns to lend his considerable screen presence to G.I. Joe 3 to begin with, though there’s no official word on that in the face of upcoming solo ventures (Hercules) and role reprisals in ongoing franchises (Fast & Furious 7).

What we do know, lucky for Lemkin, is that G.I. Joe 3 won’t mash together Joes and Autobots as so many children of the 80s loved to do in their sandbox play sessions of yesteryear. Walking into an established property as the new guy is difficult enough. Walking into a merger between two established properties sounds like a nightmare. In that respect, Lemkin’s job here is pretty straightforward: revitalize a lackluster franchise with tight scripting.

G.I. Joe 3 is expected to be released sometime in 2016.

Source: Variety

Follow Andy Crump on Twitter @agracru
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


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. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Meh. I could only handle Shooter for 10 minutes before I changed channel. Did nothing for me.

    • Really? A force recon Marine is tasked to cover the retreat of the private army of an oil consortium who massacred an entire African village for a pipeline, then finds himself fighting for his life against his own government… and you changed the channel. Why, what else was on? “Clueless”?

      • An intriguing plot on paper does not necessarily make for an intriguing movie. If it did nothing for him, it did nothing for him.

      • I don’t think Shooter was bad… but that type of movie has been done before and better. Top guy gets double crossed and has to hide out while solving the problem and proving his innocence.
        I wouldn’t blame anyone for getting bored and changing the channel.

  2. Though I do find these flicks entertaining, I cannot relate to any of the characters. I don’t know if that has something to do with writing or the fact that G.I. Joe is based on US military, their history and former cold war conflicts.

    • I can agree there, I never really liked GI Joe in the 80s either (I was never into Transformers either, I was more into M.A.S.K., Visionaries, Ghostbusters – original one AND the one based on the 84 movie – Masters Of The Universe, Danger Mouse, Bananaman, Count Duckula, Inspector Gadget, The Raccoons and Thundercats off the top of my head, probably missed a lot).

      • Visionaries had an amazing concept!. The first episode is really cool. I remember having one of the action figures, with the holographic decals and all. The show didn’t last for long, or at least they didn’t air all the episodes here in Chile, but I fondly remember that particular cartoon.

  3. I enjoyed Shooter and this sounds like a step in the right direction.

  4. I liked the 1st GI Joe movie. I didn’t like the 2nd one. The second movie had no soul.
    The 1st movie had that really interesting relationship between the villainess, Sienna Miller and the hero Channing Tatum. Also one of the Wynans brothers (I forget his 1st name and I might have spelled his last name wrong) convincingly played Channing Tatum’s best friend. The 1st movie had a good plot, it was well acted, and there was good chemistry between the actors. Even though it was a bit too comicbook-like, it was still a very good movie.

    The 2nd movie was so bad, that I’m not sure why they are even making a third one.

  5. Paramount needs to hire a writer and director that grew up with the 1980’s G.I. Joe era. I grew up in the 80’s, watched and collected G.I. Joe’s. And while very little of the stuff in both Joe movies was accurate a whole lot that was left wasn’t accurate at all. It’s like both directors didn’t do their homework on G.I. Joe. I’m not complaining about the actors they chose, hell I think they hit it right on with Ray Park playing Snake Eyes it was just the whole story line was pretty much crap in both movies.