Producer Says 'G.I. Joe: Retaliation' Didn't Add More Channing Tatum

January 14, 2013
Source: CraveOnline

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

One of the biggest behind the scenes shockers of 2012 was Paramount's decision to delay G.I. Joe: Retaliation from June 29th, 2012 to March 29th, 2013 to allow for a last minute 3D post-conversion. The studio had already spent tons of money on a marketing campaign, and rumor had it that the film tested poorly because rising star Channing Tatum was killed off in the first act, so the studio decided to reshoot and add more Tatum to the mix. But in a new interview with CraveOnline (via The Playlist), producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura claims that wasn't the reason for the reshoots after all. So who do we believe?

Here's what di Bonaventura told Craveonline when asked if the delay was to add more Channing Tatum:

“No, it’s not. That is a complete rumor. I don’t know where that started. Literally, Channing shot for - if I have it wrong, I’m off by an hour - four hours, five hours? So it wasn’t really about that at all.”

It's hard to take the producer at his word here, because it sounds like he's just trying to save face for the movie. But that ship sailed when the studio pulled the bone-headed move of delaying it and adding a 3D conversion just to make more money internationally. Sure, it makes sense from a business perspective, but shouldn't Paramount have thought about that - oh, I don't know - before spending millions of dollars on an advertising campaign the first time around? Or maybe even before production started? Surely the movie will be a lot different than it was the first time around to justify the costs of delaying it, then?

“It’s not much different. Literally, we shot for three extra days. We just added sort of explanation in what we did afterwards.”

Sounds like typical Hollywood spin damage control to me. Deadline isn't exactly my favorite news source, but their reporting showed that test audiences hated the movie when Tatum was killed off, so this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of a studio wanting to keep their leading man alive for further franchise installments down the line. And Paramount knew this was going to be a tentpole kind of action film, so why not let director Jon Chu experiment with the 3D format instead of sitting on the sidelines after production is already completed? It's not like the notion of "3D = higher box office returns" is a new thing, so this entire debacle is still baffling to me. Looks like we'll have to wait until March to see how this all plays out.

Find more posts: Development, Movie News



Something is definitely being kept away from the world. This producer has some open fish cans in his pockets and it sure doesn't smell nice. But let's see the end product before jumping to conclusions.

Isildur_of_Numenor on Jan 14, 2013


I thought it was because the Rock actually killed Channing Tatum during production. Hmm, gotta re-check those sources...

Alan Trehern on Jan 14, 2013


The advertisement sure has more Tatum though...

Nielsen700 on Jan 14, 2013


It's a shame too because I hated the first film, but I was starting to come around on the second one with the badass fight scene involving ninjas on ropes. Now I couldn't care less what happens with this project...

Matt Peloquin on Jan 14, 2013


Yeah...I'm thinking they added quite a bit more Channing Tatum, or at least enough to NOT kill off his character and to have him likely return at the climax of the film. One advantage this does give the movie though is it's had a VERY prolonged marketing campaign. Trailers have been on youtube since 2011, there was a superbowl ad for the 2012 superbowl, and will likely be one at this years as well. This might be the first film ever to have superbowl ads two years in a row. It all could wind up as wasted money+efforts...or it could pay off in building anticipation. As long as it's an improvement over the first, I'm sure I'll dig it a little.

Chris Groves on Jan 14, 2013


He better still F'N DIE!

TommyTheGreenRanger2 on Jan 14, 2013


That junk is called a "tentpole" movie? The first one was complete garbage. This sequel is definitely a "pole" of some kind though.

castingcouch on Jan 14, 2013


I saw it late this summer at a test screening, it sucked!! Sucked hardcore!! The first was fun and silly enough but this one was just stupid and completely incoherent. It's going to tank big time! on Jan 14, 2013


i think this guy is lying

me on Jan 15, 2013


I'd have to agree with you, me.

JudgeMethos on Jan 16, 2013

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:

Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:

For only the latest posts - follow this:

Add our posts to your Feedlyclick here

Get all the news sent on Telegram Telegram